or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by upstategolfer

The key distinction is that the ball must be in a playable condition (my words). If it's laying under a bush where you cannot make a stroke at it, then you don't get relief, that's all.
  It's called "having a discussion".   I don't see the purpose in penalizing a player simply because he's lost track of his ball in a manner as described here. Allow him to play forward under the assumption that it is lost, and if it is discovered that it is not lost, remove all strokes made on the replacement ball and continue with the original. It's not really creating a new rule per say, you could do it simply by extending the provisional rule to cover these...
If the stroke wasn't impractical to take, then from the diagram the NPR, to me, would have been forward up the cart path as opposed to across it, based upon the cart path widths I'm used to seeing. It's a judgment of the player though as to which would be closer to the original location without actually measuring, but in your diagram it couldn't have been in the bushes, so I think you were ok in your judgment of NPR being across the path...you were there, we...
Was thinking about this some more on the drive home, and it strikes me that actually this would be a simple way to incorporate this situation into the rules, and I admit up front I need to do a bit of research, but off hand you could simply put in a rule that if you put into play a new ball because you were virtually certain that the first was lost or in a hazard, and then find that the first ball was not, that no strokes made on the 2nd ball count, it must be abandoned,...
Yes, but you thought that you had to play out with both balls if you invoked 3-3, which I've shown to be incorrect...so I'm afraid without a reference from the RoG backing up your opinion here, it must be taken as simply that, your opinion and not fact.   Sorry.
Yes, there were some decisions on 3-3 that make it hard to justify it in this situation, but my point is that there is an allowance within the rules to play two balls while considering only one score for that hole. If it is your intent to put two balls in play because your unsure of how to proceed off the tee box and not so that you have two shots to choose from, then I think you'd be ok. In nearly every case you would want to find the first shot regardless because...
    Do you have anything constructive to dispute invoking 3-3 or not? I think 3-3 gives an out in this instance because you don't know how to proceed with your round since you don't know for sure if it's in the hazard and, if it is, then you'd have to come back to the tee box to hit again. Invoking 3-3 allows you to search for your ball and, if not found, proceed by playing the 2nd ball and abandoning the first. I think it's a very good solution, for the casual round of...
  Not true, see decision 3-3/8, so it seems to me quite legal to invoke 3-3, play a 2nd ball indicating you wish the first ball to count if it is found, and if it's not, continue playing the 2nd ball and abandon the first, or if the first ball is found, you may then abandon the 2nd without penalty.   And to me it is the procedure that is in doubt, because not knowing if the ball is playable creates doubt as to whether to proceed from the tee box or from a location...
What would prevent you from invoking 3-3 in such instances instead of 27-2?
And with a handicap index of 22 one would think you would know enough to read the entire thread before passing judgement. His post #4 clearly indicates he's aware of the proper way to play given the lateral water hazard markings on his course, but was merely settling an argument he was having with another player.   BTW, you may play your ball from a lateral water hazard even if it is in the water, ask Bill Haas.   Edit to add: Be aware also that a water hazard (lateral...
New Posts  All Forums: