Provisional Ball Question

[szaino]

a) All the stuff you typed there is irrelevant to the point that you have two balls in play and get to choose between them.

Agree, and I have given the example of the "pro with the shank" which under the current rules provides the same relief and situation as if a provisional were allowed for an unplayable.

b) You'd likely be very, very stupid to play the ball from thick rough over water to a par-three green thinking you'd do no worse than a 4. But that's not really the topic, so…

I was addressing the last example by David in FL, where the original ball had a "perfect lie".

At my level, if i thought that I could at least hack the ball out somewhere near the green or maybe even on the green I would do it.

Who would benefit from the this rule change are the beginners and high handicap golfers.

If a player hit the shot of the day with the provisional, you bet they would discard the original ball and go right to the green. And I am all for this because this would make the game more enjoyable for beginners and help expand and develop the game as well as speed up play which is what it's all about.

After all, it is a game and we set the rules any way we like.

[iacas]

szaino, you're still missing the point that the two situations are not equivalent - and the very fact that your proposed situation has the option of TWO balls with KNOWN outcomes is the reason.

It doesn't make the game easier for the beginner - it also makes it easier for the pro, the 2 handicap, the 6 handicap, and so on. That isn't "what it's all about" - it's also about playing by the very core fundamentals of the game, not changing them for the worse just because someone who doesn't understand the core argument people have made thinks it'll be better.

Besides, people almost never take stroke and distance when they declare a ball unplayable.

And the odds of you getting a "3" from 170 yards are higher than the odds of you getting a 2, so you'd still be dumb to hit your first ball if your second ball is a tap-in 4.

[MEfree]

I understand that szaino's suggestion appears to give the player more optionality than under the current rules.

A couple of points-

To save time, if you KNOW you are not going to want to play a ball even if you find it (i.e. deep in thick woods with no chance to chip out and nowhere but where you originally hit from for your unplayable), then you can hit another on a NON PROVISIONAL basis under stroke and distance.  However, this does not give you the full optionality the current rules entitle you to.

Everyone likes to say that under the current rules you can't have two balls potentially in play and choose between the two, but, from a practical sense, in non-match play formats, this is not entirely the case because you are not forced to look for your original ball.  i.e.  Suppose I hit a ball deep into the woods KNOWING that I will have no shot even if I find it.  I then say I think it might be lost and hit a "provisional"  If I:

a) hit the provisional good, then I don't bother to look for my original, or

b) hit the provisional poorly, then I look for and hope I find my original.  Assuming I find my original unplayable, then I pick up my poorly hit provisional and go back to the spot I played my original and provisional from and re-hit again.

Under szaino's suggestion, option b) is taken away as you no longer abandon your provisional to re-hitting from where you struck your provisional.

Personally, I like my suggestion of never being able to go back and re-hit once you have left the original spot.  http://thesandtrap.com/t/69953/rules-experiment-testers-wanted

It does not "appear" to give the player, it GIVES the player that option.

Szaino's proposal adds a new type of optionality while taking a current type of optionality away.

The current rules give you the option of looking for your first ball or not knowing the outcome of your provisional (with the caveat in match play that an opponent may find your first ball and force you to abandon the provisional).

Szaino's proposal adds optionality to the unplayable lie situation in that you can actually find and examine the lie of the original before deciding whether to move on to the provisional or not, but it takes the away the optionality of being able to abandon the provisional (by finding the original) and hitting a 3rd shot (calling it your 2nd) when you don't like the outcome of your provisional (as I described in scenario b) of my original post).

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I have no idea what you are  taking about.  Are you talking about your proposal, or the rule?  If you are trying to tell us that is what the rule says then you are wrong.  He has no choice to play the provisional ball if he knows where the original ball lies, unless it lies out of bounds.  If the location of the original ball is known, then the provisional ball is abandoned.  There is no choice between balls.  If he chooses not to look for the original ball, then he doesn't know where it is, and again, he is only making a procedural choice because there is only one ball to play.  You can't have it both ways.

Either the original ball is found in bounds and remains the ball in play, or it is lost and the provisional ball is the ball in play.

Sorry, I will rephrase that post:

In my example, the pro shanked his tee shot on a 220 yd par 3 into a strip of tall fescue and then played a provisional for a lost ball. He hit the provisional to 1ft of the pin. As we walked off the tee he "deemed" the original ball lost without even looking for it (which he is allowed to do). The original in all likelihood would have been found.

So he did in fact, under the current rules, have a choice between 2 known balls. The provisional at 1 ft for a tap in 4, or an unplayable with the only option to go back to the tee and re hit.

My point being that this situation which exists under the current rules would be the same as allowing a provisional for a unplayable.

He cannot "deem" the original ball lost.  It can only be lost if it meets the definition under the rules.

Lost Ball

A ball is deemed “lost” if:

a. It is not found or identified as his by the player within five minutes after the player’s side or his or their caddies have begun to search for it; or

b. The player has made a stroke at a provisional ball from the place where the original ball is likely to be or from a point nearer the hole than that place (see Rule 27-2b); or

c. The player has put another ball into play under penalty of stroke and distance under Rule 26-1a, 27-1 or 28a; or

d. The player has put another ball into play because it is known or virtually certain that the ball, which has not been found, has been moved by an outside agency (see Rule 18-1), is in an obstruction (see Rule 24-3), is in an abnormal ground condition (see Rule 25-1c) or is in a water hazard (see Rule 26-1b or c); or

e. The player has made a stroke at a substituted ball.

Time spent in playing a wrong ball is not counted in the five-minute period allowed for search.

One of the above conditions must be met for a ball to be lost.  Your scenario is not among them.

[iacas]

Szaino's proposal adds a new type of optionality while taking a current type of optionality away.

No it doesn't. It only adds an option that puts two balls in play, giving the player a choice, and violating one of the central tenets to the game.

As for the rest, again, .

[MEfree]

No it doesn't. It only adds an option that puts two balls in play, giving the player a choice, and violating one of the central tenets to the game.

As for the rest, again, .

So are you saying that under the current rules a player can't hit his ball deep into the trees knowing that replaying is his best option and proceed to hit a provisional, then

a) not look for his original if he hits his provisional well or

b) if he hits his provisional poorly, look for his original, find it, then go back to the tee, replay and pick up his provisional.

Last year, I hit my tee ball on Keystone Ranch #11, a 313 par 4, into some deep rough near the green and played a provisional to 4 feet.  Had I not hit my provisional so close for par, I would have looked much harder for my original.  There is the option to look or not look for your original under the current rules whether you want to admit it or not.

[iacas]

So are you saying that under the current rules a player can't hit his ball deep into the trees knowing that replaying is his best option and proceed to hit a provisional, then

a) not look for his original if he hits his provisional well or

b) if he hits his provisional poorly, look for his original, find it, then go back to the tee, replay and pick up his provisional.

I'm not saying that, no.

Back to ignoring MEfree, I see.

[David in FL]

[RIGHT][/RIGHT][quote name="MEfree" url="/t/69636/provisional-ball-question/72#post_898597"] So are you saying that under the current rules a player can't hit his ball deep into the trees knowing that replaying is his best option and proceed to hit a provisional, then a) not look for his original if he hits his provisional well or b) if he hits his provisional poorly, look for his original, find it, then go back to the tee, replay and pick up his provisional.   Last year, I hit my tee ball on Keystone Ranch #11, a 313 par 4, into some deep rough near the green and played a provisional to 4 feet.  Had I not hit my provisional so close for par, I would have looked much harder for my original.  There is the option to look or not look for your original under the current rules whether you want to admit it or not.   [/quote] There are never 2 balls in play at any one time in any of the above examples.

[turtleback]

No it's not. You mean you never teed up a ball after hitting one astray that you don't have any intention to look for, primarily because you have a pretty good idea where it is and you are going to have to go back to the tee anyway?

Oh, excuse me. That's going to be unplayable and I ain't bothering to look for it. Consider it lost. I'm hitting 3 from here.

It's semantics.

You cannot declare a ball lost and you do not have to declare it unplayable from the tee to re-tee.  At any place on the course you are ALWAYS entitled, for any reason or no reason at all, to replay a shot at stroke and distance penalty.  Rule 27-1a

Sorry, I will rephrase that post:

In my example, the pro shanked his tee shot on a 220 yd par 3 into a strip of tall fescue and then played a provisional for a lost ball. He hit the provisional to 1ft of the pin. As we walked off the tee he "deemed" the original ball lost without even looking for it (which he is allowed to do). The original in all likelihood would have been found.

Can't deem a ball lost.  If anyone finds it he is required to identify it and if it is his the provisional is picked up.

Szaino's proposal adds a new type of optionality while taking a current type of optionality away.

The current rules give you the option of looking for your first ball or not knowing the outcome of your provisional (with the caveat in match play that an opponent may find your first ball and force you to abandon the provisional).

Szaino's proposal adds optionality to the unplayable lie situation in that you can actually find and examine the lie of the original before deciding whether to move on to the provisional or not, but it takes the away the optionality of being able to abandon the provisional (by finding the original) and hitting a 3rd shot (calling it your 2nd) when you don't like the outcome of your provisional (as I described in scenario b) of my original post).

It is an optional between 2 balls whose respective situations are known which is a major break of the basic principles of the Rules.

So are you saying that under the current rules a player can't hit his ball deep into the trees knowing that replaying is his best option and proceed to hit a provisional, then

a) not look for his original if he hits his provisional well or

b) if he hits his provisional poorly, look for his original, find it, then go back to the tee, replay and pick up his provisional.

Except if he hit an excellent provisional it is still possible that someone else finds the original and he has to abandon the provisional.  And even in your scenario, he is still not picking between 2 balls whose situation is known.  A worst he is picking between a poor provisional and a future re-tee whose result he does not know.  He could hit that third tee shot even deeper into the woods as the original.  IOW he is still vulnerable to a bad shot.  Which is not the case in the original scenario.

[iacas]

There are never 2 balls in play at any one time in any of the above examples.

Gold star for you. :)

[szaino]

He cannot "deem" the original ball lost.  It can only be lost if it meets the definition under the rules.

One of the above conditions must be met for a ball to be lost.  Your scenario is not among them.

Sorry for the non-technical wording in my example. My point was that when he decided not to look for his ball and just play the provisional, that as a practical matter he was "treating" his original ball as lost. So in this particular example, when the pro putted his provisional, the original ball was "deemed" lost.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

No it doesn't. It only adds an option that puts two balls in play, giving the player a choice, and violating one of the central tenets to the game.

As for the rest, again, .

So are you saying that under the current rules a player can't hit his ball deep into the trees knowing that replaying is his best option and proceed to hit a provisional, then

a) not look for his original if he hits his provisional well or

b) if he hits his provisional poorly, look for his original, find it, then go back to the tee, replay and pick up his provisional.

Last year, I hit my tee ball on Keystone Ranch #11, a 313 par 4, into some deep rough near the green and played a provisional to 4 feet.  Had I not hit my provisional so close for par, I would have looked much harder for my original.  There is the option to look or not look for your original under the current rules whether you want to admit it or not.

What you list are still nothing more than procedural options, not choices between balls.  You have no guarantee that you will find the original ball even if you look for it, so it's faulty thinking to say that you are choosing between two balls.

1)  If you don't look for the original ball, you don't know if you would have found it or not.

2)  If you look for it and don't find it, then the provisional ball is in play regardless of how well or poorly you may have hit it.

3)  If you hit the provisional ball poorly and then look for the original ball and don't find it, the provisional ball is in play, even if it's 10 feet in front of the tee in knee deep rough.

In any case it is never a choice of balls only a choice of procedure, and it's the results of the chosen procedure that determine which ball ends up as the ball in play.  As has been mentioned, no matter how well you plan it, your opponent or fellow competitor can bollix it up by finding your ball when you choose not to look.  You really don't have the level of control over it that you seem to think you have.

[MEfree]

Szaino's proposal adds a new type of optionality while taking a current type of optionality away.

The current rules give you the option of looking for your first ball or not, knowing the outcome of your provisional (with the caveat in match play that an opponent may find your first ball and force you to abandon the provisional).

Szaino's proposal adds optionality to the unplayable lie situation in that you can actually find and examine the lie of the original before deciding whether to move on to the provisional or not, but it takes the away the optionality of being able to abandon the provisional (by finding the original) and hitting a 3rd shot (calling it your 2nd) when you don't like the outcome of your provisional (as I described in scenario b) of my original post).

There are never 2 balls in play at any one time in any of the above examples.

That's fine, I never said there were.  What I said is that you have the option to look for your first ball or not AFTER knowing how you hit your provisional

It is an optional between 2 balls whose respective situations are known which is a major break of the basic principles of the Rules.

Except if he hit an excellent provisional it is still possible that someone else finds the original and he has to abandon the provisional.  And even in your scenario, he is still not picking between 2 balls whose situation is known.  A worst he is picking between a poor provisional and a future re-tee whose result he does not know.  He could hit that third tee shot even deeper into the woods as the original.  IOW he is still vulnerable to a bad shot.  Which is not the case in the original scenario.

Your post shows more understanding of the situation than most posts but here are two thoughts-

1.  By being forced to play your provisional should you choose to declare your original unplayable and elect the stroke and distance option, you are somewhat vulnerable to a bad shot- maybe not quite as vulnerable as before, but you could still be hurt by it- see an example below from my round yesterday.

2.  Choosing between two balls whose respective situations are known might be a major break in the basic principles of the Rules in your mind, but in my mind, the provisional, no matter how well you hit it, is still laying 2 more than the original with very little chance of making par or better.  For most golfers, a well hit provisional gives them a good chance at double, but pars and even bogeys will likely be the exception, not the rule.

Yesterday, on Keystone River #18, I was playing with a righty who had played by the rules (other than picking up from within a foot on the green) all day.  He posted 40 the front but was struggling the back.  He hit is first tee shot along the edge of the left rough/tree line where everything slopes left into the trees/native grass.  He played a provisional about 15 feet into the same tree/native grass area.

After about 3 or 4 minutes of searching, I find his original about 1.5 club lengths left of the regular rough in two feet of thick native grass with multiple small pine trees interfering with both his back swing and follow through.  Going back on his line from the flag stick would have put him deeper into the woods with no (or extremely small) clear areas to drop.  Under szaino's proposal, had he chosen stroke and distance for an unplayable, he would have been laying 3 in the woods had we found his provisional.

[Phil McGleno]

MFREE have you not gotten it through your head that your anecdotal evidence is a waste of time and something you create so that it suits your point of view-Ofc ourse its going to support your argument. ANd people can come up with anecdotal evidence that doesnt support your position. It is a waste of time. That average golfer playing for bogey might make a quad if his first ball is in deep shit. You need to spend the $2 and buy that book because you do not ever seem to understand basic rules [b]or the principles behind those rules[/b] in order to discuss them intelligently.

[David in FL]

Yesterday, on Keystone River #18, I was playing with a righty who had played by the rules (other than picking up from within a foot on the green) all day.  He posted 40 the front but was struggling the back.  He hit is first tee shot along the edge of the left rough/tree line where everything slopes left into the trees/native grass.  He played a provisional about 15 feet into the same tree/native grass area.

After about 3 or 4 minutes of searching, I find his original about 1.5 club lengths left of the regular rough in two feet of thick native grass with multiple small pine trees interfering with both his back swing and follow through.  Going back on his line from the flag stick would have put him deeper into the woods with no (or extremely small) clear areas to drop.  Under szaino's proposal, had he chosen stroke and distance for an unplayable, he would have been laying 3 in the woods had we found his provisional.

Not sure your point with this example, but it actually helps illustrate yet another enormous advantage that the proposed change would provide.

If a player's original ball is found, and his provisional is lost, he now knows to exercise one of the other two options available to him when he declares his ball unplayable.  Had he not KNOWN that the provisional would result in a lost ball, he may have chosen to proceed under the stroke and distance option, and subsequently found himself back on the tee yet again for the lost provisional, this time hitting 5......

.......The uncertainty of the result of the re-tee is one of the same core principles that defeats the proposal to simply drop and take two strokes for a ball that is OB.

[phan52]

Yesterday, on Keystone River #18, I was playing with a righty who had played by the rules (other than picking up from within a foot on the green) all day.  He posted 40 the front but was struggling the back.  He hit is first tee shot along the edge of the left rough/tree line where everything slopes left into the trees/native grass.  He played a provisional about 15 feet into the same tree/native grass area.

After about 3 or 4 minutes of searching, I find his original about 1.5 club lengths left of the regular rough in two feet of thick native grass with multiple small pine trees interfering with both his back swing and follow through.  Going back on his line from the flag stick would have put him deeper into the woods with no (or extremely small) clear areas to drop.  Under szaino's proposal, had he chosen stroke and distance for an unplayable, he would have been laying 3 in the woods had we found his provisional.

No, because there are three options for an unplayable, and that was only one of them. One of the options is certainly NOT to play the provisional though, had you found it.

[iacas]

Not sure your point with this example, but it actually helps illustrate yet another enormous advantage that the proposed change would provide.

If a player's original ball is found, and his provisional is lost, he now knows to exercise one of the other two options available to him when he declares his ball unplayable.  Had he not KNOWN that the provisional would result in a lost ball, he may have chosen to proceed under the stroke and distance option, and subsequently found himself back on the tee yet again for the lost provisional, this time hitting 5......

.......The uncertainty of the result of the re-tee is one of the same core principles that defeats the proposal to simply drop and take two strokes for a ball that is OB.

A very good point. What if you hit your provisional OB? Then you'd know that even if it took you three strokes to get out from where you found your first ball, that's probably the better play since you're now hitting 5 from the tee otherwise.