Provisional Ball Question

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Your proposal would give the player a choice between two balls.  It doesn't matter if they are both in play at the same time, they both have the potential to be the ball in play (you know the lie and situation for both, and that can influence your decision), and that is a scenario which the rules abhor.  It allows you weigh your options based on things like current lie, potential drop areas vs. lying 3 in the fairway, etc.  It diverges too far from the basic principle of playing one ball from tee to hole.

It's pretty rare that an unplayable lie offers no choice but to return to the previous spot (I have never in 40 years had to take the stroke and distance penalty under Rule 28).  The pace of play improvement for those rare occurrences would be insignificant when compared to the compromise in the principles of the game.

The current rules don't "abhor" this scenario. You have 3 relief options for an unplayable lie. Each option allows you to evaluate the best lie, distance, angle to the pin, number of strokes, etc etc.

This proposal does not change anything already available to a player.

Please provide a situation that would give a player an advantage over the current rules?

You aren't reading what's being written.  You have 3 options for the same ball under rule 28.  With your proposal, you have 2 of those options for one ball, but you also have to option of choosing your provisional ball for which you already know the situation .  This is what the rules can't tolerate.

There is no current situation in the rules where such a condition can exist, and to create one for such a rare and exceptional circumstance is totally unwarranted.

[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

[szaino]

Easy.

200 yard par 3 over water.  Deepish, but not impossible rough in front of the tees.  I top one 30 yards off the tee into the rough.  I take my "possible unplayable" and stuff it.  Tap in 4.

You tell me.  Under your proposal, do you opt to play your second shot from an iffy lie 170 yards over water hoping for a miracle up and down 3, or do you take your 4 and run to the next hole?  I know what I do......

You lost me on your example. Are you saying he played a provisional for an unplayable and stuffed it?

Which relief option would he have taken if the original lie was that bad?  It sounds like a re hit from the tee.  So he hit the shot, a couple of minutes earlier than he would have. I think that's the purpose of the rule change.

[iacas]

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

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

Your scenario (in which case you hit a second ball, effectively declaring your first unplayable and taking stroke and distance), you do not have two balls in play. You have one ball in play, and a loose impediment somewhere on the golf course or in the trees.

If the ball is found, you STILL do not have two balls in play, as the provisional is discarded. Your opponent may look for your golf ball (if you've declared the second a provisional), of course, but if you've NOT declared a provisional, your first ball is out of play the instant you make a stroke at the second ball.

You lost me on your example. Are you saying he played a provisional for an unplayable and stuffed it?

Which relief option would he have taken if the original lie was that bad?  It sounds like a re hit from the tee.  So he hit the shot, a couple of minutes earlier than he would have. I think that's the purpose of the rule change.

You're missing the point: it's not only a couple of minutes earlier, but it's knowing the outcome that's important.

If you hit a ball 30 yards into thick crap, you don't know what you're going to do with your second attempt from the tee - you could hole out, you could hit it to an inch, you could hit it to 30', you could land it in a bunker, you could splash it in the drink, or you could hit the same exact shot you just hit.

When you have two balls in play you already know the outcome of BOTH golf balls.

[Fourputt]

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

Again you are confused.  You don't have any choices under the current rule between two balls.  You play a provisional ball for a ball which may be lost in the woods.  You get to the area and choose not to look.  You haven't made a choice between two balls, you have made a decision to abandon the original ball without knowing just what it's situation is.  However, it is still the ball in play right up to the point where you take action to change its status by playing the provisional ball from a point at or closer to the hole than where the original ball is thought to be.

You have made a procedural decision to accept the stroke and distance without knowing the status of the original ball, and the original ball is now deemed lost.  Under szaino's proposal, you know the situation for both balls and use that information in making your decision.  That is what the rules won't stand for.

[RickK]

As has been pointed out, the rules allow for a provisional ball to be played for a ball lost or OB.

It's pretty clear to me that this rule should be changed to also include an unplayable ball. Why stop with lost or OB, if the rule itself says it's to save time.

The Rule itself, Rule 27, does not mention "to save time".

[David in FL]

You lost me on your example. Are you saying he played a provisional for an unplayable and stuffed it?

Which relief option would he have taken if the original lie was that bad?  It sounds like a re hit from the tee.  So he hit the shot, a couple of minutes earlier than he would have. I think that's the purpose of the rule change.

Yep, played a provisional mulligan, or whatever you want to call it.

The original lie doesn't have to be horrid.  If you KNOW that you have a kick in 4, are you gonna chance on playing your 2d from the rough, over water on the one-in-a-hundred chance for 3.....risking a much bigger number, or take the guaranteed 4?  I'm taking the 4 every time.

If, on the other hand, under the current rule, you're looking at that iffy, but not horrid lie.  You know that odds are that you can at least clear the water and make 4.  Do you really intentionally go back and hit three into the green that you think you can hit in two out of the rough?

Same scenario, but 2 completely different decisions, because you already know the result of your "provisional".

[szaino]

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

I agree 100%.

Ball hit poorly deep into the woods, declare provisional, stuff it to 2 feet to the pin. Never have to look for your ball. This is the same situation that the naysayers are using as an argument against the rule change... but it already exists.

I actually had the above happen in a USGA tournament. Out of the blue, a pro that I was playing with shanked a hybrid on a 220 yd par 3.

It went right into a small line of trees between 2 fairways in heavy fescue. He put down a provisional and stuffed it to 1 ft. We walked off the tee and he declared the 1st ball lost without ever going over to look for it. Odds are we would have found it.

Hence my question to give me an example where the change would provide a benefit that doesn't already exist. I am open to situations but can't really think of one.

[szaino]

Yep, played a provisional mulligan, or whatever you want to call it.

The original lie doesn't have to be horrid.  If you KNOW that you have a kick in 4, are you gonna chance on playing your 2d from the rough, over water on the one-in-a-hundred chance for 3.....risking a much bigger number, or take the guaranteed 4?  I'm taking the 4 every time.

If, on the other hand, under the current rule, you're looking at that iffy, but not horrid lie.  You know that odds are that you can at least clear the water and make 4.  Do you really intentionally go back and hit three into the green that you think you can hit in two out of the rough?

Same scenario, but 2 completely different decisions, because you already know the result of your "provisional".

This is still not a good example. If the player hit it stiff, he has some potential as a player. And he would still decide what to do based upon the lie of the original ball.

If the original ball is playable, he has the chance to make a 3 and worse case maybe a 4. So there is an incentive to still play the original ball.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

I agree 100%.

Ball hit poorly deep into the woods, declare provisional, stuff it to 2 feet to the pin. Never have to look for your ball. This is the same situation that the naysayers are using as an argument against the rule change... but it already exists.

I actually had the above happen in a USGA tournament. Out of the blue, a pro that I was playing with shanked a hybrid on a 220 yd par 3.

It went right into a small line of trees between 2 fairways in heavy fescue. He put down a provisional and stuffed it to 1 ft. We walked off the tee and he declared the 1st ball lost without ever going over to look for it. Odds are we would have found it.

Hence my question to give me an example where the change would provide a benefit that doesn't already exist. I am open to situations but can't really think of one.

It's not the same, but apparently you are incapable of seeing that.

If the original ball is found that he has no choice but to continue play with that.  If he has a choice between 2 known balls, then it's a different game.

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by szaino

As has been pointed out, the rules allow for a provisional ball to be played for a ball lost or OB.

It's pretty clear to me that this rule should be changed to also include an unplayable ball. Why stop with lost or OB, if the rule itself says it's to save time.

The Rule itself, Rule 27, does not mention "to save time".

In my Rule book it does:

27-2 . Provisional Ball

a . Procedure

If a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds , to save time the player may play another ball provisionally in accordance with Rule 27-1 . ....

[szaino]

In my Rule book it does:

27-2. Provisional Ball

a. Procedure

If a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally in accordance with Rule 27-1. ....

That was a step back in the discussion, but thanks for posting.

[David in FL]

I agree 100%.

Ball hit poorly deep into the woods, declare provisional, stuff it to 2 feet to the pin. Never have to look for your ball. This is the same situation that the naysayers are using as an argument against the rule change... but it already exists.

I actually had the above happen in a USGA tournament. Out of the blue, a pro that I was playing with shanked a hybrid on a 220 yd par 3.

It went right into a small line of trees between 2 fairways in heavy fescue. He put down a provisional and stuffed it to 1 ft. We walked off the tee and he declared the 1st ball lost without ever going over to look for it. Odds are we would have found it.

Hence my question to give me an example where the change would provide a benefit that doesn't already exist. I am open to situations but can't really think of one.

You don't have to "think" of one for yourself.  I've given you a very simple one that is nothing like your example.   My scenario doesn't allow for declaring the ball lost......it's nestled down in the rough right in front of you.

Heck, I'll even make it easier.  It's not in the rough, it's on the next tee box......with an absolutely perfect lie (you can declare a ball unplayable anywhere, at anytime).  If you get it up and down, you par the hole.  Do you take a chance for 3 from 170 yards out, with the risk that it entails, or take the guaranteed 4.

Correct rules......do you opt to re-tee and play your 3, recognizing that you're likely to make at least 5......or do you play your second from a perfect lie into the green playing for the likely 4?

[RickK]

In my Rule book it does:

27-2. Provisional Ball

a. Procedure

If a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally in accordance with Rule 27-1. ....

When I am wrong, I admit it.  My apologies.  I was wrong.  However, I do not agree with the comment about unplayable.  There are more options available to someone for an unplayable lie than hitting from the same place.  That does not hold true for OB or lost ball.

[szaino]

It's not the same, but apparently you are incapable of seeing that.

If the original ball is found that he has no choice but to continue play with that.  If he has a choice between 2 known balls, then it's a different game.

In my example he did have the 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. This is exactly the same situation.

[szaino]

You don't have to "think" of one for yourself.  I've given you a very simple one that is nothing like your example.   My scenario doesn't allow for declaring the ball lost......it's nestled down in the rough right in front of you.

Heck, I'll even make it easier.  It's not in the rough, it's on the next tee box......with an absolutely perfect lie (you can declare a ball unplayable anywhere, at anytime).  If you get it up and down, you par the hole.  Do you take a chance for 3 from 170 yards out, with the risk that it entails, or take the guaranteed 4.

Correct rules......do you opt to re-tee and play your 3, recognizing that you're likely to make at least 5......or do you play your second from a perfect lie into the green playing for the likely 4?

Sorry man but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[David in FL]

Sorry man but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I'll type a little slower, so you can keep up.......

Under your proposed change:

1.  You duff your tee shot onto the next teebox......  Now hitting 2, 170 yards out, over water, but a perfect lie.  Certainly not lost.

2.  You hit a "provisional" because it might be "unplayable", and stuff it close.  Tap in 4.

3.  Do you take the 4, or do you choose to play for a possible (but unlikely) 3 by playing the first ball from 170 yards, over water?

.......of course, you take the 4 and run.  Even top tour pros only get up and down less than 20% of the time from 170 yards, so it would be silly to risk a bigger number for a low chance to improve by one stroke on the guaranteed 4.

Under the current rules:

1. You duff your tee shot onto the next teebox...... Now hitting 2, 170 yards out, over water, but a perfect lie. Certainly not lost.

2.  Do you re-tee hitting 3 (stroke and distance) from 200 yards, or do you play from a perfect lie from 170 yards hitting 2?

......of course, in this scenario, where you don't already KNOW the result of your re-tee, you'll choose to play your original ball from 170 yards.  You won't even consider declaring in unplayable and choosing to hit 3 from 200 instead.  That's the point, knowing the result of the re-tee before having to make the decision is what makes the difference.

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

You don't have to "think" of one for yourself.  I've given you a very simple one that is nothing like your example.   My scenario doesn't allow for declaring the ball lost......it's nestled down in the rough right in front of you.

Heck, I'll even make it easier.  It's not in the rough, it's on the next tee box......with an absolutely perfect lie (you can declare a ball unplayable anywhere, at anytime).  If you get it up and down, you par the hole.  Do you take a chance for 3 from 170 yards out, with the risk that it entails, or take the guaranteed 4.

Correct rules......do you opt to re-tee and play your 3, recognizing that you're likely to make at least 5......or do you play your second from a perfect lie into the green playing for the likely 4?

Sorry man but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Steve, you're just being obtuse. David and the boys are trying to help.