Red stake and provisional question

[MEfree]

From the tone of the post it seems to me that there was a chance that the ball may not have finished in the WH. It is not clear that if it was not in the WH, then it could not be lost.

So, Dormie & Dave in FL are correct if it was known that the ball was in the WH or if it was known that the ball was not in the WH but could not be lost elsewhere.

But if there was a chance that it could be outside the WH but possibly not findable, then MEfree is correct.

I wasn't trying to imply that Dormie and David's posts were wrong, just pointing out that it depends on whether there was a chance it could be lost outside the hazard...The OPs statements SEEMED to indicate it was PROBABLY thought to have been in the hazard, but I was not ready to assume this without some clarification.

Sorry guys, just got out of class..... I DID in fact announce that my ball was a provisional....  I said exactly "I'm hitting a provisional,  and I choose to re-tee because I think that would be the best option" (instead of hitting a 3 wood 5 yards in front of the teebox with no tee)

Under the current rules, I am not sure that this statement makes complete sense.  If it was your desire to proceed under stroke and distance based on your presumption that the ball was in the hazard, then you are not hitting a "provisional."

What do the resident rules experts say.  If a player says "I am hitting provisional" but his intentions are really to proceed under stroke and distance for a hazard, then is it a "provisional" that must be picked up if the original is found or does it become the ball in play?  My assumption is that the re-teed shot becomes the ball in play.  Is there any penalty for calling a ball a provisional when it is not, or is this statement just ignored.  (My assumption is that it is just ignored)

To the OP, was there a chance your ball could have been lost outside the hazard?  If so, then I think the ball in the bunker may be considered a provisional.  However, once you found your original, then the choice would be to play the original, take a drop, or go back to the tee.  Had you NOT hit a provisional and NOT found the original and still thought there was a chance that your ball could be lost outside the hazard, then your ONLY option would have been to go back to the tee even if it was likely the ball was lost in the hazard.

[rehmwa]

Maybe not perfect, but hitting the (let's not call it 'provisional' but call a potential 3rd shot) right away sure beats walking around the lake, confirming that the ball did not come out of the hazard (or is not "hittable while in the hazard") and then going all the way back to the tee.....

seems to be better in terms of pace of play

but then, I've worn jeans on a course and think digital watches are a neat idea

[David in FL]

Maybe not perfect, but hitting the (let's not call it 'provisional' but call a potential 3rd shot) right away sure beats walking around the lake, confirming that the ball did not come out of the hazard (or is not "hittable while in the hazard") and then going all the way back to the tee.....

seems to be better in terms of pace of play

but then, I've worn jeans on a course and think digital watches are a neat idea

I've admitted it before......there are 2 holes that I play with my buddies where we have enacted a "personal local rule" for our own personal matches allowing exactly that.....for just that reason.

I know, I know......

[Ignorant]

If everyone agrees the ball is lost IN the hazard, the player can not play a provisional.  So his second ball is played under stroke and distance.

My point exactly. So it is not about splashes or rocks or WH margins, it is about the idea people at the scene are getting. If they feel 'known or virtually certain' then that's it. Once thay arrive at the WH the idea might change but that is irrelevant with the moment at the teebox.

The key to all this, IMO is not whether or not there is virtual certainty that the ball is in the hazard.  The issue is whether or not the ball, if outside the hazard can be found.  If there is doubt that the ball can be found, then a provisional can be played.

I find your wording misleading. IMO it is all about if a ball may be lost outside a WH . Whether it can be found or not has absolutely no bearing.

(God I hate this quoting system on this forum... it really sucks....)

[turtleback]

Sorry guys, just got out of class..... I DID in fact announce that my ball was a provisional....  I said exactly "I'm hitting a provisional,  and I choose to re-tee because I think that would be the best option" (instead of hitting a 3 wood 5 yards in front of the teebox with no tee)

I think the key here is "I'm hitting a provisional,  and I choose to re-tee... because it indicates that you were acting under the belief that the ball was in the hazard.  If you were hitting a real provisional there would have been no option to hit a 3 wood from 5 yards in front of the teebox.  A provisional is always played from the spot of the previous shot.  Therefore it was not a provisional, because your own words indicate that you believed it lost in the hazard.

[Ignorant]

Maybe not perfect, but hitting the (let's not call it 'provisional' but call a potential 3rd shot) right away sure beats walking around the lake, confirming that the ball did not come out of the hazard (or is not "hittable while in the hazard") and then going all the way back to the tee.....

The committee has the option to make a Local Rule about provisional ball fo a particular water hazard (see Appendix I, I) . Without that the player might have an option of balls to choose from and that is something very much contrary to the spirit of golf.

[rehmwa]

The committee has the option to make a Local Rule about provisional ball fo a particular water hazard (see Appendix I, I) . Without that the player might have an option of balls to choose from and that is something very much contrary to the spirit of golf.

I don't know what "spirit" has to do with it, just rules.  But I appreciate you comment a lot.  the golfer, if he has to select the option to rehit, needs to make that decision BEFORE he knows the result of the rehit.  under my scenario, he could have found that golf ball and then just decided that it's unplayable if he wanted to hit that 2nd ball instead.

I was in almost that exact situation last monday.  But i didn't hit the second ball.  Turns out the first ball (barely) cleared the water and ended up in a very playable lie, but still inside the hazard as defined by the stakes (unlikely it cleared them and rolled back).  I got lucky.  It was dark and I was sure I cleared the water, but if not, one option would have been to re tee and it was a long drive back to the tee box and, as I said, it was getting late.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignorant

What if the player and his f-c's all say that yes, that ball dipped and is lost in the WH. After that consensus the player hits a provisional ball.

What is the ruling?

If everyone agrees the ball is lost IN the hazard, the player can not play a provisional.  So his second ball is played under stroke and distance.

The key to all this, IMO is not whether or not there is virtual certainty that the ball is in the hazard.  The issue is whether or not the ball, if outside the hazard can be found .  If there is doubt that the ball can be found, then a provisional can be played.

I think that you may have misspoke here.  The key isn't whether there is virtual certainty the the ball is in the hazard, but whether or not there is a possibility for the ball to be lost outside of the hazard.  In fact there does not appear to be virtual certainty that the ball was in the water hazard.  A splash near the edge is not of itself virtual certainty, even if all of the players believe it.  The only determining factor whether a provisional ball is allowed is whether there would be a chance of the ball still not being found if it did not stay in the hazard after the splash.  This would be something which might be dependent on whether any deep grass along the shore is inside or outside of the hazard margin.

Most courses where there is a concern for pace of play would have the hazard marked so that any fringe of deep grass is contained within the margin, relieving the player of the decision.  This is even recommended in the rules as a good practice for course marking.

Also, if as it sounds in the OP's scenario, the hazard starts right in front of the tee and is all carry, then the course or committee has the option of enacting the authorized local rule for a provisional ball even when the original ball may be lost in a water hazard.  In a competition, this local rule must be invoked by the committee, it is not a rule that the player can just decide on his own.

Quote:

1. Water Hazards; Ball Played Provisionally Under Rule 26-1

If a water hazard (including a lateral water hazard ) is of such size and shape and/or located in such a position that:

(i) it would be impracticable to determine whether the ball is in the hazard or to do so would unduly delay play, and

(ii) if the original ball is not found, it is known or virtually certain that it is in the water hazard ,

the Committee may introduce a Local Rule permitting the play of a ball provisionally under Rule 26-1 . The ball is played provisionally under any of the applicable options under Rule 26-1 or any applicable Local Rule. In such a case, if a ball is played provisionally and the original ball is in a water hazard , the player may play the original ball as it lies or continue with the ball played provisionally, but he may not proceed under Rule 26-1 with regard to the original ball.

In these circumstances, the following Local Rule is recommended:

“If there is doubt whether a ball is in or is lost in the water hazard (specify location), the player may play another ball provisionally under any of the applicable options in Rule 26-1 .

If the original ball is found outside the water hazard, the player must continue play with it.

If the original ball is found in the water hazard, the player may either play the original ball as it lies or continue with the ball played provisionally under Rule 26-1 .

If the original ball is not found or identified within the five-minute search period, the player must continue with the ball played provisionally.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF LOCAL RULE:

Match play – Loss of hole; Stroke play – Two strokes.”

[Rulesman]

As Fourputt says

The key isn't whether there is virtual certainty the the ball is in the hazard, but whether or not there is a possibility for the ball to be lost outside of the hazard.  In fact there does not appear to be virtual certainty that the ball was in the water hazard.  A splash near the edge is not of itself virtual certainty, even if all of the players believe it.

Of course, what the other players think or believe is only something the player may take into consideration. Ultimately, it is the player's decision.

[wadesworld]

Never mind….changed my opinion.

[Dormie1360]

If everyone agrees the ball is lost IN the hazard, the player can not play a provisional.  So his second ball is played under stroke and distance.

The key to all this, IMO is not whether or not there is virtual certainty that the ball is in the hazard.  The issue is whether or not the ball, if outside the hazard can be found.  If there is doubt that the ball can be found, then a provisional can be played.

As Fourputt says

The key isn't whether there is virtual certainty the the ball is in the hazard, but whether or not there is a possibility for the ball to be lost outside of the hazard.  In fact there does not appear to be virtual certainty that the ball was in the water hazard.  A splash near the edge is not of itself virtual certainty, even if all of the players believe it.

Of course, what the other players think or believe is only something the player may take into consideration. Ultimately, it is the player's decision.

Hey guys,

Thought I was saying the same thing.  Sorry if it comes out wrong and I have confused someone.  I think most everyone who answered the OP understands the application of a provisional ball.  Rule 27-2.

As far as virtual certainty, it's applicable only in the sense that it can be used to help determine if the ball is in the water hazard......a determination required to proceed under R27-2.

[rehmwa]

I'm thinking on this.  There's three outcomes here -

1 - they find it outside the hazard - no issue, the provisional was not needed

2 - they find it inside the hazard and CLEARLY not playable - no issue, the provisional must be used as if it they saw it sink and he chose to re-tee

3 - they find it inside the hazard, but it turns out to be playable (or at least it's an option) -

#3 is the sticking point - my opinion.. it sucks for the OP - but he has to use the provisional as it was hit "just in case the ball got in the hazard".  Too bad, if he'd have looked first, he'd only be hitting two......

(I know, it was hit "just in case the ball was in the water ."  But you have to get past giving an option to the player, ......deciding if it's playable is subjective, the boundaries of the hazard are not - I think this is the take from a lot of posts here.)

There are plenty of hazards that are defined by the stakes where portions are very much good and usable lies....there's a big difference between "Playable vs not playable" vs "in the defined hazard or not"

[Rulesman]

I'm thinking on this.  There's three outcomes here -

1 - they find it outside the hazard - no issue, the provisional was not needed

2 - they find it inside the hazard and CLEARLY not playable - no issue, the provisional must be used as if it they saw it sink and he chose to re-tee

3 - they find it inside the hazard, but it turns out to be playable (or at least it's an option) -

#3 is the sticking point - my opinion.. it sucks for the OP - but he has to use the provisional as it was hit "just in case the ball got in the hazard".  Too bad, if he'd have looked first, he'd only be hitting two......

(I know, it was hit "just in case the ball was in the water."  But you have to get past giving an option to the player, ......deciding if it's playable is subjective, the boundaries of the hazard are not - I think this is the take from a lot of posts here.)

There are plenty of hazards that are defined by the stakes where portions are very much good and usable lies....there's a big difference between "Playable vs not playable" vs "in the defined hazard or not"

What situation are you describing?

A) He knew the ball was in the hazard and did not declare a provisional (or simply did not declare a provisional)

B) He knew the ball was in the hazard but declared a provisional

C) He thought the ball may be lost outside the hazard and declared a provisional.

If A) or B) He must play the second ball in all 3 cases.

If C)

Case 1 - Correct

Case 2 - Wrong. The provisional ball is now dead and he must continue under one of the options in Rule 26

Case 3 - Wrong also. The provisional ball is now dead and he must continue under one of the options in Rule 26

If, when the player gets to the hazard, it is now known that the ball is in the hazard, whether found or not, the provisional ball must be abandoned.

[rehmwa]

thanks, for each post like yours, I learn a bit more....

I think he was in case D:

He thought the ball might not be in the "water" and hoped it was playable (in or out of the hazard boundary) but hit a "back up" in case he was wrong.  So he wouldn't have to go all the way back to the tee for his preferred option (re-hitting from the tee) from a ball in hazard.

As you note in Scenario's A and B - if he thinks it's in the hazard, playable or not, that shot was stroke #3, and not a provisional in any way.

From what he wrote, I don't think Scenario C really was a possibility - I'm under the impression that if the ball had ended up outside the hazard boundaries on this shot there would be no reason to think it lost

(the only way to lose that ball would have been in the hazard ) his options were assume it's in the hazard right away and take his medicine now - or go look and then act accordingly even if it means walking back to the tee box if that's his choice of option for unplayable in the hazard).

(i.e. that back up stroke was never anywhere close to being officially a "provisional" since this was trying to head off reacting to a hazard situation - it was a potential time saver only if the ball was unplayable for any reason in the boundaries of the hazard - not covered under the rules.    Good intentions, but not rulesy at all)

the rest of my post was just about the "local rule" having this situation that allows the player to choose between two shots (in the hazard but sort of playable stroke 2 vs taking the backup shot as stroke 3) and I thought it could have been constructed better to avoid that by being explicit on which rsults drive which ball to use.  I know you try to avoid those types of hypothetical since they depart from the official rules.

[Rulesman]

As you note in Scenario's A and B - if he thinks it's in the hazard, playable or not, that shot was stroke #3, and not a provisional in any way.

.

If he thinks the ball is in the hazard, that means it may be outside the hazard.

If it may be outside the hazard then, unless he knows it will not be lost outside the hazard and will not be OOB, he may a take provisional.

[rehmwa]

If he thinks the ball is in the hazard, that means it may be outside the hazard.

If it may be outside the hazard then, unless he knows it will not be lost outside the hazard and will not be OOB, he may a take provisional.

agreed - but for this specific scenario, that's not the reason he hit the back up ball - he was pre-hitting his very likely 3rd shot (under options for a ball in hazard) in the event he couldn't locate or play the first shot in the hazard (or through the hazard in the fairway)

His quote - first post "I just learned yesterday that I should not have hit a provisional for that ball."

[Fourputt]

the rest of my post was just about the "local rule" having this situation that allows the player to choose between two shots (in the hazard but sort of playable stroke 2 vs taking the backup shot as stroke 3) and I thought it could have been constructed better to avoid that by being explicit on which rsults drive which ball to use.  I know you try to avoid those types of hypothetical since they depart from the official rules.

The local rule does not really allow the player to choose between similar shots.  If he chooses to play a provisional ball under that rule, he can only go to the provisional ball if his original ball is not found, or it's found unplayable in the hazard.  He is then limited to the stroke and distance penalty - options b and c under Rule 26-1 are denied under that local rule.

If he finds the original ball outside of the hazard, it is in play.

If he finds the ball playable within the hazard then yes, there is a choice, but not much of one.  Assuming that we are discussing a tee shot, he is lying 3 playing 4 with the provisional ball (not playing 3 as you said), but only lying 1 playing 2 with the original.  That's a pretty easy decision for most players.  If I can chop it out, the original ball will be lying 2, saving me a stroke, so the rule still encourages playing the original ball, which is more in keeping with the basic principle.  The 2 stroke difference still ensures that no advantage is gained from taking the penalty.  Unplayable in the hazard is seen under this rule as being the same as lost in the hazard.

[rehmwa]

thanks, I like it.

and consider playing 2 from the playable lie to be the most likely wish anyway....since I had the penalty count wrong (my misstatement, I meant 'lying 3' but stated hitting 3.....), you can see why I'm asking questions.. lots to learn