Red stake and provisional question

[Fourputt]

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

It's a good local rule to have available when pace of play is a consideration, and there is often uncertainty as to the actual status of the original ball.

[turtleback]

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.

I really dislike the provision of the local rule that allows the player a choice, if his ball is lying in the hazard, between playing the original ball or the provisional.  That goes directly against the principle that a player should never have a choice between 2 balls.  I would like the local rule much better if it just provided that if it is known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard (which would cover the case of a ball found in the hazard) then the provisional is the ball in play.  It may be an obvious choice almost all of the time, but it is still a choice and that just rankles.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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.

I really dislike the provision of the local rule that allows the player a choice, if his ball is lying in the hazard, between playing the original ball or the provisional.  That goes directly against the principle that a player should never have a choice between 2 balls.  I would like the local rule much better if it just provided that if it is known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard (which would cover the case of a ball found in the hazard) then the provisional is the ball in play.  It may be an obvious choice almost all of the time, but it is still a choice and that just rankles.

Well, like I said, I feel the that the penalty makes up for any advantage the "choice" offers.  In these days of pace of play woes, it's the best compromise, as long as it isn't over used.  There are limited hole designs where it would actually make any sense, since the player loses any penalty option but stroke and distance.

[rogolf]

Regarding the local Rule in the Appendix, note that a provisional ball may only be played if it is uncertain whether the original ball is in the hazard or not (doesn't matter whether its playable or not) and, if the ball is not in the hazard, it cannot be lost or oob.

Once a provisional ball has been properly played under this local Rule, the player does have a choice of which ball to proceed with - his original ball in the hazard or the provisional.  If his original ball is not in the hazard, he must abandon the provisional ball and continue with the original ball.

[rustyredcab]

Our personal local rule states that if the ball is found in the hazard, you must play the provisional -- no option even if it is playable in the hazard. If you think it might be in the hazard and you might want to play it, then no provisional can be hit. But, the places this   personal local rule comes in play are places where the ball is either going to be lost in the hazard or found in the fairway. Trouble is you can't tell which it is from the tee and, in one case, the walk/drive to get to the other side is very long.

In a tournament, no such local rule applies. So, if you wish to re-tee rather than your other drop options, you gotta go see if you cleared the hazard.

[Rulesman]

That 'personal' local rule does not of course satisfy the requirements of the Rules of Golf (ie it is not an authorised local rule).

[rehmwa]

That 'personal' local rule does not of course satisfy the requirements of the Rules of Golf (ie it is not an authorised local rule).

Isn't that by definition?

I'd think if it would, it wouldn't have reason to exist.

I would ask for an example of any 'local' or 'personal' rule that would (satisfy the Rules).  It would have to be more restrictive.  I'm not sure if there would be a scenario that would necessitate something like that.  (unless it's a gag rule - "a whiskey shot between each stroke, skipping it is a one stroke penalty")

Like the above - Most I've heard of are exceptions/deviations to the strict rules to allow pace of play or to contend with special conditions or situations.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

That 'personal' local rule does not of course satisfy the requirements of the Rules of Golf (ie it is not an authorised local rule).

Isn't that by definition?

I'd think if it would, it wouldn't have reason to exist.

I would ask for an example of any 'local' or 'personal' rule that would (satisfy the Rules).  It would have to be more restrictive.  I'm not sure if there would be a scenario that would necessitate something like that.  (unless it's a gag rule - "a whiskey shot between each stroke, skipping it is a one stroke penalty")

Like the above - Most I've heard of are exceptions/deviations to the strict rules to allow pace of play or to contend with special conditions or situations.

No, it isn't.  To be allowed, a local rule must be authorized.  To ensure such compliance, they should only be applied as recommended in Appendix I of the Rules.  Here is the definition of "Rule" from the Rules of Golf:

Rule Or Rules

The term “Rule’’ includes:

a. The Rules of Golf and their interpretations as contained in “Decisions on the Rules of Golf”;

b. Any Conditions of Competition established by the Committee under Rule 33-1 and Appendix I;

c. Any Local Rules established by the Committee under Rule 33-8a and Appendix I; and

d. The specifications on:

(i) clubs and the ball in Appendices II and III and their interpretations as contained in “A Guide to the Rules on Clubs and Balls”; and

(ii) devices and other equipment in Appendix IV.

[rehmwa]

I thought something like that would come back since you used the word "authorized" in the first note.......

In other words, even a little crappy local course is expected to get the blessing from the national organization.  If not, it's just playing fast and loose.

Though it reads less like exceptions, rather that they've already defined the grey areas for consideration.

That's not so much local, as it is just clarifications and decisions that any course has the option to pursue.

One neat thing is that appendix actually has a specific applicability to hazard play when going and looking would be an undue delay.......on topic for the thread

[Fourputt]

I thought something like that would come back since you used the word "authorized" in the first note.......

In other words, even a little crappy local course is expected to get the blessing from the national organization.  If not, it's just playing fast and loose.

Though it reads less like exceptions, rather that they've already defined the grey areas for consideration.

That's not so much local, as it is just clarifications and decisions that any course has the option to pursue.

Local rules have existed since the rules were first codified in the mid 18th century.  In fact it was the many local variations on the rules that led to the first attempts at unification.  The goal was to create a document which would include all of the general rules for play, based on the fundamental principles of the game, then leave it up to the individual clubs write their own needed local modifications which would only apply when playing at that club.  As more clubs were founded, that method became unmanageable, so it became necessary to justify and get approval for any proposed local rules.

Ultimately, the local rules were included in the Appendix to the rules, and no local rule was allowed to be used in sanctioned play without approval, and usually restricted to the specimen rules in the book.  The authorized local rules in the Rules of Golf cover pretty much any necessity, and LR modifications are prohibited the same as they are for the regular rules.  Although a course may recommend playing OB as lateral hazard, or mark non water courses as lateral hazards, such improper modifications of the rules are not enforceable, and cannot be used in sanctioned rounds.

Which I pasted in post #26 of this thread.

[Rulesman]

I thought something like that would come back since you used the word "authorized" in the first note.......

In other words, even a little crappy local course is expected to get the blessing from the national organization.  If not, it's just playing fast and loose.

Though it reads less like exceptions, rather that they've already defined the grey areas for consideration.

That's not so much local, as it is just clarifications and decisions that any course has the option to pursue.

One neat thing is that appendix actually has a specific applicability to hazard play when going and looking would be an undue delay.......on topic for the thread

In addition to the authorised local rules in the appendix, there are 45 decisions (under rule 33-8) specifying what other local rules may or may not be used.

Further, the USGA/R&A; do approve local rules for very specific circumstances which only occur at a specific club/course. These are not published other than to the club/course involved.