Rules incident in Des Moines

[Fourputt]

  ColinL said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

A ball is hit toward a water hazard.  It can only be in play or lost in the hazard.  The expectation is that it is in the hazard, and if so, it is lost.  Therefore it is thought to be lost in the hazard, yet it might not be in the hazard, and if not, it is not lost (because I've played this course many times and I know what lies ahead).  This is what I said and I defend my wording.  You can be as pedantic as you like but it doesn't change the meaning of my statement.

Maybe if I say it like this: "If the ball is thought to be lost in a water hazard, and the only way it can be lost is if it is in the water hazard, then you are not allowed to play a provisional ball."  Better?  I was just saying the same thing only with a lot fewer words.

Fourputt, I don't want to inflame things - quite the opposite - but it is simply that the word "thought"  carries an implication of the possibility of the situation being other than what it is thought to be.  It's just what the word does and it is therefore not quite precise enough in the rules context of "virtual certainty" and because it could mislead  it's better in a rules forum for it to be pointed out.

But I wasn't saying that it was virtually certain that it WAS in the hazaard.  All I was ever saying was that the only way that the ball could be lost is IF it is in the hazard.  That is a likely condition, but not certain.  If it is not in the hazard, then it won't be lost.  If it isn't found then it IS virtually certain that it's in the hazard, because there is no place else for it to be where it wouldn't be found.  As I'm standing on the tee in this situation, I say to my buddy, "I think it's in the hazard".  That is where it is thought to be, but it isn't virtually certain until I get up there, and I'm not allowed to play a provisional ball because I know that the only place where it could be lost is in the hazard.

I understand perfectly the principle of virtual certainty.  That isn't what I was trying to say when I worded my statement like I did.  I'm not going to try and defend it further though.

[turtleback]

  Fourputt said:

I understand perfectly the principle of virtual certainty.  That isn't what I was trying to say when I worded my statement like I did.  I'm not going to try and defend it further though.

I get what you are saying.  If the REASON you are hitting a provisional is that you THINK it might be lost in a hazard then you are wrong.  If you hit a provisional because you think it might be lost in a hazard but also think it might be lost outside the hazard then the provisional is OK.  Your statement only addressed the first situation, and in that context was correct, IMO.

[bubble]

  Rulesman said:

I am not clear on your first question. However,

1) He can only take WH relief if he is certain or virtually certain the ball is in the WH.

2) Yes, a 2 stroke penalty (at that point) with a possible Serious Breach DQ in the offing. After that it gets messy.

well that's pretty much my thought.

So he has no clue if the ball is in the hazard yet plays from the drop area. then finding his first ball he figures out he played from the wrong area.

I wonder : isn't his first ball is actually in play and he should continue with this one taking two strokes penalty for the ball played in the drop area.

I just can't figure what comes first.

[Wendy Dominick]

When he played from the drop area(without virtual certainty) he played from a wrong place. The original ball is now lost. Since playing from the drop area is a serious breach, he must return to the tee. If he continues without this correction he will be DQ. If he plays the original ball it is a wrong ball(2 stroke penalty).

Scoring: original ball=1

stroke from drop area doesn't count

2 PS for wrong place=3

Stroke from tee played under stroke and distance= He's playing his 5th stroke.

[DrvFrShow]

Wait a minute....

Virtually is defined as almost. Certain is defined as known for sure; established beyond doubt. Virtual certainty is an oxymoron. You can't be virtually certain. It's essentially saying - I guess. Or I think.

So essentially it's all in the wording in how you say things in the spur of the moment. Remind me to bring a lawyer or paralegal as my caddie to a tournament because sometimes I'm not really good at expressing stuff like this because I'm a little p*ssed that I hit the ball where I did and I've probably been DQ'd  for  the f-bomb anyway.

In this situation say

1) I'm hitting a provisional because I think it might be lost.

OR

2) I'm proceeding under S&D; because I think my ball is in the hazard.

then go from there.

Now here, you get into trouble because if you chose #2 and your ball wasn't in the hazard, you played from the wrong place and "committed a serious breach."

What if you say "I'm proceeding under Stroke and Distance." and don't give a reason? Do you have to give a reason?

[Wendy Dominick]

You can always play under stroke and distance. No reason needs to be given.

Playing from the drop area, though, isn't playing under stroke and distance.

Saying I'm hitting a provisional because my ball might be lost" is fine, but a provisional can't be played from the drop area.

[DrvFrShow]

Right, Wendy, it's when you're playing even in a league and have a bunch of people who "know the rules" and each has a different idea of what the rules are.

Sometimes I just want to play casual golf for fun reasonably within the rules and forget this league crap.

[Fourputt]

  DrvFrShow said:

Right, Wendy, it's when you're playing even in a league and have a bunch of people who "know the rules" and each has a different idea of what the rules are.

Sometimes I just want to play casual golf for fun reasonably within the rules and forget this league crap.

Carry a rule book.  You can get one from Amazon for $2.92.  If you are going to play organized golf, then you really should have a working knowledge of the rules as they affect on course play, in particular rules 18-28 and the definitions section in the front of the book.  It would make a good study project while you recuperate.

We all play our share of casual rounds for fun, and for different players, that means different levels of adherence to the rules.  It's still good practice to get familiar with them.

[DrvFrShow]

I have a copy. I keep it in my bag. I've gone to get it on a few occasions. No one ever wants to take the time to look up anything because "it holds up play."

Plus I have my smart phone and there's instant access to the USGA RULES with decisions bookmarked.

[DaveP043]

I'll pose a question that follows on a few of the more recent posts in this thread.  The diagram below is the 17th hole at my home club.  My preferred tee shot is a driver over the right edge of the trees along the left side of the fairway.  However, recently I hit a pull-draw along the bright green path, with the ball disappearing into the top of the tree.  At this stage, I can't tell if the ball is in play, is in the hazard, or is lost outside of the hazard.  If I'm in the hazard, the only viable option of those allowed in the rules is to replay my tee shot, due to the terrain in the area where the ball crossed the boundary of the hazard.  My choice was to announce that I am playing a provisional, based on the potential that the first ball may be lost outside the hazard.  As it turns out, the first shot has miraculously ricocheted through the tree and ended up in the left rough, so I pick up my provisional and play on with the original ball.

I knew I couldn't hit a provisional for a ball that may have been lost in the hazard.  Knowing from experience that its possible to lose a ball in the left rough, under those trees (I've I've found plenty that other players have lost), I played a provision for that possibility.  So, did I act acceptably under the rules?  I believe I did.

I suppose a secondary issue would arise if I had found and identified my ball in the hazard.  Then my provisional would not be in play, and I'd have to proceed under the lateral water hazard rule, basically go back to the tee and hit my third shot if that was my choice of the options.

[DrvFrShow]

That's a rough approach. It's a forced carry of that hazard no matter what your approach unless you hit a 8 iron off the tee. I'd say you played it correctly for the situation.

[DaveP043]

  DrvFrShow said:

That's a rough approach. It's a forced carry of that hazard no matter what your approach unless you hit a 8 iron off the tee. I'd say you played it correctly for the situation.

Its a moderately demanding short hole, for sure.  The further you choose to hit it, the more the bunkers and trees come into play, and the fairway narrows down.  From the forward tees its not so severe,  the tee aligns you more down the axis of the fairway, and there's almost no carry required.

[Rulesman]

  DaveP043 said:

I knew I couldn't hit a provisional for a ball that may have been lost in the hazard.  Knowing from experience that its possible to lose a ball in the left rough, under those trees (I've I've found plenty that other players have lost), I played a provision for that possibility.  So, did I act acceptably under the rules?  I believe I did.

You did, once you had qualified the first sentence by (in effect) saying the ball could also be lost outside the hazard.

[DaveP043]

  Rulesman said:

You did, once you had qualified the first sentence by (in effect) saying the ball could also be lost outside the hazard.

I didn't say it in effect, I specifically said " a provisional because it might be lost outside the hazard".  Our group does its collective best to understand and play by the rules, and we all monitor each other.  Things like this forum help me learn more, and help the rest of them learn when the situation arises.

[Fourputt]

  DaveP043 said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

You did, once you had qualified the first sentence by (in effect) saying the ball could also be lost outside the hazard.

I didn't say it in effect, I specifically said " a provisional because it might be lost outside the hazard".  Our group does its collective best to understand and play by the rules, and we all monitor each other.  Things like this forum help me learn more, and help the rest of them learn when the situation arises.

Usually when a ball hits a tree, I figure that just about anything goes.  In a tournament a few years ago one of my fellow competitors pushed his tee shot right and hit a tree about 10 yards right of the fairway and 150 yards from the tee.  All 4 of us looked for the full 5 minutes, then he returned to the tee and played his 3rd.  While he was walking back, I crossed over to the left side of the fairway, then went well into the rough about 20 yards to be out of the way for his shot.  As I was coming back toward the fairway after he hit, I found his original ball, some 75 yards from the tree he hit and on the opposite side of the fairway.  That isn't even the strangest thing I've seen from a ball hitting a tree.   I never take anything for granted when a ball hits a tree.

[Rulesman]

  DaveP043 said:

I didn't say it in effect, I specifically said " a provisional because it might be lost outside the hazard".

I know you said and proceeded correctly from what you wrote before the diagram but the following was copied directly from after the diagram. This seems to be a conflict.

"I knew I couldn't hit a provisional for a ball that may have been lost in the hazard."