Returning to play a provisional ball

[Martyn W]

6 minutes ago, Grinde6 said:

Yep, but that is the exact reason I declare to them that it is a provisional ball and what number I am hitting so that there is no confusion if both are found.  I would never want to be in the situation where I find both but cannot tell them apart so I basically just gave away 2 strokes for being a dummy...

The section you made red...the only requirements it is talking about is that you must declare its a provisional and play the provisional before you go searching for the original.  You can play a provisional for just about any reason besides knowing that it is in a hazard.  Any ball hit into the rough may not be found, a provisional can be played, etc...

I also highlited "may be". If there is no chance that the ball is lost, or is OB, the 'provisional' is not a provisional but the BiP 

[Wansteadimp]

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

So why would you do that?  The only reason I can think of for a player to do that is if he doesn't know how Rule 27-2 works.  As usual the fault isn't with the rule but with the lack of knowledge of some players.

I agree, the player should have hit his provisional a second time before looking for the original ball.

However, decision 27-2b/3 allows him to  search, hit the provisional for a second time, then nit his original, is that not an issue with the decision not the player?

2 hours ago, Rulesman said:

No. And a player doing that may be penalised for undue delay.

Is this an issue if they are within the 5 minute search period?

[Fourputt]

8 minutes ago, Grinde6 said:

Yep, but that is the exact reason I declare to them that it is a provisional ball and what number I am hitting so that there is no confusion if both are found.  I would never want to be in the situation where I find both but cannot tell them apart so I basically just gave away 2 strokes for being a dummy...

The section you made red...the only requirements it is talking about is that you must declare its a provisional and play the provisional before you go searching for the original.  You can play a provisional for just about any reason besides knowing that it is in a hazard.  Any ball hit into the rough may not be found, a provisional can be played, etc...

No, it applies to all of the statement above it, including that the provisional may only be played if there is a chance the that original ball may be lost.  If there is no chance that the original ball might be lost or out of bounds then playing a provisional ball is not allowed.  That would be considered as practice, which is not allowed, and as such, the second ball is the ball in play no matter what you tell your fellow competitor.

[Grinde6]

8 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

No, it applies to all of the statement above it, including that the provisional may only be played if there is a chance the that original ball may be lost.  If there is no chance that the original ball might be lost or out of bounds then playing a provisional ball is not allowed.  That would be considered as practice, which is not allowed, and as such, the second ball is the ball in play no matter what you tell your fellow competitor.

Ever hit a ball in the rough and lose it or am I the only one this has happened to?  A ball can be lost pretty much any time other than hitting the fairway correct?  Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but the rule doesn't say "without a doubt" or "certainty" it says it "may be lost".  

[Rulesman]

36 minutes ago, Grinde6 said:

 You can play a provisional for just about any reason besides knowing that it is in a hazard. ..

27-2a/3  

Play of Provisional Ball in Absence of Reasonable Possibility Original Ball Is Lost or Out of Bounds

Q.In the absence of reasonable possibility that a ball is lost outside a water hazard or is out of bounds, may the player play a provisional ball?

A.No. If a player plays a ball under such circumstances, the ball is not a provisional ball but the ball in play - see Decision 27-2a/2.

[Grinde6]

6 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

27-2a/3  

Play of Provisional Ball in Absence of Reasonable Possibility Original Ball Is Lost or Out of Bounds

Q.In the absence of reasonable possibility that a ball is lost outside a water hazard or is out of bounds, may the player play a provisional ball?

A.No. If a player plays a ball under such circumstances, the ball is not a provisional ball but the ball in play - see Decision 27-2a/2.

That should have read, "you can play a provisional for just about any reason if you think your ball may be lost, besides if it is in a hazard".  Poor choice of words on my part.

[Hardspoon]

 

28 minutes ago, Grinde6 said:

Ever hit a ball in the rough and lose it or am I the only one this has happened to?  A ball can be lost pretty much any time other than hitting the fairway correct?  Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but the rule doesn't say "without a doubt" or "certainty" it says it "may be lost".  

Yes, I would argue that the only time there is no chance of it being lost is if you can actually see the darn thing from the tee box. I can't see another circumstance where the provisional would be disallowed, unless it is because the ball is certain to be in a hazard.

 

[Fourputt]

24 minutes ago, Grinde6 said:

That should have read, "you can play a provisional for just about any reason if you think your ball may be lost, besides if it is in a hazard".  Poor choice of words on my part.

There must be a reasonable expectation that the ball may be lost.  Just hitting a ball in the rough shouldn't qualify unless your course maintains its rough like the US Open.  

If players played provisional balls every time they hit into the rough, some groups would never get off the tee. 

[iacas]

38 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Yes, I would argue that the only time there is no chance of it being lost is if you can actually see the darn thing from the tee box. I can't see another circumstance where the provisional would be disallowed, unless it is because the ball is certain to be in a hazard.

What @Fourputt said.

A ball you hit over a bump in a fairway but can't see is also not eligible to be "possibly lost."

There's got to be a believable chance it's lost.

[Fourputt]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

What @Fourputt said.

A ball you hit over a bump in a fairway but can't see is also not eligible to be "possibly lost."

There's got to be a believable chance it's lost.

Especially since the provisional ball that you follow it with will likely go over that hill too. 

[Hardspoon]

3 hours ago, Fourputt said:

There must be a reasonable expectation that the ball may be lost.  Just hitting a ball in the rough shouldn't qualify unless your course maintains its rough like the US Open.  

 

3 hours ago, iacas said:

A ball you hit over a bump in a fairway but can't see is also not eligible to be "possibly lost."

There's got to be a believable chance it's lost.

Yeah, OK. I guess I always thought of it as "may be lost", which covers pretty much any situation where you can't see it. But the "reasonable possibility" part is stronger.

Anyone here ever see that situation occur? Can't imagine it ever being called.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Hardspoon said:

Yeah, OK. I guess I always thought of it as "may be lost", which covers pretty much any situation where you can't see it. But the "reasonable possibility" part is stronger.

Anyone here ever see that situation occur? Can't imagine it ever being called.

We had a kid in high school who was known to hit a lot of "provisionals." Truth be told he was just stretching the rules to take practice swings. The defense? His opponents developed keen eye sight from 270 yards away and would often say things like "I see your ball. It's fine."

[Grinde6]

11 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

 

Yeah, OK. I guess I always thought of it as "may be lost", which covers pretty much any situation where you can't see it. But the "reasonable possibility" part is stronger.

Anyone here ever see that situation occur? Can't imagine it ever being called.

But the rule itself only says "may be", its the decision that says "reasonable possibility", to me they conflict each other because they clearly mean something different.

[DaveP043]

8 minutes ago, Grinde6 said:

But the rule itself only says "may be", its the decision that says "reasonable possibility", to me they conflict each other because they clearly mean something different.

I don't agree.  The rule says if a certain condition is met (the ball may be lost or OB), you're allowed to play a provisional.  The decision clarifies the meaning of that condition, as most (maybe all?) of the decisions do for the rule they apply to.  I'm virtually certain that the Decision was made to address past issues where a player used a rather wide-reaching personal definition of "may be" to justify hitting too many provisionals, essentially using the provisionals as on-course practice.

[Grinde6]

1 minute ago, DaveP043 said:

I don't agree.  The rule says if a certain condition is met (the ball may be lost or OB), you're allowed to play a provisional.  The decision clarifies the meaning of that condition, as most (maybe all?) of the decisions do for the rule they apply to.  I'm virtually certain that the Decision was made to address past issues where a player used a rather wide-reaching personal definition of "may be" to justify hitting too many provisionals, essentially using the provisionals as on-course practice.

Don't agree with what?  That the words "may be" and "reasonable possibility" are 2 different meanings?  I believe most decisions are made to address past issues, as most rules are as well, but what I am saying is the rule says "may be", but the definition says "reasonable possibility" which carry two different meanings.

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, Grinde6 said:

Don't agree with what?  That the words "may be" and "reasonable possibility" are 2 different meanings?  I believe most decisions are made to address past issues, as most rules are as well, but what I am saying is the rule says "may be", but the definition says "reasonable possibility" which carry two different meanings.

"Reasonable possibility" further narrows the meaning of "may be", it doesn't conflict.  It takes the decision from one of maybe 20% chance of being  lost or OB to a requirement of something like 50% chance.

[iacas]

On July 13, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Grinde6 said:

Don't agree with what?  That the words "may be" and "reasonable possibility" are 2 different meanings?  I believe most decisions are made to address past issues, as most rules are as well, but what I am saying is the rule says "may be", but the definition says "reasonable possibility" which carry two different meanings.

The Decision defines what "may be" means in the Rule.

[awmgolfer]

We had an interesting one come up last year. We have a short par 4, very easy to drive the green for a little above average player. The guy in the group hit is tee shot and the group went to their next shot, they could not find one of the balls anywhere. He finally declared it lost and went back to the tee to hit again and since there was another smaller group waiting he hit his 3rd shot from the tee and they let the group play through. When the group playing through reached the green they discovered the guy's ball in the hole. We finally figured it out in the decisions that once the ball is holed out the hole is done, no matter what else happens after so he go the hole in one. It was an interesting one I had never come across before!