rogolf

"Likely to be" is where your drive would normally end up. If your provisional was hit like the first tee shot, it is within the area where your original is likely to be.

In my opinion, while you are trying to be simple, your reference to "in accordance with the Rules", "fairly taking a firmly footed stance", "lightly grounding a club" will lead right back to the Rules which you are trying to simplify. If you want principles, read Tufts' book.

Rather than trying to create something new, use the Quick Guide to the Rules of Golf at the front of the Rule book.

Please provide a list of these courses so I can avoid going to them - I hate those "nubbie" shoes, they leave marks worse than soft spikes.

Unless it was the player himself (or his caddie or partner) that made it worse.

If he allows it, even tacitly, you've caused him to incur a penalty. Just don't put him at risk. If I'm a referee and see you doing it, you'll be talked to and besides a penalty for him, you're risking a DQ for yourself.

Yes, it is a Rules breach and the penalty is applied to the player whose line of play (or putt) you improved (the line of putt is a subset of line of play). See below: 13-2. Improving Lie, Area of Intended Stance or Swing, or Line of Play A player must not improve or allow to be improved: his line of play or a reasonable extension of that line beyond the hole, or

The purpose of the Rules is not to prevent cheating, it is to define how the game is to be played. The one-ball condition should never be implemented to "prevent cheating". That approach takes a dim view of all the other players.

Cheaters cheat regardless of the Rules. Imo, the one-ball condition has outlived its purpose(s), if it ever had any.

Doesn't qualify as a "high-level" or "elite, skilled" competition imo. It's a trap for the players.

I would use ignorant, irresponsible or some other synonyms to describe any Committee that implemented that condition of competition for a junior tournament (other than perhaps the USGA Jr).

We paint the ground around the stake white, like a donut around the base of the stake. Identifies where the stake is meant to be. Not much different than a dot. I have used dots on asphalt as posts to minimize painting anything that is permanent.

According to Taylor Swift "Haters gonna hate."

Further to Colin's post - if your original ball is not found within 5 minutes of beginning to search for it, or it is not known or virtually certain, within that 5 minutes, that another player played your original a ball, your original ball is lost and you must continue with the provisional.

My suspicion is that he was "virtually certain" that the ball was in the water hazard because he couldn't find it anywhere else, which doesn't meet the standard established in 26-1/1.

"May" is a broad word and purposely used in Rule 27-2a, and further clarified by the Decisions.

See Decision 27-2a/2.2

After re-reading Eric's message, I don't think he is saying anything different than what I tried to say. If you were to announce "I'm playing a provisional as my ball may be lost outside a water hazard" when it is not virtually certain that your ball is in a water hazard, your opponent/FC will have no recourse - you are correctly playing a provisional. You do not need their "permission" to play a provisional. "May" is very broad.

No search is necessary, and, as Rule 27-1 says, a player may proceed under stroke and distance at any time. The tricky part is if you want to play a provisional instead of proceeding directly under stroke and distance. You can only play a provisional for a ball which may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds, and you must announce that you are playing a provisional (use the word provisional). If your original ball is then found, regardless of whether its in a water hazard or outside a water hazard, you must abandon the provisional ball and continue with the original. If it is known or virtually certain (not your own "virtually certain", but as explained in Decision 26-1/1) that your original ball is in a water hazard, you are not entitled to play a provisional. If you do play another ball when it is known or virtually certain that your original ball is in a water hazard (or lateral water hazard), your original ball is lost and your second ball is the ball in play under penalty of stroke and distance. In that case, even if you find your original ball, either in or out of the water hazard, it's irrelevant and you must continue with the second ball.

Imo, you proceeded correctly. It was not known or virtually certain that your ball was in the water hazard. Read Decision 26-1/1 for the standard to establish knowledge or virtual certainty. It's not whether you personally are certain, it's an analysis of the situation and surrounding conditions.

Imo, the player would have to find the ball in the hazard area to convince me that it crossed at A. Without finding the ball, it's a lost ball.

One of the announcers on TV (Ian BF?) has been saying that dropping is going to be eliminated for a few years now. Obviously, that's wrong. Consider the source.

It's a total of at least three strokes, often time four strokes. That is significant. I understand that if this should happen on the PGA Tour and the player previously had made the cut without the penalty strokes and missed the cut with them, he would be judged MC immediately, even if he was on the course during the 3rd/4th round. When the ruling bodies review the Rules, they likely ask themselves "do we like the outcome that a breach of this Rule gives?" If the answer is no, then they look at ways to produce an outcome that is more to their liking. And they are given lots of feedback on the outcomes!

That's not "inadvertent" and does not meet the "narrow circumstances" required, therefore penalized.

Only the course Committee knows what local Rule they were following? It's not the one recommended by the ruling bodies and it's not the Rule (25-1) for ground under repair.