Why’d they get rid of “goes forward to search”?

[nsxguy]

12 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

What triggered my interest in this issue was the claim that a player is entitled to hit a PB every time he does not have visual contact with that ball. I disagree with that argument for the very reason that a PB is to be hit in order to save time in cases where there is a chance the original ball (OB) may (or might, if you prefer) be lost. I have presented some examples already but I will assemble by reasoning in three more.

 

1) A wide and straight fairway with a small undulation in the middle. A player hits a straight drive and the ball lands on the fairway and just rolls out of sight into that undulation. That ball cannot be seen but it can only be lost if someone or something could take the ball and transport it away without anybody seeing it. Is hitting a PB in this case justified?

 

2) Same as in 1) but there is a bunker in the middle of the fairway. Everyone in the group sees the ball rolls into the bunker. That ball cannot be seen but it can only be lost if someone or something could take the ball and transport it away without anybody seeing it. Is hitting a PB in this case justified?

 

3) An elevated green and the hole cannot be seen from the 20 meters a player is making his chip. A good chip and the ball rolls towards the pin with a nice pace, not too fast. That ball cannot be seen but it can only be lost if someone or something could take the ball and transport it away without anybody seeing it. Is hitting a PB in this case justified?

 

My view is that PB is not justified in any of those situations as there is no real chance the OB might be lost. Some posters here say there is a chance, or at least they say the player is entitled to hit a PB because they have no visual contact with the ball. I disagree with that. Rogolf obviously agrees with those posters as the did not want to take a stand but only quoted the wordings from the Rules. In my book that is not taking a stand but this is again an issue one can have different views on.

 

I had a chat with two experienced fellow referees on this. Both said they would not allow a player to hit a PB in any of those situations because there is no real possibility for the OB to be lost. This is despite the wording in the Rules but because of the purpose (essence) of the Rule. I guess they must be wrong and besserwissers as well.

 

Well Mr. Bean.

 

You are an official and have far more experience in "interpreting" and enforcing the Rules than I do (which is to say almost none).

 

That said, the sentence itself leaves nothing open to interpretation. IMO of course. If you lose sight of the golf ball it might be lost (or OB).

 

As for the 3 situations you speak of, I agree that virtually no one would hit a provisional in those cases (and in many others) unless they were trying to "practice".

 

Then again, I've been playing an awfully long time now and I have seen plenty of golf balls end up in some awfully strange places (if they were found at all).

 

Especially other than, AND much further away from, where they "should" have been.

 

And lost when they should have been found.

 

[2bGood]

26 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

What triggered my interest in this issue was the claim that a player is entitled to hit a PB every time he does not have visual contact with that ball. I disagree with that argument for the very reason that a PB is to be hit in order to save time in cases where there is a chance the original ball (OB) may (or might, if you prefer) be lost. I have presented some examples already but I will assemble by reasoning in three more.

 

1) A wide and straight fairway with a small undulation in the middle. A player hits a straight drive and the ball lands on the fairway and just rolls out of sight into that undulation. That ball cannot be seen but it can only be lost if someone or something could take the ball and transport it away without anybody seeing it. Is hitting a PB in this case justified?

 

2) Same as in 1) but there is a bunker in the middle of the fairway. Everyone in the group sees the ball rolls into the bunker. That ball cannot be seen but it can only be lost if someone or something could take the ball and transport it away without anybody seeing it. Is hitting a PB in this case justified?

 

3) An elevated green and the hole cannot be seen from the 20 meters a player is making his chip. A good chip and the ball rolls towards the pin with a nice pace, not too fast. That ball cannot be seen but it can only be lost if someone or something could take the ball and transport it away without anybody seeing it. Is hitting a PB in this case justified?

 

My view is that PB is not justified in any of those situations as there is no real chance the OB might be lost. Some posters here say there is a chance, or at least they say the player is entitled to hit a PB because they have no visual contact with the ball. I disagree with that. Rogolf obviously agrees with those posters as the did not want to take a stand but only quoted the wordings from the Rules. In my book that is not taking a stand but this is again an issue one can have different views on.

 

I had a chat with two experienced fellow referees on this. Both said they would not allow a player to hit a PB in any of those situations because there is no real possibility for the OB to be lost. This is despite the wording in the Rules but because of the purpose (essence) of the Rule. I guess they must be wrong and besserwissers as well.

....cases where there is a chance the original ball (OB) may (or might, if you prefer) be lost.

 

Might is what the rules say so it has nothing to do with preference. I am not sure why you keep wanting to dodge around the term might.

 

Again what do you think the word might means? Ricky Fowler might win the PGA, I might inherit $10M this week, I might get a hole in one today, a ball might be lost if you don't know where it is. Might is a very low bar. 

 

 

 

 

[nsxguy]

On 5/13/2021 at 6:22 PM, Mr. Bean said:

 

So... if you sink a long 10-yard putt you cannot be sure where your ball is because you cannot see it..? Sure. Tell me more. 😂😂😂😂😂

 

On 5/13/2021 at 6:30 PM, 2bGood said:

No one was talking about putts if you can see the ball finish in the hole you 100% certainty of where it is.

 

[Mr. Bean]

47 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

....cases where there is a chance the original ball (OB) may (or might, if you prefer) be lost.

 

Might is what the rules say so it has nothing to do with preference. I am not sure why you keep wanting to dodge around the term might.

 

Again what do you think the word might means? Ricky Fowler might win the PGA, I might inherit $10M this week, I might get a hole in one today, a ball might be lost if you don't know where it is. Might is a very low bar. 

 

 

As we are speaking of the Rules of Golf it is sometimes very dangerous to cling oneself to a single word as that might (!!) lead one astray.

 

The word 'might' refers to a probability, i.e. something is 'possible'. In mathematics probabilities are expressed by numbers and anything over zero is possible. Afa PB is concerned the purpose of the Rule in question has to be taken into the equation and that is my entire point.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

As we are speaking of the Rules of Golf it is sometimes very dangerous to cling oneself to a single word as that might (!!) lead one astray.

 

The word 'might' refers to a probability, i.e. something is 'possible'. In mathematics probabilities are expressed by numbers and anything over zero is possible. Afa PB is concerned the purpose of the Rule in question has to be taken into the equation and that is my entire point.

 

If they came up with KVC @ 95% likely I wonder why they didn't come up with a term and/or a percentage of possibility/probability for hitting a provisional ?

 

Or even use KVC.

 

Or do you think they're thinking was it wasn't necessary as "might" was good enough ?

[Mr. Bean]

40 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

If they came up with KVC @ 95% likely I wonder why they didn't come up with a term and/or a percentage of possibility/probability for hitting a provisional ?

 

 

My guess is that they could not even imagine anyone would challenge the idea that a PB is only to be hit when necessary.

 

But I tell you what. Next time you go out to play and you hit your ball to a place where you cannot see it but you are 110% sure you will find it, tell your group you are going to hit a PB because your ball might be lost because you cannot see it. Let us know what they said.

 

P.S. In 2018 the Definition in the Rules said that a ball is out of bounds if all of it lies out of bounds. However, a ball touching the invisible margin of the course from the outside was considered to be in bounds even though all of that ball lies out of bounds. How could (and still can) that be possible as the Definition clearly said the ball is out of bounds..?

 

I brought this up only to show you that the Rules do not always tell us everything with the text but one must know what the text is meant to mean.

[2bGood]

20 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

.

 

But I tell you what. Next time you go out to play and you hit your ball to a place where you cannot see it but you are 110% sure you will find it, tell your group you are going to hit a PB because your ball might be lost because you cannot see it. Let us know what they said.

 

 

 

If you are 100% certain (or 110%) then you know the location of your ball and you can't say it might  be lost. By the rules you can not play a provisional. So really easy to answer what should happen in this case.

 

How about this - go out hit a provisional and when you think there is a 5% chance the ball is lost and see if any rule official will penalise you for it.

 

 

 

 

[Colin L]

46 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

But I tell you what. Next time you go out to play and you hit your ball to a place where you cannot see it but you are 110% sure you will find it, tell your group you are going to hit a PB because your ball might be lost because you cannot see it. Let us know what they said.

That's even worse than a reduction to the absurd.   All you are saying is that a breach of a rule is a breach of a rule.

[Mr. Bean]

25 minutes ago, Colin L said:

That's even worse than a reduction to the absurd.   All you are saying is that a breach of a rule is a breach of a rule.

 

So you agree that is not allowed to hit a provisional ball just because you do not see your original ball?

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

 

If you are 100% certain (or 110%) then you know the location of your ball and you can't say it might  be lost. By the rules you can not play a provisional. So really easy to answer what should happen in this case.

 

 

I am glad you have seen the light and changed your earlier view. Thank you.

[Augster]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

My guess is that they could not even imagine anyone would challenge the idea that a PB is only to be hit when necessary.

 

But I tell you what. Next time you go out to play and you hit your ball to a place where you cannot see it but you are 110% sure you will find it, tell your group you are going to hit a PB because your ball might be lost because you cannot see it. Let us know what they said.

 

P.S. In 2018 the Definition in the Rules said that a ball is out of bounds if all of it lies out of bounds. However, a ball touching the invisible margin of the course from the outside was considered to be in bounds even though all of that ball lies out of bounds. How could (and still can) that be possible as the Definition clearly said the ball is out of bounds..?

 

I brought this up only to show you that the Rules do not always tell us everything with the text but one must know what the text is meant to mean.

You’re kidding about “110% sure” right? That would be a KNOWN location. 
 

WE are talking about the word MIGHT. Even if a situation has a 1/1000 chance of happening, it still isn’t 100%. If there is a 1/1000 chance of something happening, it MIGHT happen. At 100%, it can’t happen as the result is already known. 

[Mr. Bean]

5 minutes ago, Augster said:

1) You’re kidding about “110% sure” right? That would be a KNOWN location. 
 

2) WE are talking about the word MIGHT. Even if a situation has a 1/1000 chance of happening, it still isn’t 100%. If there is a 1/1000 chance of something happening, it MIGHT happen. At 100%, it can’t happen as the result is already known. 

 

1) If you cannot see the ball but you are 110% sure you can find it, how can you know the location of that ball?

 

2) Not sure what YOU are talking about but I am protesting against the view presented here (by yourself, amongst others) that ANY ball that cannot be seen MIGHT be lost.

 

Oh, and where exactly is it said in the Rules that you are not allowed to hit a PB if you KNOW where your ball is? That is one of the arguments I have read here, i.e. the Rule does not forbid a PB to be hit if you cannot SEE your ball...

Edited May 19, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

It is past midnight so I shall tuck in now. I hope to have Colin's answer to my question by tomorrow. He knows the Rules so my question should be an easy one to answer.

 

Good night to you all.

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So you agree that is not allowed to hit a provisional ball just because you do not see your original ball?

I am saying that your man who is 100% certain of the location of his ball cannot play a provisional because he is completely confident that the original  might not be lost.  

[Augster]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

I am saying that your man who is 100% certain of the location of his ball cannot play a provisional because he is completely confident that the original  might not be lost.  

This exactly. 
 

If a player KNOWS his ball will be found 100% of the time, he can not legally play a PB. This includes times the player cannot see the ball, but “knows” he will find it. 
 

But, if a player cannot see his ball in play and has ANY doubt he will find the ball, that is, it “might be lost or OB” , he most certainly can play a PB legally. 
 

 

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

My guess is that they could not even imagine anyone would challenge the idea that a PB is only to be hit when necessary.

 

But I tell you what. Next time you go out to play and you hit your ball to a place where you cannot see it but you are 110% sure you will find it, tell your group you are going to hit a PB because your ball might be lost because you cannot see it. Let us know what they said.

 

P.S. In 2018 the Definition in the Rules said that a ball is out of bounds if all of it lies out of bounds. However, a ball touching the invisible margin of the course from the outside was considered to be in bounds even though all of that ball lies out of bounds. How could (and still can) that be possible as the Definition clearly said the ball is out of bounds..?

 

I brought this up only to show you that the Rules do not always tell us everything with the text but one must know what the text is meant to mean.

 

 

Are you a politician ? If not, you ought to consider giving it a try.

 

You take one small sentence/word that couldn't be more clear and twist and turn until it no longer bears any resemblance to what it actually says.

 

I guess next we'll have to discuss what the meaning of "is" is.

 

I mean good grief, does it pain you so much to be wrong not be right about something ? 🙃

 

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by nsxguy

[Mr. Bean]

15 hours ago, Augster said:

This exactly. 
 

If a player KNOWS his ball will be found 100% of the time, he can not legally play a PB. This includes times the player cannot see the ball, but “knows” he will find it. 
 

But, if a player cannot see his ball in play and has ANY doubt he will find the ball, that is, it “might be lost or OB” , he most certainly can play a PB legally. 
 

 

 

This is what I have been saying all along. I am glad we all now agree.

[rogolf]

We all might agree on what the Rule says, but still might not agree on a common interpretation of what the Rule says.

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

This is what I have been saying all along. I am glad we all now agree.

That is so breathtakingly  outrageous,   one can only laugh.😄 `

Edited May 20, 2021 by Colin L

[Halebopp]

What's going on here? Skimming through the thread it seems like people are objecting to the idea that merely not seeing the ball isn't enough of a reason to play a ball provisionally. Seeing the ball is not a determining factor on whether or not a player is allowed to play a ball provisionally, the rule only cares about whether or not the ball might be lost.

 

"If a ball might be lost outside a penalty area or be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally... But if the player is aware that the only possible place the original ball could be lost is in a penalty area, a provisional ball is not allowed..."

 

For example, when a player hits a dead-straight shot right down the middle of a familiar, dead-straight fairway with a little crest blocking the view to the landing area, the player isn't allowed to play a provisional ball because the player knows the ball cannot be lost despite the fact the player can't see the ball.

There needs to be some element that can make the player think the ball is lost, such as unfamiliarity with the course. Thinking about one case in which I hit a provisional for a ball that was found lying on the fairway was after barely carrying over a bunker protecting the inside corner of a dogleg. All I could see off the tee was long hay left of and behind the bunker and lacking local knowledge, there was a possibility the ball could be lost in the hay.

[Augster]

This thread has taken a turn into the twilight zone.