When is a Provisional Allowed?

[Schulzmc]

Rather than continue to sidetrack the other thread, I'll post this here. I contend you can legally hit a provisional after almost any shot. There are only two cases where you cannot:

 

1. The ball is known or virtually certain to be in a penalty area.

2. There is no chance the ball is lost in the general area.

 

So - if I stripe my drive and watch it land and roll, coming to rest in the middle of the fairway, I cannot hit a provisional as there is no chance my ball is lost. But if that same drive rolls to the rough at the end of the fairway and disappears from sight I am fully within my rights if I hit a provisional. Or if I play a shot to the green and see my ball hit and stop on the putting surface I cannot hit a provisional. But if the same shot trickles off the back of the green and is no longer visible a provisional would technically be allowed.

 

Correct?

 

And to be clear - I'm not suggesting you SHOULD hit a provisional in either of those cases, as in all probability you will find your ball and you just wasted time. But you COULD. 

[QEight]

5 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

So - if I stripe my drive and watch it land and roll, coming to rest in the middle of the fairway, I cannot hit a provisional as there is no chance my ball is lost. But if that same drive rolls to the rough at the end of the fairway and disappears from sight I am fully within my rights if I hit a provisional.

 

Your ball rolls in the middle of fairway but disappears behind a mound. Are you allowed to hit provisional?

[Schulzmc]

8 minutes ago, QEight said:

 

Your ball rolls in the middle of fairway but disappears behind a mound. Are you allowed to hit provisional?

If I determine that it might be lost - yes. 

 

We actually had a version of this happen yesterday. My friend hit is drive on a par four. The fairway connects with an adjoining hole, so it is very wide. He hit it far enough that it rolled over the hill - but we all were virtually certain the ball ended up in the fairway. Unfortunately when we crested the hill there was no ball in sight. He ended up walking back to the tee. A provisional would have saved a bunch of time. If he had said, "I'm going to hit a provisional" on the tee I'm pretty sure we all would have told him it was not needed. But he would have been within his rights in the rules to do so.

[Halebopp]

1.  But if that same drive rolls to the rough at the end of the fairway and disappears from sight I am fully within my rights if I hit a provisional.

 

- It would depend on the rough length. If there's a genuine possibility of losing balls in the rough, you have a valid reason to play a provisional ball. If the rough is short enough for balls to be easily found. There's no right to play a provisional ball.

 

2. But if the same shot trickles off the back of the green and is no longer visible a provisional would technically be allowed.

 

- It would depend on whether or not you know what's behind the green. If you fly your ball over the green and don't have a clue of what's behind the green, or you know the ball could be lost/OB, you can play a provisional ball. But if you know there's a bunker, short rough and teeing grounds for another hole and nowhere for the ball to be lost, you wouldn't have a right to play a provisional ball.

[Schulzmc]

3 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

1.  But if that same drive rolls to the rough at the end of the fairway and disappears from sight I am fully within my rights if I hit a provisional.

 

- It would depend on the rough length. If there's a genuine possibility of losing balls in the rough, you have a valid reason to play a provisional ball. If the rough is short enough for balls to be easily found. There's no right to play a provisional ball.

 

2. But if the same shot trickles off the back of the green and is no longer visible a provisional would technically be allowed.

 

- It would depend on whether or not you know what's behind the green. If you fly your ball over the green and don't have a clue of what's behind the green, or you know the ball could be lost/OB, you can play a provisional ball. But if you know there's a bunker, short rough and teeing grounds for another hole and nowhere for the ball to be lost, you wouldn't have a right to play a provisional ball.

OK - it is pretty clear we do not agree. I am interested to see what others have to say.

[sui generis]

"Might be lost" is a pretty low bar. 

 

As a referee, I would not be inclined to argue with a player who chose to play a provisional ball for one which "might be lost." (We have a duty to object when it appears that a player may be using 18.3 just to have a practice stroke. But, in twenty years, I've not seen that.) Indeed, once in awhile, I've suggested to a player that they consider playing a provisional.

[KevCarter]

In my humble opinion, the doubt as to whether the ball may be lost outside a penalty area rests solely with the player.

 

EDIT: my post is not needed as I was posting on top of my friend Sui genesis. I feel he nailed it.

18.3a/1 – When Player May Play Provisional Ball

When a player is deciding whether he or she is allowed to play a provisional ball, only the information that is known by the player at that time is considered.

Examples where a provisional ball may be played include when:

• The original ball might be in a penalty area, but it might also be lost outside a penalty areaor be out of bounds.

• A player believes the original ball came to rest in the general area and it might be lost. If it is later found in a penalty area within the three-minute search time, the player must abandon the provisional ball.

Edited October 17, 2022 by KevCarter

[QEight]

10 minutes ago, KevCarter said:

In my humble opinion, the doubt as to whether the ball may be lost outside a penalty area rests solely with the player.

If the ball is in the view but player insists? Ok, perhaps a bit extreme.. 

[KevCarter]

3 minutes ago, QEight said:

If the ball is in the view but player insists? Ok, perhaps a bit extreme.. 

 

My apologies QEight, if the ball is clearly in view, the player can't believe it's lost...

 

I just noticed this is being debated in another thread as well. I'm clearly behind, and should not have entered the discussion...

 

Cheers!

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, KevCarter said:

 

My apologies QEight, if the ball is clearly in view, the player can't believe it's lost...

 

I just noticed this is being debated in another thread as well. I'm clearly behind, and should not have entered the discussion...

 

Cheers!

 

Actually, this thread came about because of the other thread.

 

Ol' schulzie didn't want to derail that thread

 

No need really for this one though, as the other thread had 3 issues/questions. The 1st 2 were settled quite quickly but THIS was the 3rd, and the point of contention. 

 

 

[KevCarter]

33 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Actually, this thread came about because of the other thread.

 

Ol' schulzie didn't want to derail that thread

 

No need really for this one though, as the other thread had 3 issues/questions. The 1st 2 were settled quite quickly but THIS was the 3rd, and the point of contention. 

 

 

 

LOL, I'm even further behind than I thought! 😂 😎

[Colin L]

Good morning Kev.  Been doing a Rip Van Winkle then? 😃

[Colin L]

10 hours ago, sui generis said:

.......As a referee, I would not be inclined to argue with a player who chose to play a provisional ball for one which "might be lost."......

Absolutely.  I think too much emphasis is being placed on not allowing a provisional ball as if there were some unfair advantage to be gained from doing so.  A provisional ball is a time-saver, that's all.  20 seconds or so to play one and potentially save 4 or 5 minutes playing stroke and distance.  We often enough have to drive a player back and forwards because he hasn't played a provisional but mostly  it's been in circumstances we'll recognise as golfers ourselves of the player's  being caught out not finding a ball that he fully expected to find.

 

If it were blatantly obvious that a ball had gone into and stayed in a penalty area and a player plays a "provisional", that comes from lack of knowledge of the rule and can be sorted out.  If there's any chance the ball didn't stay in the penalty area and the player has any doubts about finding it outside it, let him get on with his provisional.  It could save time, and if it's not needed it's no different from a not needed provisional where a penalty area wasn't involved. 

 

 

[Halebopp]

3 minutes ago, Colin L said:

Absolutely.  I think too much emphasis is being placed on not allowing a provisional ball as if there were some unfair advantage to be gained from doing so.  A provisional ball is a time-saver, that's all.  20 seconds or so to play one and potentially save 4 or 5 minutes playing stroke and distance.  We often enough have to drive a player back and forwards because he hasn't played a provisional but mostly  it's been in circumstances we'll recognise as golfers ourselves of the player's  being caught out not finding a ball that he fully expected to find.

 

If it were blatantly obvious that a ball had gone into and stayed in a penalty area and a player plays a "provisional", that comes from lack of knowledge of the rule and can be sorted out.  If there's any chance the ball didn't stay in the penalty area and the player has any doubts about finding it outside it, let him get on with his provisional.  It could save time, and if it's not needed it's no different from a not needed provisional where a penalty area wasn't involved. 

 

I'm simply arguing the point that not seeing the ball come to rest does not automatically mean that a player is allowed to play a provisional ball. In my opinion it needs to be clarified to everyone not familiar with the rules to ensure they don't start thinking that not seeing the ball come to rest is enough of a reason for a provisional. 

 

I can only recall one time I've adviced a player to not play a provisional ball. It was obvious the player simply didn't know the course well and wasn't trying to game the system but I was there because the group had fell behind and I knew the only place in which the ball could be lost was a PA. Playing a provisional would've simply wasted more time.

[Colin L]

5 hours ago, Halebopp said:

 

I'm simply arguing the point that not seeing the ball come to rest does not automatically mean that a player is allowed to play a provisional ball.......

Ok, I wasn't aware of anyone saying that it did but I have to admit to not having  followed the "You said this" "Oh no I didn't"  spat that was going on.

[notarobot]

Another slight twist on this topic.

I am playing in a 4some, hit my tee shot on a par 3, looks like it could be heading toward a penalty area right of the green. 

I lose sight of the ball and don't know where it ended up.

I say I'm going to hit a provisional as I don't know where ball is.

Two of my fellow players say it definitely went into the penalty area so no provisional allowed.

Fourth guy says he wasn't paying attention.

(This is casual stroke play, not match)

So this comes back to whether it is solely the players decision to play a provisional or does KVC by fellow players that ball is in penalty area override?

(I played a provisional)

Furthermore, penalty area in question is very dense undergrowth, thorn bushes etc so unlikely to find ball in there.

Ball is not found either in penalty area or outside.

Fellow players say I can't proceed to play my provisional and must take a penalty drop.

(I had stiffed my provisional so almost a certain 4.)

So I guess my ultimate question is whether these decisions are the players to make, regardless of fellow players input.

 

[Schulzmc]

5 hours ago, Halebopp said:

I'm simply arguing the point that not seeing the ball come to rest does not automatically mean that a player is allowed to play a provisional ball. In my opinion it needs to be clarified to everyone not familiar with the rules to ensure they don't start thinking that not seeing the ball come to rest is enough of a reason for a provisional. 

 

And my point is the same one made by Colin L and sui generis above. The "might be lost" part of the rule is a low bar and gives broad latitude to the player. Certainly in the original thread the player whose ball skipped out of the penalty area and was not visible from the place where the shot was taken was well within his rights under the rules to play a provisional.

[Newby]

3 hours ago, notarobot said:

 

So I guess my ultimate question is whether these decisions are the players to make, regardless of fellow players input.

 

See Rule 1.3b(2)

Accepting Player’s “Reasonable Judgment” in Determining a Location When Applying the Rules.

So long as the player does what can be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make an accurate determination, the player’s reasonable judgment will be accepted even if, after the stroke is made, the determination is shown to be wrong by video evidence or other information.

[Halebopp]

3 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

 

And my point is the same one made by Colin L and sui generis above. The "might be lost" part of the rule is a low bar and gives broad latitude to the player. Certainly in the original thread the player whose ball skipped out of the penalty area and was not visible from the place where the shot was taken was well within his rights under the rules to play a provisional.

 

The original debate was, probably due to a misunderstanding, about whether or not a bar exists at all, not about where the bar is. But yes, we'll have to disagree. I wasn't there and don't know the true specifics of the situation, so I can't give a ruling on the issue. In my opinion there can be situations in which a ball can skip over the water and the player doesn't have a right to play a provisional ball. Just like there are several situations in which a player might not see the ball come to rest but still has no right to play a provisional ball.

[Schulzmc]

3 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

In my opinion there can be situations in which a ball can skip over the water and the player doesn't have a right to play a provisional ball. Just like there are several situations in which a player might not see the ball come to rest but still has no right to play a provisional ball.

 

I agree! What we probably disagree on is how common those situations are. In any case, thanks for the discussion. 

[Halebopp]

1 minute ago, Schulzmc said:

 

I agree! What we probably disagree on is how common those situations are. In any case, thanks for the discussion. 

 

Like I said, having refereed slightly more seriously for maybe six years, I've once told a player not to play a provisional ball and that was because the group had fell behind, I knew the ball could't be lost outside of a PA and the player obviously wasn't familiar with the course, so I wouldn't have penalised her anyway. I haven't had a single player ask for a ruling about it either. So, I don't think it's common at all.

[Schulzmc]

1 minute ago, Halebopp said:

So, I don't think it's common at all.

 

Then I am not sure what we were discussing! LOL - I guess that is the internet for you. 

[KevCarter]

9 hours ago, notarobot said:

Another slight twist on this topic.

I am playing in a 4some, hit my tee shot on a par 3, looks like it could be heading toward a penalty area right of the green. 

I lose sight of the ball and don't know where it ended up.

I say I'm going to hit a provisional as I don't know where ball is.

Two of my fellow players say it definitely went into the penalty area so no provisional allowed.

Fourth guy says he wasn't paying attention.

(This is casual stroke play, not match)

So this comes back to whether it is solely the players decision to play a provisional or does KVC by fellow players that ball is in penalty area override?

(I played a provisional)

Furthermore, penalty area in question is very dense undergrowth, thorn bushes etc so unlikely to find ball in there.

Ball is not found either in penalty area or outside.

Fellow players say I can't proceed to play my provisional and must take a penalty drop.

(I had stiffed my provisional so almost a certain 4.)

So I guess my ultimate question is whether these decisions are the players to make, regardless of fellow players input.

 

 

I think you are walking a tightrope with this line of thinking. Let's say instead of stiffing your "provisional" you follow your first one into the hazard. Now I think you would be dropping from the hazard hitting 5. How could you now claim KVC that your original ball was in the hazard? JAT 🙂

[antip]

7 hours ago, KevCarter said:

 

I think you are walking a tightrope with this line of thinking. Let's say instead of stiffing your "provisional" you follow your first one into the hazard. Now I think you would be dropping from the hazard hitting 5. How could you now claim KVC that your original ball was in the hazard? JAT 🙂

It comes down to conditions on the ground. There are many situations when you are much better placed to judge KVC after getting to the area the ball may be lost - especially on courses you do not know intimately.

[dmecca2]

https://firepitcollective.com/the-worst-q-school-dq-you-have-ever-heard-so-far/

 

Adding to this whole discussion, this just happened at the 2nd stage of Q school. Player hits a provisional for a ball that skipped through the hazard and went on the play the original ball and get DQ'd an hour after the round ended.

[wildcatden]

3 hours ago, dmecca2 said:

https://firepitcollective.com/the-worst-q-school-dq-you-have-ever-heard-so-far/

 

Adding to this whole discussion, this just happened at the 2nd stage of Q school. Player hits a provisional for a ball that skipped through the hazard and went on the play the original ball and get DQ'd an hour after the round ended.

 

Yes, saw this story on WRX as well. https://www.golfwrx.com/698420/pro-suffers-extremely-unusual-post-round-disqualification-at-q-school/

 

I do not understand why he was DQ'd.

 

[Dpavs]

27 minutes ago, wildcatden said:

 

Yes, saw this story on WRX as well. https://www.golfwrx.com/698420/pro-suffers-extremely-unusual-post-round-disqualification-at-q-school/

 

I do not understand why he was DQ'd.

 

 

I believe what the ruling is was that there were only two possible scenario's

1. The ball was lost in the hazard under which circumstances a provisional is not allowed.

2. The ball was not lost and was in play in the general area. In essence if it was not in the hazard it would not possibly have been lost.  So again under this scenario a provisional would not be allowed.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Dpavs

[Schulzmc]

Is it possible that the article is assuming he declared he was hitting a provisional, when in fact he did not and had put a second ball in play?

[Dpavs]

19 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

Is it possible that the article is assuming he declared he was hitting a provisional, when in fact he did not and had put a second ball in play?

 

If what you are saying is that he declared he was hitting a provisional but in fact a provisional was not allowed under the circumstances so in essence he put a second ball in play, then yes I think that is what was being indicated if I am reading it correctly.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Dpavs

[rogolf]

3 minutes ago, Dpavs said:

 

If what you are saying is that he declared he was hitting a provisional but in fact a provisional was allowed under the circumstances so in essence he put a second ball in play, then yes I think that is what was being indicated if I am reading it correctly.

Do you mean "but in fact a provisional was NOT allowed under the circumstances"?

Edited October 19, 2022 by rogolf