When is a Provisional Allowed?

[Dpavs]

8 minutes ago, rogolf said:

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

Yes.... typo'd that thanks! Fixed it now 🙂

 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Dpavs

[Augster]

Another moron professional golfer. 
 

If he knew the rules, he could have simply said that there was a CHANCE the ball MIGHT have ended up outside the PA AND it MIGHT be lost outside the PA.  

 

If he had said that, a provisional ball would have been completely legal. And he would have played correctly once he found his ball in the PA. No DQ. 
 

It’s just so sad that these guys are SO good at golf, and their rules knowledge is completely putrid. They should at least have a caddie that is a rules expert if they don’t want to put in the 1 hour of their life to get a grasp of the rules. 
 

Heck, they could just learn the Rules that end up in DQ. And most of those can be avoided by playing 2 balls when they are unsure and a ref isn’t around to help. 

[jlbos83]

1 hour 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?

It is certainly not clear from the article that he declared a provisional.  I have heard more than one person refer to a second ball off the tee as a "provisional", when it was not declared, or appropriate.  If he had declared a provisional I would find it surprising that he could be DQ'd without the rules officials asking him where it was possible that the original was lost outside the PA.  If he did not declare the provisional, then he was clearly in the wrong when he played the oringinal.

[Dpavs]

7 minutes ago, jlbos83 said:

It is certainly not clear from the article that he declared a provisional.  I have heard more than one person refer to a second ball off the tee as a "provisional", when it was not declared, or appropriate.  If he had declared a provisional I would find it surprising that he could be DQ'd without the rules officials asking him where it was possible that the original was lost outside the PA.  If he did not declare the provisional, then he was clearly in the wrong when he played the oringinal.

 

You are correct that it does not explicitly say that he declared he was hitting a provisional and then hit one but it is a pretty reasonable deduction given what was written in the article. Also it seems clear that the ruling that followed was that the provisional was not permitted under the circumstances.

 

...."He then hit a provisional, which according to rule 18.3 (a) is not permitted."

[Schulzmc]

1 hour ago, Dpavs said:

 

You are correct that it does not explicitly say that he declared he was hitting a provisional and then hit one but it is a pretty reasonable deduction given what was written in the article. Also it seems clear that the ruling that followed was that the provisional was not permitted under the circumstances.

 

...."He then hit a provisional, which according to rule 18.3 (a) is not permitted."

I'm not sure that was the ruling being quoted - I think it was just the assumption of the person who wrote the article.

[david.c.w]

What I find absolutely fascinating about discussions like this is how different everything looks depending on the point of view and the circumstances.  I am by no means a rule expert, and I like to read this forum to learn about how I can best play by the rules, and how the rules can help me.

 

I feel like there are 3 ways go look at this.

 

1)  How it looks in the rule book on a day-to-day basis.  To me it is pretty clear that if you are playing your normal game with your normal friends at your normal course, pretty much everyone will agree on if a ball might be lost in the general area.  Everyone knows the trouble spots and if there is a bush and if there is tall grass or a drop off into the crap or an OB line that cuts in.  From this point of view the rules are pretty clear and if a ball can't be seen but every knows the ball is literally just out of sight and there is a 99.9% chance the ball is right where everyone expects it to be.  The might be lost bar is very high

 

2)  How it looks to a rules official actually officiating a match or tournament.  All the players and officials may be new to the course, or it may be super firm or super wet and maybe some native areas that grew up were not there last year.  The might be lost bar drops significantly, partly for PoP and partly because everyone legitimately don't know where the ball may lay.  Someone earlier mentioned that in 20+ years they actually encourage provisionals, and nobody has used this rule to make an extra stroke that is really a practice stroke.

 

3)  The jerk competitor who uses every nuance in the book to try to gain an advantage.  This guy will try to lower the might be lost bar, but really he is just trying to be a PITA.  On our first hole a good drive will never be visible as shots end up over a hill.  A person can say "I cant see it, it might be lost, I am playing another", when he knows full well it is findable.   He is using the rule because he can, not because he needs to.  To me this is not in the spirit of the rules.  I personally was playing in a member guest against an actual judge from Chicago who, after hitting his drive 210 right down the middle, announced that he wanted to lift his ball to identify it.  Was he allowed to do so?  I guess.  Was it 100% gamesmanship to lift the ball and accidentally remove a spot of mud and maybe put the ball on a tuft of grass just next to where it really was?  Probably.  Or maybe it was because he wanted me to challenge him and get in a rules fight/discussion.   Either way, he knew it was his ball, and if he just bent down a little more, or asked me to help, he would not need to lift it.

 

Thanks to all of you who come and explain the rules to us.  I imagine it sometime can feel like you are arguing with a 3 year old.  😄

 

 

 

 

 

[jlbos83]

1 hour ago, Schulzmc said:

I'm not sure that was the ruling being quoted - I think it was just the assumption of the person who wrote the article.

I agree.  I don't think an official would disqualify someone based on another player's caddie saying well after the fact, "There's no way that ball could have been lost outside the PA", without discussing with the player, especially since it is almost completely up to the player to make that call.  On the other hand, if he did not declare provisional, and then played the original, the outcome is clear.  Though even then I would have thought one would ask the player if he believes he declared provisional.  Though if the official asked the others in the group and got the same answer from everyone (as to whether a provisional was declared), then the player's input probably isn't important.

 

IF the ball was declared provisional, and should not have been allowed, but the player believed it was, there was really no remedy available if no one said anything at the time.  I still learn toward the player screwing up and not declaring the provisional.  In that kind of situation I would think that you would want to be very clear any time you launched a second ball, and it would seem he wasn't.

[Schulzmc]

29 minutes ago, david.c.w said:

What I find absolutely fascinating about discussions like this is how different everything looks depending on the point of view and the circumstances.

Yeah - the more I think about this the more I think it is true. My home course has firm fairways and thick rough. After the first cut it can be a challenge at times to find a ball even if you know within a few square yards where it came to rest. This is especially true when the grass is longer... when we are preparing for a tournament or the wet conditions have prevented the staff from cutting it. On those days it is not uncommon to lose two or three balls per foursome per round. I can't imagine telling someone NOT to hit a provisional on those days, unless their ball was clearly in view. 

 

But for someone who regularly plays a course with short rough and almost never loses a ball except near a penalty area, I can see how they might think the bar is pretty high for a provisional to be hit. 

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, Dpavs said:

 

You are correct that it does not explicitly say that he declared he was hitting a provisional and then hit one but it is a pretty reasonable deduction given what was written in the article. Also it seems clear that the ruling that followed was that the provisional was not permitted under the circumstances.

 

...."He then hit a provisional, which according to rule 18.3 (a) is not permitted."

 

Sorry, but where did you get the boded part ? I don't see that in the article.

 

Seems to me the writer introduced a possibility and then proceeded to add it to the "discussion".

 

Also, based on the outcome, it seems pretty clear the player did NOT declare a provisional.

 

The DQ came from his playing the original ball and NOT playing the "(non-)provisional" ball, i.e. the ball (now) in play.

 

i.e. if the 2nd ball WAS a provisional he'd have been perfectly fine playing the ball from the PA since that's the ball he used for his score.

[Dpavs]

13 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Sorry, but where did you get the boded part ? I don't see that in the article.

 

Seems to me the writer introduced a possibility and then proceeded to add it to the "discussion".

 

Also, based on the outcome, it seems pretty clear the player did NOT declare a provisional.

 

The DQ came from his playing the original ball and NOT playing the "(non-)provisional" ball, i.e. the ball (now) in play.

 

i.e. if the 2nd ball WAS a provisional he'd have been perfectly fine playing the ball from the PA since that's the ball he used for his score.

 

 

Here is a longer section from the article which includes the text I put in bold....

 

As first reported by the Firepit Collective, while playing at the Plantation Preserve Golf Club in Plantation, Florida, Hall hit a shot that landed in the water left on his sixth hole of the day. He then hit a provisional, which according to rule 18.3 (a) is not permitted.

 

Here is the rule according to the USGA:

“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.

[Dpavs]

16 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

I'm not sure that was the ruling being quoted - I think it was just the assumption of the person who wrote the article.

 

If you look at the original Firepit Collective article... it also contains the below which would further support that the ruling was based on the fact that the player was aware that the only place the ball could have been lost was in the hazard if it was lost at all... therefore a provisional was not allowed.

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Dpavs

[MisterT]

15 hours ago, david.c.w said:

What I find absolutely fascinating about discussions like this is how different everything looks depending on the point of view and the circumstances.

Thanks to all of you who come and explain the rules to us.  I imagine it sometime can feel like you are arguing with a 3 year old.  😄

 

I couldn't agree more - Thanks folks!

Edited October 20, 2022 by MisterT

[nsxguy]

10 hours ago, Dpavs said:

 

If you look at the original Firepit Collective article... it also contains the below which would further support that the ruling was based on the fact that the player was aware that the only place the ball could have been lost was in the hazard if it was lost at all... therefore a provisional was not allowed.

 

 

I don't know the "credentials" of the writer of either article or where they got their facts/story. Or how expert they are (or not) of the ROG. All the accounts I've read are pretty much the same.

 

PROVISIONAL.

 

The crux of the matter seems to be whether or not he declared the 2nd ball a provisional. And while no account seems to state yes or no, there are assumptions that he did NOT.

 

If he did NOT, the 2nd ball is in play, the ball in the PA has no status and by playing it out of the PA and further into the hole, he played a wrong ball. Failing to correct his mistake before teeing off on 7 would no doubt be a serious breach and DQ.

 

IMO, this is the most likely scenario.

 

If he DID declare the 2nd ball a provisional,

 

a) IF permitted (which everyone in the other thread seems to believe is the case) the score with the original ball should have counted and there wouldn't have been a DQ.

 

b) If NOT permitted, the 2nd ball would've been a wrong ball(?) and the player WOULD HAVE been able to play his original and been penalized 2 shots(?) for hitting a wrong ball and would've been fine with playing the original, adding 2 shots for the wrong ball.

 

However, NOT adding the 2 shot WB penalty, he still could have been DQ'd for signing a scorecard for a score lower than he made. But since he didn't know he'd broken a rule I think the committee could hit him with the 1 shot WB penalty and 2 shots for the incorrect scorecard but not DQ him.

 

I expect I may not have all the details correct, especially about the timing of the signing of the scorecard, eth correctness of same and the options available to the committee - so hopefully someone will chime in on correctness (or not), of same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Halebopp]

8 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

I don't know the "credentials" of the writer of either article or where they got their facts/story. Or how expert they are (or not) of the ROG. All the accounts I've read are pretty much the same.

 

PROVISIONAL.

 

The crux of the matter seems to be whether or not he declared the 2nd ball a provisional. And while no account seems to state yes or no, there are assumptions that he did NOT.

 

If he did NOT, the 2nd ball is in play, the ball in the PA has no status and by playing it out of the PA and further into the hole, he played a wrong ball. Failing to correct his mistake before teeing off on 7 would no doubt be a serious breach and DQ.

 

IMO, this is the most likely scenario.

 

If he DID declare the 2nd ball a provisional,

 

a) IF permitted (which everyone in the other thread seems to believe is the case) the score with the original ball should have counted and there wouldn't have been a DQ.

 

b) If NOT permitted, the 2nd ball would've been a wrong ball(?) and the player WOULD HAVE been able to play his original and been penalized 2 shots(?) for hitting a wrong ball and would've been fine with playing the original, adding 2 shots for the wrong ball.

 

However, NOT adding the 2 shot WB penalty, he still could have been DQ'd for signing a scorecard for a score lower than he made. But since he didn't know he'd broken a rule I think the committee could hit him with the 1 shot WB penalty and 2 shots for the incorrect scorecard but not DQ him.

 

I expect I may not have all the details correct, especially about the timing of the signing of the scorecard, eth correctness of same and the options available to the committee - so hopefully someone will chime in on correctness (or not), of same.

 

From the information provided we can pretty safely assume three things. The player played two balls off the tee, he finished the hole only with the first ball played off the tee and the player was disqualified.

 

Those facts make it quite clear the second ball was the ball in play and the first ball was a Wrong Ball. There are two possible reasons for this to happen. Either the player didn't declare the second ball a provisional ball and therefore it was automatically the ball in play, or the player had no right to play a provisional ball as there was no chance of the original ball being OB or lost outside of a PA, in which case the provisional ball is in fact a new ball in play under S&D relief, regardless of what the player wants it to be.

[Dpavs]

12 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

I don't know the "credentials" of the writer of either article or where they got their facts/story. Or how expert they are (or not) of the ROG. All the accounts I've read are pretty much the same.

 

PROVISIONAL.

 

The crux of the matter seems to be whether or not he declared the 2nd ball a provisional. And while no account seems to state yes or no, there are assumptions that he did NOT.

 

If he did NOT, the 2nd ball is in play, the ball in the PA has no status and by playing it out of the PA and further into the hole, he played a wrong ball. Failing to correct his mistake before teeing off on 7 would no doubt be a serious breach and DQ.

 

IMO, this is the most likely scenario.

 

If he DID declare the 2nd ball a provisional,

 

a) IF permitted (which everyone in the other thread seems to believe is the case) the score with the original ball should have counted and there wouldn't have been a DQ.

 

b) If NOT permitted, the 2nd ball would've been a wrong ball(?) and the player WOULD HAVE been able to play his original and been penalized 2 shots(?) for hitting a wrong ball and would've been fine with playing the original, adding 2 shots for the wrong ball.

 

However, NOT adding the 2 shot WB penalty, he still could have been DQ'd for signing a scorecard for a score lower than he made. But since he didn't know he'd broken a rule I think the committee could hit him with the 1 shot WB penalty and 2 shots for the incorrect scorecard but not DQ him.

 

I expect I may not have all the details correct, especially about the timing of the signing of the scorecard, eth correctness of same and the options available to the committee - so hopefully someone will chime in on correctness (or not), of same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the article is correct then I assume that 18.1 came into play. So basically he declared he was hitting a provisional but a provisional was not allowed in his situation under the rules. The result was he had effectively taken stroke and distance relief under 18.1 and his original ball is no longer in play even if found later. Playing a wrong ball came into play afterwards when he reverted to his original ball.

 

18.1  Relief Under Penalty of Stroke and Distance Allowed at Any Time

At any time, you may take stroke-and-distance relief. Once you put another ball in play under penalty of stroke and distance, your original ball is no longer in play and must not be played. This is true even if your original ball is then found on the course before the end of the three-minute search time.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Dpavs

[Imp]

On 10/17/2022 at 2:38 PM, Schulzmc said:

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. 

Just like to add there's another lesser known caveat to the above and that's if MLR B-3 was in effect when it comes to balls hit near penalty areas on some courses. 

Carry on.

[Imp]

On 10/19/2022 at 5:16 PM, Schulzmc said:

Yeah - the more I think about this the more I think it is true. My home course has firm fairways and thick rough. After the first cut it can be a challenge at times to find a ball even if you know within a few square yards where it came to rest. This is especially true when the grass is longer... when we are preparing for a tournament or the wet conditions have prevented the staff from cutting it. On those days it is not uncommon to lose two or three balls per foursome per round. I can't imagine telling someone NOT to hit a provisional on those days, unless their ball was clearly in view. 

 

But for someone who regularly plays a course with short rough and almost never loses a ball except near a penalty area, I can see how they might think the bar is pretty high for a provisional to be hit. 

Playing a course a couple days ago, the rough would swallow a ball up easy and you could walk over it 2-3 times. "I know it was hit around here" just 4 paces off the green. (Hilton Head National)

[Imp]

Also, IIRC either JT or Spieth played a provisional off the tee one time after slicing a ball wide right, masters a couple years ago? The ball was seen by TV/spectators, but declared a provisional anyways.  

Edited October 21, 2022 by Imp

[hammersia]

Just to mention that I saw four time European tour winner Soren Kjeldsen tug his drive into the rough on the 14th At Turnberry in the 2009 Open. 

The fairway marshal signaled that the ball was ok.

To the surprise of myself and other spectators he declared he was playing a provisional. 

 

I guess - 

a) That he was using the excuse that the marshal had made a mistake and might have misidentified his ball.

b) That he wanted to iron out his swing with a practice shot.

 

Don't know if that contributes anything to the thread or not.

Edited October 21, 2022 by hammersia

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, Dpavs said:

 

If the article is correct then I assume that 18.1 came into play. So basically he declared he was hitting a provisional but a provisional was not allowed in his situation under the rules. The result was he had effectively taken stroke and distance relief under 18.1 and his original ball is no longer in play even if found later. Playing a wrong ball came into play afterwards when he reverted to his original ball.]

 

You say he wasn't allowed to hit a provisional. Can you quote the rule for such a situation ? Also where it says, if one does so, he has (effectively) taken S&D".

 

Did you read the other thread about this particular situation ?

 

18.3  Provisional Ball
a. When Provisional Ball Is Allowed

If your ball might be lost outside a penalty area or be out of bounds, to save time you may play another ball provisionally under penalty of stroke and distance.

 

If not, please do. It's been stated "might" is an awfully low bar. Would you agree ?

 

I looked, but could not find, what happens when a player declares and hits a provisional when he's NOT permitted to. Hopefully somebody can find that and let us know.

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, Imp said:

Also, IIRC either JT or Spieth played a provisional off the tee one time after slicing a ball wide right, masters a couple years ago? The ball was seen by TV/spectators, but declared a provisional anyways.  

 

This brings up an interesting point, even though we're not talking here about an event with spectators, officials, marshals, etc. and is  therefore different from everyday and even most(?) competition play.

 

Do you know whether or not a spotter/marshal/whatever, went over and marked the spot with one of those little flags ?

 

And if so, what is the responsibility (penalty ?) to the player if he gets a signal the ball has been marked IN bounds and hits a provisional anyway ?

 

TIA

[rogolf]

15 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

You say he wasn't allowed to hit a provisional. Can you quote the rule for such a situation ? Also where it says, if one does so, he has (effectively) taken S&D".

 

Did you read the other thread about this particular situation ?

 

If not, please do. It's been stated "might" is an awfully low bar. Would you agree ?

 

I looked, but could not find, what happens when a player declares and hits a provisional when he's NOT permitted to. Hopefully somebody can find that and let us know.

From Rule 18.3a,

"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 and a ball played from where the previous stroke was made becomes the player’s ball in play under penalty of stroke and distance (see Rule 18.1). "

[nsxguy]

2 minutes ago, rogolf said:

From Rule 18.3a,

"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 and a ball played from where the previous stroke was made becomes the player’s ball in play under penalty of stroke and distance (see Rule 18.1). "

 

Thank you - must have overlooked that part. 👍

 

So let me ask you then. I think, in the other thread, the point was brought up that a player tracks his ball, sees it land and roll, and still see it in the fairway, but declares a provisional and hits same anyway.

 

Ruling ?

 

[rogolf]

20 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Thank you - must have overlooked that part. 👍

 

So let me ask you then. I think, in the other thread, the point was brought up that a player tracks his ball, sees it land and roll, and still see it in the fairway, but declares a provisional and hits same anyway.

 

Ruling ?

 

My ruling - the situation does not satisfy the conditions for a provisional ball.  The player has proceeded under Rule 18.1, stroke and distance.  The second ball is his ball in play.  Announcing a provisional does not always make it a provisional.

[Schulzmc]

3 hours ago, rogolf said:

My ruling - the situation does not satisfy the conditions for a provisional ball.  The player has proceeded under Rule 18.1, stroke and distance.  The second ball is his ball in play.  Announcing a provisional does not always make it a provisional.

Just curious - since a provisional was not allowed, why wouldn't the "provisional" be considered practicing during a round and the player given the general penalty?

[rogolf]

3 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

Just curious - since a provisional was not allowed, why wouldn't the "provisional" be considered practicing during a round and the player given the general penalty?

As I said, it was "my ruling".  Didn't say it was correct, although my view of practicing is making a stroke without intending that stroke be part of my score.

 

[Augster]

“Practice” on the course is just that, practice. 
 

Declaring an illegal provisional ball is just that, declaring a provisional ball. 
 

Intent the difference. 
 

Proceeding incorrectly is not practice. Practice is practice.