How.. Provisional?

[TwistedSister]

So explain this to me... How does Rahm get to hit a provisional when they know his ball is in a TIO?  If he is not required to find it to get a free drop then why does he get to hit a provisional when it would serve NO purpose?

[Mr. Bean]

Beats me. There must be something more to the story.

[TwistedSister]

1 minute ago, Mr. Bean said:

Beats me. There must be something more to the story.

Well,  if you don't have an explanation then I feel like my question wasn't too silly!  Thanx

[Abh159]

They said on TV the players may not have known it was TIO

[TwistedSister]

Just now, Abh159 said:

They said on TV the players may not have known it was TIO

There was a tour official right there on the tee with them!

[Abh159]

1 minute ago, TwistedSister said:

There was a tour official right there on the tee with them!

Well then I guess Rham is a cheater and the PGA Tour and their rules officials are a part of one big conspiracy theory. 

 

I’m not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for… If the players didn’t know and no one said anything to them then hitting a provisional is perfectly fine. 

[rogolf]

I suppose that "they" knew (whoever "they" are), but obviously the player did not know and thought it might be lost outside a penalty area.

 

[TwistedSister]

9 minutes ago, Abh159 said:

Well then I guess Rham is a cheater and the PGA Tour and their rules officials are a part of one big conspiracy theory. 

 

I’m not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for… If the players didn’t know and no one said anything to them then hitting a provisional is perfectly fine. 

Well I was looking for definitive answer fromm one of the rules gurus.  Got one reply and even he did not know for sure.  Surely wasnt accusing Rahm of cheating.  Was sure the Reed bashers would chime in eventually.

[Mr. Bean]

8 minutes ago, rogolf said:

I suppose that "they" knew (whoever "they" are), but obviously the player did not know and thought it might be lost outside a penalty area.

 

 

That is a valid assumption, and constitutes "more to the story".

[Mr. Bean]

Simply to give some comfort to @TwistedSister, on the course things are SOOOO much more clear as one may collect necessary available information and build one's ruling on that. Trying to give a correct ruling in a case where necessary pieces are missing is sheer lottery and speculation. Nothing wrong to pose such questions on forums like this but one needs to be aware that the answer(s) may vary and the ultimate truth escapes.

[TwistedSister]

49 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

Simply to give some comfort to @TwistedSister, on the course things are SOOOO much more clear as one may collect necessary available information and build one's ruling on that. Trying to give a correct ruling in a case where necessary pieces are missing is sheer lottery and speculation. Nothing wrong to pose such questions on forums like this but one needs to be aware that the answer(s) may vary and the ultimate truth escapes.

Thanx...

[DaveLeeNC]

Here is a bit of extra info from Golf Digest regarding this situation. dave

 

Jon Rahm made no apologies for TIO relief that riled up Golf Twitter on Saturday at Riviera | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest

[TwistedSister]

8 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

Here is a bit of extra info from Golf Digest regarding this situation. dave

 

Jon Rahm made no apologies for TIO relief that riled up Golf Twitter on Saturday at Riviera | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest

That was not my issue.  I saw nothing wrong with the TIO.  My issue which seems to be borne out by Rahm in the article is if he was almost sire it was a TIO he should not have beem able to hit a provisional within the rules since he knew he would be entitled to free relief.

[DaveLeeNC]

4 minutes ago, TwistedSister said:

That was not my issue.  I saw nothing wrong with the TIO.  My issue which seems to be borne out by Rahm in the article is if he was almost sire it was a TIO he should not have beem able to hit a provisional within the rules since he knew he would be entitled to free relief.

 

From the article

 

"I was 99.9 percent sure it was TIO," Rahm said afterward. "But take advantage of the rules and hit a provisional at least. If I hit it good I have a different visual in mind going through the round. And that .9 percent is just in case. I don't want to be walking back up to the tee and if I can, just saving time as well."

 

apparently JR felt comfortable with the less than 1% chance of it not being a TIO justifying the provisional. 

 

dave

Edited February 19, 2023 by DaveLeeNC

[TwistedSister]

Just now, DaveLeeNC said:

 

From the article

 

"I was 99.9 percent sure it was TIO," Rahm said afterward. "But take advantage of the rules and hit a provisional at least. If I hit it good I have a different visual in mind going through the round. And that .9 percent is just in case. I don't want to be walking back up to the tee and if I can, just saving time as well."

 

apparently JR felt comfortable with the less than 1% chance of it not being a TIO justifying the provisional. 

 

dave

But isnt that % of surety in his mind disallow the provisional the same as it would for the same % surety for ball being in a penalty area?

[SNIPERBBB]

8 minutes ago, TwistedSister said:

That was not my issue.  I saw nothing wrong with the TIO.  My issue which seems to be borne out by Rahm in the article is if he was almost sire it was a TIO he should not have beem able to hit a provisional within the rules since he knew he would be entitled to free relief.

"almost sure" satisfies the part about "MAY be lost outside a penalty area or out of bounds". The only time that you cannot hit a provisional is if it could be penalty area and a local rule is not in effect or its you can see/have no doubt as to where your ball is.

[SNIPERBBB]

1 hour ago, TwistedSister said:

But isnt that % of surety in his mind disallow the provisional the same as it would for the same % surety for ball being in a penalty area?

Nope. all you need is doubt for a provisional. Provisional, you are saying that theres a good chance that I can't find it. KVC is I cant find it but its a near certainty that it can't be anywhere else but in the penalty area.

 

Its not like a player is getting an advantage from hitting a provisional other than to get a practice swing in.

Edited February 19, 2023 by SNIPERBBB

[rogolf]

2 hours ago, TwistedSister said:

But isnt that % of surety in his mind disallow the provisional the same as it would for the same % surety for ball being in a penalty area?

As said above, there is no percentage involved in determining whether a provisional is allowed or not.  The Rule says the player may play a provisional if the original ball "might" be lost outside a penalty area or "might" be out of bounds.

[TwistedSister]

5 hours ago, rogolf said:

As said above, there is no percentage involved in determining whether a provisional is allowed or not.  The Rule says the player may play a provisional if the original ball "might" be lost outside a penalty area or "might" be out of bounds.

Thanx. 

[Mr. Bean]

8 hours ago, rogolf said:

As said above, there is no percentage involved in determining whether a provisional is allowed or not.  The Rule says the player may play a provisional if the original ball "might" be lost outside a penalty area or "might" be out of bounds.

 

That is actually a very interesting issue.

 

So, taking the percentages used in this thread, a player is granted relief if they have KVC their ball is in the TIO, that is 1 ball out o 20 may be somewhere else. Then again, they may play a provisional if they have 0,1% doubt their ball is lost outside the TIO, that is 1 ball out of 1,000.

 

Is there something peculiar with these numbers?

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

That is actually a very interesting issue.

 

So, taking the percentages used in this thread, a player is granted relief if they have KVC their ball is in the TIO, that is 1 ball out o 20 may be somewhere else. Then again, they may play a provisional if they have 0,1% doubt their ball is lost outside the TIO, that is 1 ball out of 1,000.

 

Is there something peculiar with these numbers?

Not really. The reasoning is different. The former is primarily about a possible penalty or its avoidance. The latter is primarily about speed of play. 

[TwistedSister]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

Not really. The reasoning is different. The former is primarily about a possible penalty or its avoidance. The latter is primarily about speed of play. 

But if he was KVC it was in a TIO how was hitting a provisional speeding play.  He did not have ti find the ball to take a free drop from a TIO.

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, TwistedSister said:

But if he was KVC it was in a TIO how was hitting a provisional speeding play.  He did not have ti find the ball to take a free drop from a TIO.

 

Not to mention how would it have been established that the ball WAS actually lost outside the TIO? Finding the ball outside TIO after 3 minute search..? That would not apply if he had already started the procedure to take relief from the TIO, if I recall correctly.

 

There is of course one aspect that could apply. If at the scene, that is when arriving at the TIO it was established that the ball could not have been lost inside the TIO. Then the KVC would no longer apply. I have no idea what kind of TIO was in this case but this as a general remark.

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[TwistedSister]

1 minute ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Not to mention how would it have been established the the ball WAS actually lost outside the TIO? Finding the ball outside TIO after 3 minute search..? Would that still apply if he had already started the procedure to take relief from the TIO?

He would still get relief from the TIO if had interfered.  I just think there was no reason for a provisionalbexcept for him to gain an advantage.  More or less what he said when he stated he was trying to give himself a good thought by hitting the second ball.  The porvisional would have never been in play.

[Mr. Bean]

3 minutes ago, TwistedSister said:

He would still get relief from the TIO if had interfered. 

 

Ummmm... not so sure. If it was established that the ball was actually lost outside the interference area of the TIO then the ball would simply have been lost.

 

But let us not get entabgled in that, I am keen to see what @Newby has to say about the reasons for a person hitting a provisional in this case.

[TwistedSister]

Just now, Mr. Bean said:

 

Ummmm... not so sure. If it was established that the ball was actually lost outside the interference area of the TIO then the ball would simply have been lost.

 

But let us not get entabgled in that, I am keen to see what @Newby has to say about the reasons for a person hitting a provisional in this case.

That was my purpose. To get the experts' opinions.  The thing was the video clearly showed it going over the temporary fence.

[Newby]

3 hours ago, TwistedSister said:

But if he was KVC it was in a TIO how was hitting a provisional speeding play.  He did not have ti find the ball to take a free drop from a TIO.

KVC (is 95%) has nothing to do with it. "And that .9 percent is just in case. I don't want to be walking back up to the tee and if I can, just saving time as well."

If he the slightest inkling that the "ball might be lost outside a penalty area or be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally under penalty of stroke and distance"

 

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Newby

[Colin L]

18 hours ago, TwistedSister said:

But isnt that % of surety in his mind disallow the provisional the same as it would for the same % surety for ball being in a penalty area?

Neither. The criterion for playing a provisonal is that your ball might  be lost outside a PA or be out of bounds 

[Colin L]

4 hours ago, TwistedSister said:

But if he was KVC it was in a TIO how was hitting a provisional speeding play.  He did not have ti find the ball to take a free drop from a TIO.

Presumably because he thought his ball might be lost outside a PA. Anyway, why does it matter?

Edited February 19, 2023 by Colin L

[TwistedSister]

32 minutes ago, Newby said:

KVC (is 95%) has nothing to do with it. "And that .9 percent is just in case. I don't want to be walking back up to the tee and if I can, just saving time as well."

If he the slightest inkling that the "ball might be lost outside a penalty area or be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally under penalty of stroke and distance"

 

 

There was no penalty are or OB where he hit it.  And he should have known the area was a TIO. Those areas are delineated on the rules sheet he would have been given before the tournament.