How.. Provisional?

[Mr. Bean]

22 minutes ago, Colin L said:

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

 

In this particular case the interesting issue is whether a provisional ball actually had any purpose in speeding up play if there was KVC the original ball was in the TIO. Thus it matters as provisional balls may not be hit just for fun.

 

Apparently at least Rahm did not have that KVC though some others may have had. I see no other answer to him playing a provisional ball.

 

It would be great to see a video from that situation and the TIO area.

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[TwistedSister]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

In this particular case the interesting issue is whether a provisional ball actually had any purpose in speeding up play if there was KVC the original ball was in the TIO. Thus it matters as provisional balls may not be hit just for fun.

 

Apparently at least Rahm did not have that KVC though some others may have had. I see no other answer to him playing a provisional ball.

 

It would be great to see a video from that situation and the TIO area.

 

But he saod he did have KVC.  His own words.

[Mr. Bean]

5 minutes ago, TwistedSister said:

But he saod he did have KVC.  His own words.

 

Then it is very confusing.

 

But as I wrote before, the situation may change once you get to the area where the ball is supposed to be. KVC on the teeing ground does not automatically give you KVC at the scene. Maybe, just maybe he was unsure of the KVC.

 

I am rather confident that if there had been a breach of Rules the referees would have straighten it out.

 

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, TwistedSister said:

But he saod he did have KVC.  His own words.

 

Please, KVC is NOT a part of this equation.

 

All that matters is R18.3. The player complied with the Rule. 

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=18&subrulenum=3

[Mr. Bean]

8 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

Please, KVC is NOT a part of this equation.

 

All that matters is R18.3. The player complied with the Rule. 

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=18&subrulenum=3

 

Yes, that is the Rule. However, I would suggest that knowing a ball to be lost in a TIO or in GUR and playing a provisional ball would be against the principle of Rule 18.3.

 

But you are right, KVC is not an obstacle for playing a PB but in some instances it would not save any time and in those instances I as a referee would question playing a PB.

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[Colin L]

 18.3 is a permissive rule which allows you to play a provisional ball if your ball might be lost anywhere on the course outside a penalty area.  There is no mention, no exclusion of any other part of the course or of any abnormal ground condition in it.  Either of two things preclude playing a provisional:  knowing that your ball is in a penalty area or knowing that you are going to find your ball on the course outside a penalty area.   There is no direct penalty for getting that wrong but there is the cost of having put another ball into play under S&D.

 

The time take playing a provisional that turns out not to be needed  is insignificant compared with the time wasted by not having done so.  I wish Mr Bean well in his conversation with a player whose playing of a provisional ball he questions.  I think I'll limit my comments to those who  haven't played one  -  as I drive them back to play another ball.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Newby]

11 hours ago, TwistedSister said:

There was no penalty area 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.

 

 

PA and OB are irrelevant in this case but they are the only restrictions on playing a provisional.

If he had the slightest thought he wouldn't find the ball he has the option of playing a provisional under the rule.

 

If a provisional ball itself might be lost outside a penalty area or be out of bounds:

• The player may play another provisional ball.

 

KVC (ie 95%) is not mentioned nor required.

 

If the ball may have thought to have been in the TIO but its location could not be confirmed and the ball could not be found, he would have had to take S&D. A provisional would have saved that time.

Edited February 20, 2023 by Newby

[Hawkeye77]

14 hours ago, TwistedSister said:

But he saod he did have KVC.  His own words.

Didn’t say that or add “KVC” to the explanation and as noted, rightly so. 

[davep043]

I'm late to this party, but it seems pretty innocent to me.  When Rahm was standing on the tee, what he KNEW was that his ball was way off the fairway somewhere.  He also knew that there was a TIO are over there too.  He couldn't be certain of where his ball was, and he wasn't (apparently) in direct contact with whoever DID know where the ball was.  There's not a direct link from any video reviewers and the players on the tee.  So he hit a Provisional, as the ball could have been lost, could have been in the trees, could have been in the TIO area.  It was only when he got to the area that he was actually able to confirm in one way or another where his ball ended up, and to take relief as appropriate. 

 

Consider the situation when nobody was there to see the ball end up, he simply hit a ball way off the fairway, didn't see it come down or come to rest.  That ball is Lost unless he can confirm that its either in a Penalty Area or in the TIO.  Without someone giving him additional information, he wouldn't have that KVC.  

 

As for what he said in an interview, I didn't find a report that he used the term "known or virtually certain".  Hell, I bet there weren't two dozen players in the field who actually know and understand that term.

[DaveLeeNC]

28 minutes ago, davep043 said:

As for what he said in an interview, I didn't find a report that he used the term "known or virtually certain".  Hell, I bet there weren't two dozen players in the field who actually know and understand that term.

 

FWIW, I believe the KVC came up in the discussion simply because JR used a percentage of certainty (once stating 99.9% certainty and at another point 0.9% uncertainty-at least as I recall it being reported and they are inconsistent numbers). And KVC also is defined as a percentage of certainty. So his 'stated knowledge' made him KVC WRT the ball being lost outside the course or penalty area. But it just doesn't matter in this case. 

 

dave

[TwistedSister]

Thanx all got my answer!!  All I wanted.