Model Local Rule B-3

[Mr. Bean]

Yesterday I heard a suggestion to change the wording of that MLR. Today it says:

 

"If a player does not know whether their ball is in the penalty area [identify location], the player may play a provisional ball ..."

 

There lies a problem. If the player KNOWS their ball is in the PA but it may very well be playable (especially if the PA contains no water) they are not allowed to play a provisional ball under this MLR due to the wording. As this MLR has been drafted in order to save time not making the player to walk long distances for just to see whether the ball is playable or not the wording is insufficient or even wrong.

 

The suggestion was to add word "playable" between words "is" and "in", like this:

 

"If a player does not know whether their ball is playable in the penalty area [identify location], the player may play a provisional ball..." 

 

Now, this presents another problem. That wording suggests that in order to use that MLR it must be KNOWN (or at least KVC) that the ball IS in the PA. That would exclude cases where the only question is whether the ball is in the PA or not. For example, if there is a long(ish) carry over water and there is no visibility where the ball would land and it is certain that if the carry is not enough the ball is in deep water and if it is enough the ball will be found on the grass. Again, no provisional ball due to the wording.

 

So, how should one rephrase this MLR? Suggestions, please.

 

[Colin L]

I'm just not managing to follow any of this, Mr Bean.  You cannot play a provisional ball if you know your ball is in a PA because of Rule 18.3a not because of this MLR.  

 

The purpose of the MLR purpose is to allow a provisional ball in certain circumstances exceptionally  to be played even though your ball, if outside the PA is not going to be lost.  Whether it  is going to be playable if in the PA is irrelevant. 

 

 

[Augster]

Playability in the PA doesn’t need to add into the MLR. 
 

When MLR B-3 is in play, the player doesn’t know if his ball cleared the RPA and has zero chance of being lost outside the RPA. So he’s allowed a provisional to save the walk back. 
 

IF the player finds his ball in the PA, he can either play it as it lies, or take the ball he hit provisionally. That’s it. 
 

The Rule doesn’t need to care if the ball is “playable” in the PA or not. It is either in the PA, or it isn’t and will be found outside the PA. 
 

If the player KNOWS his ball didn’t make it over the PA, he’s not allowed a provisional ball under B-3. In that case, he must spend the time going to look, then coming back and hitting. 
 

The term “playable” is completely subjective and would be subject to abuse. 

[iacas]

As others said, the Rules do not allow a provisional for a ball known to be in a PA, nor do the Rules ever really make a determination as to whether a ball is "playable" or not*.

 

* (I'm not counting "that stroke is unreasonable" for a player trying to get relief or "no play zones," of course.)

[rogolf]

4 hours ago, Augster said:

Playability in the PA doesn’t need to add into the MLR. 
 

When MLR B-3 is in play, the player doesn’t know if his ball cleared the RPA and has zero chance of being lost outside the RPA. So he’s allowed a provisional to save the walk back. 
 

IF the player finds his ball in the PA, he can either play it as it lies, or take the ball he hit provisionally. That’s it. 
 

The Rule doesn’t need to care if the ball is “playable” in the PA or not. It is either in the PA, or it isn’t and will be found outside the PA. 
 

If the player KNOWS his ball didn’t make it over the PA, he’s not allowed a provisional ball under B-3. In that case, he must spend the time going to look, then coming back and hitting. 
 

The term “playable” is completely subjective and would be subject to abuse. 

I have verified all of the above regarding the MLR with the R&A.  "Playability" is irrelevant.  If the ball is known to be in the PA, no provisional is permitted and the "provisional" becomes the ball in play.

[Mr. Bean]

It is my understanding that the reason for B-3 to exist is to save time, that is, a player does not have to use a considerable amount of time to walk on the other side of the PA to see if their ball cleared the PA, did not clear the PA or is playable in the PA. 

 

Now, as B-3 overrules R18.3 to certain extent it does not seem logical to limit its use to only cases when it is not known whether a ball is in the PA or not as the key is to save time.

 

An example. There is a PA with not much water and lots of undervegetation on the other side. Hitting a ball over the PA may result in it being found in that PA but in many, if not most cases being playable in that undervegetation. So, current B-3 says that you may hit a provisional ball if you are not sure your original ball cleared the PA. After having played that PB you may proceed to move on the other side of the PA and if your ball is found inside the PA and playable you may play it.

 

But if you KNEW your ball just barely remained within the PA but having played the course hundreds of times you KNOW your ball is in most cases playable you must FIRST walk on the other side of that PA and in case you find your ball unplayable you will have to walk back and hit another ball as you are not allowed to hit a provisional based on the currect wording of B-3.

 

As the reason for B-3 to exist is to save time, can you please explain me the logic for prohibiting saving time in the latter case as I do not understand the reason?

 

And please, do not offer the reason "because B-3 says so"...

[Mr. Bean]

12 hours ago, Augster said:

The term “playable” is completely subjective and would be subject to abuse. 

 

How?

 

It is always the player's choice to play a ball as it lies or not and invoke a suitable Rule instead. How can that be abused?

[Mr. Bean]

12 hours ago, Colin L said:

I'm just not managing to follow any of this, Mr Bean.  You cannot play a provisional ball if you know your ball is in a PA because of Rule 18.3a not because of this MLR.  

 

 

Colin, 18.3a does not allow you to play a provisional ball if your ball may be lost in a PA so MLR B-3 is already an exception to Rule 18.3a. Why couldn't (shouldn't) it be a further exception?

 

I bet it was an earth shattering moment for many purists once this Local Rule was drafted some decades ago. 🤭

 

Edited Sunday at 08:29 AM by Mr. Bean

[Colin L]

What is the "further exception" an exception to?  Not being allowed unplayable relief from a ball in a PA?  That's what sounds like.

[Mr. Bean]

6 minutes ago, Colin L said:

What is the "further exception" an exception to?  Not being allowed unplayable relief from a ball in a PA?  That's what sounds like.

 

Further exception would be to allow a provisional ball also when it is known the original ball is in the Penalty Area, just as I have tried to explain.

 

This entire idea came from the question why tive saving is not allowed in a case where a ball is in the PA but may be playable, just as it is in the case of a ball MAY be in the PA and playable. I think it is a fair question and IMO B-3 should be adjusted.

 

Can you come up any downsides to that adjustment? I'd be happy to hear any.

 

Edited Sunday at 10:01 AM by Mr. Bean

[iacas]

Provisionals are for balls that may or may not be lost/OB. The rules are clear about which ball is in play. Whether a ball on the course is “playable” is not a factor, nor should it be.

 

Not everything that might occasionally speed up play is a valid or good modification.

[Colin L]

Thinking obliquely, I wonder why, if it is possible to have KVC that your ball is in a PA, the MLR is in place in the first instance. It seems to me that it was created for situations where there is always uncertainty.

 

[rogolf]

Based on my experience with this MLR at my home club, the MLR should be eliminated.  The time it might save in day to day play is minuscule  when compared to players' behavior and time wasting on other things - extended search times, pre-shot routines, beverage cart purchases (too many more to list).

Edited Sunday at 03:11 PM by rogolf

[Mr. Bean]

14 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Based on my experience with this MLR at my home club, the MLR should be eliminated.  The time in might save in day to day play is minuscule  when compared to players' behavior and time wasting on other things - extended search times, pre-shot routines, beverage cart purchases (too many more to list).

 

Oh my... someone got off with the wrong foot this morning... 😁

 

But you have a point there. IMO B-3 should only be used in competitions.

 

Edited Sunday at 02:30 PM by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

Thinking obliquely, I wonder why, if it is possible to have KVC that your ball is in a PA, the MLR is in place in the first instance. It seems to me that it was created for situations where there is always uncertainty.

 

 

If you think this through carefully and read what I have written you will find that uncertainty also in cases where it is known the ball is in the PA but it is UNCERTAIN that the ball will be playable.

 

Got it?

[rogolf]

40 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

If you think this through carefully and read what I have written you will find that uncertainty also in cases where it is known the ball is in the PA but it is UNCERTAIN that the ball will be playable.

 

Got it?

In that case, the MLR is not applicable.

[Mr. Bean]

31 minutes ago, rogolf said:

In that case, the MLR is not applicable.

 

No kidding?

 

Would it be possible for you to think even slightly outside the box? What if MLR would be applicable? What if there was a change I have described a few times now in this thread? Would there be a problem with that change?

 

And the most important question: why should there not be that option as the sole purpose of MLR B-3 is to save time?

 

Give me some reasoning for or against to the proposed change instead of that mantra "Rules say so". What if you had the power to write that MLR, would you include the proposal or not? Why?

 

Edited Sunday at 03:44 PM by Mr. Bean

[GoGoErky]

32 minutes ago, rogolf said:

In that case, the MLR is not applicable.

Assuming because of kvc and if the ball turns out to be not playable there is the option to take relief from the PA?

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Mr. Bean said:

Would it be possible for you to think even slightly outside the box? What if MLR would be applicable? What if there was a change I have described a few times now in this thread? Would there be a problem with that change?

 

You'd be giving the player a choice between two balls, and the Rules, except in rare cases, doesn't do that.

 

Scenario:

1. "Oh, I hit my ball in the PA, but it may be unplayable, so I'm going to hit a provisional."
2. They arrive at their ball, find it in the PA, and… have to determine if it's playable.
3. In doing so, they're choosing between playing that ball or saying it's "not playable" and playing their provisional?
4. You've also deprived the player of the other options for dropping out of a PA, I think (but the rule is so preposterous IMO that I didn't really get into whether you're requiring play of the provisional if the original ball is deemed "not playable" by the player upon arriving and seeing the two balls they hit).

That doesn't require thinking outside the box, IMO, that requires abandoning some pretty basic tenets to the Rules of Golf.

 

You can hit a provisional if it's lost or OB. You rarely get a choice between two balls (and certainly not without penalty as it would be here if you got to choose to play the original ball).

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

If you think this through carefully and read what I have written you will find that uncertainty also in cases where it is known the ball is in the PA but it is UNCERTAIN that the ball will be playable.

 

Got it?

The uncertainty I referred to is as to whether a ball is in a PA or not.  Uncertainty about whether a ball that is out of sight will be playable or not is not relevant, nor should it be made possible for it to be in my view. 

 

And a friendly hint.  It's probably a language thing  but you're starting to get rude again.   Implying that I haven't thought carefully and haven't read what you have written is at the least patronising.  As to saying "Got it?"  That's plain rude.  

[Mr. Bean]

34 minutes ago, Colin L said:

The uncertainty I referred to is as to whether a ball is in a PA or not.  Uncertainty about whether a ball that is out of sight will be playable or not is not relevant, nor should it be made possible for it to be in my view. 

 

And a friendly hint.  It's probably a language thing  but you're starting to get rude again.   Implying that I haven't thought carefully and haven't read what you have written is at the least patronising.  As to saying "Got it?"  That's plain rude.  

 

If I sounded rude it was not my intention. Your post simply sounded like you had not digested what I had written and as that happens to everybody I wanted to make sure we are on the same page. Rest assured I have highest respect for you and your opinions.

 

So it is your view that the option I suggested should not be included in B-3, is that it? What would be your reasoning?

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

You'd be giving the player a choice between two balls, and the Rules, except in rare cases, doesn't do that.

 

Scenario:

1. "Oh, I hit my ball in the PA, but it may be unplayable, so I'm going to hit a provisional."
2. They arrive at their ball, find it in the PA, and… have to determine if it's playable.
3. In doing so, they're choosing between playing that ball or saying it's "not playable" and playing their provisional?
4. You've also deprived the player of the other options for dropping out of a PA, I think (but the rule is so preposterous IMO that I didn't really get into whether you're requiring play of the provisional if the original ball is deemed "not playable" by the player upon arriving and seeing the two balls they hit).

That doesn't require thinking outside the box, IMO, that requires abandoning some pretty basic tenets to the Rules of Golf.

 

You can hit a provisional if it's lost or OB. You rarely get a choice between two balls (and certainly not without penalty as it would be here if you got to choose to play the original ball).

 

I am confused as your post lets me believe you have never even read the MLR B-3 but as I am 120% sure you have I am even more confused.

 

B-3 is an exception in the Rules that gives a player the option to choose between two balls and this proposal I suggested does not alter that in any way. The only difference to the current B-3 would be that if a player knows their ball is in the PA there still would be an option to play the provisional (in order to save time) as it may be possible that the original ball is playable in the PA. So the concept is just the same as in the B-3 of today: if the player wishes to play the original ball lying in the PA he is free to choose that option.

 

For you the same question as to the others: can you find a downside to this additional option ? That is, a reason why saving time should not be allowed once it is known that original ball is in the PA.

 

Looking forward to hearing your reasonings.

 

EDIT: Oh, one further thing. B-3 is in force only on particular holes, not on all holes. So it does not give players unlimited options to play provisionals on PAs, neither current B-3 nor the one I am thinking of.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 04:56 PM by Mr. Bean

[iacas]

45 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

I am confused as your post lets me believe you have never even read the MLR B-3 but as I am 120% sure you have I am even more confused.

 

In re-reading what I wrote, it's my mistake for your confusion, as I was unclear. B-3 as currently written is one of the few times a player gets to choose between two balls.

 

But B-3 is a rare case. It's intended for times when the player may not find their ball at all, but also can't be certain if it's in the PA, owing to the size, shape, or location of the PA, and choosing to go back or to drop would unreasonably delay play.

 

They use the word "and" so all three situations must be true. It's very rare.

 

If you KNOW your ball is in a PA, as your modification suggests, the qualifications for implementing B-3 or a variant of B-3 no longer exist, and thus you default to the Rules not really letting you hit provisionals for balls that are not lost/OB outside of a PA.

 

In other words, I don't think we should expand the use of a choice between two balls to just be in the interest of saving time. That's basically what your modification does, when it's intended to be used in only rare situations where the ball could be in the PA, out of the PA, found, not found… etc.

 

If you have KVC your ball is in the PA, just play the regular PA rules. Players will look quickly for the ball they know is in the PA and then proceed to drop (or play it if they find it quickly and it's in a good place).

 

Edited Sunday at 05:36 PM by iacas

[rogolf]

6 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

No kidding?

 

Would it be possible for you to think even slightly outside the box? What if MLR would be applicable? What if there was a change I have described a few times now in this thread? Would there be a problem with that change?

 

And the most important question: why should there not be that option as the sole purpose of MLR B-3 is to save time?

 

Give me some reasoning for or against to the proposed change instead of that mantra "Rules say so". What if you had the power to write that MLR, would you include the proposal or not? Why?

 

Why would I bother to discuss potential changes to a MLR that I think should be eliminated in its entirety?  It's a waste of time, imo.

Edited Sunday at 10:36 PM by rogolf

[davep043]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

For you the same question as to the others: can you find a downside to this additional option ? That is, a reason why saving time should not be allowed once it is known that original ball is in the PA.

Allowing free relief from divot holes moves the game further from the primary principles of golf.  Changing B-3 the way you suggest does much the same thing, it creates additional circumstances where a player has a choice between two (potential) balls in play.  The potential to choose between two balls should be as limited as possible, not increased.

[Mr. Bean]

Thank you all for your input so far.

 

But I truly need even one of you knowledgeable guys to stand up and tell me why B-3 should not be completed to do what it was planned to do, i.e. save time.

 

Who is bold enough to be the first one?

[Mr. Bean]

59 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Why would I bother to discuss potential changes to a MLR that I think should be eliminated in its entirety?  It's a wast of time, imo.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. Many others, such as Ruling Bodies, have another opinion.

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

1) In other words, I don't think we should expand the use of a choice between two balls to just be in the interest of saving time. That's basically what your modification does, when it's intended to be used in only rare situations where the ball could be in the PA, out of the PA, found, not found… etc.

 

2) If you have KVC your ball is in the PA, just play the regular PA rules. Players will look quickly for the ball they know is in the PA and then proceed to drop (or play it if they find it quickly and it's in a good place).

 

 

Thank you for you response, now we are clearly proceeding.

 

1) Why do you think "we should expand the use of a choice between two balls to just be in the interest of saving time"? After all, B-3 was made to do just that. Please, further justifications would be great.

 

2) Please do distinguish normal PAs from those special ones where B-3 is currently used. There players do not "look quickly for the ball they know is in the PA and then proceed to drop" because the ball just might be outside the PA or very close to the other "shore" and on dry land. Again, further justifications would be great.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 07:34 PM by Mr. Bean

[iacas]

55 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

But I truly need even one of you knowledgeable guys to stand up and tell me why B-3 should not be completed to do what it was planned to do, i.e. save time.

 

Several have already. Just because you don't like the thoughts of others doesn't mean you can pretend they haven't done that.

 

8 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

1) Why do you think "we should expand the use of a choice between two balls to just be in the interest of saving time"? After all, B-3 was made to do just that. Please, further justifications would be great.

 

I don't think that. You can tell this because I said "I don't think we should expand…"

 

8 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

2) Please do distinguish normal PAs from those special ones where B-3 is currently used.

 

I don't have to do so — the language above the MLR B-3 does so already, with three bullet points, linked together not with an "or" but with an "and."

 

At the end of the day, it comes down to this:

 

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

Changing B-3 the way you suggest does much the same thing, it creates additional circumstances where a player has a choice between two (potential) balls in play.  The potential to choose between two balls should be as limited as possible, not increased.

 

For me, that's it.

 

They allow it under the current B-3 (which again I'll note is rarely implemented) only when three conditions are met. It's limited; you want to make it occur more frequently. No thank you.

[Mr. Bean]

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Several have already. Just because you don't like the thoughts of others doesn't mean you can pretend they haven't done that.

 

 

 

Maybe I have a problem with reading but so far I have only seen answers like

- no, because Rules do not allow

- no

- no, because I do not like it

- no, this LR makes no sense as it saves no time from players tying their shoelaces

- no, because it gives the player a choice

- no, just because

 

So far nobody has taken a stand on the time saving issue. So I will try once more.

 

Would this change save time in cases I have described in my earlier posts? That is, a ball known to be in the Penalty Area but not known whether that ball could be played from within that PA.

 

If your answer is no I have no further questions as no other question would make any sense.

 

If your answer is yes my next question would be why that option should not be included in B-3.

 

Now I will go to bed and I hope to read constructive answers to my questions. Good night.