Provisional-Water Hazard

[wagsgt]

Just trying to clear up some confusion. I understand if you hit your shot in a water hazard you can not play a provisional ball like if you would have hit same shot OB. But if one of the options of a water hazard is to play from last spot isnt that the same as a prov ball? Thanks

[HackerD]

I believe you can hit a provisional in this case. You would then have committed to stroke and distance rather than a more favorable drop nearer the hazard (if the ball can't be found). However I can see this as an option when teeing over water hazard immediately in front of the tee and not knowing if your ball cleared the hazard on the far side. Wrong. No provisionals for ball in water hazard.

 

Rehitting from original lie is not the same as a provisional. A provisional is only played when the first ball can not be located and is presumed lost or OB. In this case your second ball is the only ball in play. You are assuming first ball is gone.

[Freddie Klien]

I think the whole point is you can not loose a ball in a hazard if you are certain it went into the hazard then you would no longer be playing a provisional ball, you would be playing your third shot.

[bigred90gt]

I think the whole point is you can not loose a ball in a hazard if you are certain it went into the hazard then you would no longer be playing a provisional ball, you would be playing your third shot.

 

This is one of the rules I think is silly. There are times when I am not certain my ball went into the hazard. Playing a provisional would save alot of time for me walking up to where I think the ball may be, realizing it is in the water, and walking back to the tee. If you were able to play a provisional, you would already have the ball in play, and take your stroke and move on.

[PingG10]

I think the whole point is you can not loose a ball in a hazard if you are certain it went into the hazard then you would no longer be playing a provisional ball, you would be playing your third shot.

 

This is one of the rules I think is silly. There are times when I am not certain my ball went into the hazard. Playing a provisional would save alot of time for me walking up to where I think the ball may be, realizing it is in the water, and walking back to the tee. If you were able to play a provisional, you would already have the ball in play, and take your stroke and move on.

 

I really don't see your issue-under rule 26-1 you are clearly directed to play a provisional ball per Rule 27-1 if there is any question as to where the ball is (it isn't known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard). <H5 class=gray>26-1. Relief for Ball in Water Hazard</H5>It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

[larrybud]

I think the whole point is you can not loose a ball in a hazard if you are certain it went into the hazard then you would no longer be playing a provisional ball, you would be playing your third shot.

 

This is one of the rules I think is silly. There are times when I am not certain my ball went into the hazard. Playing a provisional would save alot of time for me walking up to where I think the ball may be, realizing it is in the water, and walking back to the tee. If you were able to play a provisional, you would already have the ball in play, and take your stroke and move on.

 

I really don't see your issue-under rule 26-1 you are clearly directed to play a provisional ball per Rule 27-1 if there is any question as to where the ball is (it isn't known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard). <H5 class=gray>26-1. Relief for Ball in Water Hazard</H5>It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

Here's a situation:

Par 3, lateral hazard to the right of the green. The hazard (a pond) then turns into some trees as you go past the green.

 

A player hits his tee shot to the right, heading toward the hazard/trees. We see the ball enter that area, however, we are unable to tell from the tee (180 yards away), whether or not the section that the ball entered is marked as a hazard or not. The ball is either in the hazard, or lost in the trees, but we won't be able to tell until we go down there.

[larrybud]

Here's another situation:

 

Hitting an approach shot over water, red stakes on the right.

 

Ball heads short right, hits the bank, and goes into the hazard. We know the ball is in the hazard, but we cannot tell (yet) where the hazard line is drawn until we get up there to inspect it.

 

If the ball didn't cross the hazard line on the opposite side, the player then must come back across the hazard to drop behind it for his next shot.

 

Why not allow a provisional to be hit before crossing the water? It would be in play "provided the ball did not cross the hazard line on the opposite side of the water", and it would be dropped in accordance with the lateral hazard rule.

 

If the ball did cross on the opposite side, the provisional is out of play and the player may proceed under the lateral hazard rule.

[marrigo]

This is one of the rules I think is silly. There are times when I am not certain my ball went into the hazard. Playing a provisional would save alot of time for me walking up to where I think the ball may be, realizing it is in the water, and walking back to the tee. If you were able to play a provisional, you would already have the ball in play, and take your stroke and move on.

 

But then you'd get to choose which option is better; play the provisional or take a drop from the hazard, right? Or are you suggesting that if you play a "provisional" and the ball is in the hazard you must play the provisional?

[PingG10]

I think the whole point is you can not loose a ball in a hazard if you are certain it went into the hazard then you would no longer be playing a provisional ball, you would be playing your third shot.

 

This is one of the rules I think is silly. There are times when I am not certain my ball went into the hazard. Playing a provisional would save alot of time for me walking up to where I think the ball may be, realizing it is in the water, and walking back to the tee. If you were able to play a provisional, you would already have the ball in play, and take your stroke and move on.

 

I really don't see your issue-under rule 26-1 you are clearly directed to play a provisional ball per Rule 27-1 if there is any question as to where the ball is (it isn't known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard). <H5 class=gray>26-1. Relief for Ball in Water Hazard</H5>It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

Here's a situation:

Par 3, lateral hazard to the right of the green. The hazard (a pond) then turns into some trees as you go past the green.

 

A player hits his tee shot to the right, heading toward the hazard/trees. We see the ball enter that area, however, we are unable to tell from the tee (180 yards away), whether or not the section that the ball entered is marked as a hazard or not. The ball is either in the hazard, or lost in the trees, but we won't be able to tell until we go down there.

 

 

Then it isn't "known or virturally certain" and you proceed under rule 27-1. Decision 26-1/1 covers exactly what "known or virtually certain" means, and I provide it below:

 

26-1/1 Meaning of "Known or Virtually Certain"

 

If a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and has not been found, the term "known or virtually certain" indicates the level of confidence that the ball is in the water hazard that is required for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1. A player may not assume that his ball is in a water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the hazard. If it is not known that the ball is in the water hazard, in order for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1 there must be almost no doubt that the ball is in the hazard. Otherwise, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost outside the hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

 

All available evidence must be taken into account in determining whether knowledge or virtual certainty exists, including any testimony and the physical conditions in the area around the water hazard. For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball could hardly be lost, there exists a greater certainty that the ball is in the hazard than there would be if there were deep rough in the area. Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide knowledge or virtual certainty as to the location of the ball as sometimes such a ball may skip out of a hazard.

 

The same principle would apply for a ball that may have been moved by an outside agency (Rule 18-1) or a ball that has not been found and may be in an obstruction (Rule 24-3) or an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1c). (Revised)

[larrybud]

I think the whole point is you can not loose a ball in a hazard if you are certain it went into the hazard then you would no longer be playing a provisional ball, you would be playing your third shot.

 

This is one of the rules I think is silly. There are times when I am not certain my ball went into the hazard. Playing a provisional would save alot of time for me walking up to where I think the ball may be, realizing it is in the water, and walking back to the tee. If you were able to play a provisional, you would already have the ball in play, and take your stroke and move on.

 

I really don't see your issue-under rule 26-1 you are clearly directed to play a provisional ball per Rule 27-1 if there is any question as to where the ball is (it isn't known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard). <H5 class=gray>26-1. Relief for Ball in Water Hazard</H5>It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

Here's a situation:

Par 3, lateral hazard to the right of the green. The hazard (a pond) then turns into some trees as you go past the green.

 

A player hits his tee shot to the right, heading toward the hazard/trees. We see the ball enter that area, however, we are unable to tell from the tee (180 yards away), whether or not the section that the ball entered is marked as a hazard or not. The ball is either in the hazard, or lost in the trees, but we won't be able to tell until we go down there.

 

 

Then it isn't "known or virturally certain" and you proceed under rule 27-1. Decision 26-1/1 covers exactly what "known or virtually certain" means, and I provide it below:

 

26-1/1 Meaning of "Known or Virtually Certain"

 

If a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and has not been found, the term "known or virtually certain" indicates the level of confidence that the ball is in the water hazard that is required for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1. A player may not assume that his ball is in a water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the hazard. If it is not known that the ball is in the water hazard, in order for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1 there must be almost no doubt that the ball is in the hazard. Otherwise, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost outside the hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

 

All available evidence must be taken into account in determining whether knowledge or virtual certainty exists, including any testimony and the physical conditions in the area around the water hazard. For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball could hardly be lost, there exists a greater certainty that the ball is in the hazard than there would be if there were deep rough in the area. Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide knowledge or virtual certainty as to the location of the ball as sometimes such a ball may skip out of a hazard.

 

The same principle would apply for a ball that may have been moved by an outside agency (Rule 18-1) or a ball that has not been found and may be in an obstruction (Rule 24-3) or an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1c). (Revised)

 

You're missing the point. The location of the ball is virtually certain. The only thing that isn't certain is where the hazard line is drawn because one cannot see the hazard line from 200 yards away. Once you get to the hazard area, one can then make that determination and know whether or not the ball is in the hazard.

 

A splash isn't "virtually certain"? Is that your opinion or the USGA's?

[PingG10]

I think the whole point is you can not loose a ball in a hazard if you are certain it went into the hazard then you would no longer be playing a provisional ball, you would be playing your third shot.

 

This is one of the rules I think is silly. There are times when I am not certain my ball went into the hazard. Playing a provisional would save alot of time for me walking up to where I think the ball may be, realizing it is in the water, and walking back to the tee. If you were able to play a provisional, you would already have the ball in play, and take your stroke and move on.

 

I really don't see your issue-under rule 26-1 you are clearly directed to play a provisional ball per Rule 27-1 if there is any question as to where the ball is (it isn't known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard). <H5 class=gray>26-1. Relief for Ball in Water Hazard</H5>It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

Here's a situation:

Par 3, lateral hazard to the right of the green. The hazard (a pond) then turns into some trees as you go past the green.

 

A player hits his tee shot to the right, heading toward the hazard/trees. We see the ball enter that area, however, we are unable to tell from the tee (180 yards away), whether or not the section that the ball entered is marked as a hazard or not. The ball is either in the hazard, or lost in the trees, but we won't be able to tell until we go down there.

 

 

Then it isn't "known or virturally certain" and you proceed under rule 27-1. Decision 26-1/1 covers exactly what "known or virtually certain" means, and I provide it below:

 

26-1/1 Meaning of "Known or Virtually Certain"

 

If a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and has not been found, the term "known or virtually certain" indicates the level of confidence that the ball is in the water hazard that is required for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1. A player may not assume that his ball is in a water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the hazard. If it is not known that the ball is in the water hazard, in order for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1 there must be almost no doubt that the ball is in the hazard. Otherwise, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost outside the hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

 

All available evidence must be taken into account in determining whether knowledge or virtual certainty exists, including any testimony and the physical conditions in the area around the water hazard. For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball could hardly be lost, there exists a greater certainty that the ball is in the hazard than there would be if there were deep rough in the area. Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide knowledge or virtual certainty as to the location of the ball as sometimes such a ball may skip out of a hazard.

 

The same principle would apply for a ball that may have been moved by an outside agency (Rule 18-1) or a ball that has not been found and may be in an obstruction (Rule 24-3) or an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1c). (Revised)

 

You're missing the point. The location of the ball is virtually certain. The only thing that isn't certain is where the hazard line is drawn because one cannot see the hazard line from 200 yards away. Once you get to the hazard area, one can then make that determination and know whether or not the ball is in the hazard.

 

A splash isn't "virtually certain"? Is that your opinion or the USGA's?

 

 

I'm not missing any point-The decision is a direct copy from the USGA website with nothing edited or added. If you don't know where your ball lies with relation to the hazard (and that includes the margin of the hazard as that is considered part of the hazard) then you do not know or are not virtually certain and therefore must play under rule 27-1.

[larrybud]

I think the whole point is you can not loose a ball in a hazard if you are certain it went into the hazard then you would no longer be playing a provisional ball, you would be playing your third shot.

 

This is one of the rules I think is silly. There are times when I am not certain my ball went into the hazard. Playing a provisional would save alot of time for me walking up to where I think the ball may be, realizing it is in the water, and walking back to the tee. If you were able to play a provisional, you would already have the ball in play, and take your stroke and move on.

 

I really don't see your issue-under rule 26-1 you are clearly directed to play a provisional ball per Rule 27-1 if there is any question as to where the ball is (it isn't known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard). <H5 class=gray>26-1. Relief for Ball in Water Hazard</H5>It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

Here's a situation:

Par 3, lateral hazard to the right of the green. The hazard (a pond) then turns into some trees as you go past the green.

 

A player hits his tee shot to the right, heading toward the hazard/trees. We see the ball enter that area, however, we are unable to tell from the tee (180 yards away), whether or not the section that the ball entered is marked as a hazard or not. The ball is either in the hazard, or lost in the trees, but we won't be able to tell until we go down there.

 

 

Then it isn't "known or virturally certain" and you proceed under rule 27-1. Decision 26-1/1 covers exactly what "known or virtually certain" means, and I provide it below:

 

26-1/1 Meaning of "Known or Virtually Certain"

 

If a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and has not been found, the term "known or virtually certain" indicates the level of confidence that the ball is in the water hazard that is required for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1. A player may not assume that his ball is in a water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the hazard. If it is not known that the ball is in the water hazard, in order for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1 there must be almost no doubt that the ball is in the hazard. Otherwise, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost outside the hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

 

All available evidence must be taken into account in determining whether knowledge or virtual certainty exists, including any testimony and the physical conditions in the area around the water hazard. For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball could hardly be lost, there exists a greater certainty that the ball is in the hazard than there would be if there were deep rough in the area. Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide knowledge or virtual certainty as to the location of the ball as sometimes such a ball may skip out of a hazard.

 

The same principle would apply for a ball that may have been moved by an outside agency (Rule 18-1) or a ball that has not been found and may be in an obstruction (Rule 24-3) or an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1c). (Revised)

 

You're missing the point. The location of the ball is virtually certain. The only thing that isn't certain is where the hazard line is drawn because one cannot see the hazard line from 200 yards away. Once you get to the hazard area, one can then make that determination and know whether or not the ball is in the hazard.

 

A splash isn't "virtually certain"? Is that your opinion or the USGA's?

 

 

I'm not missing any point-The decision is a direct copy from the USGA website with nothing edited or added. If you don't know where your ball lies with relation to the hazard (and that includes the margin of the hazard as that is considered part of the hazard) then you do not know or are not virtually certain and therefore must play under rule 27-1.

You are missing the point. I don't know where the ball lies in relation to the hazard line from where I currently stand. But once I walk down to the hazard, I do know where it lies in relation to the hazard line because I can now see the hazard line. Now I might have to go back and re-tee if I'm in the hazard (as one of my options).

 

My point is equivalent to knowing whether a ball is OB or not. You hit a ball close to the OB stakes, but you don't know the relation of the ball to the OB line, because your current perspective is no good. Once you walk to where the ball is located, you can then view the OB stakes, and determine if the ball is in bounds or not. However, in the case of OB, you're allowed to hit a provisional. It makes no sense.

[PingG10]

You are arguing your point with the wrong person-I qouted the decision directly-how you interpret the decision is your business. I did not render any opinion on your scenario except to state that you, by your own statement, were not a situation where it was "known or virtually certain that your ball was in the hazard" and as such, according to the decision must proceed under rule 27-1 not under rule 26-1.

[Sawgrass]

While the rule is at times inconvenient, even very inconvenient, it is ultimately fair. If you hit a provisional because you think your ball may be lost or out of bounds, and you later discover that it is, you have no choice other than to use the provisional you hit. If you were allowed to hit a provisional if you think you might be in a water hazard and you later discover you are, you then would be faced with a decison to play under the water hazard rule -- or perhaps even hit out of the water hazard itself or use your provisional. That's too many options. Hitting out of 1/2 inch of water is a very attractive option if you've already hit your provisional out of bounds! You'll make a much more honest assessment about that water if you haven't already seen where your next ball has landed.

[larrybud]

You are arguing your point with the wrong person-I qouted the decision directly-how you interpret the decision is your business. I did not render any opinion on your scenario except to state that you, by your own statement, were not a situation where it was "known or virtually certain that your ball was in the hazard" and as such, according to the decision must proceed under rule 27-1 not under rule 26-1.

If you look at the thread, the statement in question was whether or not the rule was silly. I know what the rule says, and I play by the rule. The rule should be change, IMO, under certain circumstances.

 

I also think rules need to be changed/clarified because they make assumptions which aren't always true (such as "the committee shall mark all hazards")....

[PingG10]

You are arguing your point with the wrong person-I qouted the decision directly-how you interpret the decision is your business. I did not render any opinion on your scenario except to state that you, by your own statement, were not a situation where it was "known or virtually certain that your ball was in the hazard" and as such, according to the decision must proceed under rule 27-1 not under rule 26-1.

If you look at the thread, the statement in question was whether or not the rule was silly. I know what the rule says, and I play by the rule. The rule should be change, IMO, under certain circumstances.

 

I also think rules need to be changed/clarified because they make assumptions which aren't always true (such as "the committee shall mark all hazards")....

 

 

With regards to the orginal post-this isn't one of the rules I consider in need of change-that's a whole nother thread!! However I am in total agreement with your last statement-far too many public access courses are not maintained and marked to the standard that the USGA assumes with regards to rules and decisions on the rules-I'm not sure that amending the rules to address poor course management is the answer-maybe the USGA should be more forceful with courses regarding marking, etc. during the re-rate reviews for course rating and slope?

[bigred90gt]

This is one of the rules I think is silly. There are times when I am not certain my ball went into the hazard. Playing a provisional would save alot of time for me walking up to where I think the ball may be, realizing it is in the water, and walking back to the tee. If you were able to play a provisional, you would already have the ball in play, and take your stroke and move on.

 

But then you'd get to choose which option is better; play the provisional or take a drop from the hazard, right? Or are you suggesting that if you play a "provisional" and the ball is in the hazard you must play the provisional?

Yes, just like any other lost ball that you hit a provisonal for, if the first was indeed lost (or in this case in the hazard) the provisional is now in play. You would not have the option to just drop another ball and pick up the provisional.

[RichB]

Yes, just like any other lost ball that you hit a provisonal for, if the first was indeed lost (or in this case in the hazard) the provisional is now in play. You would not have the option to just drop another ball and pick up the provisional.

 

While I agree that it IS inconvenient (s*cks), to have to go back to re-hit, which is always an option...

Water hazards have other options.

Lost or OB have no option...you MUST re-hit (stroke and distance).

Which is why...no provisional for a ball KNOWN to be in a hazard, or why the provisional

is void, when the ball is found to be in the hazard.

 

To allow a provisional for a ball in a hazard, now gives us 2 sets of rules

for the same situation, in your scenario.

 

IF I elect to play a provisional, and I find my ball

in the hazard, I no longer have any other options. I MUST use the provisional.

 

IF I just go to the ball, I have several drop options, or can return to the original spot.

 

Your suggestion has now put me in a position to make a decision on how to play my

next shot, without even knowing where my ball is.

 

The rules are complex enough, without having two sets for the same scenario,

depending on a decision made before you even know where your ball actually is.

[atlanta golfer]

Well, here is a situation that happened this past Sat in a tournament. Player hits second shot towards a green 200 yards away and way way down below a cliff and we can't see if the ball made dry land or not. So a provisional is hit, and what is stated is that the provisional is for the purpose of if the first ball is in the hazard and cannot be located. Then we get down to the green, go into the hazard and find the ball in the tall grass inside the hazard but playable. The player then plays the original ball and is able to lob it out of the hazard onto the green, two putts, and markes par. He picks up the provisional.

 

I had a sense this was wrong, but agreed with what we did so that we would not hold up play on the very first hole, since the drive down from the fairway to the green was pretty long. I was surprised that the original ball was found and was playable.

[wagsgt]

Well, here is a situation that happened this past Sat in a tournament. Player hits second shot towards a green 200 yards away and way way down below a cliff and we can't see if the ball made dry land or not. So a provisional is hit, and what is stated is that the provisional is for the purpose of if the first ball is in the hazard and cannot be located. Then we get down to the green, go into the hazard and find the ball in the tall grass inside the hazard but playable. The player then plays the original ball and is able to lob it out of the hazard onto the green, two putts, and markes par. He picks up the provisional.

 

I had a sense this was wrong, but agreed with what we did so that we would not hold up play on the very first hole, since the drive down from the fairway to the green was pretty long. I was surprised that the original ball was found and was playable.

 

So that would be a violation of the rules though right? But it was much more convienent.

 

Like tigers yank into the ocean at pebble, that is considered a water hazard right? But since it was obvious it was in water he just played his 3rd shot from tee. Basically it has to be certain you are in the water to be able to play your 3rd shot from tee?

[Sawgrass]

Well, here is a situation that happened this past Sat in a tournament. Player hits second shot towards a green 200 yards away and way way down below a cliff and we can't see if the ball made dry land or not. So a provisional is hit, and what is stated is that the provisional is for the purpose of if the first ball is in the hazard and cannot be located. Then we get down to the green, go into the hazard and find the ball in the tall grass inside the hazard but playable. The player then plays the original ball and is able to lob it out of the hazard onto the green, two putts, and markes par. He picks up the provisional.

 

I had a sense this was wrong, but agreed with what we did so that we would not hold up play on the very first hole, since the drive down from the fairway to the green was pretty long. I was surprised that the original ball was found and was playable.

 

So that would be a violation of the rules though right? But it was much more convienent.

 

Like tigers yank into the ocean at pebble, that is considered a water hazard right? But since it was obvious it was in water he just played his 3rd shot from tee. Basically it has to be certain you are in the water to be able to play your 3rd shot from tee?

 

 

Yes, the above was a violation of the rules.

 

No, you don't have to be certain you are in the water to play your 3rd shot from the tee. If that is your desire, all you have to do is declare the first shot an unplayable lie, and then tee it up again. All of the above has to do with playing a provisional, not simply deciding to commit to a new ball. (You can't declare a ball "lost", given the fact that your fellow competitor has the right to search for it for you and if he finds it he can force you to deal with that ball and abandon a provisional if you hit one.)

 

By the way, if I remember correctly Tiger's shot was so far left it was clear that he was in the water, and I suspect that the ball crossed the margin so close to the tee that he chose to tee it up rather than take a drop in an unattractive location. I don't belive it had anything to do with uncertaintly.

[PingG10]

Well, here is a situation that happened this past Sat in a tournament. Player hits second shot towards a green 200 yards away and way way down below a cliff and we can't see if the ball made dry land or not. So a provisional is hit, and what is stated is that the provisional is for the purpose of if the first ball is in the hazard and cannot be located. Then we get down to the green, go into the hazard and find the ball in the tall grass inside the hazard but playable. The player then plays the original ball and is able to lob it out of the hazard onto the green, two putts, and markes par. He picks up the provisional.

 

I had a sense this was wrong, but agreed with what we did so that we would not hold up play on the very first hole, since the drive down from the fairway to the green was pretty long. I was surprised that the original ball was found and was playable.

 

So that would be a violation of the rules though right? But it was much more convienent.

 

Like tigers yank into the ocean at pebble, that is considered a water hazard right? But since it was obvious it was in water he just played his 3rd shot from tee. Basically it has to be certain you are in the water to be able to play your 3rd shot from tee?

 

I don't consider myself a rules expert but I don't see a violation of the rules in what was described. Since the ball was not know or virtually certain to be lost in the hazard the golfer correctly proceeded under rule 27-1 and played a provisional-which doesn't become the ball in play until after it is struck from beyond where the original ball was thought to be (see rule 27-2b). So, as soon as the original ball was located in the hazard the golfer is now forced to proceed under rule 26 and the provisional is picked up (also see rule 27-2b and rule 27-2c).

[jjj912]

It is a violation because they thought the ball might be lost in a water hazard.

 

...

Player hits second shot towards a green 200 yards away and way way down below a cliff and we can't see if the ball made dry land or not.

...

 

I think I'd favor a rule change that would let golfers hit a provisional ball that is believed to to be lost in a water hazard, with the caveat that if the ball is in the water hazard, the golfer must play the provisional ball and take the stroke penalty. Essentially, this rule lets a golfer declare that, if needed, he is taking relief and his relief option of choice is stroke and distance.

 

On a course I play at there is a lateral water hazard behind a green. If your ball comes to rest in the water, the best option is to play stroke and distance as dropping within 2 clubs lengths of the hazard margin is tricky at best and the lie is steeply uphill. In this case, it would be nice to be able to play a provisional ball when your ball rolls off the back of the green because the grass will sometimes hold a ball that rolls off the back of the green.

 

I think the reason for not allowing golfers to hit provisional balls for balls that may be lost in a water hazard is that it effectively gives the golfer a free attempt to avoid the water hazard. Here's how such a scenario might play out: You hit a ball that may be lost in a water hazard. You play your provsional shot, except that you duff it. You find your original ball in the water hazard. You abandon the provisional ball and drop a ball behind the water hazard and play your next shot. So, for the price of one stroke you got two swings. Another scenario: After potentially hitting into a hazard you hit your provisional ball. You then discover that the water hazard is dry and it is feasible to play from the hazard. You abandon the provisional ball and play from the hazard.

[Sawgrass]

So a provisional is hit, and what is stated is that the provisional is for the purpose of if the first ball is in the hazard and cannot be located. .

 

 

I don't consider myself a rules expert but I don't see a violation of the rules in what was described. Since the ball was not know or virtually certain to be lost in the hazard the golfer correctly proceeded under rule 27-1 and played a provisional-which doesn't become the ball in play until after it is struck from beyond where the original ball was thought to be (see rule 27-2b). So, as soon as the original ball was located in the hazard the golfer is now forced to proceed under rule 26 and the provisional is picked up (also see rule 27-2b and rule 27-2c).

 

 

Decisions 27-2a2 and27-2a2.2 cover this area, and the key issue here is that the player's stated purpose above was to cover the condition of being in a hazard. That is expressly inappropriate. There is a penalty for having done so. If he feared that his ball might also be lost outside the hazard, that's different.

 

As to jjj912's thought about a rules change, I agree with you. The rule change you describe, in which your having hit a provisional precludes you from hitting out of the hazard, would be fair. But even if this rule was adopted, if you really cared about your score you'd be better off going and checking to see whether the ball is playable in the hazard before hitting again. Sometimes the ball is technically in a water hazard (over the red/yellow line) but in good grass and easily playable. Under your proposed change you wouldn't get the benefit of that option -- but you might save some time and steps!

[PingG10]

I see what you're saying with regards to 27-2a/2 since the player did state he was hitting the provisional because he might be in the hazard-this is where he went wrong, in my opinion-if he had stated he couldn't be sure that the ball was findable but wasn't unarguably in the hazard he should have then been able to proceed under the provisional ball rule-decision 27-2a/2 cleary and emphatically makes the point "but clearly it is not (the tee shot) lost outside a water hazard or out of bounds"-so if you can't clearly state that the ball is "findable" or "in-bounds" then you should be able to play under rule 27. I would opine, for what it is worth, that this was the reason that decision 27-2a/2.2 was made-because decision 27.2a/2 was not fully clear.

 

I really enjoy these kinds of rules discussions-I always see something I didn't see before or gain clarity I didn't have before.

[InTheHole]

So a provisional is hit, and what is stated is that the provisional is for the purpose of if the first ball is in the hazard and cannot be located. .

 

 

I don't consider myself a rules expert but I don't see a violation of the rules in what was described. Since the ball was not know or virtually certain to be lost in the hazard the golfer correctly proceeded under rule 27-1 and played a provisional-which doesn't become the ball in play until after it is struck from beyond where the original ball was thought to be (see rule 27-2b). So, as soon as the original ball was located in the hazard the golfer is now forced to proceed under rule 26 and the provisional is picked up (also see rule 27-2b and rule 27-2c).

 

 

Decisions 27-2a2 and27-2a2.2 cover this area, and the key issue here is that the player's stated purpose above was to cover the condition of being in a hazard. That is expressly inappropriate. There is a penalty for having done so. If he feared that his ball might also be lost outside the hazard, that's different.

 

As to jjj912's thought about a rules change, I agree with you. The rule change you describe, in which your having hit a provisional precludes you from hitting out of the hazard, would be fair. But even if this rule was adopted, if you really cared about your score you'd be better off going and checking to see whether the ball is playable in the hazard before hitting again. Sometimes the ball is technically in a water hazard (over the red/yellow line) but in good grass and easily playable. Under your proposed change you wouldn't get the benefit of that option -- but you might save some time and steps!

 

You guys have me totally confused now- I need to wrap my head in an ace bandage.

 

Isn't a provisional ball supposed to be a time saving mechanism for a **lost** ball near a water hazard or out of bounds? That's the overlying assumption- the ball is lost. It is not supposed to be a convenient way out of a hazard.

 

When your playing partner found his ball in the tall grass the provisional ball became meaningless since the original ball was found. It's as if the provisional ball was never hit.

 

Now you proceed from that point- if the ball was unplayable out of the hazard, follow the rules based on an unplayable ball in a hazard- but it was playable, so he played it.

 

By the way, I don't think you can "state the purpose of the provisional ball" - a provisional ball has a specific purpose- you don't get to decide why you are hitting a provisional ball.

 

This seems to apply:

http://www.usga.org/RulesFAQ/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=109

 

Per the USGA web site, the definition of a provisional ball is:

 

"Provisional Ball

A "provisional ball" is a ball played under Rule 27-2 for a ball that may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds"

 

I'm a newbie to the rules, so maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like he did the right thing to me in playing the original ball out of the hazard.

[wagsgt]

So a provisional is hit, and what is stated is that the provisional is for the purpose of if the first ball is in the hazard and cannot be located. .

 

 

I don't consider myself a rules expert but I don't see a violation of the rules in what was described. Since the ball was not know or virtually certain to be lost in the hazard the golfer correctly proceeded under rule 27-1 and played a provisional-which doesn't become the ball in play until after it is struck from beyond where the original ball was thought to be (see rule 27-2b). So, as soon as the original ball was located in the hazard the golfer is now forced to proceed under rule 26 and the provisional is picked up (also see rule 27-2b and rule 27-2c).

 

 

Decisions 27-2a2 and27-2a2.2 cover this area, and the key issue here is that the player's stated purpose above was to cover the condition of being in a hazard. That is expressly inappropriate. There is a penalty for having done so. If he feared that his ball might also be lost outside the hazard, that's different.

 

As to jjj912's thought about a rules change, I agree with you. The rule change you describe, in which your having hit a provisional precludes you from hitting out of the hazard, would be fair. But even if this rule was adopted, if you really cared about your score you'd be better off going and checking to see whether the ball is playable in the hazard before hitting again. Sometimes the ball is technically in a water hazard (over the red/yellow line) but in good grass and easily playable. Under your proposed change you wouldn't get the benefit of that option -- but you might save some time and steps!

 

You guys have me totally confused now- I need to wrap my head in an ace bandage.

 

Isn't a provisional ball supposed to be a time saving mechanism for a **lost** ball near a water hazard or out of bounds? That's the overlying assumption- the ball is lost. It is not supposed to be a convenient way out of a hazard.

 

When your playing partner found his ball in the tall grass the provisional ball became meaningless since the original ball was found. It's as if the provisional ball was never hit.

 

Now you proceed from that point- if the ball was unplayable out of the hazard, follow the rules based on an unplayable ball in a hazard- but it was playable, so he played it.

 

By the way, I don't think you can "state the purpose of the provisional ball" - a provisional ball has a specific purpose- you don't get to decide why you are hitting a provisional ball.

 

This seems to apply:

http://www.usga.org/RulesFAQ/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=109

 

Per the USGA web site, the definition of a provisional ball is:

 

"Provisional Ball

A "provisional ball" is a ball played under Rule 27-2 for a ball that may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds"

 

I'm a newbie to the rules, so maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like he did the right thing to me in playing the original ball out of the hazard.

 

 

 

 

But he hit a provisional for a ball in hazard which is against the rules. If he decided the ball was in hazard he could then hit his 3rd shot from tee and he has to play that ball

[atlanta golfer]

The comments here are correct. What happened was against the rules. It was done to save time, which is not really a valid excuse.

[PingG10]

The comments here are correct. What happened was against the rules. It was done to save time, which is not really a valid excuse.

Not to be too difficult about this but actually the USGA states in decision 27-2a/1.5 that "the sole purpose of Rule 27-2 is to enable the player to save time" so it is actually a valid excuse.

[jjj912]

The comments here are correct. What happened was against the rules. It was done to save time, which is not really a valid excuse.

Not to be too difficult about this but actually the USGA states in decision 27-2a/1.5 that "the sole purpose of Rule 27-2 is to enable the player to save time" so it is actually a valid excuse.

 

I think the point atlanta golfer was getting at is that saving time isn't a valid excuse for breaking the rules.