Should Phil be disqualified?

[grabthepin]

By hitting a provisional as Phil did, he would he would have a tough time claiming virtual certainty that the first ball went into the hazard if he couldn't find it.

[dukedsp]

I do not believe you are able to play a provisional ball for a ball in any type of a hazard:

 

I don't see any mention of a bunker in the rule

 

Yeah, Newby, I almost edited my response so as to indicate water hazard only. But then I decided that a person would be hard pressed to claim that their ball was possibly lost or OB (from the tee where you would have to hit the provisional) if they saw it go into a bunker.

[boo radley]

[quote name='jontyc' date='08 June 2010 - 07:33 AM' timestamp='1275996801' post='2494383']
By hitting a provisional as Phil did, he would he would have a tough time claiming virtual certainty that the first ball went into the hazard if he couldn't find it.
[/quote]

That's a great point. *WAS* the original ball ever found, or conclusively seen entering the hazard? If not, I don't see how he could have abandoned the provisional, since Phil was clearly not certain that it was in the hazard.

[birdieboy52]

[quote name='dbleag' date='07 June 2010 - 09:38 AM' timestamp='1275921482' post='2491871']
Phil Mickleson tee off yesterday on #15 at Muirfield Village GC and pushed his ball to the left side toward an area marked as a lateral hazard. The TV cameras tried to follow the ball, but could not show the final location of his shot. The next thing you know, he's hitting a provisional from the tee, obviously in case the ball was lost of out of bounds. Because the area in question was marked as a lateral hazard, the lost ball option was not available.

Do you think that they have a local rule for the event allowing Phil to play a provisional ball to save time? If not, Phil's provisional became his "ball in play" the moment he struck it. By proceeding with his first ball, he play a "wrong ball" and should either be penalized or disqualified.

Phil has played MVGC over 50 times and knows how the hole is marked. There was a rules official there, so he should have mentioned something as well. Maybe there's a local rule or maybe Phil doesn't know the rules.
[/quote]


Please read the rule book

[boo radley]

[quote name='birdieboy52' date='08 June 2010 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1276011730' post='2494867']
Please read the rule book
[/quote]

It's not that cut and dry, which is why there are a number of [i]decisions[/i] related to rule 26. And the big X factor, is how was the ball determined to *inside* the hazard? Was it ever found? I vaguely remember the TV announcers explaining with a bit of surprise that Phil was hitting a provisional -- perfectly legal -- and then, a couple minutes later we see Phil standing around deep in the woods then trudging off to where he eventually hit from the cart path.

On a side note -- is this what caused the delay (and ultimate demise) for Fowler's group where they were waiting for 15 minutes at the par-3?

[larrybud]

I think the more interesting thing about that entire hole was Phil dropping on the other side of the hazard... on a cart path! I can only assume the lateral line on the other side of the hazard was between the hazard and the cart path. Thus he took his 2 club relief option, and dropped. He then left it on the path because the nearest poing of relief would have had him standing back in the hazard, and maybe even his backswing impeded by the junk.

[birdieboy52]

[quote name='boo radley' date='08 June 2010 - 11:46 AM' timestamp='1276015595' post='2495007']
[quote name='birdieboy52' date='08 June 2010 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1276011730' post='2494867']
Please read the rule book
[/quote]

It's not that cut and dry, which is why there are a number of [i]decisions[/i] related to rule 26. And the big X factor, is how was the ball determined to *inside* the hazard? Was it ever found? I vaguely remember the TV announcers explaining with a bit of surprise that Phil was hitting a provisional -- perfectly legal -- and then, a couple minutes later we see Phil standing around deep in the woods then trudging off to where he eventually hit from the cart path.

On a side note -- is this what caused the delay (and ultimate demise) for Fowler's group where they were waiting for 15 minutes at the par-3?
[/quote]


It is always interesting to me that so many balls that no one sees enter a hazard are miraculously determined to have entered. More interesting is the drops they get. The 8th hole at Butler national was always an interesting drop during the Western Open years ago. Guys would fire it right of the green with nothing but water there, never cross land after leaving the tee, never hit the rocks between the green area and water, and they always dropped between the rocks and the green and it wasn't a special drop area.

[Newby]

[quote name='jontyc' date='08 June 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1275996801' post='2494383']
By hitting a provisional as Phil did, he would he would have a tough time claiming virtual certainty that the first ball went into the hazard if he couldn't find it.
[/quote]

There are two points where the KVC comes into account.

1) When the original stroke is made and the use of a provisional is considered. That may be 200 - 300 yards from the scene and out of view. [color="#0000ff"]May be lost outside[/color]. [color="#0000ff"]NO KVC it is in the WH[/color]

2) When the player arrives at the scene. The physical sitution may be such that the ball cannot be anywhere else than in the WH. [color="#ff0000"]KVC it is in the WH[/color]

Completely different criteria apply.

[David Hillman]

[QUOTE=dukedsp]
But then I decided that a person would be hard pressed to claim
that their ball was possibly lost or OB (from the tee where you would
have to hit the provisional) if they saw it go into a bunker.
[/QUOTE]

Happens to us all the time, for days after any heavy rain. Bunkers fill with water, and you have maybe a 50/50 chance of finding the ball, unless you want to dredge the whole trap.

[grabthepin]

[quote name='Newby' date='08 June 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1276023168' post='2495350']
[quote name='jontyc' date='08 June 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1275996801' post='2494383']
By hitting a provisional as Phil did, he would he would have a tough time claiming virtual certainty that the first ball went into the hazard if he couldn't find it.
[/quote]

There are two points where the KVC comes into account.

1) When the original stroke is made and the use of a provisional is considered. That may be 200 - 300 yards from the scene and out of view. [color="#0000ff"]May be lost outside[/color]. [color="#0000ff"]NO KVC it is in the WH[/color]

2) When the player arrives at the scene. The physical sitution may be such that the ball cannot be anywhere else than in the WH. [color="#ff0000"]KVC it is in the WH[/color]

Completely different criteria apply.
[/quote]

Point 2, if there is enough belief at the scene that the ball couldn't be lost in the rough, then there would not be a reasonable possiblity it was lost in the rough in order to hit a provisional.

Only if Phil didn't realize the rough he saw his ball heading towards was wholly within the hazard might he gain KVC, but playing the course the previous 3/4/5 days, it would be hard to believe he or his caddie didn't know this.

[Newby]

[quote name='jontyc' date='09 June 2010 - 02:00 AM' timestamp='1276045246' post='2496282']
[quote name='Newby' date='08 June 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1276023168' post='2495350']
[quote name='jontyc' date='08 June 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1275996801' post='2494383']
By hitting a provisional as Phil did, he would he would have a tough time claiming virtual certainty that the first ball went into the hazard if he couldn't find it.
[/quote]

There are two points where the KVC comes into account.

1) When the original stroke is made and the use of a provisional is considered. That may be 200 - 300 yards from the scene and out of view. [color="#0000ff"]May be lost outside[/color]. [color="#0000ff"]NO KVC it is in the WH[/color]

2) When the player arrives at the scene. The physical sitution may be such that the ball cannot be anywhere else than in the WH. [color="#ff0000"]KVC it is in the WH[/color]

Completely different criteria apply.
[/quote]

Point 2, if there is enough belief at the scene that the ball couldn't be lost in the rough, then there would not be a reasonable possiblity it was lost in the rough in order to hit a provisional.

Only if Phil didn't realize the rough he saw his ball heading towards was wholly within the hazard might he gain KVC, but playing the course the previous 3/4/5 days, it would be hard to believe he or his caddie didn't know this.
[/quote]

What the course looked like yesterday has nothing to do with what may or may not have changed overnight.

He wouldn't know if his ball had hit a stray spectator or equipment left by a green keeper.
If he doesn't see it finish in the water it may be elsewhere. The operative word is 'may'.

[grabthepin]

What the course looked like on previous days can give the player who didn't see his ball land, the belief on the tee that his ball may be lost outside the hazard.

This is the belief he requires in order to play a provisional.

The belief it may be lost outside a hazard means there can't be VC the ball is in the hazard (other than the scenario I mentioned). Possibly other scenarios but I can't think of any right now.

If you get to the area and there's no chance it could be anywhere else but in the hazard, then what right did you have to hit a provisional? I'm trying to picture a hole here.

I don't understand the relevance of your last paragraph to my point of the likely dependence between KVC and provisionals.

[iCollector]

[quote name='Dizz' date='07 June 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1275921805' post='2491891']
You should definitely call in, the PGA Tour doesn't have enough rules officials on hand so I'm sure they appreciate all the ones watching at home.
[/quote]

+100

ROTFLMAO - I just love these topics! You do as well I see.

[cb_golfer]

[quote name='jontyc' date='09 June 2010 - 05:21 AM' timestamp='1276086093' post='2497374']
What the course looked like on previous days can give the player who didn't see his ball land, the belief on the tee that his ball may be lost outside the hazard.

This is the belief he requires in order to play a provisional.

The belief it may be lost outside a hazard means there can't be VC the ball is in the hazard (other than the scenario I mentioned). Possibly other scenarios but I can't think of any right now.

If you get to the area and there's no chance it could be anywhere else but in the hazard, then what right did you have to hit a provisional? I'm trying to picture a hole here.

I don't understand the relevance of your last paragraph to my point of the likely dependence between KVC and provisionals.
[/quote]

There were trees before the hazard and he didn't see where it landed. It was even mentioned that his ball hit the tree first then bounced into the hazard.

[teejaywhy]

[quote name='jontyc' date='09 June 2010 - 05:21 AM' timestamp='1276086093' post='2497374']
What the course looked like on previous days can give the player who didn't see his ball land, the belief on the tee that his ball may be lost outside the hazard.

This is the belief he requires in order to play a provisional.

The belief it may be lost outside a hazard means there can't be VC the ball is in the hazard (other than the scenario I mentioned). Possibly other scenarios but I can't think of any right now.

If you get to the area and there's no chance it could be anywhere else but in the hazard, then what right did you have to hit a provisional? I'm trying to picture a hole here.

I don't understand the relevance of your last paragraph to my point of the likely dependence between KVC and provisionals.
[/quote]

Your point is a good one that by hitting a provisional, it can be harder to claim that it is KVC that the ball is in the hazard. But not being certain on the tee doesn't mean that a virtually certain determination could not be made after arriving at the hazard.

For this particular situation it is unknown is whether the ball was found in the hazard or was seen entering the hazard by a spectator or official. I have to assume that with all the time spent and officials present during the decision, there had to be a determination made that the ball was in the hazard.

Remember the decision at the Torrey Pines tournament early this year. Someone hit a lone tree on the left side of the fairway and the ball apparently deflected over the cliff and into the hazard but nobody saw it for sure. There really wasn't anyplace the ball could have been lost, it would have either been in the fairway in plain sight or in the hazard. But because of no KVC, the player had to return to the tee, with stroke and distance for lost ball.

[Sawgrass]

An oddity that I believe causes some people confusion over this issue is that you are prohibited from hitting a provisional ball when you choose to hit one simply because you feel your ball may be in a water hazard.

You are permitted to hit one only when you fear your ball may be lost or out of bounds. Frequently if you fear your ball may be in a water hazard, you may also fear at the same time that the ball may be lost outside the hazard, so you're safe in hitting a provisional.

I recall hearing about a few occasions when pros got into trouble based simply on a statement that they are hitting a provisional for fear that their ball went in the hazard. It's the only way you can really get yourself in a jam in this regard. So make sure you know why you are hitting the provisional (and maybe make it clear to your fellow competitor or rules official)!

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='tjy355' date='09 June 2010 - 10:24 AM' timestamp='1276093441' post='2497705']

Remember the decision at the Torrey Pines tournament early this year. Someone hit a lone tree on the left side of the fairway and the ball apparently deflected over the cliff and into the hazard but nobody saw it for sure. There really wasn't anyplace the ball could have been lost, it would have either been in the fairway in plain sight or in the hazard. But because of no KVC, the player had to return to the tee, with stroke and distance for lost ball.
[/quote]

I believe you are talking about Robert Allenby. His ball was heard to hit a tree prior to (presumably) going in the hazard. It's my understanding that it was ruled a lost ball because it may have stayed up in the tree (which had happened several times that week) or bounced far, far away from the spot where it hit the tree. The offical didn't agree with you that "there really wasn't anyplace the ball could have been lost", but Allenby did!

[dukedsp]

But then I decided that a person would be hard pressed to claim

that their ball was possibly lost or OB (from the tee where you would

have to hit the provisional) if they saw it go into a bunker.

 

Happens to us all the time' date=' for days after any heavy rain. Bunkers fill with water, and you have maybe a 50/50 chance of finding the ball, unless you want to dredge the whole trap.

[/quote']

 

 

If you see that you hit a ball into a bunker filled with water (which would mean it is casual water and classified as an abnormal ground condition) then you cannot play a provisional ball in the case that you cannot find it. This does not count as a "lost or ball OB" since this situation is handled by a different rule.

 

c. Ball in Abnormal Ground Condition Not Found

 

It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward an abnormal ground condition is in such a condition. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the abnormal ground condition. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

 

If it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in an abnormal ground condition, the player may take relief under this Rule. If he elects to do so, the spot where the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the abnormal ground condition must be determined and, for the purpose of applying this Rule, the ball is deemed to lie at this spot and the player must proceed as follows:

 

(i)

Through the Green: If the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the

abnormal ground condition

at a spot

through the green

, the player may

substitute

another ball, without penalty, and take relief as prescribed in Rule

25-1b(i)

.

 

(ii)

In a Bunker: If the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the

abnormal ground condition

at a spot in a

bunker

, the player may

substitute

another ball, without penalty, and take relief as prescribed in Rule

25-1b(ii)

.

 

(iii)

In a Water Hazard (including a Lateral Water Hazard): If the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the

abnormal ground condition

at a spot in a

water hazard

, the player is not entitled to relief without penalty. The player must proceed under Rule

26-1

.

 

(iv)

On the Putting Green: If the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the

abnormal ground condition

at a spot on the

putting green

, the player may

substitute

another ball, without penalty, and take relief as prescribed in Rule

25-1b(iii)

.

 

 

 

[boo radley]

[quote name='Sawgrass' date='09 June 2010 - 11:07 AM' timestamp='1276096074' post='2497829']
An oddity that I believe causes some people confusion over this issue is that you are prohibited from hitting a provisional ball when you choose to hit one simply because you feel your ball may be in a water hazard.

You are permitted to hit one only when you fear your ball may be lost or out of bounds. Frequently if you fear your ball may be in a water hazard, you may also fear at the same time that the ball may be lost outside the hazard, so you're safe in hitting a provisional.
[/quote]

I think the issue is more doubting Phil's sincerity in believing his ball was somewhere other than the hazard.

[i]In my opinion only, and not being a mind-reader, [/i]I suspect Phil was annoyed at spraying his drive, and vented his frustrations teeing up a second ball, calling it a provisional because he knew he could claim it might be lost outside the hazard.

What's a lot more interesting, and I've yet to see an answer, is: was his original tee shot ever located, or conclusively determined to have entered the hazard?

[dukedsp]

[quote name='boo radley' date='09 June 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1276098317' post='2497934'] [quote name='Sawgrass' date='09 June 2010 - 11:07 AM' timestamp='1276096074' post='2497829'] An oddity that I believe causes some people confusion over this issue is that you are prohibited from hitting a provisional ball when you choose to hit one simply because you feel your ball may be in a water hazard. You are permitted to hit one only when you fear your ball may be lost or out of bounds. Frequently if you fear your ball may be in a water hazard, you may also fear at the same time that the ball may be lost outside the hazard, so you're safe in hitting a provisional. [/quote] I think the issue is more doubting Phil's sincerity in believing his ball was somewhere other than the hazard. [i]In my opinion only, and not being a mind-reader, [/i]I suspect Phil was annoyed at spraying his drive, and vented his frustrations teeing up a second ball, calling it a provisional because he knew he could claim it might be lost outside the hazard. What's a lot more interesting, and I've yet to see an answer, is: was his original tee shot ever located, or conclusively determined to have entered the hazard? [/quote] Yes it was found and the point at which it last crossed the hazard was determined. A spectator or official indicated that it hit a tree and dropped down into the creek.

[Newby]

[quote name='jontyc' date='09 June 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1276086093' post='2497374']
The belief it may be lost outside a hazard means there can't be VC the ball is in the hazard (other than the scenario I mentioned). Possibly other scenarios but I can't think of any right now.[/quote]

VC is not a factor in the Rule 27-2a. It is not mentioned. The key word is 'may'.

See Decision 27-2a/2.2 [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-27/#27-2a/2.2"]Link to 27-2a/2.2[/url]


[quote]If you get to the area and there's no chance it could be anywhere else but in the hazard, then what right did you have to hit a provisional? I'm trying to picture a hole here.
[/quote]

See Decision 27-2a/2.5 [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-27/#27-2a/2.5"]Link to 27-2a/2.5[/url]

[David Hillman]

[QUOTE=dukedsp]
If you see that you hit a ball into a bunker filled with water (which
would mean it is casual water and classified as an abnormal ground
condition) then you cannot play a provisional ball in the case that you
cannot find it. This does not count as a "lost or ball OB" since this
situation is handled by a different rule.
[/QUOTE]

Right, but unless you can find the ball in the casual water in the bunker, you cannot "know or be virtually certain" that is where it is. Decision 26 1/1 even says that seeing the ball splash into the water is NOT sufficient for KVC. Given that, it is difficult to imagine anything that would lead to KVC, other than actually seeing the ball at rest, submerged in the casual water, clearly-enough to confirm that it is your ball.

Short of that, the ball is lost.

[dukedsp]

[quote name='David Hillman' date='09 June 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1276103015' post='2498181']
[QUOTE=dukedsp]
If you see that you hit a ball into a bunker filled with water (which
would mean it is casual water and classified as an abnormal ground
condition) then you cannot play a provisional ball in the case that you
cannot find it. This does not count as a "lost or ball OB" since this
situation is handled by a different rule.
[/QUOTE]

Right, but unless you can find the ball in the casual water in the bunker, you cannot "know or be virtually certain" that is where it is. Decision 26 1/1 even says that seeing the ball splash into the water is NOT sufficient for KVC. Given that, it is difficult to imagine anything that would lead to KVC, other than actually seeing the ball at rest, submerged in the casual water, clearly-enough to confirm that it is your ball.

Short of that, the ball is lost.
[/quote]

The rule states the option for a ball in an Abnormal Ground Condition not found. This means that you do not have to actually see the ball at rest, submerged in the casual water. You can have KVC without that. If you believe your ball to have gone in the bunker, then I cannot see how you could believe from the tee box where the provisional would need to be played that it is lost. I have enjoyed the discussion, but we will just have to agree to disagree.

[marrigo]

[quote name='David Hillman' date='09 June 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1276103015' post='2498181']
[QUOTE=dukedsp]
If you see that you hit a ball into a bunker filled with water (which
would mean it is casual water and classified as an abnormal ground
condition) then you cannot play a provisional ball in the case that you
cannot find it. This does not count as a "lost or ball OB" since this
situation is handled by a different rule.
[/QUOTE]

Right, but unless you can find the ball in the casual water in the bunker, you cannot "know or be virtually certain" that is where it is. Decision 26 1/1 even says that seeing the ball splash into the water is NOT sufficient for KVC. Given that, it is difficult to imagine anything that would lead to KVC, other than actually seeing the ball at rest, submerged in the casual water, clearly-enough to confirm that it is your ball.

Short of that, the ball is lost.
[/quote]

There is much confusion over the "splash" decision and KVC clause and I believe you are interpreting it too strictly. The splash decision is in there because a ball may skip out of the water on certain shots. The exact wording of that decision is: "[color=#7F7F7F]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." [/color]Furthermore the decision states that: "[color=#7F7F7F]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.[/color][color=#7F7F7F] " [/color]So three scenarios: 1) you hit a low slice into a water hazard but cannot see the opposite margin due to thick vegetation on your immediate right . You see the ball skip and splash twice but you can't determine if it skipped over the hazard or not. Upon reaching the hazard the opposite side is thick in vegetation and you can't find your ball there. If you can't find your ball in the hazard then the ball needs to be considered lost because you cannot be virtually certain it is in the hazard even though you saw it splash. 2) You hit the same shot as in 1) but there is only open fairway on the opposite side of the hazard and there is no ball there when you arrive. There is no other place the ball could reasonable be but in the hazard. You can be virtually certain it's in the hazard. 3) You hit a high slice that lands right in the middle of a pond. Now of course there is the unlikely chance that it hit a basking turtle and bounced out but there is virtual certainty that the ball remained in the hazard as the steep trajectory would eliminate the likelihood of a skip. Therefore all available evidence indicates that the ball remained in the hazard. At least that's my interpretation of that decision.

[grabthepin]

[quote name='Newby' date='09 June 2010 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1276102911' post='2498173']
[quote name='jontyc' date='09 June 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1276086093' post='2497374']
The belief it may be lost outside a hazard means there can't be VC the ball is in the hazard (other than the scenario I mentioned). Possibly other scenarios but I can't think of any right now.[/quote]

VC is not a factor in the Rule 27-2a. It is not mentioned. The key word is 'may'.

See Decision 27-2a/2.2 [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-27/#27-2a/2.2"]Link to 27-2a/2.2[/url]
[/quote]

You're not understanding what I'm writing with that answer and I can't phrase it any clearer, so I give up on that concept.


[quote name='Newby' ]
[quote name='jontyc']If you get to the area and there's no chance it could be anywhere else but in the hazard, then what right did you have to hit a provisional? I'm trying to picture a hole here.
[/quote]

See Decision 27-2a/2.5 [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-27/#27-2a/2.5"]Link to 27-2a/2.5[/url]
[/quote]

27.2a/2.5 is the situation I mentioned earlier, that I've been acknowledging all along, where all the rough was later discovered to be inside the hazard.

But here we're considering the player like Phil, who has played this course 50 times before, including the last 4 or 5 days, has course notes and a caddie. Do you think 27.2a/2.5 could apply to him, that he didn't realize the rough area he hit towards in a hazard? He needs to believe there is a [b]reasonable possibility[/b] (not just a possibility, a reasonable one) that the ball was lost outside the hazard to hit the provisional--I don't believe he could have this belief given his knowledge of the course.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='jontyc' date='10 June 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1276186796' post='2500694']
[quote name='Newby' date='09 June 2010 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1276102911' post='2498173']
[quote name='jontyc' date='09 June 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1276086093' post='2497374']
The belief it may be lost outside a hazard means there can't be VC the ball is in the hazard (other than the scenario I mentioned). Possibly other scenarios but I can't think of any right now.[/quote]

VC is not a factor in the Rule 27-2a. It is not mentioned. The key word is 'may'.

See Decision 27-2a/2.2 [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-27/#27-2a/2.2"]Link to 27-2a/2.2[/url]
[/quote]

You're not understanding what I'm writing with that answer and I can't phrase it any clearer, so I give up on that concept.


[quote name='Newby' ]
[quote name='jontyc']If you get to the area and there's no chance it could be anywhere else but in the hazard, then what right did you have to hit a provisional? I'm trying to picture a hole here.
[/quote]

See Decision 27-2a/2.5 [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-27/#27-2a/2.5"]Link to 27-2a/2.5[/url]
[/quote]

27.2a/2.5 is the situation I mentioned earlier, that I've been acknowledging all along, where all the rough was later discovered to be inside the hazard.

But here we're considering the player like Phil, who has played this course 50 times before, including the last 4 or 5 days, has course notes and a caddie. Do you think 27.2a/2.5 could apply to him, that he didn't realize the rough area he hit towards in a hazard? He needs to believe there is a [b]reasonable possibility[/b] (not just a possibility, a reasonable one) that the ball was lost outside the hazard to hit the provisional--I don't believe he could have this belief given his knowledge of the course.
[/quote]

Jontyc, I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but as near as I can figure the rules allow you to play a provisional as long as your ball "may" be lost outside a water hazard. I can't find where the rules put a particular restriction on the likelyhood of whether the ball is in fact lost outside the hazard, as they explicitly do (KVC) if you attempt to claim that you are in the hazard. Can you tell me where you get the "reasonable possibility" language you set in bold type above, or it this simply your personal perspective on the situation?

On a side note, but perhaps related to your perspective, I don't think anyone can ever make a reasonable claim as to KVC in a water hazard without getting to the edge of the water and making a judgement. There's no telling what the area may look like irrespective of how many times you've played the course. Mud, for instance, may suggest the possibility of a plugged/lost ball outside the hazard on a morning after the area was bone dry the night before.

[grabthepin]

Sorry for the delay in responding. Decision 27-2a/3 is what tells us a 'reasonably possibility' is required that the ball is lost outside the hazard in order to play a provisional. 27-2a/2.5 additionally makes it clear that a belief is good enough.

So, yes, you're not precluded from hitting a provisional if there's a possibility that your ball went into the hazard (as Decision 27-2a/2.2 says),

BUT

you must also believe there is a reasonable possibility it could be lost outside the hazard (Decision 27-2a/3)

I agree with your side note about KVC.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='jontyc' date='12 June 2010 - 03:50 AM' timestamp='1276329004' post='2504419']

I agree with your side note about KVC.
[/quote]

Do you agree that if you are not virtually certain that a ball is in a water hazard, then it's a "reasonable possibility" that it's not? If so, it seems you agree that Phil had every right to hit a provisional based on my side note. (The rules don't require you to be virtually certain that the ball is outside the hazard in order to hit the provisional -- just that it "may" be, or as you quote, there is a "reasonable possibility" that it is.)

[Rockfish]

OK, I give up. What's KVC ?

[grabthepin]

Check out [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-26/#26-1/1"]here[/url] for KVC Rockfish.

[quote]Do you agree that if you are not virtually certain that a ball is in a water hazard, then it's a "reasonable possibility" that it's not?[/quote]

Definitely so, but to hit a provisional there needs to be a reasonable possibility it is [b]lost[/b] outside the hazard, not just outside it.