Rule Question

C.O.Y.B.I.B

Ok ,

Might seem obvious , but here it goes . I hit a ball sliced to the right , partner says there is a lake there , better hit a provo , which i did . Went a little right too , but not as bad , partner reckoned first was about 10 yds right of second. Get up and find second ball , but 10yds right was the lake. Had a look around , but couldnt find first ball.

Heres the question ........
I say the ball must have gone in the lake , but partner reckons it only "probably" went in the lake , but as we cant be 100% , its a lost ball and i'm playin my provo which was behind a tree. The disagreement is that I say HE could decide that it probably went in the lake and let me drop out and play my 3rd with a shot at the green. But he says if we didnt see it go in , then its lost and my 3rd is from behind a tree with only a tap to the side for 4 . Who is right ?

Its a bit long winded , but its my Father in Law and a lot of pride at stake , BTW I birdied the last (im off 21) to beat him by 1 stroke which I saw as just desserts !!!

Cheers Lads , bragging rights at stake

thegen

Father in law is correct, you must see the ball enter the hazard and cannot assume it did.

heavyballs

thegen wrote: »

Father in law is correct, you must see the ball enter the hazard and cannot assume it did.

r u sure?i thought it was reasonable evidence and the agreement of all playing partners

PhilipMarlowe

You need virtual certainty, not reasonable evidence... The scenario above is a perfect example of UNcertainty and treating as a lost ball is the correct way to proceed. It seems harsh because you kind of know in your head that the ball is in the hazard but when you cant say for sure it's in there you must suck it up.

angry_bob

Licksy wrote: »

You need virtual certainty, not reasonable evidence... The scenario above is a perfect example of UNcertainty and treating as a lost ball is the correct way to proceed. It seems harsh because you kind of know in your head that the ball is in the hazard but when you cant say for sure it's in there you must suck it up.

+1
Rule 26-1.
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.

C.O.Y.B.I.B

Cheers guys ,

Yeah the more I thought about it , the more I figuired he was probably right , but like was said , It was a bit harsh in a friendly game when we both knew it was 90% in the hazard. Its one of those where when I questioned it , he kinda said go-on you can drop one out , and I knew that if I won it would be said that it was only cos he "let me off" on the 17th so I went with the provo and scratched.

It has to be said though that it does happen a lot in both casual and competitions where everyone agrees a ball "must have" gone in the hazard but noone actually saw it . I dont think I would make someone play again when it was "probably" in the hazard as I reckon you could lose playing partners quite quickly with that attitude.
Then again "Rules are Rules"

charlieIRL

Not that it matters - but would it not have been your 4th shot from behind the tree?
First - lost
Second - penalty
Third - second ball from tee? (Provo ball)
Fourth - shot from behind tree

Mister Sifter

mscull wrote: »

BTW I birdied the last (im off 21) to beat him by 1 stroke which I saw as just desserts !!!

2 nil then seeing as you're also banging his daughter

C.O.Y.B.I.B

charlieIRL wrote: »

Not that it matters - but would it not have been your 4th shot from behind the tree?
First - lost
Second - penalty
Third - second ball from tee? (Provo ball)
Fourth - shot from behind tree

Ok , typo , my 3rd was behind a tree and i had to tap out for 4

C.O.Y.B.I.B

Mister Sifter wrote: »

2 nil then seeing as you're also banging his daughter

Hmmm. Not sure how to respond to that on a public forum

Clareman

mscull wrote: »

Hmmm. Not sure how to respond to that on a public forum

I think the accepted response is pictures of the daughter in law

charlieIRL

mscull wrote: »

Ok , typo , my 3rd was behind a tree and i had to tap out for 4

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be smart. Am still learning the rules of golf myself & wanted to make sure for myself

A New earth

My understanding is that you could not have dropped beside the water hazard as you had played a 2nd ball off the tee. Before you played the 2nd ball off the tee was the time to decide if it had gone into the hazard or was possibily lost outside the hazard. You dont play a provisional if you think a ball goes into the hazard.

Put another way if you decide on the tee it was heading towards a hazard you don't play a provisional ball, if when you go to the spot you think it could possibly be and it's not there, then the decision was made on the tee that it's in the hazard and you take the penalty drop.

hurleronditch

A New earth wrote: »

My understanding is that you could not have dropped beside the water hazard as you had played a 2nd ball off the tee. Before you played the 2nd ball off the tee was the time to decide if it had gone into the hazard or was possibily lost outside the hazard. You dont play a provisional if you think a ball goes into the hazard.

Put another way if you decide on the tee it was heading towards a hazard you don't play a provisional ball, if when you go to the spot you think it could possibly be and it's not there, then the decision was made on the tee that it's in the hazard and you take the penalty drop.

This is incorrect afaik,

The provisional ball has no standing until you make your decision as to whether the ball is in the hazard or not. Technically if you were playing to a blind area you couldnt see from the tee, you could play a provo, yet when you get down there a playing partner, forecaddy etc tells you that the ball did enter the hazard, or you see it in the hazard, what is to stop you dropping in that case

Your second example is wrong for equal reasons.

A provisional (as the name suggests) is a provisional and nothing else. Until you make a final decision on your first ball it holds no standing.

If you have been playing as per your second example in competition you have been cheating.

If you play the ball to a certain spot and cant find it when you get there, and you 100% cant say that its in the hazard then you should be heading back to the tee box to hit a second. You basically have it all backwards. You cant just assume that its in the hazard.

why would anyone ever hit a provo so by your reckoning in this situation?

RGS

my understanding is that you cant play a provisional if you think your ball is in a hazard. The provisional becomes the ball in play.
However if you dont hit a second off the tee but cant find the original ball you must return to the tee to hit your third.
Does not help the slow play issue and should be looked at especially for the club golfer.

heavyballs

RGS wrote: »

my understanding is that you cant play a provisional if you think your ball is in a hazard. The provisional becomes the ball in play.
However if you dont hit a second off the tee but cant find the original ball you must return to the tee to hit your third.
Does not help the slow play issue and should be looked at especially for the club golfer.

that doesn't make sense to me,
i'll give you an example from my round today on a course i've never played btw
hit tee shot towards a hazard but there was a dip b4 it so we couldn't see where and if it went into the drink
there were no major bushes etc around for a possible lost ball
i didn't hit a provisional so i just scratched the hole as i wasn't comfy dropping without concrete evidence
as the hazard wasn't visable from the tee surely i could have played a provo if i wanted to
btw i didn't fancy the 340 yard run:D back to the tee

A New earth

hurleronditch wrote: »

This is incorrect afaik,

The provisional ball has no standing until you make your decision as to whether the ball is in the hazard or not. Technically if you were playing to a blind area you couldnt see from the tee, you could play a provo, yet when you get down there a playing partner, forecaddy etc tells you that the ball did enter the hazard, or you see it in the hazard, what is to stop you dropping in that case

Your second example is wrong for equal reasons.

A provisional (as the name suggests) is a provisional and nothing else. Until you make a final decision on your first ball it holds no standing.

If you have been playing as per your second example in competition you have been cheating.

If you play the ball to a certain spot and cant find it when you get there, and you 100% cant say that its in the hazard then you should be heading back to the tee box to hit a second. You basically have it all backwards. You cant just assume that its in the hazard.

why would anyone ever hit a provo so by your reckoning in this situation?

Don't appreciate the cheating reference. In the example I gave the decision was agreed on the tee that it was heading for the water hazard and would be found if it did not go in the hazard. Therefore it could not be lost outside the hazard or out of bounds so hitting a provisional ball was not an option (unless there was a local rule).

Again I repeat that our friend who started this subject could not drop a ball even if he was 100% certain that the ball was in the water hazard as he had another ball in play (again unless there was a local rule that you could hit a provisional ball if you ball might be in a water hazard)

Agree that this could slow down play but that is the position.

hurleronditch

A New earth wrote: »

Don't appreciate the cheating reference. In the example I gave the decision was agreed on the tee that it was heading for the water hazard and would be found if it did not go in the hazard. Therefore it could not be lost outside the hazard or out of bounds so hitting a provisional ball was not an option (unless there was a local rule).

But just saying it was heading for the hazard isnt enough. You need to know it went in the hazard, or not, and then make your decision.

How can you say that it cant be lost outside the hazard. Every golfer has lost a ball at some stage in relatively light rough? Unless you see it in the hazard, if you dont find it, its lost and its three of the tee. I think what you are saying may be a common interpretation of the rules, and many people wouldnt bat an eyelid with that approach, but it doesnt mean its right.

If you dont see a ball enter a hazard, and you dont find it, its lost, you cant just decide its in the hazard, and you're back playing 3 off the tee, not a cop out drop in range of the green

A New earth

hurleronditch wrote: »

But just saying it was heading for the hazard isnt enough. You need to know it went in the hazard, or not, and then make your decision.

How can you say that it cant be lost outside the hazard. Every golfer has lost a ball at some stage in relatively light rough? Unless you see it in the hazard, if you dont find it, its lost and its three of the tee. I think what you are saying may be a common interpretation of the rules, and many people wouldnt bat an eyelid with that approach, but it doesnt mean its right.

If you dont see a ball enter a hazard, and you dont find it, its lost, you cant just decide its in the hazard, and you're back playing 3 off the tee, not a cop out drop in range of the green

Don't know why you are getting so hung up on the simple example I gave to make the point (which you didn't seem to know) that you don't hit a provisional ball if your first has gone into a water hazard. Of course it can be said that it can't be lost outside the hazard e.g when the fairway runs right up to the water. In my example it was agreed by all that it was either in the water or short on the fairway so a provisional should not be played. I'm not saying that it could be in the hazard or lost outside it.

If you have hit a provisional and it was then decided the first ball was in the water hazard and you took a drop then you made a mistake (I'd be very slow to say that that anyone was cheating)

GreeBo

A New earth wrote: »

Don't know why you are getting so hung up on the simple example I gave to make the point (which you didn't seem to know) that you don't hit a provisional ball if your first has gone into a water hazard. Of course it can be said that it can't be lost outside the hazard e.g when the fairway runs right up to the water. In my example it was agreed by all that it was either in the water or short on the fairway so a provisional should not be played. I'm not saying that it could be in the hazard or lost outside it.

If you have hit a provisional and it was then decided the first ball was in the water hazard and you took a drop then you made a mistake (I'd be very slow to say that that anyone was cheating)

If you hit a shot towards water but dont know if its in it you are entitled to hit a provo. If you then find the original, you play it. If you dont find it you play the provo. If you receive information that the ball is definitely lost in the hazard then you can drop or replay the shot, the provo is no longer an option.

The OP took the correct action as he could not be certain the original ball was lost in the hazard.

@ RGS, you cant play a provo if you know its in a hazard, as by definition its not provisionally the ball in play, it is the ball in play (if you hit it)

Jimdagym

GreeBo wrote: »

If you hit a shot towards water but dont know if its in it you are entitled to hit a provo. If you then find the original, you play it. If you dont find it you play the provo. If you receive information that the ball is definitely lost in the hazard then you can drop or replay the shot, the provo is no longer an option.

SO you cant use the provo as the replayed shot, you must take the shot after the decision is made?

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

If you hit a shot towards water but dont know if its in it you are entitled to hit a provo. If you then find the original, you play it. If you dont find it you play the provo. If you receive information that the ball is definitely lost in the hazard then you can drop or replay the shot, the provo is no longer an option.

Correct.
The provisional only counts if the ball is lost outside the hazard and it then becomes the ball in play. If your ball is in a hazard and you take the option of replaying the shot you cannot use the provisional even though you've hit it from the same place.

GreeBo

Jimdagym wrote: »

SO you cant use the provo as the replayed shot, you must take the shot after the decision is made?

Correct, you can only use the provo if you dont find the original and you dont know the original is in the drink.

Jimdagym

GreeBo wrote: »

Correct, you can only use the provo if you dont find the original and you dont know the original is in the drink.

Cheer. In terms of expedience, it seems counter-intuitive. But it is so much easier to hit a good shot if you replay two seconds after your mess-up (off the tee anyway) maybe it takes that out of it.

GreeBo

Jimdagym wrote: »

Cheer. In terms of expedience, it seems counter-intuitive. But it is so much easier to hit a good shot if you replay two seconds after your mess-up (off the tee anyway) maybe it takes that out of it.

Its more to do with the fact that if the rule wasnt this way you could have the option of choosing between two balls. (The one in the hazard or the provo) This is never the case in golf, there is only ever 1 ball in play.

The OP's case is a perfect example, if someone at the scene told them the original was 100% in the water, then the OP could go back and play yet another ball instead of the one behind the tree. If the provo was 2 inches from the cup he could have chosen than one.

Jasonw

There is a local rule at our club regarding our 10th hole which is an island green. It states that if you think your ball may be in the hazzard you may play a provisional ball. when you reach the green and find your original ball in the hazzard you may elect to play either the original or the provisional.

It's meant to save time but myself and several other players have queried it's legitimacy. I've been told that it has been okay'd with the Munster branch of the GUI.

Still think it's wrong.

angry_bob

Jasonw wrote: »

There is a local rule at our club regarding our 10th hole which is an island green. It states that if you think your ball may be in the hazzard you may play a provisional ball. when you reach the green and find your original ball in the hazzard you may elect to play either the original or the provisional.

It's meant to save time but myself and several other players have queried it's legitimacy. I've been told that it has been okay'd with the Munster branch of the GUI.

Still think it's wrong.

Local rules should NEVER contradict the rules of the game. I've only been back in Ireland for 10 years, but AFAIK, the Munster branch of the GUI don't make the rules.

GreeBo

Jasonw wrote: »

There is a local rule at our club regarding our 10th hole which is an island green. It states that if you think your ball may be in the hazzard you may play a provisional ball. when you reach the green and find your original ball in the hazzard you may elect to play either the original or the provisional.

That makes no sense to me, what if your "provo" is also in the drink? You just get to ignore it? I'd be amazed if the GUI have actually okay'd it. How long is the hole? Would it often happen that you would be in the hazard and not know? I would suggest that in this scenario it would be impossible to lose your ball and it not be in the hazard?

G1032

heavyballs wrote: »

hit tee shot towards a hazard but there was a dip b4 it so we couldn't see where and if it went into the drink
there were no major bushes etc around for a possible lost ball
i didn't hit a provisional so i just scratched the hole as i wasn't comfy dropping without concrete evidence
as the hazard wasn't visable from the tee surely i could have played a provo if i wanted to
btw i didn't fancy the 340 yard run:D back to the tee

--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.

Since there were no trees or bushes around where you could have lost a ball then could you not be virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard? It doesn't matter if you can't see the hazard as long as you are virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard.............

Newuser12345

Appendix 1 B would appear to allow a local rule as JasonW mentioned

dozer11

Sorry to derail thread slightly but what is my course of action if I hit my tee shot and it strikes a water hazard stake?? Is it a reload as per when an overhead powerline or is it just tough **** and "play it as it lies Gilmore"

PhilipMarlowe

Rub of the green and play it as it lies...
It might after all rebound off a stake into the fairway and the stake is necessarily there on the course showing you where the hazard is. Overhead power lines aren't really "supposed" to be there and hitting them is unlucky so that's why the local rule is usually in place canceling the stroke and giving you another (free) go.

george67

It's my understanding the the rule was modified in the last two years that if a ball was seen heading towards a water hazard but not seen entering water but it is reasonable that it went nowhere else like into a lake with the agreement of your playing partners it is deemed to be in the water

As to the provo ball is not in play untill your first ball is declared lost .

A ball in a water hazard is not lost just misplaced:rolleyes:

IITYWYBMAD

GreeBo wrote: »

If you hit a shot towards water but dont know if its in it you are entitled to hit a provo.

No you are not. The only situation where you can hit a provo, in circumstances regarding a water hazard is if the ball may be lost in the surrounds of the water hazard. If the ball simply goes towards a water hazard, it is not reason enough to hit a provo.

If you then find the original, you play it.

No you cannot, that new ball is in play..

The rule is clear on this. You can actually only hit a provisional ball on two occasions:

1) If you believe that your ball may be out of bounds, but are unsure.
2) if you believe your ball may be lost, but are unsure.

There are no other occasions where you can hit a provo. None. If you believe your ball may have gone into a water hazard, as in your example above, and you hit a "provisional", that second ball then becomes the ball "in play" irrespective of the outcome of your original shot.

Have a look here for an example of a breach of the rules with provo's.

GreeBo

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

No you are not. The only situation where you can hit a provo, in circumstances regarding a water hazard is if the ball may be lost in the surrounds of the water hazard. If the ball simply goes towards a water hazard, it is not reason enough to hit a provo. No you cannot, that new ball is in play..

The rule is clear on this. You can actually only hit a provisional ball on two occasions:

1) If you believe that your ball may be out of bounds, but are unsure.
2) if you believe your ball may be lost, but are unsure.

There are no other occasions where you can hit a provo. None. If you believe your ball may have gone into a water hazard, as in your example above, and you hit a "provisional", that second ball then becomes the ball "in play" irrespective of the outcome of your original shot.

Have a look here for an example of a breach of the rules with provo's.

I disagree. If my ball goes towards a water hazard but I dont know its in there as I didnt see it go in, I have every right to believe that my ball may be lost outside of the hazard. Anytime I dont see my ball land I hit a provo, irrespective of if there is water involved or not.

Norman hit a provo because his ball was in the hazard. There is no such situation where you can hit a provo so he was wrong. However, based on the rule statement below I think this rule is as unclear and conflicting as a lot of the others.

The rule states "If it is known or virtually certain that the original ball is in a water hazard, the player must proceed in accordance with Rule 26-1."
Personally I dont see how Norman could be penalized as it clearly was not "know or virtually certain" the ball was in the hazard...since it wasnt!

danthefan

So to clarify, if you're ball is heading towards a water hazard, you don't hit a provisional, you take a drop down there? In a drop zone? If there's no drop zone?

Clareman

Licksy wrote: »

Rub of the green and play it as it lies...
It might after all rebound off a stake into the fairway and the stake is necessarily there on the course showing you where the hazard is. Overhead power lines aren't really "supposed" to be there and hitting them is unlucky so that's why the local rule is usually in place canceling the stroke and giving you another (free) go.

I hit power lines in Athenry 4 times in 1 round of golf, once was during a rehit of another shot that hit the same cable. I don't like that course

PhilipMarlowe

Clarity? lol.
Firstly, forget about provisionals when it comes to water hazards. Under most circumstances you see the ball go in or you can be virtually certain that it's in the hazard and this entitles you to proceed under the water hazard rule/options.
The thing is, to proceed that way, you have to be virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard. There are some scenarios that this is not possible - think of the 13th in Augusta, dogleg left par 5, creek down the left and trees/rubbish left of that. A tee shot hit to the left may be in the creek but could be lost in the rubbish either - If you can't find the ball when you get up there then you can't say for sure that it's "probably under a stone in the creek". You have to treat it as a lost ball because you have no virtual certainty that it's in the hazard. You'd have to then retreat to the tee and take your 3rd.
It's to save time etc that you are allowed to hit a provisional when there is the distinct possibility that the original ball may be lost.

GreeBo

Licksy wrote: »

Firstly, forget about clarity when it comes to the Rules!

FYP

Obni

Normally you have to determine whether your ball is in a hazard before you proceed. However, a club can introduce a local rule to allow a provisional ball to be played on a hole where determining the outcome of the shot is time consuming and occurs with reasonable frequency, e.g. the 6th at Dublin City, were I often played in a four-ball, where all four players hit provisionals before proceeding to the area near the green to determine whether any of the original balls made it over the trees and across the valley..

IITYWYBMAD

GreeBo wrote: »

I disagree. If my ball goes towards a water hazard but I dont know its in there as I didnt see it go in, I have every right to believe that my ball may be lost outside of the hazard. Anytime I dont see my ball land I hit a provo, irrespective of if there is water involved or not.

Norman hit a provo because his ball was in the hazard. There is no such situation where you can hit a provo so he was wrong. However, based on the rule statement below I think this rule is as unclear and conflicting as a lot of the others.

The rule states "If it is known or virtually certain that the original ball is in a water hazard, the player must proceed in accordance with Rule 26-1."
Personally I dont see how Norman could be penalized as it clearly was not "know or virtually certain" the ball was in the hazard...since it wasnt!

That's all well and good, and to be honest whether you agree or disagree is immaterial. You claim that "If you hit a shot towards water but dont know if its in it you are entitled to hit a provo. is simply and factually incorrect. You are not entitled to hit a provo. You are entitled to hit another ball, that then becomes the ball in play. The same situation would arise if you felt you hit your shot into a bunker, you do not get to hit a provo. You take the appropriate penalty, which with water is one thing and with a bunker, another.

As per Licksy's example, which are rare enough situations, you can hit a provo if you feel that your ball maybe lost. However, if the ball is found in the creek, our outside of it it then becomes the ball in play. If you lose your ball, your provo is then in play. But only in a situation where a ball is possibly lost or oob, not if you "hit a shot towards water", because you then fall into the virtual certainty situation, which is why the allowance is there.

Personally I dont see how Norman could be penalized as it clearly was not "know or virtually certain" the ball was in the hazard...since it wasnt!

You have actually answered your own question there.

GreeBo

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

You claim that "If you hit a shot towards water but dont know if its in it you are entitled to hit a provo. is simply and factually incorrect.

you can hit a provo if you feel that your ball maybe lost.

In the first scenario Im hitting a provo because I believe the ball may be lost, not because I believe its in the hazard. Every shot you play on a course is "Towards water" somewhere on the course!

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

However, if the ball is found in the creek, our outside of it it then becomes the ball in play. If you lose your ball, your provo is then in play. But only in a situation where a ball is possibly lost or oob, not if you "hit a shot towards water", because you then fall into the virtual certainty situation, which is why the allowance is there.

"towards water" is not "virtually certain" that the ball is in the hazard!!! The decisions go on to clearly state that even seeing a splash is not virtually certain enough, so I dont know how you can think "towards" water is good enough. Typically water is surrounded by trees, bushes, long grass...all great places to loose a ball thats not in the hazard

IITYWYBMAD

GreeBo wrote: »

In the first scenario Im hitting a provo because I believe the ball may be lost, not because I believe its in the hazard. Every shot you play on a course is "Towards water" somewhere on the course!

You still claim you are entitled, despite what the rules, and other users are saying. I've pointed out to you that you are not entitled, and yet you still persist in saying you are. You can try and eschew your argument one way or the other, or paint whatever scenarios you want, but you are simply incorrect. In-fact, some of your claims are so silly as to be laughable.

The provisional ball was brought into speed up play. There are only two instances where you can hit a provo. I've listed them above, and yet yuo claim that you hit a provo, and I'll quote you, "Anytime I dont see my ball land I hit a provo" which is an astonishing claim. Are you seriously telling me that you hit a provo when:

You play a dog-leg?
Your ball appears to go into a bunker?
You ball appears to go into trees?
Your ball appears to go into water?
Your ball goes over the back of a green?
Your ball nestles down in the rough?
Your ball appears to go into a lateral hazard?
Your ball hits a dip in the fairway?
You play to an elevated fairway?
You play to an elevated green?

and many many more instances? Because, I simply don't believe you. The rules state that you cannot play a provo if your ball appears to have gone into the water. If in the past you have done, you were in breach of the rules. Simply accept that you were not aware of that rule, and move on.

Imhof Tank

When you play a provisional ball off the tee you thereby acknowledge that the first ball may be lost outside a water hazard – the corollary of which is that it cannot be known or virtually certain that the first ball IS in the hazard.

The only significance of hitting a provisional ball off the tee is that you thereby forfeit the right to claim (when you get up to the hazard) that your first ball is virtually certain to have been lost in the water hazard.

Once you hit the provo, there is no longer any possiblity of a drop from the hazard, no matter what new information you may receive when you reach the landing area.

PhilipMarlowe

Imhof Tank wrote: »

When you play a provisional ball off the tee you thereby acknowledge that the first ball may be lost outside a water hazard – the corollary of which is that it cannot be known or virtually certain that the first ball IS in the hazard.

The only significance of hitting a provisional ball off the tee is that you thereby forfeit the right to claim (when you get up to the hazard) that your first ball is virtually certain to have been lost in the water hazard.

Once you hit the provo, there is no longer any possiblity of a drop from the hazard, no matter what new information you may receive when you reach the landing area.

I have to disagree with that.
At my home course, the 4th hole is somewhat modeled on the 13th at Augusta in that it is a dogleg left with a stream up the left.
At driving distance, the stream is very close to a bank of rubbish, beyond which is OOB. Just to the right of the stream at this point is a group of tall trees that see some action. Just beyond this point of trees the stream widened out into a muddy-bottomed pool (since been removed thank god).
A drive down the left side is preferable...
So, if you hit it too much to the left, maybe clatter into the tall trees, there is every chance that the ball could land on the steep bank of rubbish to the left of the stream, maybe even OOB and be lost. Equally, it could be in the in the stream, rough, fairway beyond the corner... you just can't tell from the tee box so hitting a provisional is perfectly acceptable.

When you get up there, you could find the ball (in the stream or in the rough, it doesn't matter where). Perfectly reasonable then to abandon the provisional because the original was found. If you can't find the ball then you play with the provisional under stroke and distance.
If there happened to be a spotter there who said they saw the ball hit the tree, and land in the muddy pool of course you'd be entitled to take their testimony into account which would give you your "virtual certainty" that the original is in the hazard and you could again abandon the provisional and take a drop out of the hazard.

Your assertion that once you hit a provo then you can't drop out of the hazard doesn't make sense here. The provo is hit because the original might well be lost.

.P.S. The "pool" was removed on this hole and the stream was narrowed in to give more clarity as to where the ball is on this hole, meaning any ball in the hazard is visible. But every time you hit a drive that goes dangerously left on this hole you hit a provisional.

IITYWYBMAD

Licksy wrote: »

I have to disagree with that.
At my home course, the 4th hole is somewhat modeled on the 13th at Augusta in that it is a dogleg left with a stream up the left.
At driving distance, the stream is very close to a bank of rubbish, beyond which is OOB. Just to the right of the stream at this point is a group of tall trees that see some action. Just beyond this point of trees the stream widened out into a muddy-bottomed pool (since been removed thank god).
A drive down the left side is preferable...
So, if you hit it too much to the left, maybe clatter into the tall trees, there is every chance that the ball could land on the steep bank of rubbish to the left of the stream, maybe even OOB and be lost. Equally, it could be in the in the stream, rough, fairway beyond the corner... you just can't tell from the tee box so hitting a provisional is perfectly acceptable.

When you get up there, you could find the ball (in the stream or in the rough, it doesn't matter where). Perfectly reasonable then to abandon the provisional because the original was found. If you can't find the ball then you play with the provisional under stroke and distance.
If there happened to be a spotter there who said they saw the ball hit the tree, and land in the muddy pool of course you'd be entitled to take their testimony into account which would give you your "virtual certainty" that the original is in the hazard and you could again abandon the provisional and take a drop out of the hazard.

Your assertion that once you hit a provo then you can't drop out of the hazard doesn't make sense here. The provo is hit because the original might well be lost.

.P.S. The "pool" was removed on this hole and the stream was narrowed in to give more clarity as to where the ball is on this hole, meaning any ball in the hazard is visible. But every time you hit a drive that goes dangerously left on this hole you hit a provisional.

Licksy, I think in the case you describe above, it would be the exception rather than the rule. The rules do allow a small bit of leeway and/or common-sense. As for the assertion that you can hit a provo every time you don't see your ball land, I think that may be stretching the bounds a tad..

Imhof Tank

Licksy wrote: »

I have to disagree with that.
At my home course, the 4th hole is somewhat modeled on the 13th at Augusta in that it is a dogleg left with a stream up the left.
At driving distance, the stream is very close to a bank of rubbish, beyond which is OOB. Just to the right of the stream at this point is a group of tall trees that see some action. Just beyond this point of trees the stream widened out into a muddy-bottomed pool (since been removed thank god).
A drive down the left side is preferable...
So, if you hit it too much to the left, maybe clatter into the tall trees, there is every chance that the ball could land on the steep bank of rubbish to the left of the stream, maybe even OOB and be lost. Equally, it could be in the in the stream, rough, fairway beyond the corner... you just can't tell from the tee box so hitting a provisional is perfectly acceptable.

When you get up there, you could find the ball (in the stream or in the rough, it doesn't matter where). Perfectly reasonable then to abandon the provisional because the original was found. If you can't find the ball then you play with the provisional under stroke and distance.
If there happened to be a spotter there who said they saw the ball hit the tree, and land in the muddy pool of course you'd be entitled to take their testimony into account which would give you your "virtual certainty" that the original is in the hazard and you could again abandon the provisional and take a drop out of the hazard.

Your assertion that once you hit a provo then you can't drop out of the hazard doesn't make sense here. The provo is hit because the original might well be lost.

.P.S. The "pool" was removed on this hole and the stream was narrowed in to give more clarity as to where the ball is on this hole, meaning any ball in the hazard is visible. But every time you hit a drive that goes dangerously left on this hole you hit a provisional.

I dont think its that complicated.

You have to make the decision after you play the first ball - IS THAT BALL KNOWN OR VITUALLY CERTAIN TO BE LOST IN THE WATER HAZARD?

If the answer is Yes - then you do not play another ball off the tee, you walk to the appropriate point beside or behind the hazard, take a drop and play your 3rd.

If the answer is NO - then you may play a provisional and if you then cant find your first ball, then you must continue with your provisional.

There has to be a yes or no answer to the question. There is no grey area and you cant answer maybe. You cannot say, well, it could be in trouble and wait until you get closer to the hazard to make an assessment when you get up there whether the first ball is known or virtually certain to be lost in the hazard.

PhilipMarlowe

If you look up virtual certainty in the definitions you'll see that you should take in all the information available (including testimony) to reach that virtual certainty. In your earlier post you said that having hit a provisional you can't then take a drop out of the hazard.
I've outlined a situation where hitting a provisional is a perfectly acceptable thing to do because the ball may be lost and you have NO IDEA, let alone virtual certainty, whether the ball is in the hazard, in the rough, lost in the briars etc.
If you then find your original in the hazard or hear testimony that the ball is definitely in the hazard then you can abandon the provisional. Saying you can't "no matter what new information you may receive..." is wrong.

IITYWYBMAD

Would you accept that what you outline is the exception, rather than the rule Licksy? Would you find the notion of hitting a Provo everytime you do not see you ball land as excessive, or acceptable?

Imhof Tank

Licksy wrote: »

If you look up virtual certainty in the definitions you'll see that you should take in all the information available (including testimony) to reach that virtual certainty. In your earlier post you said that having hit a provisional you can't then take a drop out of the hazard.
I've outlined a situation where hitting a provisional is a perfectly acceptable thing to do because the ball may be lost and you have NO IDEA, let alone virtual certainty, whether the ball is in the hazard, in the rough, lost in the briars etc.
If you then find your original in the hazard or hear testimony that the ball is definitely in the hazard then you can abandon the provisional. Saying you can't "no matter what new information you may receive..." is wrong.

2 points from that - if you do unexepctedly find your ball in the hazard, after playing a provo, (say its visible in a shallow stream) then the drop you take would be for unplayable in the hazard, not under the ball lost in the water hazard rule.

On the issue of testimony, I will have to defer to you on that. I thought the testimony had to be from your playing partners. In a pro tournament with spotters watching for these things I see your point - but the testimony of spotters wouldnt be a factor for average club golfers, no?

george67

. As for the assertion that you can hit a provo every time you don't see your ball land, I think that may be stretching the bounds a tad..[/QUOTE]

I play links golf and in recent years with the summers being so wet and the rough being so high and lush my playing group could hit 10/15 provos a round. Sometimes you know to within a few feet where it went but you still can't find it So every shot that left the fairway had a degree of uncertainty about it .