Water Hazard & Provisional Ball Question

Fore Iron

Right, I need help with this. I know I'll get a few different ideas on the answer but I need to try to figure this out.

I understand there is no option to play a provisional ball for a ball that may be lost inside a hazard. Provisionals only apply to balls lost outside a hazard.

Today at the Avantha Masters, some guy hit his second shot lay up on a par 5. It seems a marshaller indicated the ball had gone way left so he hit a provisional ball. When he walked up his ball was lying in a great lie but about a foot inside a red water hazard line. A referee was called and the decision was that he must abandon his original ball and continue with the second ball he played. So he was playing his 4th shot from the fairway to the green.

It seems that since his first ball was actually in the hazard, the second ball he hit is considered to be played as relief from the water hazard as allowed under the rules.

What makes it completely confusing is that the referee initially seemed to say that he could play his first ball as it lies. He asked the player if he had hit a provisional because he thought the first ball was lost OUTSIDE a hazard. The player said yes and so the referee said he could play his first ball. But then an assistant referee explained that the player had seen a marshaller simply indicate that the ball had gone left. In the end it seems that the player should have known that the water hazard existed all the way down the left hand side of the fairway and so the provisional ball rule would not apply. He picked up his first ball and carried on.

So now, naturally I am completely confused. Does your intention make a difference to how this rule is applied?

Lets say I hit my ball towards a water hazard but know that there is long grass and OB nearby also. I am not sure where the ball ended up. Can I hit a provisional ball then go look for my first ball, find it in the hazard and then abandon my provisional and carry on with the first ball?

Or, lets say I hit my ball towards a hazard and am pretty sure that it's ended up in the hazard, but I decide to hit a provisional just in case. If I find the first ball in the hazard now, am I forced to abandon the first ball and play the second ball, since it is now considered to have been hit as relief from the hazard in the first place?

So, does your intention dictate how the provisional is treated?

This incident on the telly has completely thrown me! I totally confused! :(

Fore Iron

Right really confused now.

FAQ on the Rules Section of the R&A website says:

Q. Can I play a provisional ball if I think my ball has gone into a water hazard?

A. It is not possible to play a provisional ball simply when you think your original ball may have gone in a water hazard. However, you are entitled to play a provisional ball if the original ball might also be lost outside the water hazard (in bushes/long grass outside the hazard) or it may have gone out of bounds. In such a case, if the original ball is found in the hazard, the provisional ball must be abandoned.

So what happened in New Delhi? Was it just a dodgy ruling?

macdonagh2007

You can't assume that a ball is in a hazard as it may be in bushes or the rough. There has to be almost no doubt that it is in the hazard. A player will have to proceed under the lost ball rule and play again under stroke and distance.

PhilipMarlowe

Fore Iron wrote: »

Lets say I hit my ball towards a water hazard but know that there is long grass and OB nearby also. I am not sure where the ball ended up. Can I hit a provisional ball then go look for my first ball, find it in the hazard and then abandon my provisional and carry on with the first ball?

Here we go again!
* puts on armour suit

Yes. There is a (good) chance that your ball may be lost OUTSIDE the hazard so you're within your rights to hit a provo. Think tee shot on 13 at Augusta... played to the left... you can't see the result (because it's not on tv and you parachuted in to sneak a game). Is the ball in the creek or is it lost in the woods left? Hit a provo.
It may be lost or it may be in the hazard. If you can't find it once you look, you can't then claim that it must be in the hazard (and take a drop out) because in truth you have no certainty so the provisional becomes the ball in play.

Fore Iron wrote: »

Or, lets say I hit my ball towards a hazard and am pretty sure that it's ended up in the hazard, but I decide to hit a provisional just in case. If I find the first ball in the hazard now, am I forced to abandon the first ball and play the second ball, since it is now considered to have been hit as relief from the hazard in the first place?

If you're pretty sure that it's in the hazard then you're not actually sure at all!. You need virtual certainty that the ball is in the hazard before you can claim that it's in the hazard. It's a mistake here to hit a provisional because you can only hit a provo for a ball likely to be lost. If the ball isn't likely to be lost, this is a case where you should go ahead and look for it. However if you don't find it (outside or inside the hazard), you'd have to go back to the tee and play your 3rd because you can't say with certainty that it's in the hazard.

Fore Iron wrote: »

So, does your intention dictate how the provisional is treated?

This incident on the telly has completely thrown me! I totally confused! :(

Fore Iron

Thank MacDonagh. I understand that. But this guy seems to have hit a provisional because he thought his ball might be lost outside the hazard. It was then found in the hazard and he was told to pick it up and play the second ball instead...

Fore Iron

Thanks Licksy. See my reply to MacDonagh above....

PhilipMarlowe

I didn't see the specific incident but it sounds like there's a water hazard on the left... a pro hitting the ball to the left.... a marshall telling the pro that his ball has gone left and a pro hitting a provisional

I don't the the "reasonable chance that the ball may have been lost (outside the hazard)" involved there that would give a player the "right" to hit a provo... just some rough alone wouldn't constitute a good enough reason IMO.

Fore Iron

You might be on the right track here. So does it seem that since he really shouldn't have hit a provo because he should known about the hazard, so when he hit the second ball it became the ball in play as relief from the hazard under stroke and distance which is an option under the rules?

If so, two questions then. First, how can that rule be applied to someone playing a course where they do not know the locations of hazards? Can "should have known about the hazard" really change how the ruling is applied?

Secondly, why was the ref about to let him play the first ball after asking him if he thought the ball was lost outside a hazard, only to change his mind later after consulting with the assistant?

I know you probably can't answer if you didn't see it yourself but I'm trying to figure what could possibly have happened. Maybe it is just a dodgy ruling after all....

PhilipMarlowe

Fore Iron wrote: »

You might be on the right track here. So does it seem that since he really shouldn't have hit a provo because he should known about the hazard, so when he hit the second ball it became the ball in play as relief from the hazard under stroke and distance which is an option under the rules?

If so, two questions then. First, how can that rule be applied to someone playing a course where they do not know the locations of hazards? Can "should have known about the hazard" really change how the ruling is applied?

Secondly, why was the ref about to let him play the first ball after asking him if he thought the ball was lost outside a hazard, only to change his mind later after consulting with the assistant?

I know you probably can't answer if you didn't see it yourself but I'm trying to figure what could possibly have happened. Maybe it is just a dodgy ruling after all....

1st one - Yes.
You hit a dodgy shot and hit a provo on the basis that your ball may be lost. You didn't know that there was a pond around the corner so it couldn't have been a factor.

2nd one - I guess the ref was about to let him play the original because he asked him if he had thought that the ball may have been lost (outside). While that is OK as far as the rules go, (and even taking into account that he replied yes), if there hadn't been grounds to assume that it may have been lost outside then he wouldn't have been in a position to claim that in the first place... played practice rounds, the pro-am, r1.. knew the course?

Clear as mud!

Fore Iron

So, if I hit a ball towards a water hazard but I think there is a chance I have cleared it, then I should hit a provisional. If I find my first ball then I carry on and ignore the second. If I don't find my first ball, then that does not mean that it is in the hazard since there was some (even a tiny bit) doubt and my second ball becomes the ball in play. Am I right so far?

Is there any real circumstance you can think of as an amateur that I could hit that provisional and end up finding my first ball but being forced to play the second one as happened today in India?

Seems awfully unfair, as even the pro today would never have chosen to take a stroke and distance penalty and would have dropped at the hazrd line if he really had thought the ball was in there. Instead he was forced to make his provo the ball in play and ended up with a 7.

Just want to avoid the same thing happening to me!!

IanPoulter

Fore Iron wrote: »

So, if I hit a ball towards a water hazard but I think there is a chance I have cleared it, then I should hit a provisional. If I find my first ball then I carry on and ignore the second. If I don't find my first ball, then that does not mean that it is in the hazard since there was some (even a tiny bit) doubt and my second ball becomes the ball in play. Am I right so far?

Is there any real circumstance you can think of as an amateur that I could hit that provisional and end up finding my first ball but being forced to play the second one as happened today in India?

Seems awfully unfair, as even the pro today would never have chosen to take a stroke and distance penalty and would have dropped at the hazrd line if he really had thought the ball was in there. Instead he was forced to make his provo the ball in play and ended up with a 7.

Just want to avoid the same thing happening to me!!

Had a similar situation today. I hit a ball over a hazard and saw it cross the hazard but roll back down a slope towards the hazard. Nobody was sure whether it rolled back in or got held up. I walked up to the hazard and found the ball in the hazard. I then proceeded to walk back to take a drop from the far side of the hazard. I was later asked why I didnt play a provisional ball and my reply was that I'm not permitted to play a provisional when I think a ball may be lost in a hazard. There was a possibility that my ball was partly in the hazard and could have been playable. Playing a provisional would in that situation given me a choice of ball to play which is never allowed.

Was I correct?

Rikand

IanPoulter wrote: »

Had a similar situation today. I hit a ball over a hazard and saw it cross the hazard but roll back down a slope towards the hazard. Nobody was sure whether it rolled back in or got held up. I walked up to the hazard and found the ball in the hazard. I then proceeded to walk back to take a drop from the far side of the hazard. I was later asked why I didnt play a provisional ball and my reply was that I'm not permitted to play a provisional when I think a ball may be lost in a hazard. There was a possibility that my ball was partly in the hazard and could have been playable. Playing a provisional would in that situation given me a choice of ball to play which is never allowed.

Was I correct?

yes

if you played a "provisional" it wouldnt have technically been your provisional, it would have become your actual playing ball

GreeBo

Rickylovesuall wrote: »

yes

if you played a "provisional" it wouldnt have technically been your provisional, it would have become your actual playing ball

Decisions 27-2a/2 & 27-2a/2.2 cover it.

I just spent a while reading them and my understanding is, if virtually certain thats its in the hazard then you cannot play a provo.

If it may be in the hazard or may be lost somewhere else outside the hazard then you can play a provo. If you subsequently find it in the hazard you must abandon the provo. i.e. the provo is only valid for you not finding the ball.

Hmm even re-reading that first sentence now is confusing!
You cannot lose a ball in a hazard, so you cannot play a provo.

Rikand

GreeBo wrote: »

Decisions 27-2a/2 & 27-2a/2.2 cover it.

I just spent a while reading them and my understanding is, if virtually certain thats its in the hazard then you cannot play a provo.

If it may be in the hazard or may be lost somewhere else outside the hazard then you can play a provo. If you subsequently find it in the hazard you must abandon the provo. i.e. the provo is only valid for you not finding the ball.

Hmm even re-reading that first sentence now is confusing!
You cannot lose a ball in a hazard, so you cannot play a provo.

your last line nails it.

MP62

GreeBo wrote: »

Decisions 27-2a/2 & 27-2a/2.2 cover it.

I just spent a while reading them and my understanding is, if virtually certain thats its in the hazard then you cannot play a provo.

If it may be in the hazard or may be lost somewhere else outside the hazard then you can play a provo. If you subsequently find it in the hazard you must abandon the provo. i.e. the provo is only valid for you not finding the ball.

Hmm even re-reading that first sentence now is confusing!
You cannot lose a ball in a hazard, so you cannot play a provo.

Close but no cigar, if you are virtually cerain the ball is in the hazard there is simply no point in playing a provo you just proceed under your options for that particular hazard, but when you play a provo it's next to impossible to be virtually certain your ball is in the hazard unless you actually find it in there.

Rickylovesuall wrote: »

your last line nails it.

Of course you can lose a ball in a hazard, it's just that you don't have to find it.

Rikand

MP62 wrote: »

Close but no cigar, if you are virtually cerain the ball is in the hazard there is simply no point in playing a provo you just proceed under your options for that particular hazard, but when you play a provo it's next to impossible to be virtually certain your ball is in the hazard unless you actually find it in there.



Of course you can lose a ball in a hazard, it's just that you don't have to find it.

yes, but that doesnt mean you can play a provo. If you hit another ball from the tee, you are assuming that the ball in the hazard is lost and therefore are hitting 3 from the tee

MP62

Rickylovesuall wrote: »

yes, but that doesnt mean you can play a provo. If you hit another ball from the tee, you are assuming that the ball in the hazard is lost and therefore are hitting 3 from the tee

I think you may be abit confused on this one Ricky, if you hit a ball towards a hazard and you are not virtually certain it has gone in and that it maybe lost outside of the hazard (e.g. long grass/bushes surrounding the hazard but not in the hazard) then you play a provo and if you subseqently find your original ball either inside or outside the hazard you must play your original, nowhere in the rules does it say you cannot play a provo in this scenario, but and this is the important bit by playing a provo you are removing the element of virtual certainty, and in that case you would have to find your original ball in order to proceed under your options for a ball in hazard otherwise you play the provo.

GreeBo

MP62 wrote: »

Close but no cigar, if you are virtually cerain the ball is in the hazard there is simply no point in playing a provo you just proceed under your options for that particular hazard, but when you play a provo it's next to impossible to be virtually certain your ball is in the hazard unless you actually find it in there.



Of course you can lose a ball in a hazard, it's just that you don't have to find it.

i think you are still misunderstanding the rule.
its not that there is no point, you cannot under the rules of golf hit a Provo if you are virtually certain the ball is in a water hazard.
i don't understand your next point, what has playing a Provo got to do with your ability to find the ball?
if you think it may be in the hazard and you play a second ball then that second ball is in play, irrespective of where or if you find the first one. you can only hit a Provo if you think your ball its lost outside of a water hazard.
and yes this can mean a walk back to replay the original shot if you don't find the ball.

SnowDrifts

MP62 wrote: »

I think you may be abit confused on this one Ricky, if you hit a ball towards a hazard and you are not virtually certain it has gone in and that it maybe lost outside of the hazard (e.g. long grass/bushes surrounding the hazard but not in the hazard) then you play a provo and if you subseqently find your original ball either inside or outside the hazard you must play your original, nowhere in the rules does it say you cannot play a provo in this scenario, but and this is the important bit by playing a provo you are removing the element of virtual certainty, and in that case you would have to find your original ball in order to proceed under your options for a ball in hazard otherwise you play the provo.

This is how I understand the rule to operate.

MP62

GreeBo wrote: »

its not that there is no point, you cannot under the rules of golf
hit a Provo if you are virtually certain the ball is in a water
hazard.

If you are virtually certain then there is exactly no point that's why there is no provision for it in the ROG, why would you want to anyway?.

i don't understand your next point, what has playing a Provo got to do with your
ability to find the ball?

Hitting a provo has no bearing whatsoever on a persons ability to find a ball.
My point is if you aplay provo you can't decide halfway up the hole that you are now virtually certain that your ball is in the hazard, you gave up that right to virtual certainty by playing a provo, so you must find your original or proceed with the provo.
Edit to say: if you don't know what virtual certainty means then look up the definition.

GreeBo

MP62 wrote: »

GreeBo wrote: »

If you are virtually certain then there is exactly no point that's why there is no provision for it in the ROG, why would you want to anyway?.

because perhaps relief from the hazard is worse than where your Provo might end up on s par 3 for example.you could hole out a Provo from the tee.that's why you can't hit a Provo in this scenario. otherwise you could decide which is better.
hence why you might have to trudge back to the tee.its not that there is no provision, its expressly forbidden!

a hitting a provo has no bearing whatsoever on a persons ability to find a ball.
My point is if you aplay provo you can't decide halfway up the hole that you are now virtually certain that your ball is in the hazard, you gave up that right to virtual certainty by playing a provo, so you must find your original or proceed with the provo.
Edit to say: if you don't know what virtual certainty means then look up the definition.

exactly. and this is why the rule exists. not because there is no advantage to hooting a Provo as you implied above.
thx, i do know the definition :rolleyes:

MP62

GreeBo wrote: »

because perhaps relief from the hazard is worse than where your Provo might end up on s par 3 for example.you could hole out a Provo from the tee.that's why you can't hit a Provo in this scenario. otherwise you could decide which is better.
hence why you might have to trudge back to the tee.its not that there is no provision, its expressly forbidden!



exactly. and this is why the rule exists. not because there is no advantage to hooting a Provo as you implied above.
thx, i do know the definition :rolleyes:

Why the sarcastic smilie?, makes no sense whatsoever, abit like your inane ramblings, if you took the time to read what is actually been said instead of going off in the tangets that the voices in your head are telling you to go, you may start to make sense of it all.
I very much doubt it, but hey you may as well give it a go, good luck.
Anyway I'm off to bed, golf at 9 in the a.m.

GreeBo

MP62 wrote: »

Why the sarcastic smilie?, makes no sense whatsoever, abit like your inane ramblings, if you took the time to read what is actually been said instead of going off in the tangets that the voices in your head are telling you to go, you may start to make sense of it all.
I very much doubt it, but hey you may as well give it a go, good luck.
Anyway I'm off to bed, golf at 9 in the a.m.

a simple "thanks, i didn't know that" would have sufficed tbh.

heavyballs

Why is it that most threads Greebo gets involved in ends up in him pissing someone off,just a general observation.
Sorry for going off topic.

MP62

GreeBo wrote: »

a simple "thanks, i didn't know that" would have sufficed tbh.

You're welcome, glad to see you have now seen the error of your ways.

Rikand

MP62 wrote: »

GreeBo wrote: »

because perhaps relief from the hazard is worse than where your Provo might end up on s par 3 for example.you could hole out a Provo from the tee.that's why you can't hit a Provo in this scenario. otherwise you could decide which is better.
hence why you might have to trudge back to the tee.its not that there is no provision, its expressly forbidden!



exactly. and this is why the rule exists. not because there is no advantage to hooting a Provo as you implied above.
thx, i do know the definition :rolleyes:

Why the sarcastic smilie?, makes no sense whatsoever, abit like your inane ramblings, if you took the time to read what is actually been said instead of going off in the tangets that the voices in your head are telling you to go, you may start to make sense of it all.
I very much doubt it, but hey you may as well give it a go, good luck.
Anyway I'm off to bed, golf at 9 in the a.m.

Its nice to see you admit the error of your ways

whizbang

if you aplay provo you can't decide halfway up the hole that you are now virtually certain that your ball is in the hazard, you gave up that right to virtual certainty by playing a provo

Is a provisional ball, just a provisional. it does not affect the outcome of any previous ball ???

GreeBo

whizbang wrote: »

Is a provisional ball, just a provisional. it does not affect the outcome of any previous ball ???

the point is that if you do not find your original ball, and you are now virtually certain it must be in the hazard you don't have the option of continuing with the original ball (using one of the 3 options you have), the Provo is only a Provo if you play it because you think you may have lost your ball, not that you think it might be in the hazard.
so in this instance playing a Provo does "affect" the previous ball in a sense.

Almaviva

I think Rickylovesuall, MP62, and Greebo all probably correct in their understanding of the rule and only a little lack of clarity in some of the posts leading to an argument in a tea cup.

At the risk of also missing some sublety, can we summarise as follows :

1) If it is virtually certain that a shot has ended in a hazard, then any subsequent play is based on the premise that the ball IS in the hazard.
So:
1a) the player may not play a provisional since if virtually certain the ball is in the hazard he cannot simultaneously hold the view that the ball may be (lost or not) outside the hazard

1b) if he hits a shot from where the original shot was made, then that is taken as his choice of relief from the hazard and that ball is in play - whether the original ball is subsequently found, inside or outside the hazard.

2) If the first ball may be in a hazard, but may also be lost outside the hazard, then :
The player may :
2a) play a provisional if he wishes and declares it to be one

2b) Or he may decide try to find the ball and determine whether inside or outside the hazard

In both 2a) and 2b), if the original ball is found inside or outside the hazard he must play it. If not found, he plays the provisional or goes back the previous position and puts a new ball in play. He cannot, in the case the ball is not found, decide the ball must be in the hazard and play as if it were.

Peace ?

whizbang

viva alma :-)

PARlance

*sings Heal the World in best Michael Jackson voice*

MP62

Almaviva wrote: »

I think Rickylovesuall, MP62, and Greebo all probably correct in their understanding of the rule and only a little lack of clarity in some of the posts leading to an argument in a tea cup.

At the risk of also missing some sublety, can we summarise as follows :

1) If it is virtually certain that a shot has ended in a hazard, then any subsequent play is based on the premise that the ball IS in the hazard.
So:
1a) the player may not play a provisional since if virtually certain the ball is in the hazard he cannot simultaneously hold the view that the ball may be (lost or not) outside the hazard

1b) if he hits a shot from where the original shot was made, then that is taken as his choice of relief from the hazard and that ball is in play - whether the original ball is subsequently found, inside or outside the hazard.

2) If the first ball may be in a hazard, but may also be lost outside the hazard, then :
The player may :
2a) play a provisional if he wishes and declares it to be one

2b) Or he may decide try to find the ball and determine whether inside or outside the hazard

In both 2a) and 2b), if the original ball is found inside or outside the hazard he must play it. If not found, he plays the provisional or goes back the previous position and puts a new ball in play. He cannot, in the case the ball is not found, decide the ball must be in the hazard and play as if it were.

Peace ?

Yes well explained, and now everyone has clear examples of the scenarios involved and as an added bonus we all know greebo and ricky were wrong and I was right all along, happy dayz all round:D.

GreeBo

onlyfinewine

Almaviva wrote: »

I think Rickylovesuall, MP62, and Greebo all probably correct in their understanding of the rule and only a little lack of clarity in some of the posts leading to an argument in a tea cup.

At the risk of also missing some sublety, can we summarise as follows :

1) If it is virtually certain that a shot has ended in a hazard, then any subsequent play is based on the premise that the ball IS in the hazard.
So:
1a) the player may not play a provisional since if virtually certain the ball is in the hazard he cannot simultaneously hold the view that the ball may be (lost or not) outside the hazard

1b) if he hits a shot from where the original shot was made, then that is taken as his choice of relief from the hazard and that ball is in play - whether the original ball is subsequently found, inside or outside the hazard.

2) If the first ball may be in a hazard, but may also be lost outside the hazard, then :
The player may :
2a) play a provisional if he wishes and declares it to be one

2b) Or he may decide try to find the ball and determine whether inside or outside the hazard

In both 2a) and 2b), if the original ball is found inside or outside the hazard he must play it. If not found, he plays the provisional or goes back the previous position and puts a new ball in play. He cannot, in the case the ball is not found, decide the ball must be in the hazard and play as if it were.

Peace ?

Nicely phrased post, congratulations on your clarity. So where does that leave the op who asked the question originally last February? Was the ruling wrong? Insofar as the actual ruling was that the player had to abandon his first ball which was found in the hazard even though he was not virtually certain that his first ball was in a hazard and played a provisional in accordance with the rules.

2a) and 2b), if the original ball is found inside or outside the hazard he must play it.

If not found, he plays the provisional or goes back the previous position and puts a new ball in play. He cannot, in the case the ball is not found, decide the ball must be in the hazard and play as if it were.

GreeBo

onlyfinewine wrote: »

Nicely phrased post, congratulations on your clarity. So where does that leave the op who asked the question originally last February? Was the ruling wrong? Insofar as the actual ruling was that the player had to abandon his first ball which was found in the hazard even though he was not virtually certain that his first ball was in a hazard and played a provisional in accordance with the rules.

If not found, he plays the provisional or goes back the previous position and puts a new ball in play. He cannot, in the case the ball is not found, decide the ball must be in the hazard and play as if it were.

I guess the argument was that he should have been virtually certain it was in the water hazard as thats all there was over there.
In this case it would seem the player couldnt have lost the ball outside of the hazard and so was not entitled to play a provo; thus the second ball was the ball in play.

onlyfinewine

GreeBo wrote: »

I guess the argument was that he should have been virtually certain it was in the water hazard as thats all there was over there.
In this case it would seem the player couldnt have lost the ball outside of the hazard and so was not entitled to play a provo; thus the second ball was the ball in play.

It would seem strange to me that a professional golfer using charts and planners would not have known that the hazard was on the left, so we can probably assume that as he did not see the ball go in the hazard that he was unsighted to some degree by the mounding, curve of the slope or other obstacle in his line of sight. I would imagine in those circumstances that a doubt would arise in the player's mind as to where the ball actually was, and a provisional ball was played in accordance with the rules. I don't know what the conditions were near the area where the ball was lost and whether the ground may have been soft or with high grass in the vicinity so cannot form a definite opinion but would have to rely on the stated intentions of the player as to why he played a provisional ball.
I have no doubt different interpretations can be taken from the facts reported and it certainly exercises the mind.

GreeBo

onlyfinewine wrote: »

It would seem strange to me that a professional golfer using charts and planners would not have known that the hazard was on the left, so we can probably assume that as he did not see the ball go in the hazard that he was unsighted to some degree by the mounding, curve of the slope or other obstacle in his line of sight. I would imagine in those circumstances that a doubt would arise in the player's mind as to where the ball actually was, and a provisional ball was played in accordance with the rules. I don't know what the conditions were near the area where the ball was lost and whether the ground may have been soft or with high grass in the vicinity so cannot form a definite opinion but would have to rely on the stated intentions of the player as to why he played a provisional ball.
I have no doubt different interpretations can be taken from the facts reported and it certainly exercises the mind.

and I think thats exactly the point.
It would be very strange that he would think his ball is anywhere where it could be lost but not in the hazard.
From the OP its not as if there was anything else around where he could honestly say the ball might be lost so he had no "right" to hit a provo as he had no reason to think his ball lost.
On the second bolded point, I dont think that just because you cannot see your ball landing doesnt mean its lost, if that was the case it would be impossible to have blind tee shots...you'd run out of provo's!
You need to have a reasonable expectation that its lost. In a tour event balls are rarely lost unless they are hit into trees, bushes or very long grass. Hitting it towards rough wouldnt count imo.

Agree that the rules can be a mindfield (har har)

IanPoulter

IanPoulter wrote: »

Had a similar situation today. I hit a ball over a hazard and saw it cross the hazard but roll back down a slope towards the hazard. Nobody was sure whether it rolled back in or got held up. I walked up to the hazard and found the ball in the hazard. I then proceeded to walk back to take a drop from the far side of the hazard. I was later asked why I didnt play a provisional ball and my reply was that I'm not permitted to play a provisional when I think a ball may be lost in a hazard. There was a possibility that my ball was partly in the hazard and could have been playable. Playing a provisional would in that situation given me a choice of ball to play which is never allowed.

Was I correct?

So I was correct after all that

Almaviva

IanPoulter wrote: »

So I was correct after all that

No, not really. Though by luck took the correct action.
You were correct in the bit that you were not permitted to play a provisional.
But the reason is that there was no possibility that the ball was lost outside the hazard - not that it may have been lost in the hazard.
And you never have a choice of balls to play. Once you find the first one, you must play it, and the provisional cannot be played.

Nerdstrom

Nice thread here, as I think most clubs with water hazards in play probably have breaches of these rules on a weekly basis. And thanks to MP62, that does clear it up a lot. However there is one part of this rule which I still am don't fully get:

At what stage does the decision have to made about it being virt certain that the ball is in the hazard?

Can you:

hit
not play a provo
head up to where your ball might be
not find it in/outside the hazard
declare it in the hazard based on evidence**
establish a point of entry to hazard with playing partners
proceed accordingly under rules

**evidence could be the line that the ball took, the distance you should have travelled i.e. the player would easily reach the hazard line, etc

So for example, on a blind tee shot to a fairway, there is a hazard in play, a player hits and thinks its 50/50 as to whether his ball stayed in play. It may be ok. But when he gets up there the surrounding areas of this hazard are closely mown and a ball would be clearly visible. However there is no sign of a ball. It is clear where the ball has gone. But because of the lie of the land the group could not see it enter the water.

Whats the ruling??

I suppose my point is that virtually certain for one person is not quite vc for another. For me this player definitely gets a drop, I dont have to see it. I believe there can be enough evidence when the group reaches the area to make a decision.

GreeBo

Nerdstrom wrote: »

At what stage does the decision have to made about it being virt certain that the ball is in the hazard?

You only have to make this decision when you are claiming that your ball is in the hazard and you want to take the appropriate relief.

The point made in this thread is that you cannot hit a provo and then when you get to the area you think the ball should be try to claim that you are now virtually certain the ball is in the hazard and try to take a drop. The second ball is now the ball in play. Otherwise, as IanPoulter correctly pointed out you are leaving yourself the option of which ball is the ball in play depending on how you argue it.

This is never allowed to happen in golf.

So the answer to your question is "yes" depending on your & your parters definition of virtually certain!

Almaviva

Nerdstrom wrote: »

Nice thread here, as I think most clubs with water hazards in play probably have breaches of these rules on a weekly basis. And thanks to MP62, that does clear it up a lot. However there is one part of this rule which I still am don't fully get:

At what stage does the decision have to made about it being virt certain that the ball is in the hazard?

Can you:

hit
not play a provo
head up to where your ball might be
not find it in/outside the hazard
declare it in the hazard based on evidence**
establish a point of entry to hazard with playing partners
proceed accordingly under rules

**evidence could be the line that the ball took, the distance you should have travelled i.e. the player would easily reach the hazard line, etc

So for example, on a blind tee shot to a fairway, there is a hazard in play, a player hits and thinks its 50/50 as to whether his ball stayed in play. It may be ok. But when he gets up there the surrounding areas of this hazard are closely mown and a ball would be clearly visible. However there is no sign of a ball. It is clear where the ball has gone. But because of the lie of the land the group could not see it enter the water.

Whats the ruling??

I suppose my point is that virtually certain for one person is not quite vc for another. For me this player definitely gets a drop, I dont have to see it. I believe there can be enough evidence when the group reaches the area to make a decision.

From the Decisions.
Happy reading.

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

When a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and cannot be found, a player may not assume that his ball is in the water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the water hazard. In order to proceed under Rule 26-1, it must be "known or virtually certain" that the ball is in the water hazard. In the absence of "knowledge or virtual certainty" that it lies in a water hazard, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost somewhere other than in a water hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

When a player's ball cannot be found, "knowledge" may be gained that his ball is in a water hazard in a number of ways. The player or his caddie or other members of his match or group may actually observe the ball disappear into the water hazard. Evidence provided by other reliable witnesses may also establish that the ball is in the water hazard. Such evidence could come from a referee, an observer, spectators or other outside agencies. It is important that all readily accessible information be considered because, for example, the mere fact that a ball has splashed in a water hazard would not always provide "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, as there are instances when a ball may skip out of, and come to rest outside, the hazard.

In the absence of "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, Rule 26-1 requires there to be "virtual certainty" that the player's ball is in the water hazard in order to proceed under this Rule. Unlike "knowledge," "virtual certainty" implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found. However, "virtual certainty" also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified.

In determining whether "virtual certainty" exists, some of the relevant factors in the area of the water hazard to be considered include topography, turf conditions, grass heights, visibility, weather conditions and the proximity of trees, bushes and abnormal ground conditions.

The same principles 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)
26-1/1.3
When is it Necessary to Go Forward to Establish "Virtual Certainty"?

Q. Rule 26-1 requires there to be "knowledge or virtual certainty" before proceeding under the provisions of the Rule. In the absence of "knowledge" that a ball is in a water hazard, is it possible to establish the existence of "virtual certainty" without going forward to assess the physical conditions around the water hazard?

A. In the majority of cases, in order for it to be reasonably concluded that the ball does not lie anywhere outside the water hazard, it is necessary to go forward to assess the physical conditions around the hazard. However, there are situations where there will be sufficient evidence that the ball is in the hazard to establish "virtual certainty" without anyone having to go forward to review the physical conditions around the hazard.

In the following examples, the conclusion that it is "virtually certain" that the ball is in the water hazard would be justified without anyone going forward to the water hazard so that the player would be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Rule 26-1.
It is a clear day, with good visibility. A player's ball is struck towards a water hazard, which has closely mown grass extending right up to its margin. The ball is observed to fall out of sight as it approaches the water hazard but is not seen actually to enter it. From a distance, it can be seen that there is no golf ball lying on the closely mown grass outside the hazard and, from both prior experience and a reasonable evaluation of current course conditions, it is known that the contour of the ground surrounding the hazard causes balls to enter the hazard. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for the conclusion to be reached from a distance that the ball must be in the water hazard.
It is a clear day, with good visibility. A player's ball is struck towards an island putting green. The margin of the water hazard coincides with the apron of the putting green. Both from prior experience and a reasonable evaluation of current course conditions, it is understood that any ball that comes to rest on the apron or the putting green will be visible from where the stroke was made. In this instance, the ball is observed to land on the putting green and roll out of sight. It is therefore concluded that the ball has carried over the green and into the water hazard. The player drops a ball in a dropping zone in front of the hazard, which has been provided by the Committee as an additional option to those under Rule 26-1, and plays to the green. When he arrives at the putting green, he discovers his original ball on the back apron of the green lying on a sunken sprinkler head. Nonetheless, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for the conclusion to be reached from where the ball was last played that the ball must be in the water hazard.

In the following example, it cannot be established that there is "virtual certainty" that the ball is in the water hazard without going forward to assess the area surrounding the hazard.
It is a clear day, with good visibility. A player's ball is struck towards a water hazard, which has closely mown grass extending right up to its margin. The ball is observed travelling in the direction of the water hazard and it is known from prior experience that, with normal turf conditions, the ball would undoubtedly go into the water hazard. However, on this day, the fairways are wet and therefore it is possible that the ball could have embedded in the fairway and thus might not be in the water hazard.

Almaviva

GreeBo wrote: »

So the answer to your question is "yes" depending on your & your parters definition of virtually certain!

Or rather, you and your partners interpretation of the definition in Decision 26 1/1.;)