"Agreed on the search issue...Now if we could get the rationale for not being able to hit a provisional in a potential lost ball/potential water scenario. What's the thinking here???"
JWK:
I've never been too sure why so many golfers have a problem with the prohibition of hitting a provisional ball for a ball that is almost inevitably in a water hazard.
When I say almost inevitably in a water hazard that is because the only prohibition against hitting a provisional ball for a ball in a water hazard hinges on the fact that there needs to be "reasonable evidence" that the ball IS in the water hazard for that prohibition against hitting a provisional ball to exist---and the fact is the test or determination of "reasonable evidence" is damn nigh unto a certainty.
So if there is a possiblity that your ball may not be in the water hazard then you can hit a provisional ball. And if there is undeniably "reasonable evidence" that the ball went into a water hazard, then just play the ball under Rule 26 (Water Hazards).
I've never seen what the big stink is all about other than the fact most golfers don't seem to understand what I just explained there which isn't that complicated if one just reads it once.
And actually there is a Local Rule in the Appendix that can be adopted for various uses of a provisional ball for a ball that may be in a water hazard.
TEP -
Please help me here...
Two years ago, my opponent in an interclub match pull-hooked his tee shot left of the fairway corridor beyond a slight rise to the fairway. We thought that his ball had gone past a stream that stopped before the beginning of the fairway, and that the tee shot was not far enough left to be in a pond beyond the left of the dense trees that is a little "Bermuda Triangle" at my club.
We urged him to hit a provisional, as the caddies positioned in the area did not see the ball enter either lateral water hazard. He striped his provisional down the middle.
Upon walking towards the caddies, we saw a ball in the first lateral hazard/creek that he identified as his. He then said that he was out of the hole in the four-ball, and that he had lost the hole in the individual match. He was quite adamant about his ruling, and I thought that I had learned a quirk in the rules.
Did he apply the rule fairly to himself?
I now frequently prevent people from hitting a provisional if we could not actually see the splash. I do not like this ruling due to the ambigiuty of:
"the fact that there needs to be "reasonable evidence" that the ball IS in the water hazard for that prohibition against hitting a provisional ball to exist---and the fact is the test or determination of "reasonable evidence" is damn nigh unto a certainty. (We have plenty of Lateral WH adjoining O.B. that are not visible from the tee).
So if there is a possiblity that your ball may not be in the water hazard then you can hit a provisional ball. And if there is undeniably "reasonable evidence" that the ball went into a water hazard, then just play the ball under Rule 26 (Water Hazards)."
SO, based upon what you have told me above:
No visiible splash = No Penalty for a Provisional, right?
TEP, also, what is the advantage gained by hitting a provisional when in doubt? Wouldn't we want to speed up play as opposed to a prolonged arguement as to "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin" followed by a long walk back to the original area to put another ball in play? I've had opponents tell me that since we couldn't see the ball go into the hazard for sure (O.B. or lost ball on the other side due to a lack of a 2nd set of stakes for the far side of the hazard, that I couldn't prove that it went in) - Stroke AND distance please - forced match at the tip of a bayonet (Now where have I heard that phrase before???).
Any clarity here, oh wise one?
JWK