[Tim Gavrich]

I think the rule about provisional balls is fine as it is, personally.  I have a question that explores a different side of the situation though, I think:

If you're playing in a tournament and your opponent hits one squirrelly and fishes another ball out of his bag and is about to hit it WITHOUT saying "provisional," are you obligated by the etiquette of the game to ask him if he means to hit a provisional?

Or, is it okay to tell him he abandoned his first ball by not speaking the words if he goes off to look for his first ball?  I'm kind of torn about this, because not all college golfers know the rules.

Cheers.

--Tim

[Bill_McBride]

Here's a situation that just killed me.

I'm playing my favorite course, the Valley Club, with my favorite buddy the member.  I am loose.  I birdie the first hole, a short par 5, with two putts from the front edge.  On the tee of the second, another par 5 that doglegs left, I hit a really solid tee shot that draws nicely over the fairway bunker, perhaps a bit too much of a draw..........

We get down there and my ball is OB on the adjacent Birnam Wood course.  A player over there pitches it over the hedge to me.

I turn disconsolately and hike back to the tee to play my third shot.  My playing companions are pissed.  Is there a better way to enforce this penalty to speed things up? 

[Tim Gavrich]

Here's a situation that just killed me.

I'm playing my favorite course, the Valley Club, with my favorite buddy the member.  I am loose.  I birdie the first hole, a short par 5, with two putts from the front edge.  On the tee of the second, another par 5 that doglegs left, I hit a really solid tee shot that draws nicely over the fairway bunker, perhaps a bit too much of a draw..........

We get down there and my ball is OB on the adjacent Birnam Wood course.  A player over there pitches it over the hedge to me.

I turn disconsolately and hike back to the tee to play my third shot.  My playing companions are pissed.  Is there a better way to enforce this penalty to speed things up? 

Bill--

Most of the time, players will just treat the OB like a hazard and play their third.  Or, maybe, they'll poll their groupmates on where a good provisional would end up and play their fourth from the fairway.  I know that neither situation adheres to the letter of the law, but I haven't met too many foursomes that always play as if they're in a formal tournament.

[Michael Whitaker]

Bill,

In a casual game, to move things along, we'll often play your scenario as if the ball were hit into a lateral hazzard.

Mike

[Ronald Montesano]

Tim and everyone else...the question is not about whether the prova is a good rule, but whether it must audibly be declared.  I like Tim's assessment of the silent competitor...I teach our kids to be proactive and to ask "is that a provisional?"  Most often, the competitor looks up with shit in his teeth and says "what's a provisional?"  Hopefully it's explained properly and then the comp says "yup, that's what it is."

Tim, grinds my gears as a coach when kids don't mark their provi properly and end up with two of the same brand, same number (since they came out of the same sleeve) and don't know which is in and which is out, which is lost and which is found.

Bill, I go with Tim's second scenario in casual play...you guess the spot of the provo and play four from there.  Usually a little shorter but in the fairway.

Jim, how many times do you hear people say "hit another" or "I'll hit another."  I guess that your question refers to competitive play, as guys playing casually would ask each other "What the F*$( did you think it was?"  My gripe is with people who don't know to hit a provisional at all, then ask "what do I do when they are 250 yards and 2-3 floors away from the elevated tee.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

There was some controversy relating to this rule about 25 years ago during one of the provincial championships in Ireland (I think it was the South of Ireland at Lahinch). Player A was playing a match and his opponent (Player B) hooked his second on a par 5 into very nasty rough. Player B then played a provisional ball and proceeded to knock it stiff. He immediately declared his first ball lost and scored 5 (eagle+2 shot penalty for lost ball). Player A was very unhappy with this situation and complained. He maintained that his opponent should have made an attempt to search for his first ball.

I recall that one of the players in the above match was Arthur Pierce, the former Walker Cup player.

As you can see, this rule is open to abuse.

In my opinion, it should be mandatory to search for your first ball. It seem contrary to the spirit of the game, to have a situation where a player can decide whether to go with his first ball, or continue with the provisional, prior to the 5 minutes elapsing. It shouldn't be left to the discretion of the player. A ball should only be declared lost after a serious attempt has been made to find it within the allowed 5 minutes.

This may sound like a silly question, but can you declare a ball as lost, even if you have found it

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon:  The rule can be equally clear (and fairer) by presuming the inevitable.  I say the rule is broken - you're penalizing either stupidity or forgetfulness, with no reason for doing so.  I must not be totally insane, as Padraig reports that my suggestion is under consideration by the R & A.

Knowing something is just that, you know it for sure hence when someone says 'I am playing a PROVISIONAL ball' it is certain what he intends.

Presuming means you think that you know but is not definite. On top that I do not see how your suggestion makes things any clearer.


Donal,

my understanding is that the provisional ball only becomes the ball in play once PLAYED from a point that is known to be closer to the original. As long as player A's ball was further away from the hole than B's then player A could spend 5 minutes looking for B's ball. B can not just declare his ball lost but he does not have to look for it. If it was however B who was to play next then A would only have until B played the provisional ball in order to find the original.

Jon

[Jim_Coleman]

    Donal:  I believe that one's opponent has a right to search for the other's "lost" ball for 5 minutes.  If the ball is found, the provisional would not be in play.  The player would have the option, of course, of declaring the found ball unplayable and hit another.
     None of the discussion on this thread answers my basic point - presume the second ball to be a provisional, rather than the reverse.  Why would a rule presume exactly the opposite of what the presumption actually is?  I'm not changing the provisional rule, only the absurd requirement of announcing it.  If one is stupid enough to want to abandon a ball before seeing where it lies, he should have to so declare.

[Padraig Dooley]

There was some controversy relating to this rule about 25 years ago during one of the provincial championships in Ireland (I think it was the South of Ireland at Lahinch). Player A was playing a match and his opponent (Player B) hooked his second on a par 5 into very nasty rough. Player B then played a provisional ball and proceeded to knock it stiff. He immediately declared his first ball lost and scored 5 (eagle+2 shot penalty for lost ball). Player A was very unhappy with this situation and complained. He maintained that his opponent should have made an attempt to search for his first ball.

I recall that one of the players in the above match was Arthur Pierce, the former Walker Cup player.

As you can see, this rule is open to abuse.

In my opinion, it should be mandatory to search for your first ball. It seem contrary to the spirit of the game, to have a situation where a player can decide whether to go with his first ball, or continue with the provisional, prior to the 5 minutes elapsing. It shouldn't be left to the discretion of the player. A ball should only be declared lost after a serious attempt has been made to find it within the allowed 5 minutes.

This may sound like a silly question, but can you declare a ball as lost, even if you have found it

Donal

The incident you refer to happened at the Irish Close in Westport in 1983. It was the 13th hole, Arthur's opponent (who I know well), hit his tee shot into the woods on the right, his provisional tee shot was much shorter than the original ball, he proceeded with the provisional before looking for the original, he holed the 3 wood approach on which he decided not to look for the original ball. Arthur felt he was obliged to look for the original and went to look for it himslef, he did find it. His opponent went up to green took the provisional from the hole, a provisional ball holed becomes the ball in play when it is removed from the hole, Arthur was still fuming at this stage had a 6 footer for a half, which was conceded just in case he blew a gasket completely.

As to declaring a ball lost you cannot deem a ball to be lost by declaration, see the definition of lost ball.

[Padraig Dooley]

    Donal:  I believe that one's opponent has a right to search for the other's "lost" ball for 5 minutes.  If the ball is found, the provisional would not be in play.  The player would have the option, of course, of declaring the found ball unplayable and hit another.
     None of the discussion on this thread answers my basic point - presume the second ball to be a provisional, rather than the reverse.  Why would a rule presume exactly the opposite of what the presumption actually is?  I'm not changing the provisional rule, only the absurd requirement of announcing it.  If one is stupid enough to want to abandon a ball before seeing where it lies, he should have to so declare.

Jim, in my first response to your initial question I stated the R&A are looking in to changing the procedure on how to declare a provisional ball. They will answer your basic point and you'll find out in the next rules revision, which is due at the start of 2012.

If they change it, they will tell you why and if they don't they will tell you why not.

[Tim Martin]

    Donal:  I believe that one's opponent has a right to search for the other's "lost" ball for 5 minutes.  If the ball is found, the provisional would not be in play.  The player would have the option, of course, of declaring the found ball unplayable and hit another.
     None of the discussion on this thread answers my basic point - presume the second ball to be a provisional, rather than the reverse.  Why would a rule presume exactly the opposite of what the presumption actually is?  I'm not changing the provisional rule, only the absurd requirement of announcing it.  If one is stupid enough to want to abandon a ball before seeing where it lies, he should have to so declare.

Jim-I guess I am missing something but what is hard about stating you are hitting a provisional and identifying your second ball before playing? How many times have you seen guys not even know which ball they played first or as stated previously played the same ball on both shots. Letting people in your group know that the 1st ball was a Titleist 1 and your provisional is a Titlest 2 clears up a lot of potential problems.

[Jim_Kennedy]

If one is stupid enough to want to abandon a ball before seeing where it lies, he should have to so declare.

You're standing on the 12th tee at Augusta, wind's quiet, so you pull 8 iron, swing, and the wind changes direction blowing your shot way back up in the azaleas. No possible shot from there. No one ever gets out of there with a three.  If you're smart you peg up another and hope to stick it close enough for bogey, abandoning your original shot.

[Jim_Coleman]

Jim:  Why is it smart to abandon your ball before checking.  Maybe you got lucky and have a shot.  Declare (or in my case, just hit) a provisional.  What's the downside?  Only that if you find the first and can't play it, you go back to the tee.  Worth the time (no risk), it seems to me, especially if your second (non provisional) happened to be in the creek.  In fact, come to think of it, you may not be allowed to play a provisional there, as there's a good chance the ball isn't lost - only unplayable.

[Rob Bice]

Yes, Dean, you've missed something.  All I'm saying is that the second ball should be presumed to be a provisional.  After all, it ALWAYS is.

Unfortunately the rule is even more complicated.  In a college match one of my teammates hit a drive way right where there were a bunch of trees and, further right, out of bounds stakes.  He stated he was hitting a provisional on the tee and declared the ball make, number, identifying mark, etc.  He ultimately found his original drive but it was directly against a tree and the drop options did not offer anywhere near enough relief.  So one of the options for an unplayable lie is to return to your previous spot and replay the shot.  Well, he had already done that with his provisional so he went to his provisional drive that was in the fairway and finished the hole.  He turned in his scorecard after the round and was DQ'ed for what he did on that hole.

[Bill_McBride]

Yes, Dean, you've missed something.  All I'm saying is that the second ball should be presumed to be a provisional.  After all, it ALWAYS is.

Unfortunately the rule is even more complicated.  In a college match one of my teammates hit a drive way right where there were a bunch of trees and, further right, out of bounds stakes.  He stated he was hitting a provisional on the tee and declared the ball make, number, identifying mark, etc.  He ultimately found his original drive but it was directly against a tree and the drop options did not offer anywhere near enough relief.  So one of the options for an unplayable lie is to return to your previous spot and replay the shot.  Well, he had already done that with his provisional so he went to his provisional drive that was in the fairway and finished the hole.  He turned in his scorecard after the round and was DQ'ed for what he did on that hole.

Validating my proposed rule change to create the multi-functional provisional.  It would have saved considerable time and aggravation.

[Rob Bice]

Bill - exactly!  Sorry, I didn't read your initial post.  Especially given the slow play problem during college matches.  If played correctly the entire group would have been put on the clock!!

[Jon Wiggett]

   
     None of the discussion on this thread answers my basic point - presume the second ball to be a provisional, rather than the reverse.  Why would a rule presume exactly the opposite of what the presumption actually is?  I'm not changing the provisional rule, only the absurd requirement of announcing it.  If one is stupid enough to want to abandon a ball before seeing where it lies, he should have to so declare.

So Jim,

a ball would be seen as a provisional unless otherwise stated. So instead of saying "I am playing a provisional ball in order for it to be considered as such he would now be required to state "this ball is NOT a provisional" Seems to me to be the other side of the same coin.

Jon

[Carl Nichols]

I just don't get the objections to Jim's proposal.  Right now the rule presumes that the re-teed shot is in play, but the player can (and must) declare it's a provisional if that's what he wants.  All Jim's proposal would do is presume that the re-teed shot is a provisional, and the player can (and must) declares it's in play if that's what he wants.  Under Jim's proposal, the player remains free to declare that his re-teed shot is now in play, if he hits the first in a place he doesn't want to find the ball.  How does Jim's proposal rule create more ambiguity or problems than the current rule?  And doesn't it at least have the benefit of tracking what happens in the vast majority of cases, i.e., that the re-teed shot is intended to be a provisional?

[Jim_Coleman]

Correct Jon.  The difference is, people who forget to utter a word aren't penalized.  I confess that I have stupidly neglected to utter the magic word in my very mediocre career, and many times have been with others who did likewise.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()