Collusion - Yes, I'm a Broken Record

[George Pazin]

Victor,
A provisional ball that has been holed out becomes the ball in play when it is pulled from the cup.

Thanks, Pete and Mike!

[Jon Wiggett]

   I dare anyone to explain the upside of not hitting a provisional?

That's an easy one. The story of the guy who holed his provisional ball. Had he not declared it his provisional it would have had a 3 not the 6 he ended up with. Really Jim this is no longer a 'broken record' but rather 'flogging a dead horse' your engaging in now

Jon

[Michael Felton]

   I dare anyone to explain the upside of not hitting a provisional?

Have you never hit a ball into an area where you knew you would not be able to play it even if it were found? I certainly have. The upside is precisely avoiding the situation described here where someone else finds your ball somewhere you don't want it found.

Let's suppose that there is a par three where the right hand side is covered with gorse. You've been in there before so you know that there is nowhere in there that you want to find your ball. If you find it, your only option is going to be to go back to the tee and hit again. Since you're already at the tee, you can save yourself the effort. So it comes down to a choice as follows:

You say provisional. Then you hit your shot. If you hit a good shot, your fellow competitor/opponent can go look for it and if he finds it before you play again, you're going to have to hit another one off the tee. If you hit a bad shot (perhaps in the same gorse), you can go and look for the first one and if you find it you'll be able to go and hit your third off the tee instead of your fifth.

You don't say provisional. Then you hit your shot and you're stuck with the result.

That choice is one that everyone should have to make before they've hit the second ball.

A fundamental principle of the game (as others have stated) is that you can't have a choice between two balls in play. A provisional isn't another ball that you can choose to play if you don't like where the first one is. Once you state it's a provisional (or don't), you have made your choice between the two options up above and you're stuck with it. Rightly so.

[Michael Moore]

And while we are at it, please note that, for better or for worse, for clarity or obfuscation, for common sense or another overly specific legalistic ass-covering complication, Decision 27-2a/1.5, which used to say that you could go only go forward to get a new club or a new ball before hitting a provisional, now says you can roam fifty yards downrange for any reason whatsoever before returning to hit your time-saving extra ball.

[Jim_Coleman]

    Hard to believe this all started when Mucci asked what rule should be changed, and I suggested that having to declare a provisional seems silly, because the second shot is always a provisional.  Nonetheless, I think we've can now bury this topic, although I still think I'm right.

[DMoriarty]

But, regardless, they will ALWAYS have the option of hitting another shot from the previous location, so no advantage is gained over the field.

In the hole-in-three example it seems there is a definite advantage gained over the field.  In fact, whenever the golfer knows the result before he has to decide whether he has really exercised his "option," it seems there is an advantage.

The rule is what it is, and can see how it might have come about.  But surely this is a case where golf has moved well away from the ideal of playing the ball as it lies.

[Brent Hutto]

Virtually the entire Rule book consists of instructions on how to go about not playing the ball as it lies. At some point the exceptions became the Rules, so to speak.

[DMoriarty]

Sometimes remembering back to the ideal can give us a good idea when the exceptions have perhaps strayed a bit too far.

[Pete_Pittock]

protecting the field includes the competitor as well as the fellow competitor

[DMoriarty]

I am not sure how you envision the competitor as being being protected?   Protected from what?  Having to live with the consequences of a bad first shot, regardless of how much he might like his provisional?  

[Carl Nichols]

   I dare anyone to explain the upside of not hitting a provisional?

That's an easy one. The story of the guy who holed his provisional ball. Had he not declared it his provisional it would have had a 3 not the 6 he ended up with. Really Jim this is no longer a 'broken record' but rather 'flogging a dead horse' your engaging in now

Jon

That's looking at it ex post; Jim's question, I think, is asking the question ex ante, when the player hasn't yet played the second ball.  Isn't Jim's question really something like:  "I dare anyone to explain the upside of not declaring a provisional before you have played the second ball"?

[DMoriarty]

That's looking at it ex post; Jim's question, I think, is asking the question ex ante, when the player hasn't yet played the second ball.  Isn't Jim's question really something like:  "I dare anyone to explain the upside of not declaring a provisional before you have played the second ball"?

Closure.

[Brent Hutto]

1) If you expect to hit a shot that is significantly better than you'd expect a found ball to wind up after two strokes, you should not declare a provisional.

2) Or if for whatever reason you just plain old are not feeling like looking for the first ball and don't want anyone else looking on your behalf.

It's that simple. When either situation occurs (very rare but not unheard of in my game) I take the belt and suspenders approach to avoid any misunderstanding. I not only do NOT declare the second ball a provisional but I affirmatively state that "I'm hitting three, this is not a provisional".

Scenario #1) The underbrush in certain places at my club is just sparse enough to allow some visibility while seldom allowing playability. Finding a ball hit into those areas generally involves a) and unplayable lie drop away from the bush and b) a very obstructed shot as likely to be sideways or backwards as forward. On those holes, there is a near-zero chance of making a par or bogey upon finding the ball and any second ball staying out of the woods is equivalent to about the 95th percentile of a found ball outcome. So the couple of times a year that happens I do not play a provisional.

Scenario #2) I have occasionally played in a group with someone who treats golf balls (his own and other players' alike) as a priest treats souls...never giving one up for lost. If there's no match or game for which finding the ball would be a meaningful advantage I generally abandon balls hit into trouble and just keep moving. Saying explicitly that "This is NOT a provisional" will sometimes, but not always, dissuade those fellows from dawdling five minutes or more in the dogged belief that my ball should be easy enough to find and play. I pay a buck forty for my golf balls and am quite willing to abandon them without a search. On occasion it can be a challenge to have that wish respected by ones companion(s) for the round.

[Michael Felton]

Virtually the entire Rule book consists of instructions on how to go about not playing the ball as it lies. At some point the exceptions became the Rules, so to speak.

And yet, how often do you do anything other than just play it as it lies? When was the last time you actually had to refer to the Decisions book to determine what to do? 95% of the game is just hit it and find it and hit it again. The rule book is really there for the 5% of the time when things go wrong.

[Carl Nichols]

Brent:

Your point (1) is *too* simple.  You need to account for (a) the possibility, however slim and unanticipated, that your found ball is in a place you'd actually like to play from; and (b) the only cost of declaring a provisional is that you might have to play a 3rd ball . . . which, from an ex ante perspective, has a 50/50 chance of being better than your provisional.

In fact, the reasons you identify for not declaring a provisional have basically nothing to do with score--they are about speed and not wanting to have to go back to the tee.  Those are certainly fine reasons not to declare, but I don't see them as score-maximizing reasons. 

[Jim_Coleman]

Carl:  That's why the rule should be changes (to answer Pat's question).  It should always be a provisional, unless you declare otherwise (which you never would).  This rule change would protect golfers (including me) from being penalized for being stupid, angry, or lazy.  There's no reason for the rule to presume the exact opposite of the reality.  I'm done!  Sorry this got a little out of hand.  Not my doing.

[Jon Wiggett]

   I dare anyone to explain the upside of not hitting a provisional?

That's an easy one. The story of the guy who holed his provisional ball. Had he not declared it his provisional it would have had a 3 not the 6 he ended up with. Really Jim this is no longer a 'broken record' but rather 'flogging a dead horse' your engaging in now

Jon

That's looking at it ex post; Jim's question, I think, is asking the question ex ante, when the player hasn't yet played the second ball.  Isn't Jim's question really something like:  "I dare anyone to explain the upside of not declaring a provisional before you have played the second ball"?

Okay,

Your ball has flown into the middle of an area of thick gorse. It is plainly obvious that even if you find the ball you will not be able to play it, drop it with in two club lengths and line of sight is going OOB. The only way forward would be to play from the last place you hit the ball. To save time it is obvious the course of action is to not look for the first ball and put another ball in play.

This is obvious really and I suspect Jim knows this just needs to man up and admit it .

Jon

[Sean_A]

You guys aren't getting a grip.  Jim wants the assumption when reloading to be a provisional rather than a new ball in play because nearly all the time thats what it is.  Thats all he is asking for.  I don't see why its such a big issue.  Whats wrong the rules going from the angle of a a reload is a provo unless otherwise stated?  Once again, GCA finds ways to make mountains out of mosquito bites  .

Ciao

[Jim_Coleman]

   Thank you Sean. 
   Jon:  I'm not saying don't hit another ball.  I'm only saying let it be a provisional, whether you declare it or not.  Wouldn't you feel stupid if you didn't declare it and, when you arrived at the ball, it turned out that it hit a stone and bounced to a place from which you could easily play it?  That's why one ALWAYS declares a provisional, unless he's stupid or angry.  There's no treason not to.

[Michael Felton]

I'm not sure it's the place of the rules to protect people from their stupidity. Might as well say there's no penalty for playing a wrong ball or for picking your ball up without marking it or any number of other things. Isn't that too just protecting people from their stupidity.

Jim, if I hit my ball into the aforementioned gorse and played another ball without declaring it a provisional and hit it down the middle of the fairway I'd be mighty pissed if I was then forced to walk back to the tee again because someone found my ball in the gorse in an unplayable position (a position that I knew would be unplayable when I hit the second ball).

The reason it's not the assumption is because the rules assume that the ball you are hitting is the ball that's in play. They allow you an option to play a provisional, but unless you expressly state that that's what you are doing, then the assumption that it's the ball you are playing is the one that wins out.

[Brent Hutto]

Jim, if I hit my ball into the aforementioned gorse and played another ball without declaring it a provisional and hit it down the middle of the fairway I'd be mighty pissed if I was then forced to walk back to the tee again because someone found my ball in the gorse in an unplayable position (a position that I knew would be unplayable when I hit the second ball).

Right.

And to clarify the assumption underlying my earlier "scenarios", no matter what happens I am not going to walk back to the tee to play a third ball. Ever. I don't play in stroke-play touraments, I'm usually on courses with people playing behind me and I'm just not going to do it.

So Michael rightly points out that if there's an overwhelming likelihood of the first ball being unplayable, then by specifically saying my second ball is in play I am not foreclosing on having to walk back to the tee for an unplayable. Because I'm never going to do that anyway.

[Mark Bourgeois]

This rule change would protect golfers (including me) from being penalized for being stupid, angry, or lazy. 

The Voice of Tom Paul

Jim:

I think you pretty much nailed it with that statement!

However, I don't believe the Rules of Golf OR the Rules makers are interested in, or have ever been interested in, protecting golfers from being stupid, angry, or lazy when it comes to understanding and applying the Rules of Golf correctly. Matter of fact, I think it has always been quite the opposite, as I think it should be! I believe they feel, as I do, that being penalized for stupidity, anger or laziness regarding the Rules might motivate any golfer to understand the Rules of Golf better, if for no other reason than to simply help him help himself (as well as others).

I realize I am probably unusual in that the Rules of Golf always completely fascinated me. So much so that when I started playing tournament golf I memorized not just the Rule Book but the entire Decisions Book. And I always carried a Decisions Book in my bag (when they started making them in their compact size). What that did for me in tournament golf was give me an interesting additional pride in my game; it also helped me to always help myself by not making mistakes with the Rules and getting penalized for it by stupidity, anger or laziness.

It also allowed me to help innumerable golfers I was playing both with AND against in both match and stroke play. The latter was one of the most remarkable things of all in my tournament career. In various situations that only involved fellow competitors AND even opponents, I would mention some pertinent information on the Rules involving their particular Rule situation. It is just remarkable to me that over the years how many of them thought that was such a strange thing for me to do. Many of them even thought I might be violating Rule 8 when I offered them advice on Rules information in their situation. I can't tell you how many times I had to explain to them that offering information on the Rules of Golf is not considered to be "advice" under the definition of "Advice" in the Rule Book. Naturally over time many of them came to even consider that to be an unusual act of sportsmanship.

Of course, I did not always do that for fellow competitors or opponents for reasons that were strictly practical (like I may not have been near enough to them), and consequently over the years I just can't quite explain how much that helped me competitively when they penalized themselves for applying the Rules incorrectly. And most interesting of all, it never even required a single shot from me to help myself that way.

Rule 27 is only two pages long. It would take any golfer about five minutes to read it and understand it, including the differences between Rule 27-1 (Stroke and Distance) and 27-2 (Provisional Ball). Once they've done that via five minutes of reading that Rule they are done and should consequently never again penalize themselves due to stupidity, anger or laziness.

No, Jim, I don't think the Rules of Golf or the Rules makers should ever do anything with the Rules to condone golfers, or protect them, for penalizing themselves due to stupidity, anger or laziness. Again, I think it should always be quite the opposite, and I am quite sure the Rules makers do too, and always have!

[SL_Solow]

Sean;  I noted the reality of Jim's position as far back as reply 41 and again at 63.  I even suggested that if the rule were changed to reverse the presumption, I could live with that.  The ensuing discussion both explored the current rule and the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind it.  If the equities were that simple, we wouldn't have spent this much time.  If the argument is,"it doesn't matter in a casual game", then we aren't talking about the rules of golf.  what is most interesting is that all one has to do to avoid a problem is to announce that the next shot is a provisional ball.  I suppose that is too much to remember.

[Carl Nichols]

SL's post makes this clear, I think, but Jim's proposal is just about reversing the presumption; Brent and Jon W would be free to declare, before striking a second ball, that "this is not a provisional."  To Jim's point, I think that would get declared much less frequently than "this is a provisional" under the current rule. 

Having said all that, I'm not sure there wouldn't be some unintended consequences from switching the presumption.  Might people hit second balls more often?  Might it sow confusion?  It seems like it wouldn't, but I'm not entirely sure.
 

[Jon Wiggett]

Jim, Sean,

changing the rule to the assumption that a second ball played would always be a provisional not only does not fit the basic ethos of the game as Michael pointed out but also it does not alter the fact that a player has to make a choice of declare or not declare. In the end your argument about forgetting to declare a ball a provisional falls flat on its face as surely you would remember to say this when you inform playing partners of the balls markings for identification purposes provisional or not. Indeed, I have yet to witness anyone who has not informed playing partners that they were either putting a new ball in play or hitting a provisional.