Provisional or not

Seve OB

Miley Byrne wrote: »

Well then it is a pointless exercise hitting a provisional if there is zero chance of the ball being lost outside the hazard, because it will never be in play. Surely you would know that rule though?

Well the idea was not for it to be a pointless exercise, but rather to speed up play if it turned out my ball was in the hazard.

Miley Byrne wrote: »

On a slight tangent here but I would argue though that in this instance that if you didn't find your ball after walking down to where you thought it was (after playing a provisional) that you couldn't then say it must be in the hazard. By playing a provisional you are basically saying "I'm hitting a provisional ball here because I think it may be lost". You cant say "I'm hitting a provisional here because it may or may not be in a hazard".

If I walked down and didn't find it, the only place it was going to be was in the hazard. there was rough there, but not thick stuff. There was no possible room for argument. It was either going to be found above ground, or either lost or possibly found in the hazard.

Miley Byrne wrote: »

Basically by hitting a provisional it is implied that you aren't virtually certain that the ball is in a hazard.

I was virtually certain the ball was going to be fine. It turned out that it was. My playing partners (all 3 of them) were virtually certain the ball came back into the hazard.

I hit the Provo to speed up play in the order that if my ball was not ok, I would concede that it went in hazard and I would be lying 3. I realise now I was wrong. And no, I didn't know the rule. But I do now

Seve OB

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Are you sure? Why would that be?

because it is against the rules

CalamariFritti

Seve OB wrote: »

because it is against the rules

How could it be against the rules? You hit a dodgy ball then you hit a provisional. Then you go and find out whether the provo comes into play or not.

I can thinkk of a few situations where a provo may be unnecessary but I can’t think of any where it would be against the rules.

As to your situation. You lost me.
You say you found your ball outside the hazard and you can’t continue normally?

I’m thinking that is the one outcome where you will continue normally.

I’m thinking there are three possible outcomes here assuming you hit a dodgy ball and then a provo.

A) the ball turns out to be in the hazard. Pick up the provo. Proceed under hazard rule.
the ball is found outside the hazard. Pick up the provo. Hit your second shot.
C) the ball is lost ( and you can’t be certain it’s in the hazard or else see A). Your provo is in play lying three.

Am I missing something?

GreeBo

Seve OB wrote: »

I hit the Provo to speed up play in the order that if my ball was not ok, I would concede that it went in hazard and I would be lying 3.

Which is exactly what a provo is not for.

Miley Byrne

Seve OB wrote: »

I was virtually certain the ball was going to be fine. It turned out that it was. My playing partners (all 3 of them) were virtually certain the ball came back into the hazard.

Well hypothetically, if you couldn't find your ball when you went down to where you thought it was then you couldn't then say "it must be in the hazard". That's my understanding of the rule anyway. Either you are certain it's in the hazard or you are not. By hitting a provisional you are implying that you believe it's not in the hazard.



Actually in this situation if you are playing a match and and a ball could be lost inside or outside a hazard you are better off saying to your opponent "that's in the hazard". If it's found outside the hazard then great, if it's not found at all you have already said you believed it was in the hazard so you can proceed with a one stroke penalty. But that's a discussion for another day.

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

How could it be against the rules? You hit a dodgy ball then you hit a provisional. Then you go and find out whether the provo comes into play or not.

I can thinkk of a few situations where a provo may be unnecessary but I can’t think of any where it would be against the rules.

As to your situation. You lost me.
You say you found your ball outside the hazard and you can’t continue normally?

I’m thinking that is the one outcome where you will continue normally.

I’m thinking there are three possible outcomes here assuming you hit a dodgy ball and then a provo.

A) the ball turns out to be in the hazard. Pick up the provo. Proceed under hazard rule.
the ball is found outside the hazard. Pick up the provo. Hit your second shot.
C) the ball is lost ( and you can’t be certain it’s in the hazard or else see A). Your provo is in play lying three.

Am I missing something?

Because you're not actually hitting a provisional. You're hitting a ball under stroke and distance because you are virtually certain the first ball is in the hazard. Once you hit that second ball, it's in play and whether the first ball is in the hazard or not, it's out of play.

CalamariFritti

prawnsambo wrote: »

Because you're not actually hitting a provisional. You're hitting a ball under stroke and distance because you are virtually certain the first ball is in the hazard. Once you hit that second ball, it's in play and whether the first ball is in the hazard or not, it's out of play.

It is not if I call it a provisional. Which I wouldn’t do if I was certain it was in the hazard.

I’m either certain or I’m not. If I’m not certain the provo is perfectly legit. If I’m certain I just walk to the drop zone.

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

It is not if I call it a provisional. Which I wouldn’t do if I was certain it was in the hazard.

I’m either certain or I’m not. If I’m not certain the provo is perfectly legit. If I’m certain I just walk to the drop zone.

We're talking about the specific circumstances of Seve's situation. In this case there was no chance of the ball being lost outside the hazard. It's either there and playable or in the hazard. In that scenario, you can't play a provisional ball.

When you play the provisional, you have to say that you believe that the ball may be lost outside the hazard, not that the ball may be in the hazard. Otherwise there's no need for a provisional at all.

Seve OB

GreeBo wrote: »

Which is exactly what a provo is not for.

so if a provo is not meant to speed up play, then why ever hit a provo?

you would just walk up look, cant find, walk back, hit your third.

hitting a provo, eliminates the need to walk back, thus speeding up play.

Seve OB

Miley Byrne wrote: »

Well hypothetically, if you couldn't find your ball when you went down to where you thought it was then you couldn't then say "it must be in the hazard". That's my understanding of the rule anyway. Either you are certain it's in the hazard or you are not. By hitting a provisional you are implying that you believe it's not in the hazard.

of course you can.

have you ever hit a ball down the centre of a fairway.
walked up the middle and then realise there is a little stream running across the middle, right where you saw your ball land. but your ball is nowhere in sight. it is absolutely accepted by everyone that the ball has to have run out in to the hazard.

happens all the time

GreeBo

Seve OB wrote: »

so if a provo is not meant to speed up play, then why ever hit a provo?

you would just walk up look, cant find, walk back, hit your third.

hitting a provo, eliminates the need to walk back, thus speeding up play.

I wasn't implying its not to speed up play, its the below section that is wrong.

" if my ball was not ok, I would concede that it went in hazard and I would be lying 3"

If your ball is not ok then you proceed with the same options as if you had seen the ball go into the hazard, none of them involve continuing with your provisional.

GreeBo

Seve OB wrote: »

happens all the time

That doesn't make it right, people take incorrect drops all the time.

What if someone else had picked up your ball, or a bird picked it up, or it hit a rock in the stream and bounced off into the rough?

"virtually certain" is there for a reason and is there to prevent you from having to being waders and retrieve your ball from the hazard.

Miley Byrne

Seve OB wrote: »

of course you can.

have you ever hit a ball down the centre of a fairway.
walked up the middle and then realise there is a little stream running across the middle, right where you saw your ball land. but your ball is nowhere in sight. it is absolutely accepted by everyone that the ball has to have run out in to the hazard.

happens all the time

Different situations, you said you were certain your ball was outside the hazard. It's rare i would ever say that to be honest. As I said above, you are better off saying that it's in the hazard if you have any doubt

"A shut mouth catches no flies"

CalamariFritti

You're supposed to make the most honest decision. You're supposed to be certain. Reasonably certain. Not like 'aliens might have taken it with a time machine, its possible' but reasonably certain.
If there is a bank of rough before the green and half of it is in the hazard and the other half isn't then you cant be certain its in the hazard .
If its like that par 3 in Sawgrass then you can be reasonably certain.

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

You're supposed to make the most honest decision. You're supposed to be certain. Reasonably certain. Not like 'aliens might have taken it with a time machine, its possible' but reasonably certain.
If there is a bank of rough before the green and half of it is in the hazard and the other half isn't then you cant be certain its in the hazard .
If its like that par 3 in Sawgrass then you can be reasonably certain.

The word in the rules is 'virtually'. I think that's a higher level of certainty than 'reasonably'.