A recently passed a rules of golf accreditation test which is a very dangerous thing !! A little knowledge in the wrong hands does not go a long way . In our Saturday club 4-Ball – The toughest ruling of the lot came up on a tricky par 5 when one of the players smashed his second shot, a 3 wood, in the direction of a water hazard.
And so began an issue regarding a 5 minute rule, lost ball provisional ball, ball in play, wrong ball; and ball lost or thought to be lost in the hazard. As I recall , we all searched for the players ball and after approximately 5 minutes conceded that it must be lost in the water hazard and we all continued to play the hole. Player then claims to have put a ‘provisional ball’ in play from the edge of the water hazard (without informing marker or fellow players) – clearing the water hazard with ‘Provisional’ but striking tree and landing just on the other side of hazard. Player then discovers original ball, abandons ‘Provisional’ and completes the hole with the original ball much to the AMAZEMENT of other members of the 4-Ball.

GOLF RULES MADE SIMPLE 101

In reality it’s not really a tough decision. The moment he hit the ‘provisional’ without informing anyone, that became the ball in play (his fourth shot) – rule 27-2a.

You firstly need to decide whether or not it was known or virtually certain that the ball was in the water hazard. If you looked for it for 5 minutes then I imagine that there may have been other places the ball may have been, but you couldn’t find it.

If there was anywhere outside the water hazard that the ball may have been, then it’s a lost ball and the player should have returned to the spot he last played from and played again under penalty of stroke and distance.

This may have been what you meant by ‘conceding’ that it was lost in the hazard but I think it’s worth clarifying.

If it was known or virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard then assuming that the player correctly followed the rules for dropping when a ball is lost in a hazard, and despite his meaningless declaration of ‘provisional’, as Libba states that ball is in play and subsequently finding his original ball is irrelevant. Although it does lead back to my original point of were the requirements for known or virtually certain met if his ball was subsequently found outside the hazard?

I suspect groome19 knew the answer but was just relating the difficulties in making rulings in messy situations.

This ruling stops all debate in the tracks – very NB point this. We had all wondered off after looking for the ball and were under the impression that player would proceed under lost ball in hazard situation.

I was not happy with the marker accepting the Provisional Ball in play and then original ball found scenario. It just did not seem right.

This raises an important point as to what the chances were of the ball being in the water hazard or lost in the vicinity. I would say that it was a 50/50 chance that the ball found its way into the water hazard. What are the variations in the split of probability between lost in water hazard and lost outside of hazard. It was a blind shot with a 3 wood and directed towards the water hazard – very difficult to tell???

What if he played provisional from the edge of the water hazard and not on spot nearest to where the last shot was played???

Not that simple :-) Who determines whether ball is lost in water hazard or potentially lost outside of hazard i.e. adjacent forest or bushes next to water hazard?

This was a blind shot headed for the hazard – 180 meters away??

A 50/50 chance of being in the water hazard would be nowhere near enough to take water hazard relief. Either knowledge or virtual certainty is needed. The player decides if he plays it as lost in the hazard, but the Committee would also have to be convinced if his playing partners didn’t agree.

What if he played provisional from the edge of the water hazard and not on spot nearest to where the last shot was played???

As soon as the player has headed off after playing a shot, he can no longer play a provisional for that shot. The lack of announcement does not even come into it.

Thanks Steb – so it must be virtually certain that ball is lost in the hazard to take relief from the hazard.

So the most reasonable action is to announce and put a provisional ball in play , before leaving the mark where previous shot was played and before beginning the search for ball in and around the hazard?

That is correct. Of course this is only an option if the ball could be lost outside the Hazard which it seems in this case it probably was.
To my mind. the player has gained a significant advantage by hitting the Provisional ball from close to the hazard rather than returning to where previous shot was played from..This was after he had conceded that the ball was lost which is correct once the 5 minutes was up. To me significant advantage = serious breech . result DQ. without taking into account how many more rules he has broken in the process of finishing the hole.

A provisional ball can only be played if the original is suspected of being lost outside a hazard or out of bounds. If the player is ‘virtually certain’ that his ball is lost in the water hazard and he drops and plays another ball, it cannot be a provisional – it is now the ball in play, irrespective of whether 5 minutes has elapsed in searching for the original and irrespective of whether he uses the ‘provisional’ word.

Only if the original is found within 5 minutes of commencing the search and provided he has not put another ball into play, may he continue with the original.

So, provided his claim of ‘virtually certain’ is justified, he has played 2 into the hazard, 3 out, 4 hits the tree. Then, reverting to his original ball, it’s a wrong ball from a wrong place – penalty 2. Assuming it is not nearer the hole than the one that has just cleared the hazard, his stroke with it is No 7 plus whatever else he took to complete the hole.

If he signed his card for less than that, he is disqualified.

Accurate OB if there is KVC that ball is in the hazard. In this case that appears not to be the case . After 5 minutes searching the ball is not found thus is lost. Ball may be lost outside of hazard so player must return to where previous ball was played from.He does not & drops at point of entry therefore getting a 180m gain. The fact that he then finds the original ” Lost” ball does not affect that gain until he breeches yet another rule & plays the original ball which he has now found.( outside the hazard.)
I would hazard a guess that after playing the found original ball he has signed for a card with a score on this particular hole with no penalties involved.Again resulting in Disqualification.
Just the way I see it with the information supplied.which is probably the information the match committee would be dealing with if the incident was reported.
Of course we do not have the players slant on the incident.

This raises an important point as to what the chances were of the ball being in the water hazard or lost in the vicinity. I would say that it was a 50/50 chance that the ball found its way into the water hazard. What are the variations in the split of probability between lost in water hazard and lost outside of hazard. It was a blind shot with a 3 wood and directed towards the water hazard – very difficult to tell???

Known = 100% probability
Virtual certainty = 98+% probability

This raises an important point as to what the chances were of the ball being in the water hazard or lost in the vicinity. I would say that it was a 50/50 chance that the ball found its way into the water hazard. What are the variations in the split of probability between lost in water hazard and lost outside of hazard. It was a blind shot with a 3 wood and directed towards the water hazard – very difficult to tell???

Known = 100% probability
Virtual certainty = 98+% probability

Virtually certain = 99%+

The problem is everybody can have a different opinion of that thus is fairly meaningless as far as rules/decisions and therefore just adds confusion and wastes time.

If I am playing a match against somebody and I was mean spirited I would doubt I would be happy to come to the virtually certain answer but on the other hand if I am marking a buddies card in a stableford that would most likely be the decision.

Is there a better way to handle it?

Is there a better way to handle it?

 

Not going there, please read the thread “Why are the rules simpler” fiasco.

Needless to say imo, whenever an individual is required to interpret it is not a very good rule or decision.

Is there a better way to handle it?

 

Not going there, please read the thread “Why are the rules simpler” fiasco.

Needless to say imo, whenever an individual is required to interpret it is not a very good rule or decision.

John Huggan on the passing of Seve – “Sadly for all who love golf as the art form it is meant to be and not the science it has become, we may never see his like again.”

If the Rule only said “known”, would everyone interpret it the same?

I don’t think so, as ‘knowing’ can still be subjective. Some people might consider that a ball could ricochet off rocks inside the hazard or skip across the water, others might not.

Virtually certain? Is there any chance it could be anywhere else?

It does not mean ‘I can’t find it in this 5cm long grass’.

If there was fairway level grass all the way to the margin of the hazard, one could be virtually certain the ball is in the hazard because it clearly isn’t elsewhere.

If the ball is then found outside the hazard in a location that was not clearly possible earlier, does that change the previous certainty?

I think not.

The KVC ‘patch’ to the rule doesn’t change the fact that the action required of the player is different depending on whether the lost ball is in the hazard or not. This is something that frequently is not obvious. If the action required of the player was the same either way, it wouldn’t matter. The KVC idea was not the best solution to the problem.

OB is on to something there, fact is player can’t find the ball no matter where it is, common sense would dictate the outcome should be the same

Would that same common sense dictate that all field goals in basketball be worth 2 points so that any uncertainty as to whether the shooter was behind the 3-point line could be eliminated?