ball driven into lake

[Colin L]

You can't play a provisional if the original is in a water hazard. The ball he called a provisional is actually his penalty ball for the lake ball. He is now lying three in the fairway. But it does not end there. He picked up the "provisional" (his ball in play) without any authority in the rules. This constituted moving the ball in play and incurred a penalty of one stroke and must replace the ball. R.18-2a. He did not do that and holed out with the wrongly substituted ball. (The ball he dropped for the one in the lake.) That incurred an additional two penalty strokes. R. 15-2. So in addition to his strokes he should add three penalty strokes for the hole. I probably forgot something.

We'll end up with the same score but I would disagree on the applicable rule. Acepting that his ball was known to be in the water hazard, his second ball - his so-called "provisional" - became the ball in play under R27-1 - agreed. He then dropped a third ball which became the ball in play, improperly substituted for the second. That was done before he picked up the second ball which was thus just a stray ball at the time. The only applicable rule for his substitution by a third ball was 27-1 (again!). It was played from a wrong place, incurring a 2 stroke penalty. Since it was played from a place level with his second ball, it may not be a serious breach but you'd need to know if there were any other factors to be certain.

 

[atticusfinch]

Agreed. I did not note the timing.

 

[Foxholer]

You mean "explicit" right?

Sort of! And I did actually ponder which! And from which point of view - poster or reader!

In this case (hey that's explicit!), there wasn't a need for one - so it's implicit! But an explicit one wouldn't have done any harm.

From a reader's point of view, an implicit one, if the poster hasn't used an explicit one, works every time.

So to clarify (maybe)....

The reader needs to ensure that's there's a (perhaps implicit) 'In this case'. That covers the ones where the 'subtle difference' actually affects actions/rulings/penalties etc.

Phew! Thank heaven the guys that write The Rules are better at words than me!

 

[atticusfinch]

Implicit means the meaning has to be implied. That is not a good idea for a rule you expect people to follow uniformly.

 

[chrisd]

So - the splash is seen so it's certain or virtually certain to be in the hazard

If a provisional is played its because the player/s arn't certain it's in the hazard so cant claim certainty or (virtual certainty)

If provisional is played and ball is subsequently found in a water hazard then the provisional is abandoned and player continues with water hazard rules providing he doesn't claim seeing it going in water

Is score part of the reason for rule, if it's a water hazard drop he is playing 3 but if it's a reload or provisional he's playing 4 from where his provisional lands

Is this correct?

 

[atticusfinch]

Better than asking somenoe to paraphrase the rule check out the relevant decisions. they should answer your questions,
[h=2]26-1/1[/h][h=4]Meaning of "Known or Virtually Certain"
[/h][h=2]27-2a/2[/h][h=4]Provisional Ball Played Solely in Belief Original Ball Might Be in Water Hazard
[/h][h=2]27-2a/2.2[/h][h=4]Possibility That Original Ball Is in Water Hazard May Not Preclude Play of Provisional Ball[/h][h=2]27-2a/2.5[/h][h=4]Player Plays Provisional Ball in Belief Original Might Be Lost Outside Water Hazard Then Discovers There Is No Possibility of Its Being Lost Outside Water Hazard[/h][h=2]27-2a/3[/h][h=4]Play of Provisional Ball in Absence of Reasonable Possibility Original Ball Is Lost or Out of Bounds
[/h]

 

[Foxholer]

Implicit means the meaning has to be implied. That is not a good idea for a rule you expect people to follow uniformly.

I disagree. Only the presence of those words is implicit/implied, not the meaning.

The meaning should actually be clarified, or at least made less liable to erroneous extensions/inferences. The fact that a slightly different set of circumstances can completely change a ruling simply demonstrates the need for those words to be at least implicitly present to the reader, if not explicitly written by the poster.

That's why I mentioned the possibility of generating 'myths'. a particular set of circumstances may mean that a certain action is allowed/disallowed/required, but that doesn't mean that all similar (not identical) circumstances will allow/disallow/require that action. By at least implicitly restricting it to that case, the likelihood of erroneously applying the ruling to a slightly different set of circumstances can be avoided.

Consider a Yes/No (only) answer to the question 'Can I move this sand' - and any possible inference.

But enough language gymnastics. That's got me thinking back to Venn Diagrams!

And @ChrisD...No. It's about what Rule you are playing in line with and what you are able to do under that Rule. As the Provisional Ball part of Rule 27 excludes 'lost in water hazard', you are not playing a Provisional Ball, so must be/are playing under Stroke and Distance (27-1 via 26-1 Option a).

 

[rulefan]

Only the presence of those words is implicit/implied, not the meaning.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

Explicit means the words themselves appear in the text.

Imply means that the words themselves do not appear in the text but that the sense of the (missing) words can be inferred from the context or other words in the text.


Two ladies talking about pink lipsticks.

A - 'Which one to you like?'
B - 'It's difficult, they are all nice'
A - 'I like that deep shade of pink' - pink explicit
B - 'I prefer a lighter shade' - pink implied.

 

[backwoodsman]

Can I check I've followed this correctly - particularly in respect of getting the score right. The 'provisional' was not so and was a ball played under S&D. So that ball was lying 3 somewhere adjacent the WH. He then wrongly substituted that ball by dropping for what he thought was his original in the WH. So there is a two stroke penalty (=5). It's the ball in play so when he hits it he's played 6? Although it was played from a wrong place the exception to 15/2 means there's no additional penalty so he has played 6 ??

Although, since the OP uses the word 'match' it could be just loss of hole?

 

[Foxholer]

I'm not sure what you are saying.

Explicit means the words themselves appear in the text.

Imply means that the words themselves do not appear in the text but that the sense of the (missing) words can be inferred from the context or other words in the text.


Two ladies talking about pink lipsticks.

A - 'Which one to you like?'
B - 'It's difficult, they are all nice'
A - 'I like that deep shade of pink' - pink explicit
B - 'I prefer a lighter shade' - pink implied.

Close enough for me.

My assertion is that the reader should implicitly insert the 'In this case' phrase even when the poster hasn't explicitly written it.

That would make the reply to the Yes/No answer to the 'Can I move this sand' correct wherever the sand was - except of course when it was spread across both green and fringe, though the implicit phrase is still valid.

I prefer my lipstick bright btw. That way, I can easily see it when I leave the putt short!

 

[atticusfinch]

I don't see where we are saying anything different. A rule should be clearly stated with as little as possible left to different interpretations.

 

[chrisd]

I don't see where we are saying anything different. A rule should be clearly stated with as little as possible left to different interpretations.

I agree, but, when discussing these sorts of rules with players, my experience is that you have to be able to answer questions where they think their situation differs from others.

I had exactly the same WH question put to me last week by a mate at my club, except he said that if you hit a provisional and found your ball in ANY hazard then the provisional became the ball in play. This, he said was the reason Greg Norman dq'd himself from the Honda Classic some years ago

I put him right on the matter by doing what I did in my earlier posting by explaining, step by step, the rules as they are and then why Norman fell foul of the WH rule. This got through after a hearty disagreement by a guy who was adamant that his interpretation was correct and (for him) the Norman incident proves it. The facts, as he was reading them showed that he had completely misunderstood the relevant point which I find local club players often do

 

[atticusfinch]

There's a difference between wording a rule clearly and applying a set of facts to it.

 

[Colin L]

Can I check I've followed this correctly - particularly in respect of getting the score right. The 'provisional' was not so and was a ball played under S&D. So that ball was lying 3 somewhere adjacent the WH. He then wrongly substituted that ball by dropping for what he thought was his original in the WH. So there is a two stroke penalty (=5). It's the ball in play so when he hits it he's played 6? Although it was played from a wrong place the exception to 15/2 means there's no additional penalty so he has played 6 ??

Although, since the OP uses the word 'match' it could be just loss of hole?

:thup:

I think the OP was referring to a stroke play incident even though he used match. In matchplay, playing from a wrong place would indeed be loss of hole.

 

[duncan mackie]

I agree, but, when discussing these sorts of rules with players, my experience is that you have to be able to answer questions where they think their situation differs from others.

indeed; and that's much of what this forum is trying to cover off!

in this particular case we have the rules (already quoted)

the principle (if you have knowledge or virtual certainty that your ball is in a water hazard you cannot play a ball under 27-2, and therefore any ball played would be under 27-1)

If you aren't sure whether your ball is in a water hazard, but believe it may be lost or OOB, you may play a ball under 27-2. In the absence of subsequent knowledge or virtual certainty that the ball was in the hazard - normally from finding it there! - this will become the ball in play when the original is lost.

 

[atticusfinch]

Damn, hat's another fact that escaped me.I'm losing the battle.

But I do not like making assumptions about what the poster means. If his post is not ambiguous I take him at his word. There is nothing in the OP that indicates stroke play and one thing that indicates match play. So unless he corrects me I believe it was match play.

 

[chrisd]

indeed; and that's much of what this forum is trying to cover off!

in this particular case we have the rules (already quoted)

the principle (if you have knowledge or virtual certainty that your ball is in a water hazard you cannot play a ball under 27-2, and therefore any ball played would be under 27-1)

If you aren't sure whether your ball is in a water hazard, but believe it may be lost or OOB, you may play a ball under 27-2. In the absence of subsequent knowledge or virtual certainty that the ball was in the hazard - normally from finding it there! - this will become the ball in play when the original is lost.

That's right Duncan.

My situation occurred when, in the clubhouse, a member said that he doesn't often play in comps because people cheat, some deliberately and some by not knowing the rules. I asked for an example of both and for the second reason he said that people play a provisional, then find their original ball in a bunker and pick up the prov ball when it is now the ball in play! I said he was wrong and put him right as to the various options already detailed here.

It's not good enough to point someone like him to the rules/decisions and rely on him to bother to read them or, possibly, understand them. I ended up emailing him a difinitive answer.

 

[Foxholer]

That's right Duncan.

My situation occurred when, in the clubhouse, a member said that he doesn't often play in comps because people cheat, some deliberately and some by not knowing the rules. I asked for an example of both and for the second reason he said that people play a provisional, then find their original ball in a bunker and pick up the prov ball when it is now the ball in play! I said he was wrong and put him right as to the various options already detailed here.

It's not good enough to point someone like him to the rules/decisions and rely on him to bother to read them or, possibly, understand them. I ended up emailing him a difinitive answer.

While that demonstrates, to me, why my 'in this case' phrase should be there - explicitly for him - I'm not sure it would really help. He seems to have made 2 or 3 blunderous 'leaps'!

 

[Colin L]

Damn, hat's another fact that escaped me.I'm losing the battle.

But I do not like making assumptions about what the poster means. If his post is not ambiguous I take him at his word. There is nothing in the OP that indicates stroke play and one thing that indicates match play. So unless he corrects me I believe it was match play.

I think it was ambiguous, and took the the reference to "playing partner" which is frequently used of fellow competitors in stroke play to mean stroke play. But we've covered both formats in the various replies!

 

[atticusfinch]

We can have a discussion about ambiguity some day. :blah: