Can I take a provisional.....

[Colin L]

Maybe both explanations are valid.

On the other hand, maybe the careful explanations of at least 3 people showing why the Decision has nothing to do with going forward for a club or ball could persuade you that one of the explanations - yours - is not valid.

Here's an idea. When you make a mistake and it is pointed out, try words along those lines;

I see that now, Thanks for putting me right.

You learn a lot from mistakes with the Rules, but only by being open to their being pointed out.

 

[delc]

Three videos on this link about provisional balls:

http://www.randa.org/en/Rules-and-Amateur-Status/Rules-of-Golf.aspx#/rules/?ruleNum=27&subRuleNum=2

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Here's a bit of pedantry - or maybe not - about Rule 27-2 which states (my italics and bolding)

If a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally in accordance with Rule 27-1...

Note: If a provisional ball played under Rule 27-2a might be lost outside a water hazard or out of bounds, the player may play another provisional ball...

Now why have they used may in the rule and might in the note to the rule. In this context are may and might synonymous? And why did they not structure the note to the rule exactly as they have structured the rule.

No such thing as pedantry with the rules of golf - or is there?

 

[Spuddy]

Three videos on this link about provisional balls:

http://www.randa.org/en/Rules-and-Amateur-Status/Rules-of-Golf.aspx#/rules/?ruleNum=27&subRuleNum=2

Is your rules expert from the R&A in one of these videos?

 

[Foxholer]

Three videos on this link about provisional balls:

http://www.randa.org/en/Rules-and-Amateur-Status/Rules-of-Golf.aspx#/rules/?ruleNum=27&subRuleNum=2

So? None of which support your 'I've seen a vid...' assertion in Post #54. So still calling B/S on that!

The one with Suzanne Petersen has the same 'not quite right' error regarding getting the message across that a ball is a provisional one too btw. 'Best method' (my term) doesn't mean 'the only way'! Done to keep it simple imo (and, in this case, consequently introduced an error :mmm just as the last one slightly over-simplifies the 'ball in play' concept.

 

[Foxholer]

Here's a bit of pedantry - or maybe not - about Rule 27-2 which states (my italics and bolding)

If a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally in accordance with Rule 27-1...

Note: If a provisional ball played under Rule 27-2a might be lost outside a water hazard or out of bounds, the player may play another provisional ball...

Now why have they used may in the rule and might in the note to the rule. In this context are may and might synonymous? And why did they not structure the note to the rule exactly as they have structured the rule.

No such thing as pedantry with the rules of golf - or is there?

:rofl:

'Good' spot. Maybe they wanted to differentiate between the main text and the note? They certainly are synonymous as used.

To continue the pedantry, there was no need to highlight to highlight the 'may' about what the player was/is allowed to do. 'might' doesn't apply there, at least not wrt The Rules. He might do any number of things of things!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

:rofl:

'Good' spot. Maybe they wanted to differentiate between the main text and the note? They certainly are synonymous as used.

To continue the pedantry, there was no need to highlight to highlight the 'may' about what the player was/is allowed to do. 'might' doesn't apply there, at least not wrt The Rules. He might do any number of things of things!

maybe

 

[chrisd]

On the other hand, maybe the careful explanations of at least 3 people showing why the Decision has nothing to do with going forward for a club or ball could persuade you that one of the explanations - yours - is not valid.

Here's an idea. When you make a mistake and it is pointed out, try words along those lines;

I see that now, Thanks for putting me right.

You learn a lot from mistakes with the Rules, but only by being open to their being pointed out.

Wouldn't it just be a little easier not to come into the thread a little late each time, quote a rule verbatim that everyone has already agreed is correct, and then put your own spin on it that changes it and leads to everyone pulling their hair out in frustration ??

 

[rulefan]

Chris

Is that comment addressed to Colin or supplementary to Colin's comments.

 

[chrisd]

Chris

Is that comment addressed to Colin or supplementary to Colin's comments.

I should be more careful!! Definitely supplementary! :lol:

 

[Colin L]

No worries - it's clearly a supplementary suggestion to mine about acknowledging mistakes and learning from them.

I'm sure we'll see it happen - as surely as I have just seem something with trotters and a curly tail in the night sky over Edinburgh.

 

[chrisd]

No worries - it's clearly a supplementary suggestion to mine about acknowledging mistakes and learning from them.

I'm sure we'll see it happen - as surely as I have just seem something with trotters and a curly tail in the night sky over Edinburgh.

Could have been an entire squadron !

 

[Ethan]

In this context are may and might synonymous?

They might be.



Or should that be they may be?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

They might be.



Or should that be they may be?

mibbes!

 

[Pro Zach]

Here's a bit of pedantry - or maybe not - about Rule 27-2 which states (my italics and bolding)

If a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally in accordance with Rule 27-1...

Note: If a provisional ball played under Rule 27-2a might be lost outside a water hazard or out of bounds, the player may play another provisional ball...

Now why have they used may in the rule and might in the note to the rule. In this context are may and might synonymous? And why did they not structure the note to the rule exactly as they have structured the rule.

No such thing as pedantry with the rules of golf - or is there?

Might is the past tense. The note states a ball was played, the rule doesn't. A played ball is in the past, it has already happened. It is therefore in the past tense and might be lost.

As an aside I would argue 'played under rule 27-2a' is superfluous and shouldn't be in the note. The note should read: If a provisional ball may be lost outside a water hazard or out of bounds............

 

[rulefan]

Might may also be in the future. As in he might play golf tomorrow.
May may also be in the past.
May also means permitted as does might

In practice, any distinction is rarely made today and the two words are generally interchangeable.

 

[Foxholer]

Might is the past tense.

No more than 'may' in this context - and, I believe, 'present tense'. In other context, quite possibly future tense - as in 'DelC might get the message', or 'Pigs might fly'.

As an aside I would argue 'played under rule 27-2a' is superfluous and shouldn't be in the note. The note should read: If a provisional ball may be lost outside a water hazard or out of bounds............

I agree re there being superfluity, but I'd remove the word 'provisional' rather than 'played under....'. Sometimes though, superfluous wording makes things clearer and this might be one of those instances.

 

[Colin L]

Sometimes though, superfluous wording makes things clearer and this might be one of those instances.

May I put up a very picky challenge? If a word makes things clearer, how can it be superfluous?

Perhaps I should have a signature with the cliché (note the use of the accent, Rulefan) about taking the man out of English teaching but not the English teacher out of the man. Just wait till I work out how to do underlining in red and I can mark everyone's posts. :smirk:

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Might is the past tense. The note states a ball was played, the rule doesn't. A played ball is in the past, it has already happened. It is therefore in the past tense and might be lost.

As an aside I would argue 'played under rule 27-2a' is superfluous and shouldn't be in the note. The note should read: If a provisional ball may be lost outside a water hazard or out of bounds............

Maybe if they'd meant may be lost in the future tense they would have written it as may become lost - as that is definately future tense. But then it becomes nonsense because prior to hitting the ball any time in any circumstances it is a factual truth that the ball may subsequently become lost - so the rule would tell us nothing.

 

[Foxholer]

May I put up a very picky challenge? If a word makes things clearer, how can it be superfluous?

Quite easily - as, perhaps, in the case in question.

Removal/absence of superfluous text would still make a statement clear, but adding/keeping the superfluous text can make it clearer.