Kind of a provisional drop.....??

[Foxholer]

3-3 - Doubt as to Procedure
a. Procedure
In stroke play, if a competitor is doubtful of his rights or the correct procedure during the play of a hole, he may, without penalty, complete the hole with two balls.
After the doubtful situation has arisen and before taking further action, the competitor must announce to his marker or fellow-competitor that he intends to play two balls and which ball he wishes to count if the Rules permit.
The competitor must report the facts of the situation to the Committee before returning his score card. If he fails to do so, he is disqualified.


3-3/0.5 Guidelines for Determining Which Ball Counts When Player Proceeds Under Rule 3-3
The purpose of Rule 3-3 is to allow a competitor to avoid a penalty when he is in doubt as to the proper procedure. The following are guidelines for determining the ball with which the competitor scores in various situations:



1. If both balls are played in accordance with the Rules, the ball selected counts if the competitor announces in advance his decision to invoke this Rule and announces in advance the ball with which he wishes to score. If the competitor does not announce or select in advance, the score with the original ball counts if played in accordance with the Rules. Otherwise the score with the second ball counts if played in accordance with the Rules.


That says to me that the original ball counts.......

This rule is not applicable here.

And the guidelines state why it's there, which has nothing to do with simply saving time.

 

[Colin L]

So if the "provisional" ball was played from the ditch and not, as I had originally understood (or misunderstood!), from where the previous shot had been played, the situation is not quite same as in my first answer. When you played from beside the ditch, the only applicable rule was 27-1 (stroke and distance) which rendered your original ball "lost". From your description, you did not have virtual certainty the ball was in the ditch so you could not proceed under R26-1: "Fragger thought the ball had gone in the ditch, I wasn't sure and CVG didn't see it at all".

If you played from beside the ditch not from where the previous stroke was played, you played from a wrong place (see R20-7). You must then play out the hole with that ball under a 2 stroke penalty. Since where you played from was like to be a serious breach of 20-7 (ie you gained a significant advantage) you would have to return to the place from which you played your second stroke and play out the hole from there with a second ball and report the facts to the Committee. If it was determined that you had indeed committed a serious breach, the score with the second ball would count. So you would count your score thus - tee shot + second shot + 1PS stroke and distance + 2 PS for playing from a wrong place + whatever number of strokes you then took to hole out with your second ball from the correct place. The strokes made with the first ball from the wrong place would not count and provided you had completed holing out with your ball from the wrong place before going back to play another ball from the correct place, playing the wrong ball would not count either. If for some reason (to save time perhaps?!), you went back to correct the error before holing out the first and had both balls in play concurrently, the wrong ball penalty would apply to both.

Simple, isn't it?

PS And as Foxholer says, Rule 3-3 is not applicable here. It is about doubt about procedure, not doubt about where your ball has gone. (And I too am finding the lack of smilies a pain, since that last remark sounds a bit hard without the winking smiley!)

 

[bobmac]

Imurg, correct me if I'm wrong.....
You hit your second shot bouncing towards the green with a ditch in the way. No-one is certain whether it bounced over the ditch or went in it.
When you get to the ditch, you then spot a ball at the back of the green, but cant be sure it's yours. So, if you walk all the way to the ball at the back of the green and it's not yours, you have to go all the way back to the ditch and proceed to drop a ball there AS THERE'S NOW NO DOUBT THE BALL MUST BE IN THE DITCH.
Instead of wasting all that time, as you are certain the ball is either in the ditch or at the back of the green, you play a ball from the ditch just in case the ball at the back of the green isn't yours.
How am I doing ?

 

[Imurg]

But I did have doubt as to my procedure

I could see a ball just beyond the green which could be mine and there was a chance my ball had gone in the ditch.

Do I walk up and check the ball by the green or do I play another from behind the ditch as if playing under penalty.

I don't know.................

Isn't that doubt as to how to proceed...?

So I dropped behind the ditch as if taking a penalty. We got to the green and the ball beyond the green turns out to be mine.
According to 3-3 if I didn't specifically choose the 2nd ball, the first one is still in play.

 

[Imurg]

Imurg, correct me if I'm wrong.....
You hit your second shot bouncing towards the green with a ditch in the way. No-one is certain whether it bounced over the ditch or went in it.
When you get to the ditch, you then spot a ball at the back of the green, but cant be sure it's yours. So, if you walk all the way to the ball at the back of the green and it's not yours, you have to go all the way back to the ditch and proceed to drop a ball there AS THERE'S NOW NO DOUBT THE BALL MUST BE IN THE DITCH.
Instead of wasting all that time, as you are certain the ball is either in the ditch or at the back of the green, you play a ball from the ditch just in case the ball at the back of the green isn't yours.
How am I doing ?

Spot on Maestro.....

Although the wasting time bit is a by-product of the fact that I didn't know the correct procedure......

 

[duncan mackie]

Spot on Maestro.....

don't blame the rules, blame the committee, they should clearly have implemented LR appendix 1 part B rule 1 in this situation.

personally I think it causes far more grief than it solves, and in this particular situation, you could see your ball so had no reason to play another - it's the corollary of Foxholer's argument that you can't have KorVC if there's that much distance involved; you can but the ball's going to be visible or in the hazard - no question of needing to look for it.

the argument that the ball might not have been yours, as a reason to want to play a provisional, is very weak - do you play a provisional on every hole!!!

 

[Imurg]

don't blame the rules, blame the committee, they should clearly have implemented LR appendix 1 part B rule 1 in this situation.

personally I think it causes far more grief than it solves, and in this particular situation, you could see your ballso had no reason to play another - it's the corollary of Foxholer's argument that you can't have KorVC if there's that much distance involved; you can but the ball's going to be visible or in the hazard - no question of needing to look for it.

the argument that the ball might not have been yours, as a reason to want to play a provisional, is very weak - do you play a provisional on every hole!!!

Er no......
Only when it's necessary.
A true Provisional wasn't as the ball was either in the hazard or had cleared and wasn't potentially lost - there was nowhere to lose it....

It was tricky to see the ball flight as we were playing into the Sun so we had no way of knowing if the ball by the green was mine or not.

So, as we were all uncertain, I played as per previous posts - playing 2 balls.......

 

[duncan mackie]

So, as we were all uncertain, I played as per previous posts - playing 2 balls.......

I did read the thread.

In the absence of the above LR Colin's underlying ruling, as MN's, would be mine too on the basis of how you proceeded.

 

[Imurg]

So being uncertain as to how to proceed leads to a Penalty.......

So when does 3-3 kick in..?

How uncertain do you have to be..?

 

[doublebogey7]

3-3 - Doubt as to Procedure
a. Procedure
In stroke play, if a competitor is doubtful of his rights or the correct procedure during the play of a hole, he may, without penalty, complete the hole with two balls.
After the doubtful situation has arisen and before taking further action, the competitor must announce to his marker or fellow-competitor that he intends to play two balls and which ball he wishes to count if the Rules permit.
The competitor must report the facts of the situation to the Committee before returning his score card. If he fails to do so, he is disqualified.


3-3/0.5 Guidelines for Determining Which Ball Counts When Player Proceeds Under Rule 3-3
The purpose of Rule 3-3 is to allow a competitor to avoid a penalty when he is in doubt as to the proper procedure. The following are guidelines for determining the ball with which the competitor scores in various situations:



1. If both balls are played in accordance with the Rules, the ball selected counts if the competitor announces in advance his decision to invoke this Rule and announces in advance the ball with which he wishes to score. If the competitor does not announce or select in advance, the score with the original ball counts if played in accordance with the Rules. Otherwise the score with the second ball counts if played in accordance with the Rules.


That says to me that the original ball counts.......

But you had not declared the 2nd ball a provisional, so you cannot then declare it under the play a 2nd ball rule. What if the ball you had spotted with you laser was not yours. You could then clearly not have played under the play a 2nd ball rule. You appear to be trying to mix and match two clearly different rules.

 

[doublebogey7]

So being uncertain as to how to proceed leads to a Penalty.......

So when does 3-3 kick in..?

How uncertain do you have to be..?

But you did know how to proceed if the ball you spotted was yours. You also knew how to proceed if it wasn't so I am at a loss on how you can say you were uncertain. The only uncertainty was whether the spotted ball was yours or not.

 

[Imurg]

The 2nd ball isn't a "provisional" ball.....the word doesn't appear in the phrase you quote .........??

It is another ball, played under 3-3.

The other players agreed that I should play another ball as 3-3 allows you to when you are unsure as to how to proceed.

3-3 mentions nothing about whether you can identify a ball, whether it is lost or anything of the kind.
It allows you to play a 2nd ball where there is doubt as to procedure - ie do I walk up to the green and identify or do I have to take the penalty drop behind the ditch...?

I think I'm going to leave this as is - it appears that our Rules Guru's think penalties should be applied, I'm not so sure..

Either way, to me, it's another instance where the Rules of Golf don't seem to be logical or clear.

A Penalty is applied when a Rule has been breached. Being unsure of how to proceed under the Rules I used Rule 3-3.
It seems that using 3-3 breached Rules..........

Beam me up Scotty......

 

[Imurg]

But you did know how to proceed if the ball you spotted was yours. You also knew how to proceed if it wasn't so I am at a loss on how you can say you were uncertain. The only uncertainty was whether the spotted ball was yours or not.

The uncertainty was - do I have to walk 150 yards to identify my ball with the possibility of having to walk 150 yards back again, is my ball in the ditch so do I take the penalty for being in the ditch or am I able to play another ball to prevent that time-consuming walk.

Knowing how to proceed and knowing which way to proceed are 2 different things

Anyway I'm leaving this now - see post above....

 

[MashieNiblick]

Got me thinking now.

So you are doubtful as to the procedure because you don't know if your ball is in the hazard or by the green. You therefore invoke Rule 3-3 to play a second ball, in case the ball by the green isn't yours.

Hmm

Unlike 27-2 (provsional ball) Rule 3-3 isn't there to save time it is "to allow a competitor to avoid a penalty when he is in doubt as to the proper procedure". Does this cover not knowing whether your ball may be lost in a hazard?

My feeling is that Rule 3-3 could not be invoked as the doubt, as others have noted, was in relation to where the ball was not the procedure. But is the player the sole judge of whether there is doubt? Player A might be doubtful of a procedure that player B is sure of.

No advantage was sought or gained and if the ball by the green was not Imurg's then that would have indicated that there was virtual certainty that his ball was in the WH, in which case the second ball was played in accordance with the Rules.

Looking at the wording of 3-3, it is a strange Rule.

On one hand it says

"After the doubtful situation has arisen and before taking further action, the competitor must announce to his marker or fellow-competitor that he intends to play two balls and which ball he wishes to count if the Rules permit."
​

And in the Rules "must" = instruction (and penalty if not carried out). However later the Rule says

"(ii) If the competitor fails to announce in advance his decision to complete the hole with two balls, or which ball he wishes to count, the score with the original ball counts, provided it has been played in accordance with the Rules."
​

And there is no indication of any penalty for not announcing intention in advance.

Then there's this

26-1/5 Ball Dropped and Played Under Water Hazard Rule; Original Ball Then Found in Hazard and Holed Out as Second Ball

"Q. In stroke play, a competitor, unable to find his ball in a water hazard, drops another ball behind the hazard under Rule 26-1 and plays it. He then finds his original ball in the hazard. Not being sure of his rights, he holes out with both balls under Rule 3-3, opting to score with the original ball. What is the ruling?

A. When the competitor dropped and played the ball behind the hazard, that ball became the ball in play (see Definition of “Ball in Play”). The score with that ball was the competitor's score for the hole. The score with the original ball could not count because that ball was no longer the ball in play. However, the competitor incurs no penalty for holing out with the original ball."
​

That is not exactly the same situation but it does suggest that a player can't invoke Rule 3-3 retrospectively if that is indeed the crux of the Decision, (not suggesting that is waht Imug did btw), so how do you know wheteher Rule 3-3 is in operation?

To be honest I'm totally confused.

 

[duncan mackie]

Got me thinking now.

So you are doubtful as to the procedure because you don't know if your ball is in the hazard or by the green. You therefore invoke Rule 3-3 to play a second ball, in case the ball by the green isn't yours.

Hmm

Unlike 27-2 (provsional ball) Rule 3-3 isn't there to save time it is "to allow a competitor to avoid a penalty when he is in doubt as to the proper procedure". Does this cover not knowing whether your ball may be lost in a hazard?

My feeling is that Rule 3-3 could not be invoked as the doubt, as others have noted, was in relation to where the ball was not the procedure. But is the player the sole judge of whether there is doubt? Player A might be doubtful of a procedure that player B is sure of.

No advantage was sought or gained and if the ball by the green was not Imurg's then that would have indicated that there was virtual certainty that his ball was in the WH, in which case the second ball was played in accordance with the Rules.

Looking at the wording of 3-3, it is a strange Rule.

On one hand it says

"After the doubtful situation has arisen and before taking further action, the competitor must announce to his marker or fellow-competitor that he intends to play two balls and which ball he wishes to count if the Rules permit."
​

And in the Rules "must" = instruction (and penalty if not carried out). However later the Rule says

"(ii) If the competitor fails to announce in advance his decision to complete the hole with two balls, or which ball he wishes to count, the score with the original ball counts, provided it has been played in accordance with the Rules."
​

And there is no indication of any penalty for not announcing intention in advance.

Then there's this

26-1/5 Ball Dropped and Played Under Water Hazard Rule; Original Ball Then Found in Hazard and Holed Out as Second Ball

"Q. In stroke play, a competitor, unable to find his ball in a water hazard, drops another ball behind the hazard under Rule 26-1 and plays it. He then finds his original ball in the hazard. Not being sure of his rights, he holes out with both balls under Rule 3-3, opting to score with the original ball. What is the ruling?

A. When the competitor dropped and played the ball behind the hazard, that ball became the ball in play (see Definition of “Ball in Play”). The score with that ball was the competitor's score for the hole. The score with the original ball could not count because that ball was no longer the ball in play. However, the competitor incurs no penalty for holing out with the original ball."
​

That is not exactly the same situation but it does suggest that a player can't invoke Rule 3-3 retrospectively if that is indeed the crux of the Decision, (not suggesting that is waht Imug did btw), so how do you know wheteher Rule 3-3 is in operation?

To be honest I'm totally confused.

if you are looking for decisions it's 27-2a/2 which covers the overall situation exactly

3-3 is a red herring because if the player invoked 3-3 (which I agree is ridiculous here as there is no procedural issue) then the committee would rule in accordance with 27-2a/2 in that only the dropped ball was played in accordance with the rules, so further shots with the OB would be play of a WB.

the other issue is of course that the ball played under 27-1 is played from the wrong place, and the advantage here would clearly constitute a serious breach. failure to walk all the way back to where the 2nd shot was played from and correctly completing the hole from there before teeing off on the next hole would result in DQ in medal play.

 

[bladeplayer]

interestin thread , Il be honest without having read the rulings i would have had no problem with Imurgs choice ,, to me he hit his second & its definatly in the ditch or beside the green .. to go & check the one at the green is a big walk up & back again if its not his , causing our favourite topic , slow play ... plays his second then provisionaly played 4th then to save all the trecking up & down & the time wasting .. rules of golf & common scence = strangers sometimes IMO

Learned something new on here once again tho ... fair play guys & thanks

 

[Foxholer]

26-1/5 Ball Dropped and Played Under Water Hazard Rule; Original Ball Then Found in Hazard and Holed Out as Second Ball

"Q. In stroke play, a competitor, unable to find his ball in a water hazard, drops another ball behind the hazard under Rule 26-1 and plays it. He then finds his original ball in the hazard. Not being sure of his rights, he holes out with both balls under Rule 3-3, opting to score with the original ball. What is the ruling?

A. When the competitor dropped and played the ball behind the hazard, that ball became the ball in play (see Definition of “Ball in Play”). The score with that ball was the competitor's score for the hole. The score with the original ball could not count because that ball was no longer the ball in play. However, the competitor incurs no penalty for holing out with the original ball."
​

That is not exactly the same situation but it does suggest that a player can't invoke Rule 3-3 retrospectively if that is indeed the crux of the Decision, (not suggesting that is waht Imug did btw), so how do you know wheteher Rule 3-3 is in operation?

To be honest I'm totally confused.

Assuming player knew or was virtually certain that ball was in the hazard, that was a legitimate use of Rule 3.3 - as he was not sure of the procedure/ruling when he found the original ball. It does, however, demonstrate that as soon as another, non-provisional, ball is put in play, the original becomes irrelevant.

 

[pokerjoke]

Interesting one yesterday.
Our 9th hole has a ditch about 110 yards from the green.
I'd blocked my drive - no surprise there - and had just over 200 to the pin.
In the first cut, the ball came out hard and low, bouncing in the vicinity of the ditch.
We were looking into the Sun as well and it was tricky to pick up the ball flight.
Fragger thought the ball had gone in the ditch, I wasn't sure and CVG didn't see it at all.

As we got down to the ditch I thought I could see a ball just beyond the green in the collar of rough.
I got my laser out and confirmed that it was a ball but obviously there was no way of knowing if it was mine.
With the prospect of a 250 yard round trip to confirm, we decided that I should "provisionally" drop another ball, play up to the green and then decide which ball was "in play". This was done to save time and seemed the sensible thing to do.

It was my ball at the back so I played on with that...

Thoughts...?

I dont know the ditch in question,however my question would be,"if it was in the ditch would it definately be found.
If the answer is no,then you should have played a provisional.
There was doubt as to where the ball had gone, i would have played one.
Once seeing the ball up near the green you could have played the provisional until your original
ball had been identified or not.

 

[SharkAttack]

Am I the only one who finds this alarmingly illogical.......?

A provisional wasn't originally played because the ball was either in the ditch (proceed under penalty drop) or had bounced over.

You must be certain/virtually certain the ball is in the hazard, which you were not. So if the ball behind the green was not yours then it would be a lost ball and another ball to be played from original point, not the water hazard.

Shark

 

[shagster]

as mentioned, bounce game not too critical
but as cvg did not see and fragger thought it did and you were not sure, the only way you drop behind the ditch was if you had found your ball, as no one was certain or virtually certain
another thing as well, is the distance from ditch too green, 110 yards. thats a long way, and you can loose balls anywhere on the course, as i can vouch, as i lost a ball in rabbit scrape in middle of fairway 30 yards from green and 8 of us had walked past and not seen it and i only found it on way back from the walk of shame.
interesting point though

regards

shagster