Lateral water hazard - lost ball.

[Sid Rixon IV]

The hazard runs parallel to the tee to green on a par 3.
For the most of it, from tee to green, the two foot wide ditch is several feet inside thick undergrowth and the chances of finding a ball are minimal. Alongside the green the ditch is exposed and it's possible to find a ball.
I hit my tee shot into the undergrowth.
If my FC and I agree the spot where the ball entered, bearing in mind I can only play from "this" side of the red line, can I play two club lengths under penalty, no nearer the green?
Further facts:
I hit a provisional that landed in a green side bunker.
FC perused rule book and assured me I could drop. The drop was more advantageous than the bunker shot.
It was strokeplay.

 

[duncan mackie]

I'm confused as to the relationship between the thick undergrowth and the hazard - if the ball could be lost in the undergrowth but not be in the hazard then how do you know that the ball is lost in the hazard?

If all the undergrowth is in the hazard such that you know the ball is lost in the hazard, but not exactly where, then -
1. you make your best estimate of where it last crossed the hazard margin for relief purposes
2. why did you play a provisional?

 

[Foxholer]

The fact that you played a provisional (for lost ball) indicates that you do not 'Know or are virtually certain' that the ball is in the hazard. So must continue with the Provisional Ball if you cannot find the original.

 

[Colin L]

The fact that you played a provisional (for lost ball) indicates that you do not 'Know or are virtually certain' that the ball is in the hazard. So must continue with the Provisional Ball if you cannot find the original.

Not quite. The playing of a provisional indicates that the player did not have knowledge or virtual certainty at the time the provisional was played. That doesn't preclude the possibility that on arriving at the hazard and getting a closer look, he then determines that the ball must be in it. In which case he abandons the provisional and must proceed under 26-1. Decision 26-1/1.3 considers that in most cases it will be necessary to go forward in order to establish knowledge/virtual certainty.

If on the other hand, the player played a provisional when he did know or have virtual certainty that his ball was in the hazard, the "provisional" becomes the ball in play.
See Decisions 27-2a/2.5 and 27-2a/3.

 

[atticusfinch]

With respect. i think that kind of analysis is confusing. It is a simple two prong analysis.

1, At the time the provisional was played was it possible that the original ball could be lost outside a water hazard? If yes, the provisional is authorized, if no it does not count and he plays the original.

2. On arriving at the hazard was there KVC that the original ball was lost in the water hazard? If yes, rule 26. If no rule 27 and provisional abandoned.

 

[Foxholer]

Not quite. The playing of a provisional indicates that the player did not have knowledge or virtual certainty at the time the provisional was played. That doesn't preclude the possibility that on arriving at the hazard and getting a closer look, he then determines that the ball must be in it. In which case he abandons the provisional and must proceed under 26-1. Decision 26-1/1.3 considers that in most cases it will be necessary to go forward in order to establish knowledge/virtual certainty.

If on the other hand, the player played a provisional when he did know or have virtual certainty that his ball was in the hazard, the "provisional" becomes the ball in play.
See Decisions 27-2a/2.5 and 27-2a/3.

With respect. i think that kind of analysis is confusing. It is a simple two prong analysis.

1, At the time the provisional was played was it possible that the original ball could be lost outside a water hazard? If yes, the provisional is authorized, if no it does not count and he plays the original.

2. On arriving at the hazard was there KVC that the original ball was lost in the water hazard? If yes, rule 26. If no rule 27 and provisional abandoned.

Thanks for these 2 'adjustments'.
I can see the subtle difference between my 'simple but possibly mythical' approach and what is really correct....

But @Atticus...Why is the Provisional abandoned in (2) if R27 applies? Surely it becomes the ball in play. And why does the 'unauthorised provisional' not automatically become the ball in play?

 

[Colin L]

With respect. i think that kind of analysis is confusing. It is a simple two prong analysis.

1, At the time the provisional was played was it possible that the original ball could be lost outside a water hazard? If yes, the provisional is authorized, if no it does not count and he plays the original.
That's not the case. If he plays a "provisional" when it was not possible that the original was lost outside a water hazard, the second ball which the player thought was a provisional becomes the ball in play. See Decision 27-2a/3 . He has in effect put a ball into play under 27-1.

2. On arriving at the hazard was there KVC that the original ball was lost in the water hazard? If yes, rule 26. If no rule 27 and provisional abandoned.
Why? The original ball is simply lost somewhere. He legitimately played a provisional because his original might be lost outside a water hazard; as soon as the original is lost by definition, the provisional is in play.

I wonder if my kind of analysis was less confusing than you thought?

 

[ManinBlack]

Rather than endless speculation, will the OP please clarify:

Why did he play a provisional?

When he played the provisional, did he know whether the ball had entered the hazard?

If he wasn't sure on the tee whether the ball entered the hazard was he certain that It did when he got to the point where the ball entered the "undergrowth"?

Once these questions are answered the answer to the original question is obvious.

 

[atticusfinch]

No simplification of the rules on these sites will ever be possible because of the rampant viral pedantry loose among rules people, in which I trepidatiously and humbly include myself.

 

[atticusfinch]

And why does the 'unauthorised provisional' not automatically become the ball in play?

See 27-2c.

 

[Foxholer]

See 27-2c.

Still doesn't explain it for me as - in a similar vein to Colin's Blue post -

The pedantic approach.....the 'unauthorised Provisional' isn't actually a Provisional at all - so 27-2c doesn't apply.

The pragmatic approach.....He wasn't entitled to play a Provisional, so deemed to be playing under 27-1a Stroke and Distance!


I like/prefer the simplicity of the '2 prong' approach, but it also needs to be correct - and I don't think it was as written originally.

 

[Foxholer]

Rather than endless speculation, will the OP please clarify:

Why did he play a provisional?

When he played the provisional, did he know whether the ball had entered the hazard?

If he wasn't sure on the tee whether the ball entered the hazard was he certain that It did when he got to the point where the ball entered the "undergrowth"?

Once these questions are answered the answer to the original question is obvious.

Agreed - well, sort of. Most (all?) the discussion has been about whether he was entitled to/should have hit a Provisional and/or KVC about the original being in the LH.

Whatever else is raised....If he was allowed to drop from the LH, then Rules permit drop within 2CLs of last point of entry either side. It appears that the 'far' side has been ruled out as an option. If the actual LPOE is not know, it should be estimated.

 

[duncan mackie]

With respect. i think that kind of analysis is confusing. It is a simple two prong analysis.

1, At the time the provisional was played was it possible that the original ball could be lost outside a water hazard? If yes, the provisional is authorized, if no it does not count and he plays the original.

2. On arriving at the hazard was there KVC that the original ball was lost in the water hazard? If yes, rule 26. If no rule 27 and provisional abandoned.

I think what's causing the ongoing confusion is that this simple approach is just plain wrong as set out!

1. If no then the second ball from the tee was in play since it was not a provisional ball so it certainly 'counts'! (27-2a/2)

2. if no then the provisional becomes the ball in play! (27-2) It was a ball played provisional on the original ball being lost (outside a water hazard obviously) or OOB - the first condition is met so the ball becomes the ball in play.

 

[Colin L]

I think what's causing the ongoing confusion is that this simple approach is just plain wrong as set out!

1. If no then the second ball from the tee was in play since it was not a provisional ball so it certainly 'counts'! (27-2a/2)

2. if no then the provisional becomes the ball in play! (27-2) It was a ball played provisional on the original ball being lost (outside a water hazard obviously) or OOB - the first condition is met so the ball becomes the ball in play.

Glad - relieved even - that you agree. :thup:

 

[duncan mackie]

Glad - relieved even - that you agree. :thup:

indeed - I tried to multi quote your earlier post, together with Foxy's concerns but failed dismally.........and ended up with a repetition!

such is forum life!

 

[louise_a]

The number of time I have played with ladies who have hit their ball into a hazard and then said they would play a provisional in case they can't find it, I tell them its definitely in the hazard so just take a penalty drop.

 

[Baldy Bouncer]

I`m waiting for Delc`s opinion on this matter...........

 

[ManinBlack]

The number of time I have played with ladies who have hit their ball into a hazard and then said they would play a provisional in case they can't find it, I tell them its definitely in the hazard so just take a penalty drop.

Hardly anybody knows the rules. My mates club arranged a rules quiz a while back. It had to be cancelled due to lack of support!

 

[ManinBlack]

I`m waiting for Delc`s opinion on this matter...........

Oh god, no! Mods please close the thread!

 

[Foxholer]

The number of time I have played with ladies who have hit their ball into a hazard and then said they would play a provisional in case they can't find it, I tell them its definitely in the hazard so just take a penalty drop.

I trust you realise that's 'advice'!

But if you tell them its definitely in the hazard so they can just take a penalty drop, then it's only providing info on the Rules.

Subtle difference, but it might save a penalty at some stage.