Provisional Ball or not

[winst51]

When playing in a stroke play competition I hit a bad shot towards rough. To avoid delay, I followed the rules concerning using a provisional ball. Unfortunately, My provisional ball went exactly the same as my original ball. I decided to drop a second provisional ball. After playing that ball, I was joined by one of my playing partners who said, 'I saw your second ball go into the water hazard but I wasn't looking when you hit the first'. As I knew my second provisional ball had gone exactly the same as my first ball, I decided to discount the use of both provisional balls and dropped (according to the rules re dropping) a ball as near as possible as where the first ball had crossed the hazard. I then proceeded to finish the hole with that ball. Did I do right?

 

[Old Skier]

From your post it appears that you couldn't identify where your first ball went, you are only assuming that it went exactly where your provisional went.

It appears that through your playing partner you established that your provisional ball went into the hazard so your next shot was playing 5.

 

[pbrown7582]

Without being certain the 1st ball went in the hazard you cannot assume its gone in.
Drop a 2nd provisional?

 

[rulefan]

Your third ball should have been played according to the reference point of the second ball's crossing the margin of the WH.
It may well be that you played from a wrong place.
1 stroke
2/3 provisional
4 relief from WH
5 stroke
6/7 wrong place
.........

 

[MashieNiblick]

As I read it, after hearing what his PP/FC said about the second ball, the OP was effectively virtually certain that the first ball had entered the WH at the same point as the second ball. That also gave him a reference point to determine where the first ball it last crossed the margin of the hazard, so I'd be inclined to agree with the OP that the 2 provisionals were out of play and he was entitled to drop under Rule 26-1 and play his third from the point at which, using his best judgement, he had determined that the first ball had entered the hazard.

Yes? no?

 

[Colin L]

I think the belief that one shot could reliably be taken to have been "exactly the same" as the previous one is a bit weak. Even if you strengthen that to its being a reasonable supposition, would you accept a supposition as adequate for virtual certainty?

 

[MashieNiblick]

I think the belief that one shot could reliably be taken to have been "exactly the same" as the previous one is a bit weak. Even if you strengthen that to its being a reasonable supposition, would you accept a supposition as adequate for virtual certainty?

Yes agree that's the weakness unless there was a reference point such as a specific bush or something similar. If OP was sure it was the same (and probably most of us have done something like this, hitting provisional to virtually exactly the same place) then in the absence of any contrary evidence I would be inclined to take it on trust, as we inevitably have to do with many other aspects of game at our level.

 

[rosecott]

The OP stated his first stroke was "a bad shot towards rough". I don't think that could magically change to virtual certainty that it entered a water hazard.

 

[rulefan]

'We' don't have to take anyrhing on trust. The player must know or be virtually certain.
In this case the criteria set down in the decision (26-1/1) are not satisfied.

 

[MashieNiblick]

'We' don't have to take anyrhing on trust. The player must know or be virtually certain.
In this case the criteria set down in the decision (26-1/1) are not satisfied.

I think what I'm trying to say is that in this case if the player effectively says to me "I'm now virtually certain the first ball went in the WH because it went exactly where the second ball did", and I saw the second ball go into the hazard, I'd be inclined take that on trust unless I had some reason to believe otherwise.

 

[duncan mackie]

I think what I'm trying to say is that in this case if the player effectively says to me "I'm now virtually certain the first ball went in the WH because it went exactly where the second ball did", and I saw the second ball go into the hazard, I'd be inclined take that on trust unless I had some reason to believe otherwise.

The nature of the rough, the hazard and the relationship observed between the first 2 balls might, when taken with he additional knowledge, provide the necessary VC but it would be unlikely. Put another way it would have to be almost impossible for it to have been lost in the rough outside the hazard - then take it from there.

 

[Fyldewhite]

The nature of the rough, the hazard and the relationship observed between the first 2 balls might, when taken with he additional knowledge, provide the necessary VC but it would be unlikely. Put another way it would have to be almost impossible for it to have been lost in the rough outside the hazard - then take it from there.

Agree, and I often think turning the question around like this makes it easier to establish VC. In this case "I hit a bad shot towards rough" for the first stroke would mean (IMO) there is no way it could be almost impossible to be lost anywhere else. The VC that the second ball went in (ie it was seen) may make it "more likely than first thought" that the fist one had but no way virtually certain.

 

[woody69]

So you hit your tee shot that headed towards some rough, but is also in the proximity of a water hazard. You had reason to believe it wasn't actually in the WH so decided to hit a provisional that went exactly the same direction and did the same thing. You therefore hit a 3rd ball (2nd provisional), which again did exactly the same thing.

Your FC said he saw your 2nd (presumably your 1st provisional) go in the water, so you therefore put his view and your view of your ball (original tee shot) - (i.e. it went to exactly the same place) and assumed your first must have gone in the WH, so the provisionals are null and void and you drop up by the WH? Am I reading that right?