Provisional ball /water hazard in matchplay

[Rhino135]

Hopefully you can help resolve an argument over a ruling.

In a pairs match playing 130yd par 3 with water from tee to green, the opposition player hit his tee shot which just failed to cross the hazard but with no splash it was not certain the ball was in the hazard. It might have crept through the reeds so he played a provisional ball which he put to 6" of the hole so a certain 4. He was happy with this but the opposition player looked and found the original ball within the reeds within the hazard. The player argued as this was in the hazard the provisional ball stood as ball in play but his opponent argued as original was found the provisional ball was no longer in play and his option was to return to the other side of the hazard or play it as it lies. He chose the latter and messed it up.

What are your opinions on the correct ruling???

 

[fundy]

The second the original ball is found in play (ie not out of bounds, irrelevant that its in a hazard) then the provisional doesnt count and the original ball is in play. The player can then elect to declare it unplayable and return to the tee if he desires

 

[Ethan]

A ball found in a hazard is still found. The player has to play it from the hazard or take a parentally drop in the usual way and the provo is out of play. Really no ambiguity.

 

[chrisd]

As he wasn't sure that his ball was in the hazard he was correct in playing a provisional ball but when his original ball was found he must continue with that ball

 

[pbrown7582]

Bet was a nice friendly rest of match.,,,,,.

 

[duncan mackie]

1. you can't play a ball provisionally on being in a water hazard (lost or otherwise)
2. the second ball played is not a provisional in this situation, it is 3 off the tee
3. finding the other ball anywhere is irrelevant (other than being able to put it back in the bag)

you are permitted to play a provisional if your original ball may be lost outside the hazard - even if it may also be in the hazard. The onus then becomes on you to be able to subsequently prove that the ball was in fact in the hazard rather than lost outside if you wish to play again under 26.
everything posted here suggests that there is no likely hood of the ball being lost outside the hazard in this case (or OOB...) so the second ball plyed is 3 regardless of what the player says at the time. the only possible circumstances would have been if the reeds extended beyond the hazard - in which case it's a provisional and all the other responses make sense and the greenstaff/committee should get it changed!

note (for delc when he turns up) this is on the basis that the LR permitting play of a provisional is not in place as per 99.9% of situations.

 

[Colin L]

Duncan, may I sensitively direct you to the OP's words "it was not certain the ball was in the hazard. It might have crept through the reeds so he played a provisional ball" and tactfully suggest that all is well with the replies that the provisional was legitimate and that the original ball had to be played when found?

 

[Rhino135]

Thanks for the replies.

So, there is no way a player can play a ball from tee side of the lake before walking round and finding original without making second ball in play?? Ie in this case having found the ball in the hazard he would have choice to play as it lies or return to point of entry or place of previous shot etc??

 

[bobmac]

Just out of interest, was there not a pro in the shop you could have asked?
I know some people on here think that all pros are clueless about rules but you might have got lucky and found one with a rule book

 

[chrisd]

Thanks for the replies.

So, there is no way a player can play a ball from tee side of the lake before walking round and finding original without making second ball in play?? Ie in this case having found the ball in the hazard he would have choice to play as it lies or return to point of entry or place of previous shot etc??

The crux of the replies is that : if you aren't sure that the ball went into the hazard or were not virtually certain it went in, then you play a provisional and if you don't find the original ball you continue with the provisional ball. If, however you know it went into the hazard, or are virtually certain it did, then you don't play a provisional because the rules if golf tell you how to proceed and render a provisional unnecessary as you wouldn't get to play it.

 

[Foxholer]

Just out of interest, was there not a pro in the shop you could have asked?
I know some people on here think that all pros are clueless about rules but you might have got lucky and found one with a rule book

'Don't depend on the Pro's ruling' is not quite the same as saying they are 'clueless'!

They are not clueless about the Rules. But only slightly less likely to make an incorrect ruling than anyone else. So should not simply be trusted to give the correct ruling - unless suitably qualified!

 

[duncan mackie]

Duncan, may I sensitively direct you to the OP's words "it was not certain the ball was in the hazard. It might have crept through the reeds so he played a provisional ball" and tactfully suggest that all is well with the replies that the provisional was legitimate and that the original ball had to be played when found?

sensitivity is nice

as I said - if the reeds are only in the hazard then you shouldn't be playing a provisional if the ball isn't going to be lost outside the hazard ie if it crept through the reeds it would be found and outside the hazard.
if the reeds are both in and outside the hazard I would also suggest that a provisional is rather inappropriate here; but accept that it's at least a provisional ball under the rules.

 

[duncan mackie]

Just out of interest, was there not a pro in the shop you could have asked?
I know some people on here think that all pros are clueless about rules but you might have got lucky and found one with a rule book

as worded, by the time they teed off on the next hole (and arguably once the player elected to play the ball from the reeds) there is absolutely nothing to rule on.

at the time, if the opponent accepted the declaration of a provisional ball then that would have that status, and the ball in the reeds, or replay, were the only options once the ball had been found (not lost and not OOB). If the player had chosen to continue with the provisional and the opponent had made a valid claim them a ruling would be required.
if the player had tapped in for his bogey before the opponent had found his ball he would also have had a 4 - but I suspect that claims would have been made and rulings required on that too (the opponent could recall the shot but the stroke has been made and the OB is lost by definition.

 

[bobmac]

'Don't depend on the Pro's ruling' is not quite the same as saying they are 'clueless'!

The inference has been made many times on here.

So should not simply be trusted to give the correct ruling - unless suitably qualified!

I cannot speak for all pros but when I qualified, I had to pass a rules exam which I did with distinction and we were told to always back up our rulings with reference to the rule book or decisions book.

 

[bobmac]

as worded, by the time they teed off on the next hole (and arguably once the player elected to play the ball from the reeds) there is absolutely nothing to rule on.

at the time, if the opponent accepted the declaration of a provisional ball then that would have that status, and the ball in the reeds, or replay, were the only options once the ball had been found (not lost and not OOB). If the player had chosen to continue with the provisional and the opponent had made a valid claim them a ruling would be required.
if the player had tapped in for his bogey before the opponent had found his ball he would also have had a 4 - but I suspect that claims would have been made and rulings required on that too (the opponent could recall the shot but the stroke has been made and the OB is lost by definition.

I meant could Rhino not have asked the Pro after the match rather wait until he got on the forum to ask a bunch of strangers

 

[PhilTheFragger]

I meant could Rhino not have asked the Pro after the match rather wait until he got on the forum to ask a bunch of strangers

we're not strangers, we are one big happy family :whoo:

 

[chrisd]

The inference has been made many times on here

Our ex pro had played on the European Tour and from my certain experience I would have trusted his knowledge of what day of the week it was!

 

[duncan mackie]

I meant could Rhino not have asked the Pro after the match rather wait until he got on the forum to ask a bunch of strangers

sorry Bob, I misunderstood.

that point would equally apply to just about every post asking a question that posted on any of these boards though!

 

[bladeplayer]

we're not strangers, we are one big happy family :whoo:

You tell em Da,