Provisional or not a provisional?

[Swango1980]

Where it has helped (I think) is that in the past if I thought my ball might have gone into water but would otherwise be very unlikely to be lost, I think I would have played a provisional - just in case. And I would have done that without thinking too deeply about whether or not a was allowed to lay a provisional.

Now I know that in my scenario I am not to permitted to do so. If it was the case that my ball might be in the penalty area but could well lost outside of the penalty area - then I would be allowed to play a provisional.

If the above is incorrect then I am truly baffled. But tbh and trying to think about this, I am not sure quite what I have done in the past - maybe I have always done the right thing.

I agree with your interpretation. However Post 70 is what complicates things a little. We have Virtually Certain defined for water hazards as being 95%+ sure the water is in there, before applying the appropriate rule. Despite how we often mock giving a % for such things, we have no % for defining whether a player things a ball could be lost outside a penalty area when choosing to play a provisional or not.

For most golfers with fair knowledge of the rules, if they were 95% the ball would be in the PA if not found, they would not play a provisional. However, technically, if a player was, say, 96% sure the ball was in the PA if not found, but the other 4% of their mind felt it could be lost somewhere else, then they COULD play a provisional, and yet still play under the rules for relief from a PA if not found. This could still be true if they were 99.9% sure it would be in the PA, and felt there was only a 0.1% chance it was lost somewhere else.

 

[Steven Rules]

This is getting into the weeds a bit, one for the true nerds. And I'm not being critical of your overall post, I think it is a helpful contribution that assists Backsticks to untangle him/herself.

But I think 18.3a challenges part of that precise subset of your post I quote above. If I'm on the tee and I hit one towards water and believe, on the basis of the information to hand at that point, that I am 95 per cent certain the ball is in the PA, I see nothing in the Rules that says I cannot hit a provisional. To the contrary, 18.3a states "If a ball might be lost outside a penalty area......the player may play another ball provisionally...". 18.3a precludes a provisional "if the player is aware that the only possible place the original ball could be lost is in a penalty area....". So I would argue that the player is free to play a provisional and proceed. But the rub here is if the process of search or additional information gathering as the player proceeds towards the original "locks in" a final conclusion of KVC (or if ball is found in the PA) then the provisional ball immediately changes status to wrong ball.

Consequently, my minor adaptation to your first sentence I quote above is to delete "or virtually certain".

The argument I put above is the only way I can reconcile the tension that exists between 18.3a - which relates to commissioning a provisional - and 18.3c - that tells me that a provisional must be abandoned if there is KVC the original ball is in a PA. In my ideal world, RBs would decide precisely what they want and resolve this current tension but in the meantime, consistent with the primary rule 18.3a, I'm going to stress the issue to any player that if they think the ball could be lost outside the PA, then playing a provisional ball is legitimate, but if they ultimately conclude (KVC) it is in the PA, it must subsequently be abandoned.

I think I am following your logic:

The player may play a provisional if there is even the slightest chance the original might be lost outside the penalty area.

But the player must abandon the provisional ball when it is KVC the original ball is in the penalty area (which means up to a 5% chance of being outside the penalty area)

'even the slightest chance' is a subset of 'up to 5%' so - at the nerd level and in a narrow set of circumstances - a provisional ball could have to be abandoned as soon as it is played or even before it is played. i.e. there is ambiguity over whether a provisional ball can be played at all in these 'even the slightest chance' circumstances. As you suggest, though, let's treat 18.3a as the primary guidance and play the provisional.

While I think I picked this up on the first reading (assuming I have followed you correctly) I had to re-read your post at least a dozen times to try and work out what, if any, impact it is going to have for me on the golf course - either as a player or a rules official.

I couldn't find any practical impact for me on the course. Sometimes I doubt my ability to distinguish between 95% and 70% (for those following this from home.....please.....no need to try and 'help' me out on this aspect) so I probably have no hope of distinguishing between 'even the slightest chance' and 'up to 5%'. Therefore, despite the careful amd well-reasoned analysis in your post, I will probably carry on as before. You have certainly made me more alert to the nuances, though. Thank you.

Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood anything.

 

[salfordlad]

I think I am following your logic:

The player may play a provisional if there is even the slightest chance the original might be lost outside the penalty area.

But the player must abandon the provisional ball when it is KVC the original ball is in the penalty area (which means up to a 5% chance of being outside the penalty area)

'even the slightest chance' is a subset of 'up to 5%' so - at the nerd level and in a narrow set of circumstances - a provisional ball could have to be abandoned as soon as it is played or even before it is played. i.e. there is ambiguity over whether a provisional ball can be played at all in these 'even the slightest chance' circumstances. As you suggest, though, let's treat 18.3a as the primary guidance and play the provisional.

While I think I picked this up on the first reading (assuming I have followed you correctly) I had to re-read your post at least a dozen times to try and work out what, if any, impact it is going to have for me on the golf course - either as a player or a rules official.

I couldn't find any practical impact for me on the course. Sometimes I doubt my ability to distinguish between 95% and 70% (for those following this from home.....please.....no need to try and 'help' me out on this aspect) so I probably have no hope of distinguishing between 'even the slightest chance' and 'up to 5%'. Therefore, despite the careful amd well-reasoned analysis in your post, I will probably carry on as before. You have certainly made me more alert to the nuances, though. Thank you.

Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood anything.

I think you are fully understanding me. The 18.3a/18.3c differences are creating an unavoidable tension, set up by one using "only possible place" ie anything less than 100 per cent certainty means provisional permitted and the other saying 95 per cent or more means any provisional must be abandoned. My best advice to the player on the tee is don't even think about KVC at that point in time, think about it later - gathering more information along the way. If you are not certain the original is in the PA, you may play a provisional. But you need to make that KVC assessment once you have gathered more info on the state of the original ball.
I can certainly understand an argument that if you do decide KVC applies, once you decide it you cannot proceed with a provisional. But that argument flies in the face of the wording of 18.3a. This discussion would all disappear if 18.3a said if you have KVC your ball is in a PA, you cannot play a provisional. But that is not what it says!

 

[rulie]

This discussion would all disappear if 18.3a said if you have KVC your ball is in a PA, you cannot play a provisional. But that is not what it says!

And, imo, it doesn't say that because the player may not have sufficient information to determine KVC from the spot of his previous stroke.

 

[BubbaP]

Eddie's sitting at home, rubbing his hands together, thinking...Now, what can I get them on next...?

Or, what an interesting bunch - should I ever post again? ?

 

[Swango1980]

And, imo, it doesn't say that because the player may not have sufficient information to determine KVC from the spot of his previous stroke.

But that doesn't cause an issue. If a player is not KVC a ball could be lost in the PA immediately after playing the stroke, then they may simply play a provisional. If they then subsequently become KVC after this, they then abandon the provisional ball.

So, I cannot see there being an issue if the rule was slightly reworded.

 

[rulie]

But that doesn't cause an issue. If a player is not KVC a ball could be lost in the PA immediately after playing the stroke, then they may simply play a provisional. If they then subsequently become KVC after this, they then abandon the provisional ball.

So, I cannot see there being an issue if the rule was slightly reworded.

Then the debate would be "was it KVC when you hit the second ball?" Standard answer would be "I don't have enough information from here, I need to go and look, gathering further information." KVC has a distinct definition and purpose wrt to penalty areas; KVC is purposely not included in the ability to play a provisional ball which might be lost outside a penalty area or might be out of bounds. Just hit the provisional when you feel that it might be appropriate, and sort it out when all of the information is available.
This reverse engineering using KVC standards for "authority" to hit a provisional is not what is intended in Rule 18.

 

[salfordlad]

Then the debate would be "was it KVC when you hit the second ball?" Standard answer would be "I don't have enough information from here, I need to go and look, gathering further information." KVC has a distinct definition and purpose wrt to penalty areas; KVC is purposely not included in the ability to play a provisional ball which might be lost outside a penalty area or might be out of bounds. Just hit the provisional when you feel that it might be appropriate, and sort it out when all of the information is available.
This reverse engineering using KVC standards for "authority" to hit a provisional is not what is intended in Rule 18.

I agree. And 18.3c has a very different purpose. For me, keeping in mind the entirely different purposes of these two sections is the key to not getting your feet tangled.

 

[cliveb]

I thought I was pretty clear about when I could play a provisional but I am afraid that this thread has utterly confused me and I no longer have that clarity in my mind. Normally, rules discussions on here are very useful, this one with all the ifs, buts and maybes is an exception to that normal.

Colin and others cleared up my own misunderstanding in a previous thread.
I'll try and summarise, which might help you:

1. If there is any possibility whatsoever that your ball could be lost outside a PA (even if you're virtually certain it's in it), you can play a provisional.
2. When you arrive at the location in question, it might then become clear that there is nowhere it can be lost other than in the PA, so you abandon the provisional and proceed as per normal.

And if I've still got it wrong, heaven help me!

 

[Swango1980]

Colin and others cleared up my own misunderstanding in a previous thread.
I'll try and summarise, which might help you:

1. If there is any possibility whatsoever that your ball could be lost outside a PA (even if you're virtually certain it's in it), you can play a provisional.
2. When you arrive at the location in question, it might then become clear that there is nowhere it can be lost other than in the PA, so you abandon the provisional and proceed as per normal.

And if I've still got it wrong, heaven help me!

I think you almost have it right, although Point 2 probably needs to be updated a little to:
2. If, at any time, you are virtually certain (95% chance or greater) that the ball is in the PA, abandon the provisional and proceed as per relief in a PA. This is also true if you still think there is a very small chance it could be lost somewhere else (<5%)

Therefore, you could actually be virtually certain the ball is in the PA as soon as you hit the initial shot and see where it goes. However, as you say in Point 1, you could play a provisional if you have a very very small feeling it could be lost somewhere else. However, as soon as you hit the provisional, you'd have to abandon it (unless new information comes to light thereafter, which is probably unlikely if you are playing at your home course). So, there'd be no real reason to playing a provisional, even though you technically could, unless you want to do it to sneakily hit a practice shot, as it is no longer defined as a practice shot but as a provisional ball.

 

[rulefan]

I think you almost have it right, although Point 2 probably needs to be updated a little to:
2. If, at any time, you are virtually certain (95% chance or greater) that the ball is in the PA, abandon the provisional and proceed as per relief in a PA. This is also true if you still think there is a very small chance it could be lost somewhere else (<5%)

Therefore, you could actually be virtually certain the ball is in the PA as soon as you hit the initial shot and see where it goes. However, as you say in Point 1, you could play a provisional if you have a very very small feeling it could be lost somewhere else. However, as soon as you hit the provisional, you'd have to abandon it (unless new information comes to light thereafter, which is probably unlikely if you are playing at your home course). So, there'd be no real reason to playing a provisional, even though you technically could, unless you want to do it to sneakily hit a practice shot, as it is no longer defined as a practice shot but as a provisional ball.

I think you would have made decision too soon. I only see the need to take KVC into account if something changes. eg you walk forward and see things from a different angle or a spectator gives fresh information.

 

[Swango1980]

I think you would have made decision too soon. I only see the need to take KVC into account if something changes. eg you walk forward and see things from a different angle or a spectator gives fresh information.

In practice, yes. But, in theory, you could do as I described. There are plenty of times that I am almost certain my ball has gone into the PA (or, if not found, will be in the PA) immediately after the first shot has finished and I have seen roughly where the ball has gone. However, on several of those occasions, there could be an argument it is lost somewhere else, albeit a ridiculously remote possibility of this being the case. In practice, I would just not hit a provisional, because myvirtual certainty it is in the PA will still exist once I go an investigate and don't find the ball. However, the very fact that I still thought there was an iota of a chance it could be lost somewhere else, I could still technically hit the provisional. Yet, in doing so, with the probabilities we are talking about here, I know I'd pretty much have to abandon it as soon as I hit it, as I'm already confident that I will be virtually certain it is lost in the PA.

Obviously, it is an assessment a player will need to start to think about as soon as they hit the first ball, not when they get to the PA. Because, to play a provisional, a player needs to ask the question whether the ball could be lost outside the PA. So, they will clearly be asking themselves if the ball is lost, could it ONLY be in the PA. It is an absolute question at this stage (i.e. would they be 100% confident in this assessment), but simply by asking themselves this question, they'll usually (especially if they know the course) have an idea if they are 100% confident, 95-99.9% confident or something less than that. And, that view will often remain the same once they get to the area of the PA, unless on the rare occasion new information comes to light.

 

[salfordlad]

In practice, yes. But, in theory, you could do as I described. There are plenty of times that I am almost certain my ball has gone into the PA (or, if not found, will be in the PA) immediately after the first shot has finished and I have seen roughly where the ball has gone. However, on several of those occasions, there could be an argument it is lost somewhere else, albeit a ridiculously remote possibility of this being the case. In practice, I would just not hit a provisional, because myvirtual certainty it is in the PA will still exist once I go an investigate and don't find the ball. However, the very fact that I still thought there was an iota of a chance it could be lost somewhere else, I could still technically hit the provisional. Yet, in doing so, with the probabilities we are talking about here, I know I'd pretty much have to abandon it as soon as I hit it, as I'm already confident that I will be virtually certain it is lost in the PA.

Obviously, it is an assessment a player will need to start to think about as soon as they hit the first ball, not when they get to the PA. Because, to play a provisional, a player needs to ask the question whether the ball could be lost outside the PA. So, they will clearly be asking themselves if the ball is lost, could it ONLY be in the PA. It is an absolute question at this stage (i.e. would they be 100% confident in this assessment), but simply by asking themselves this question, they'll usually (especially if they know the course) have an idea if they are 100% confident, 95-99.9% confident or something less than that. And, that view will often remain the same once they get to the area of the PA, unless on the rare occasion new information comes to light.

Some additional observations: a) There is no rule requiring a player to assess whether KVC exists prior to deciding whether to play a provisional, it is a different assessment that is required (is the PA the only possible place ...). b) An original view on KVC on the tee could be superseded by new information in the vicinity of the PA - eg, player discovers plenty of places a ball could be lost outside the PA that he had no information about prior to getting there and seeing the state of the ground.
In sum, I'm not going to stop anyone hitting a provisional if they are not 100 per cent certain the original is in the PA; but the player needs to finalise a view on KVC prior to progressing much further - and respond correctly to that assessment.

 

[Swango1980]

Some additional observations: a) There is no rule requiring a player to assess whether KVC exists prior to deciding whether to play a provisional, it is a different assessment that is required (is the PA the only possible place ...). b) An original view on KVC on the tee could be superseded by new information in the vicinity of the PA - eg, player discovers plenty of places a ball could be lost outside the PA that he had no information about prior to getting there and seeing the state of the ground.
In sum, I'm not going to stop anyone hitting a provisional if they are not 100 per cent certain the original is in the PA; but the player needs to finalise a view on KVC prior to progressing much further - and respond correctly to that assessment.

I'm not disputing any of this. I was simply applying the rules in a practical sense of it actually happening to a player.

In other words, the player could already be virtually certain the ball, if lost, would be in the PA immediately after playing their shot. I know they do not have to stick to that opinion, and that in extremely rare circumstances they might have good reason to change their opinion on getting closer to PA. However, given that is is immensely unlikely they will get any more information on this, and they already know the lie of the land, they can also be virtually certain that their virtual certainty the ball is in the PA will remain .

So, knowing that, most players (with decent knowledge of rules) would NOT play a provisional I believe, as they would probably say that the only likely place, with virtual certainty, the ball could be if not found is within the PA.

However, as pointed out many times, there is no virtual certainty required for a provisional. So, technically the same player could hit a provisional if they thought there was a 4.9% chance it could be lost outside the PA, even though they are virtually certain that their virtual certainty will remain about it being in the PA. So, the same player would be hitting a provisional, but being virtually certain they'd have to abandon it before they even play it to begin with, because they are virtual certain that the ball is lost in the PA will virtually certainly continue to be the case when they get to the PA.

Not that is it confusing or anything

 

[rulefan]

I'm not disputing any of this. I was simply applying the rules in a practical sense of it actually happening to a player.

In other words, the player could already be virtually certain the ball, if lost, would be in the PA immediately after playing their shot. I know they do not have to stick to that opinion, and that in extremely rare circumstances they might have good reason to change their opinion on getting closer to PA. However, given that is is immensely unlikely they will get any more information on this, and they already know the lie of the land, they can also be virtually certain that their virtual certainty the ball is in the PA will remain .

So, knowing that, most players (with decent knowledge of rules) would NOT play a provisional I believe, as they would probably say that the only likely place, with virtual certainty, the ball could be if not found is within the PA.

However, as pointed out many times, there is no virtual certainty required for a provisional. So, technically the same player could hit a provisional if they thought there was a 4.9% chance it could be lost outside the PA, even though they are virtually certain that their virtual certainty will remain about it being in the PA. So, the same player would be hitting a provisional, but being virtually certain they'd have to abandon it before they even play it to begin with, because they are virtual certain that the ball is lost in the PA will virtually certainly continue to be the case when they get to the PA.

Not that is it confusing or anything

All the above is subject to the player being familiar with the course

 

[Swango1980]

All the above is subject to the player being familiar with the course

Indeed. I don't know about other people in this forum, but I'd say well over 90% of my rounds I'm familiar with the course. I'm a member of it

 

[rulie]

However, as pointed out many times, there is no virtual certainty required for a provisional. So, technically the same player could hit a provisional if they thought there was a 4.9% chance it could be lost outside the PA, even though they are virtually certain that their virtual certainty will remain about it being in the PA. So, the same player would be hitting a provisional, but being virtually certain they'd have to abandon it before they even play it to begin with, because they are virtual certain that the ball is lost in the PA will virtually certainly continue to be the case when they get to the PA.

Not that is it confusing or anything

There is no probability requirements or suggestions associated with the "might" in "might be lost outside a penalty area or might be out of bounds" in Rule 18.3.
The probability from KVC is inapplicable to Rule 18.3.

 

[Swango1980]

There is no probability requirements or suggestions associated with the "might" in "might be lost outside a penalty area or might be out of bounds" in Rule 18.3.
The probability from KVC is inapplicable to Rule 18.3.

Yet again, I know this.

If I am 4.9% or 1.1% or whatever % the ball could be lost outside the PA, they all fit the definition of "might".

The whole point of my post was to simply indicate a player, after hitting their initial shot, could be virtually certain their ball is in the PA whilst ALSO thinking there is a very very slight possibility it could be lost outside the PA (forget the % if that confuses you with KVC). So, they are in a position that, unless something completely unexpected happens in terms of new information, they know they'll be able to proceed under the rules associated with a ball in a PA, and yet still hit a provisional due to the marginal chance it could be lost elsewhere.

So, from a practical point of view, the player will be hitting a provisional, despite being almost certain they will be able to proceed under the ball in a PA rule. The provisional ball might be considered to be a waste of time by many average golfers, because in their opinion the ball could only be lost in the PA. However, the player could simply claim there is a ridiculously low chance it could be lost elsewhere (like in a rabbit hole, in a place where there are no known rabbit holes) and hit a provisional anyway.

 

[rulie]

Yet again, I know this.

If I am 4.9% or 1.1% or whatever % the ball could be lost outside the PA, they all fit the definition of "might".

The whole point of my post was to simply indicate a player, after hitting their initial shot, could be virtually certain their ball is in the PA whilst ALSO thinking there is a very very slight possibility it could be lost outside the PA (forget the % if that confuses you with KVC). So, they are in a position that, unless something completely unexpected happens in terms of new information, they know they'll be able to proceed under the rules associated with a ball in a PA, and yet still hit a provisional due to the marginal chance it could be lost elsewhere.

So, from a practical point of view, the player will be hitting a provisional, despite being almost certain they will be able to proceed under the ball in a PA rule. The provisional ball might be considered to be a waste of time by many average golfers, because in their opinion the ball could only be lost in the PA. However, the player could simply claim there is a ridiculously low chance it could be lost elsewhere (like in a rabbit hole, in a place where there are no known rabbit holes) and hit a provisional anyway.

I'm not confused with virtual certainty, but my point is that the percentages associated with virtual certainty have no bearing on whether a provisional ball can be hit.
The purpose of a provisional ball is to save time, and it's use is recommended when a ball might be lost outside a penalty area or might be out of bounds.

 

[Swango1980]

I'm not confused with virtual certainty, but my point is that the percentages associated with virtual certainty have no bearing on whether a provisional ball can be hit.
The purpose of a provisional ball is to save time, and it's use is recommended when a ball might be lost outside a penalty area or might be out of bounds.

Exactly, hence why I said the player COULD hit a provisional, even if they were, in that moment, virtually certain it was in the PA.