Ruling needed

[rulefan]

Another good example of where the clarity of such wordings risks stumbling when it meets the involvement of a (the) provisional ball!
I think we can agree on the intention of the rules in such a situation, but a 5th exemption under 9 4 b would be helpful

Last year, would not 15/2 have applied? The Mapping Summary says this has effectively been replaced by the definition of a stroke.

 

[Colin L]

I wonder if the fact that the player hit his original ball first that means his provisional ball was a fraction nearer the hole and therefore became the ball in play.

 

[Swango1980]

I wonder if the fact that the player hit his original ball first that means his provisional ball was a fraction nearer the hole and therefore became the ball in play.

That wouldn't matter, because the player correctly (or at least fairly) estimated it to be as close or further from the hole than the original. So, if it turned out the provisional was actually closer, it doesn't automatically make original lost.

 

[Colin L]

That wouldn't matter, because the player correctly (or at least fairly) estimated it to be as close or further from the hole than the original. So, if it turned out the provisional was actually closer, it doesn't automatically make original lost.

We weren't actually given information about where he estimated his original to be nor do we know that he put both balls into the rough in the same place. But that could be easily resolved if you were able to ask the player.

 

[Swango1980]

True, I made that assumption when he said he did the same with the provisional. But, that doesn't necessarily mean he estimated the provisional to be in the same place I guess, might just have meant he topped or fatted both generally in the same area.