When is a provisional not a provisional?

[LincolnShep]

A fellow competitor in a stroke play competition was having trouble with his drives but (unsurprisingly) was nailing his provisionals.
He decided (as a joke) to address his first ball and state 'this is a provisional' even though it wasn't.
We knew he was joking and just trying to fool his own brain in case it helped, but was he breaking any rules?

 

[rulefan]

No. As he hadn't just made a stroke where the definition was satisfied it can't be a provisional ball.

 

[LincolnShep]

No. As he hadn't just made a stroke where the definition was satisfied it can't be a provisional ball.

I understand that, but has his statement broken any rules?

 

[Imurg]

Who cares....did it go down the middle?

 

[doublebogey7]

I understand that, but has his statement broken any rules?

The clue is in the first word of Rulefans answer

 

[Voyager EMH]

Get him to write "Provisional" on all his balls, if that helps.

Hang on a minute, maybe that's too long.

Just write "Provi" on all his balls.

Hang on a minute. I think some company has done something similar already.

 

[Alan Clifford]

Get him to write "Provisional" on all his balls, if that helps.

Hang on a minute, maybe that's too long.

Just write "Provi" on all his balls.

Hang on a minute. I think some company has done something similar already.

All his balls‽

 

[salfordlad]

Second rules question in 3 days, happy days are here again? Even if, just like that French mime's movie from way back, the only dialogue/response required was "No".

But going wild and expanding the answer ...

If you call "provisional" and hit a ball, and the conditions for playing a provisional did not apply, you have simply put a ball into play. If it was not the first ball put into play on a hole, then it is a ball that substitutes for the original ball.

 

[Pants]

I've always thought that you should be allowed to play your provisional first. A bit like having 2 chances at a serve in tennis

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

When it is know or virtually certain that a provisional is not required? As a result the 'provisional' could well be simply considered 'practice' - or indeed simply a new ball in play…the uttering of the word ‘provisional’ being an irrelevance - and so three off the tee. And if any of that's the case then who decides.

 

[salfordlad]

When it is know or virtually certain that a provisional is not required? As a result the 'provisional' could well be simply considered 'practice' - or indeed simply a new ball in play…the uttering of the word ‘provisional’ being an irrelevance - and so three off the tee. And if any of that's the case then who decides.

I assume that last sentence is a question. And KVC as a concept has no relevance to consideration of whether a provisional is NOT required (taking KVC out of the context of the specific rules it has relevance for is a recipe for confusion).
Each player is free to make a judgement on whether a ball may be lost outside a penalty area or may be OOB. If their belief is yes, that is the case, they may play a provisional. And any other person may challenge that judgement and take their doubts to the Committee if they think the player is taking liberties/operating outside the letter or the spirit of the Rules. The Committee, in it's infinite wisdom, will consider, investigate as they see fit and resolve the issue.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I assume that last sentence is a question. And KVC as a concept has no relevance to consideration of whether a provisional is NOT required (taking KVC out of the context of the specific rules it has relevance for is a recipe for confusion).
Each player is free to make a judgement on whether a ball may be lost outside a penalty area or may be OOB. If their belief is yes, that is the case, they may play a provisional. And any other person may challenge that judgement and take their doubts to the Committee if they think the player is taking liberties/operating outside the letter or the spirit of the Rules. The Committee, in its infinite wisdom, will consider, investigate as they see fit and resolve the issue.

You are correct…it was a question.

And you’ve clarified something I guessed but was not 100% sure on, whether KVC as specifically defined applied in any ruling context other than those in which it is explicitly stated. .

As you say, if I was playing with someone who (let’s just say) repeatedly played provisionals even when I was certain it wasn’t lost or OOB, or indeed if it was visible to my eye, then my recourse is to the committee - on grounds he was practicing?

 

[salfordlad]

You are correct…it was a question.

And you’ve clarified something I guessed but was not 100% sure on, whether KVC as specifically defined applied in any ruling context other than those in which it is explicitly stated. .

As you say, if I was playing with someone who (let’s just say) repeatedly played provisionals even when I was certain it wasn’t lost or OOB, or indeed if it was visible to my eye, then my recourse is to the committee - on grounds he was practicing?

While it seems like that, the rules issue is if there was no justification for playing a provisional, then the player was substituting a ball for the original, the subbed ball is now ball in play and the rules require the hole to be completed with the subbed ball (ie player has taken S&D). The original ball became a wrong ball. So if the player picks up the purported provisional (ball in play) and finishes the hole with the original they have played a wrong ball and failed to correct. The next tee stroke solidifies a DQ in stroke play (no points for the 'provisional' hole in Stableford).