| |
Main
Date: 30 Apr 2007 12:37:52
From: Manna Pheuwerds
Subject: Lost ball
|
If I hit a ball into the deep rough and I really do not wish to find
it, can I hit a provisional and declare the other one lost without
having to search for the ball in the allotted time? and if "yes"
what if one of your partners has a look anyway, finds it and calls
out the correct brand and number of the ball to confirm it, can you
just say that you don't want it as it's already been declared lost?
Thanks, Manna.
|
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2007 05:14:57
From: me
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On May 2, 7:10 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2007 23:00:43 GMT, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 01 May 2007 13:45:02 +0200, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> >>>The exception to this for me would be in a crowded course. The
> >>>moral consideration of being considerate to other golfers trumps the
> >>>moral consideration of playing it as it lies.
>
> >> There is no moral consideration there, Howard. The rules of golf
> >>allow you five minutes to search for your ball. If your ball is not
> >>found, you must then take action udner what ever rule might apply in
> >>that case.
>
> >I'll agree that they are different. "Moral" is about being good to
> >others. "Righteous" is about following the rules.
>
> >I'll follow the ROG all the time - except when it means being
> >inconsiderate to others. I can easily look at the world and see the
> >evil that Righteous people are doing.
>
> Howard, if you follow the rules of golf, there can never be a
> question about inconsideration to other golfers. Every golfer on the
> course is, hopefully, playing by the rules. If a golfer in front of
> me is using his alotted five minutes to search for his ball, what
> should I do? If he failed to hit a provisional and has to come back
> to the teeing area, I would politely point out the concept of a
> provisional and let him hit.
>
> I agree that there is too slow on the golf course. I have suffered
> through 5.5 hours for a round of golf in a tournament; however, I am
> there to enjoy the day. If the round takes 4.5 hours instead of 4
> hours, big deal.
>
> Could you please describe a situation to me where you would not play
> by the rules because you felt that you were being inconsiderate to
> other golfers?
[snip]
> Players following the rules of golf are not ever
> inconsiderate. They may, however, be lacking in judgement and that is
> another story entirely.
Ya know that hacker that starts the "back and forth" between two
traps on either side of the green? Hits 3 shots trying to get out of
the first one, then finally sculls it into the second one, where he
takes three outta there, only to land back in the first one? No
rule of golf being violated here. In fact, he is suppose to keep
whacking
away until he is out. Ya think though that maybe about the time ESC
becomes a foregone conclusion, it's time to just pick up the ball
and their place it on the green or move on?
Guy hits 2 OB off the tee. He's now lying 4 on the tee on a par
4.
What's his odds of beating ESC? What rule is he violating by
hitting another off the tee until he gets one to land in bounds? Is
he being inconsiderate by continuing to rigidly following the rules?
Guy is an absolute hacker, playing from the tips. He's lucky to
hit it out of his own shadow. He doesn't even keep a handicapp
because
ESC kicks in on virtually everyhole. Hitting a ball sitting on a tee
is
a challenge to this guy, forget trying to hit some shot out of the
pinestraw on the left side woods of a left bending dog leg. Is the
guy being considerate by footwedging the ball out into the fairway
and keeping up with the group in front of him, or by strictly
following
all of the rules of golf?
There are course rules about keeping up with the group in
front of you. Following that rule seems every bit as important,
if not more so, that the rules of golf.
|
| |
Date: 01 May 2007 06:43:35
From: me
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On May 1, 1:47 am, Birdie Bill <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 1, 12:42 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
>
> > or go back on a
> > line from the pin through the unplayable as far back as you wish.
>
> Which is an often overlooked option that can come in handy
> particularly if you hit
> it into the gunk on the inside of a dogleg.
It's a new one on me. I thought the "line through" option
was for hazards. Coulda used this one a couple of weeks
ago. Stuck under a tree, plugged really. Two club lengths
just put me in a clear place I could swing, but no real angle
towards the green. Backing up 30 paces would have allowed
me to go over the trees to the green.
|
| | |
Date: 01 May 2007 19:35:07
From: David
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On 1 May 2007 06:43:35 -0700, me <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote:
>On May 1, 1:47 am, Birdie Bill <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 1, 12:42 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
>>
>> > or go back on a
>> > line from the pin through the unplayable as far back as you wish.
>>
>> Which is an often overlooked option that can come in handy
>> particularly if you hit
>> it into the gunk on the inside of a dogleg.
>
> It's a new one on me. I thought the "line through" option
>was for hazards. Coulda used this one a couple of weeks
>ago. Stuck under a tree, plugged really. Two club lengths
>just put me in a clear place I could swing, but no real angle
>towards the green. Backing up 30 paces would have allowed
>me to go over the trees to the green.
Which is the point that I also made in a response to this post.
Knowing your options can be a great thing :-)
David
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 22:47:54
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On May 1, 12:42 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org > wrote:
> or go back on a
> line from the pin through the unplayable as far back as you wish.
Which is an often overlooked option that can come in handy
particularly if you hit
it into the gunk on the inside of a dogleg.
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 11:55:22
From:
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On Apr 30, 7:45 pm, "George Hibbard" <g...@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
> I see no barrier from declaring your ball unplayable from the TEE itself for
> any reason. You are the sole judge of its playability, lost or not. Your
> next ball from the tee is the ball in play.
>
> Which, of course, you could do at any time, meaning those times when the
> probability of it being in thick stuff or behind trees gives you enough
> certainty that your opted choice is better for your score.
>
> Any challenges to this reasoning?
It's OK in principle - see decision 28/1 - but you have to be careful
of applying it in practice - see decision 28/2.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 09:58:25
From: Leon Chamae
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
sugnaboris@gmail.com writes:
> On Apr 30, 7:45 pm, "George Hibbard" <g...@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
> > I see no barrier from declaring your ball unplayable from the TEE itself for
> > any reason. You are the sole judge of its playability, lost or not. Your
> > next ball from the tee is the ball in play.
> >
> > Which, of course, you could do at any time, meaning those times when the
> > probability of it being in thick stuff or behind trees gives you enough
> > certainty that your opted choice is better for your score.
> >
> > Any challenges to this reasoning?
>
> It's OK in principle - see decision 28/1 - but you have to be careful
> of applying it in practice - see decision 28/2.
>
The easiest way for the player (in the original post) to
achieve his objective is for him to wordlessly[1] play another
ball from the tee (as in Decision 27/17).
[1] No declaration of a provisional ball and no declaration
that the original ball is lost (a meaningless declaration --
Decision 27/16).
--
Leon Chamae
Directeur du Personnel
Bureau de Change
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 22:00:15
From: Vista
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
Leon Chamae wrote:
> sugnaboris@gmail.com writes:
>
>> On Apr 30, 7:45 pm, "George Hibbard" <g...@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>>> I see no barrier from declaring your ball unplayable from the TEE itself for
>>> any reason. You are the sole judge of its playability, lost or not. Your
>>> next ball from the tee is the ball in play.
>>>
>>> Which, of course, you could do at any time, meaning those times when the
>>> probability of it being in thick stuff or behind trees gives you enough
>>> certainty that your opted choice is better for your score.
>>>
>>> Any challenges to this reasoning?
>> It's OK in principle - see decision 28/1 - but you have to be careful
>> of applying it in practice - see decision 28/2.
>>
>
> The easiest way for the player (in the original post) to
> achieve his objective is for him to wordlessly[1] play another
> ball from the tee (as in Decision 27/17).
>
> [1] No declaration of a provisional ball and no declaration
> that the original ball is lost (a meaningless declaration --
> Decision 27/16).
can you clarify?
V
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 12:53:04
From: Leon Chamae
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
Vista <Vista@Vista.com > writes:
> Leon Chamae wrote:
> > sugnaboris@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >> On Apr 30, 7:45 pm, "George Hibbard" <g...@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
> >>> I see no barrier from declaring your ball unplayable from the TEE itself for
> >>> any reason. You are the sole judge of its playability, lost or not. Your
> >>> next ball from the tee is the ball in play.
> >>>
> >>> Which, of course, you could do at any time, meaning those times when the
> >>> probability of it being in thick stuff or behind trees gives you enough
> >>> certainty that your opted choice is better for your score.
> >>>
> >>> Any challenges to this reasoning?
> >> It's OK in principle - see decision 28/1 - but you have to be careful
> >> of applying it in practice - see decision 28/2.
> >>
> > The easiest way for the player (in the original post) to
> > achieve his objective is for him to wordlessly[1] play another
> > ball from the tee (as in Decision 27/17).
> > [1] No declaration of a provisional ball and no declaration
> > that the original ball is lost (a meaningless declaration --
> > Decision 27/16).
>
> can you clarify?
Generally speaking, I am able to clarify. What is it that
you are asking me to clarify?
BTW, if you have not read the Decisions that I mentioned, then
you are not, in my opinion, asking for a clarification.
--
Leon Chamae
Directeur du Personnel
Bureau de Change
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 21:28:37
From: Rob Davis
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
Vista wrote:
> Leon Chamae wrote:
>
>> sugnaboris@gmail.com writes:
>>
>>> On Apr 30, 7:45 pm, "George Hibbard" <g...@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see no barrier from declaring your ball unplayable from the TEE
>>>> itself for
>>>> any reason. You are the sole judge of its playability, lost or
>>>> not. Your
>>>> next ball from the tee is the ball in play.
>>>>
>>>> Which, of course, you could do at any time, meaning those times when
>>>> the
>>>> probability of it being in thick stuff or behind trees gives you enough
>>>> certainty that your opted choice is better for your score.
>>>>
>>>> Any challenges to this reasoning?
>>>
>>> It's OK in principle - see decision 28/1 - but you have to be careful
>>> of applying it in practice - see decision 28/2.
>>>
>>
>> The easiest way for the player (in the original post) to
>> achieve his objective is for him to wordlessly[1] play another
>> ball from the tee (as in Decision 27/17).
>>
>> [1] No declaration of a provisional ball and no declaration
>> that the original ball is lost (a meaningless declaration -- Decision
>> 27/16).
>
>
> can you clarify?
>
> V
One of the definitions of a "lost" ball is: " b. The player has made a
stroke at a substituted ball". So, if you put another ball in play
without uttering the magic word "provisional", then your first ball is
lost and the new one is the ball in play. Just to be polite and clear,
you would probably explain what you're doing to your playing partners
... and you could call the first ball "unplayable" ... but it doesn't
really affect the penalty or strokes.
Rob
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 19:09:17
From: David
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:37:52 +0800, "Manna Pheuwerds"
<mumstheword@eftel.com > wrote:
>If I hit a ball into the deep rough and I really do not wish to find
>it, can I hit a provisional and declare the other one lost without
>having to search for the ball in the allotted time? and if "yes"
>what if one of your partners has a look anyway, finds it and calls
>out the correct brand and number of the ball to confirm it, can you
>just say that you don't want it as it's already been declared lost?
If you hit a provisional ball and find your original ball, then the
original ball is the ball "in play." Now, you may still declare it
unplayable. In this case, you would then need to go back to the
teebox and retee with stroke and penalty.
Once you find the original ball, the provisional ball is no longer
in play. You cannot, however, stop a fellow player from searching for
your ball. As long as the search takes place within the 5 minutes
allowed under the rule, the playing partner is within his "rights" to
do so. If it is a buddy of yours, you are in luck. If it is in match
play and your opponent does not like you, too bad.
>Thanks, Manna.
David
|
| | |
Date: 01 May 2007 05:42:16
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On 30-Apr-2007, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
> If you hit a provisional ball and find your original ball, then the
> original ball is the ball "in play." Now, you may still declare it
> unplayable. In this case, you would then need to go back to the
> teebox and retee with stroke and penalty.
I believe there is more than one option for an unplayable. Stroke & Distance
is always an option, but in addition, IIRC, you may procede by dropping 2
club lengths from the unplayable, no closer to the hole; or go back on a
line from the pin through the unplayable as far back as you wish.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 14:45:45
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
I see no barrier from declaring your ball unplayable from the TEE itself for
any reason. You are the sole judge of its playability, lost or not. Your
next ball from the tee is the ball in play.
Which, of course, you could do at any time, meaning those times when the
probability of it being in thick stuff or behind trees gives you enough
certainty that your opted choice is better for your score.
Any challenges to this reasoning?
"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote in message
news:u38c33537n1j8hsiteurmba0rbcns04o7f@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:37:52 +0800, "Manna Pheuwerds"
> <mumstheword@eftel.com> wrote:
>
>>If I hit a ball into the deep rough and I really do not wish to find
>>it, can I hit a provisional and declare the other one lost without
>>having to search for the ball in the allotted time? and if "yes"
>>what if one of your partners has a look anyway, finds it and calls
>>out the correct brand and number of the ball to confirm it, can you
>>just say that you don't want it as it's already been declared lost?
>
> If you hit a provisional ball and find your original ball, then the
> original ball is the ball "in play." Now, you may still declare it
> unplayable. In this case, you would then need to go back to the
> teebox and retee with stroke and penalty.
>
> Once you find the original ball, the provisional ball is no longer
> in play. You cannot, however, stop a fellow player from searching for
> your ball. As long as the search takes place within the 5 minutes
> allowed under the rule, the playing partner is within his "rights" to
> do so. If it is a buddy of yours, you are in luck. If it is in match
> play and your opponent does not like you, too bad.
>
>>Thanks, Manna.
>
> David
|
| | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 02:34:32
From: David
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:45:45 -0400, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
>I see no barrier from declaring your ball unplayable from the TEE itself for
>any reason. You are the sole judge of its playability, lost or not. Your
>next ball from the tee is the ball in play.
>
>Which, of course, you could do at any time, meaning those times when the
>probability of it being in thick stuff or behind trees gives you enough
>certainty that your opted choice is better for your score.
>
>Any challenges to this reasoning?
There is technically nothing wrong with this, as has been pointed
out by someone else in this thread. There is, however, more than one
option when a ball is unplayable. I would never sacrifice stroke and
distance without first trying to find my ball--hopefully with success.
Personally, for me it would be a moral issue. The spirit of the
rule suggests to me that you should do everything possible to find the
ball and then play it, abiding by any other rules which may come in to
effect.
I was caddying for a friend of mine (professional) in a tournament
and he sent his drive wide right in to hell. He hit a provisional and
we both had the same thought--I hope I don't find that first one :-)
We did, unfortunately, and he was totally in jail. He had no choice
but to head back to the tee box and hit it again.
My experience has been that this result is a rare occurence and 90%
of the time there is a better alternative than simply hitting another
tee shot.
I was caddying for another friend of mine in the club championships
and he pulled his tee shot left in to thick bushes. Now, this par four
is a monster--440 yards to the front of the green and requires a
demanding tee shot. Fortunately, I found his ball, which was
definitely unplayable. We took the option of going as far back as we
wanted keeping the point where the ball was found between us and the
flagstick. He had to sacrifice about 30 yards. He then struck a
beautiful 3-wood which found the green and he two-putted for a bogey.
Going back to the teebox pretty much guarantees a minimum of a double
bogey on this hole.
I think the idea of simply declaring the ball lost is a result of
not understanding the options available when a ball is deemed
unplayable. At any rate, yes, you can simply hit another ball without
declaring it to be a provisional and it will be the ball in play and
you will not have to search for the other ball. My feeling is that
this would be a silly option, though.
David
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 01:25:16
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 02:34:32 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
> There is technically nothing wrong with this, as has been pointed
>out by someone else in this thread. There is, however, more than one
>option when a ball is unplayable. I would never sacrifice stroke and
>distance without first trying to find my ball--hopefully with success.
>
> Personally, for me it would be a moral issue. The spirit of the
>rule suggests to me that you should do everything possible to find the
>ball and then play it, abiding by any other rules which may come in to
>effect.
The exception to this for me would be in a crowded course. The
moral consideration of being considerate to other golfers trumps the
moral consideration of playing it as it lies.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 20:09:57
From: frank ross
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2007 02:34:32 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> There is technically nothing wrong with this, as has been pointed
>> out by someone else in this thread. There is, however, more than one
>> option when a ball is unplayable. I would never sacrifice stroke and
>> distance without first trying to find my ball--hopefully with success.
>>
>> Personally, for me it would be a moral issue. The spirit of the
>> rule suggests to me that you should do everything possible to find the
>> ball and then play it, abiding by any other rules which may come in to
>> effect.
>
> The exception to this for me would be in a crowded course. The
> moral consideration of being considerate to other golfers trumps the
> moral consideration of playing it as it lies.
What about the moral consideration of those golfers regarding your game?
It's not reasonable for anyone to get teed off at you for playing the
game the way it's intended to be played.
Frank Ross
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 13:45:02
From: David
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 01:25:16 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On Tue, 01 May 2007 02:34:32 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> There is technically nothing wrong with this, as has been pointed
>>out by someone else in this thread. There is, however, more than one
>>option when a ball is unplayable. I would never sacrifice stroke and
>>distance without first trying to find my ball--hopefully with success.
>>
>> Personally, for me it would be a moral issue. The spirit of the
>>rule suggests to me that you should do everything possible to find the
>>ball and then play it, abiding by any other rules which may come in to
>>effect.
>
>The exception to this for me would be in a crowded course. The
>moral consideration of being considerate to other golfers trumps the
>moral consideration of playing it as it lies.
There is no moral consideration there, Howard. The rules of golf
allow you five minutes to search for your ball. If your ball is not
found, you must then take action udner what ever rule might apply in
that case.
An example of being inconsiderate to the golfers around you is when
you lose your ball in a water hazard, pull out your ball retriever and
start hunting for as many balls as you can find. If you had made some
comment like that in your reply, I would have agreed with you.
David
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 23:00:43
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 13:45:02 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
>>The exception to this for me would be in a crowded course. The
>>moral consideration of being considerate to other golfers trumps the
>>moral consideration of playing it as it lies.
>
> There is no moral consideration there, Howard. The rules of golf
>allow you five minutes to search for your ball. If your ball is not
>found, you must then take action udner what ever rule might apply in
>that case.
I'll agree that they are different. "Moral" is about being good to
others. "Righteous" is about following the rules.
I'll follow the ROG all the time - except when it means being
inconsiderate to others. I can easily look at the world and see the
evil that Righteous people are doing.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 May 2007 13:10:37
From: David
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 23:00:43 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On Tue, 01 May 2007 13:45:02 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>>>The exception to this for me would be in a crowded course. The
>>>moral consideration of being considerate to other golfers trumps the
>>>moral consideration of playing it as it lies.
>>
>> There is no moral consideration there, Howard. The rules of golf
>>allow you five minutes to search for your ball. If your ball is not
>>found, you must then take action udner what ever rule might apply in
>>that case.
>
>I'll agree that they are different. "Moral" is about being good to
>others. "Righteous" is about following the rules.
>
>I'll follow the ROG all the time - except when it means being
>inconsiderate to others. I can easily look at the world and see the
>evil that Righteous people are doing.
Howard, if you follow the rules of golf, there can never be a
question about inconsideration to other golfers. Every golfer on the
course is, hopefully, playing by the rules. If a golfer in front of
me is using his alotted five minutes to search for his ball, what
should I do? If he failed to hit a provisional and has to come back
to the teeing area, I would politely point out the concept of a
provisional and let him hit.
I agree that there is too slow on the golf course. I have suffered
through 5.5 hours for a round of golf in a tournament; however, I am
there to enjoy the day. If the round takes 4.5 hours instead of 4
hours, big deal.
Could you please describe a situation to me where you would not play
by the rules because you felt that you were being inconsiderate to
other golfers? Personally, I find people who don't wait until the
next teebox to write down their scores to be inconsiderate. People
who are loud, drunk and obnoxious are also being inconsiderate. Giving
lessons on the course with people waiting behind is being
inconsiderate. Players following the rules of golf are not ever
inconsiderate. They may, however, be lacking in judgement and that is
another story entirely.
David
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 May 2007 07:22:10
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
One need only read other postings in this thread to realize that many gofers
have the need for speed. Walking back to hit another instead of dropping a
ball and taking your ESC maximum is dangerous to your health.
"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote in message
news:ptrg33l2fl9g3o68jotmgpnu3f6mfqr3sq@4ax.com...
>
> Could you please describe a situation to me where you would not play
> by the rules because you felt that you were being inconsiderate to
> other golfers? Personally, I find people who don't wait until the
> next teebox to write down their scores to be inconsiderate. People
> who are loud, drunk and obnoxious are also being inconsiderate. Giving
> lessons on the course with people waiting behind is being
> inconsiderate. Players following the rules of golf are not ever
> inconsiderate. They may, however, be lacking in judgement and that is
> another story entirely.
>
>
> David
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 09:54:18
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On Apr 29, 11:37 pm, "Manna Pheuwerds" <mumsthew...@eftel.com > wrote:
> If I hit a ball into the deep rough and I really do not wish to find
> it, can I hit a provisional and declare the other one lost without
> having to search for the ball in the allotted time? and if "yes"
> what if one of your partners has a look anyway, finds it and calls
> out the correct brand and number of the ball to confirm it, can you
> just say that you don't want it as it's already been declared lost?
>
> Thanks, Manna.
No. If you declare the second ball a provisional and some one finds
the first one, the provisional is abandoned and the original ball
becomes the ball in play. You can then declare the original ball
unplayable and proceed under the unplayable rule. You cannot use the
ball you declared "provisional".
So, let's say on a par 3, you hit your tee shot into deep rough and
you don't want to play it from there. So now, you hit another one from
the tee calling it provisional and it goes in the hole. If someone
finds the original ball, the provisional you just holed out for a par,
does not count. You either play the original ball as it lies, or
declare it unplayable. You can then go back to the tee if you want and
hit your 3rd shot. If you don't hole that one you will be putting for
boggie (assuming you hit the green)
JJVP
|
| | |
Date: 01 May 2007 01:20:26
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On 30 Apr 2007 09:54:18 -0700, JJVP <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:
>No. If you declare the second ball a provisional and some one finds
>the first one, the provisional is abandoned and the original ball
>becomes the ball in play.
Obviously it has to be found in bounds.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 13:47:34
From: David
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 01:20:26 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On 30 Apr 2007 09:54:18 -0700, JJVP <jjvp10@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>No. If you declare the second ball a provisional and some one finds
>>the first one, the provisional is abandoned and the original ball
>>becomes the ball in play.
>
>Obviously it has to be found in bounds.
Most obviously, it does NOT have to be found in bounds. It simply
needs to be found and identified as your ball. I am not sure why you
think that this makes a difference.
If the ball is found OB, then the original ball is technically still
"in play." That the ball cannot be played is something different. In
this case, the provisional is the ball which must be played. That is
all.
David
|
| | |
Date: 01 May 2007 09:01:52
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
JJVP wrote:
> So, let's say on a par 3, you hit your tee shot into deep rough and
> you don't want to play it from there. So now, you hit another one from
> the tee calling it provisional and it goes in the hole. If someone
> finds the original ball, the provisional you just holed out for a par,
> does not count. You either play the original ball as it lies, or
> declare it unplayable. You can then go back to the tee if you want and
> hit your 3rd shot. If you don't hole that one you will be putting for
> boggie (assuming you hit the green)
>
> JJVP
>
It is important to note that although you cannot declare a ball 'lost'
there are certain situations where the original ball becomes 'deemed'
lost under the rules and the 'provisional ball' is then automatically
the ball in play. These situations are:-
1. You failed to audibly declare/announce the ball to be a 'provisional
ball' using those actual words. In effect you have simply put a
substitute ball into play...and the original is out of play. Using the
words 'provisional ball' is all that is needed because these words have
a precise meaning in the 'Definitions' of the RoG; ie. it is played for
a ball that "..might be lost OOB or outside a hazard..." only.
2. You played a 'provisional' when you thought the ball might be lost in
a water hazard.....(see 1. above...this not a 'provisional')
3. You walked forward to search...and then went back to the tee to play
your 'provisional'...this is not allowed....you have merely played a
substitute ball under 'stroke and distance penalty, thus deeming the
original 'lost'.
4. You have searched for the original ball for more than 5 minutes and
have failed to find it.
5. You have played your 'provisional' from a place beyond where the
original ball is likely to be (ie typically where you or your caddie
started to search for it).
6. In the case described by John (holed out the 'provisional' on a par
3)..if you manage to lift the ball from the hole before the original is
found it is deemed to be the ball to count and the original is deemed
'lost'.
7. The original is located out of bounds.
I think this just about covers it!
cheers
david
|
| | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 01:21:50
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 09:01:52 +1000, david s-a
<dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
>4. You have searched for the original ball for more than 5 minutes and
>have failed to find it.
Do they have a ruling for what happens when you are delayed by the
group in front of you for 6 minutes and then find your ball?
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 02:54:39
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
In article <0k5d335827ch9k7egbfan98d956arsc6qj@4ax.com >,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2007 09:01:52 +1000, david s-a
> <dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> >4. You have searched for the original ball for more than 5 minutes and
> >have failed to find it.
>
> Do they have a ruling for what happens when you are delayed by the
> group in front of you for 6 minutes and then find your ball?
Yup.
The five minutes don't begin until you reach the area where your ball is
likely to be found.
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 15:42:39
From: Rob Davis
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
I believe you can always declare the ball "unplayable" and the take the
stroke/distance penalty. You don't really want to call it a
"provisional", as that means you will abandon it if the original is found.
Rob
Manna Pheuwerds wrote:
> If I hit a ball into the deep rough and I really do not wish to find
> it, can I hit a provisional and declare the other one lost without
> having to search for the ball in the allotted time? and if "yes"
> what if one of your partners has a look anyway, finds it and calls
> out the correct brand and number of the ball to confirm it, can you
> just say that you don't want it as it's already been declared lost?
>
> Thanks, Manna.
>
|
| | |
Date: 01 May 2007 01:18:51
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:42:39 GMT, Rob Davis <davis.rob@verizon.net >
wrote:
>I believe you can always declare the ball "unplayable" and the take the
>stroke/distance penalty. You don't really want to call it a
>"provisional", as that means you will abandon it if the original is found.
With the understanding that after you hit a provisional, when you
declare the first unplayable, the original becomes the ball in play,
the provisional is dead. Then you can take stroke and distance on
the first ball.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 13:57:51
From: David
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 01:18:51 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:42:39 GMT, Rob Davis <davis.rob@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I believe you can always declare the ball "unplayable" and the take the
>>stroke/distance penalty. You don't really want to call it a
>>"provisional", as that means you will abandon it if the original is found.
>
>With the understanding that after you hit a provisional, when you
>declare the first unplayable, the original becomes the ball in play,
>the provisional is dead. Then you can take stroke and distance on
>the first ball.
What are the three options that a player has when a ball is deemed
unplayable? Stroke and distance is certainly one of them. Also, add
a stroke and mark off two club lengths--which you can do as many times
as you deem necessary. Thirdly, maintaining the spot where the ball
lay between you and the flagstick, you can go back as far as you want
and drop, adding a stroke penalty--sort of a semi-stroke and distance
penalty.
Declaring your ball unplayable from the teeing area is a ridiculous
choice without knowing where your ball actually ended up. Now, you
hit a provisional ball because you are not sure if you will FIND the
original ball. If you have found your original ball after hitting
your provisional, the provisional ball is NO longer in play.
The exception, as you tried to point out, is if the ball is OB. The
action for a lost ball and a ball OB is the same. Note, however, that
if you see a ball OB (and it is no resting on someone's private
property, or ecologically protected area, without finding it and
identifiying it, you cannot claim the ball to be yours. In this case,
you would still be giving up the search after the allotted five
minutes and treating the ball as lost.
David
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 22:57:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 13:57:51 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
> Declaring your ball unplayable from the teeing area is a ridiculous
>choice without knowing where your ball actually ended up. Now, you
>hit a provisional ball because you are not sure if you will FIND the
>original ball. If you have found your original ball after hitting
>your provisional, the provisional ball is NO longer in play.
I've had occasion where I knew the native grass where I hit the ball
well enough to know that dropping near by is a bad bet, and there is
no option to go directly from the pin to drop.
> The exception, as you tried to point out, is if the ball is OB. The
>action for a lost ball and a ball OB is the same. Note, however, that
>if you see a ball OB (and it is no resting on someone's private
>property, or ecologically protected area, without finding it and
>identifiying it, you cannot claim the ball to be yours. In this case,
>you would still be giving up the search after the allotted five
>minutes and treating the ball as lost.
But as soon as the OB ball is identified, the provisional becomes the
ball in play. As soon as the IB ball is identified, it becomes the
ball in play. Either case, there is no option.
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 09:35:33
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
IF???
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 11:14:24
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
"Miss Anne Thrope" <High_Colonic@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:314-4635F0A5-418@storefull-3154.bay.webtv.net...
> IF???
>
Took you all morning to come up with that witty reply eh?
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 21:55:19
From: Vista
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "Miss Anne Thrope" <High_Colonic@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:314-4635F0A5-418@storefull-3154.bay.webtv.net...
>> IF???
>>
>
> Took you all morning to come up with that witty reply eh?
You found that witty?
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 05:44:17
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On 30-Apr-2007, Vista <Vista@Vista.com > wrote:
> > Took you all morning to come up with that witty reply eh?
>
> You found that witty?
compared to MATs usual schtick, yes.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 11:48:56
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:37:52 +0800, "Manna Pheuwerds"
<mumstheword@eftel.com > wrote:
>If I hit a ball into the deep rough and I really do not wish to find
>it, can I hit a provisional and declare the other one lost without
>having to search for the ball in the allotted time? and if "yes"
>what if one of your partners has a look anyway, finds it and calls
>out the correct brand and number of the ball to confirm it, can you
>just say that you don't want it as it's already been declared lost?
If you do not declare it a provisional, it *is* the ball in play. But
just to avoid argument, tell your mates what you are doing. I did
that and still had people saying that I had to call it a provisional.
A couple of years ago, Phil Mickelson declared a provisional, and then
hit a perfect replacement shot. He said he was not going to look for
the original, and asked his mates not to look for his original. But
a spectator found his original anyway - which made it the ball in
play.
If he hadn't declared it a provisional, his replacement ball would
have been in play.
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 05:01:09
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Lost ball
|
Manna Pheuwerds <mumstheword@eftel.com > wrote:
> If I hit a ball into the deep rough and I really do not wish to find
> it, can I hit a provisional and declare the other one lost without
> having to search for the ball in the allotted time?
You can take a stroke and distance penalty anytime you want for
any reason. No need to declare it a provisional, you can just as
easily say it's unplayable and hit your third from the tee.
*Why* you might want to do that would be another matter.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
|
