| |
Main
Date: 19 Sep 2006 02:40:42
From: water
Subject: Rules Question
|
This is probably an easier one but I can't find my rule book. At any rate,
the situation was as follows:
Semi-friendly game...semi...
Opponent hooks his tee shot 90 yards out into a group of large old trees on
left.
Neither one of us see the ball come down.
I suggest that he hits a provisional.
His provisional slices and we both think its most likely in the water hazard
on the right.
He asks if he can hit another provisional. I agree.
Third one is a hook to the left. Around the same place as the first one went
though slightly better than the first.
Leaving the tee box he states the make, number and order of each ball hit.
This is agreed without arguement or further question
He finds his FIRST one and can't find the other two. It is certainly his
first as his third was slightly further out. He plays the first.
What is he laying now? 1? 2? 3? 4?
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 15:15:40
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
Rob Davis wrote:
> johnty wrote:
> > Rob Davis wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I don't think it's that simple, but a lot depends on the players intent
> >>and the wording of the original post is not clear. If I read 27-2a/2
> >>correctly, and the player hit the third ball as a "provisional", based
> >>solely on the belief that his 2nd ball was lost in the water hazard
> >>(which is how the OP sounds to me), then that ball is in fact NOT a
> >>provisional, and becomes the ball in play.
> >
> >
> > This is not correct.
> >
>
> Uh OK ... could you cite the rule you're using so I might learn what is
> correct? Thanks.
>
Rob, you have been given the answer a little further down in this
thread so I won't labour the point.
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 11:56:54
From: Thor
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
> It sounds like you might have some personal experience with this
> ruling.
Ain't it funny how often something that has never come up before,
suddenly comes up in several places at once?
-- Thor
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 10:37:07
From: Thor
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
Rob Davis wrote:
> Birdie Bill wrote:
> > johnty wrote:
> >>
> >>No, this line of reasoning is wrong. The third ball, regardless of
> >>where the second ball went, and regardless of whatever statement the
> >>player may have made, is a continuation of the provisional ball. If the
> >>original ball is found, all strokes from the second ball onwards are
> >>disregarded.
> >
> >
> > What I was trying to say, only with better words. Provided the
> > second shot was properly declared a provisional, the player could
> > shoot his competitor if he wanted, and any penalties resulting
> > from that would be disregarded as long as he found the
> > original ball.
> >
>
> Can you cite the rule that supports this?
>
> The "note" in 27-2c says that any penalty strokes incurred with a
> provisional are disregarded, but only the penalties "incurred solely by
> playing that ball". In this case, there's another ball involved (the 3rd
> shot), and if it turns out it's not a "provisional" then I think it
> immediately becomes the ball "in play".
>
Note from 27-2a says in part:
If another provisional ball is played, it bears the same relationship
to the previous
provisional ball as the first provisional ballbears to the original.
And the decision is clear:
27-2a/4 Three Balls Played from Same Spot; Only Second Ball Was
Provisional Ball
Q. A player, believing his tee shot might be lost or out of bounds,
plays a provisional ball. His provisional ball is struck in the same
direction as the original ball and, without any announcement, he plays
another ball from the tee. This ball comes to rest on the fairway. What
is the ruling?
A. If the original ball is not lost or out of bounds, the player must
continue play with that ball without penalty.
If the original ball is lost or out of bounds, the player must continue
play with the third ball played from the tee as, when this ball was
played without any announcement, it rendered the provisional ball lost,
regardless of the provisional ball's location. The player would lie 5
with the third ball played from the tee.
In both situations, the third ball bears a relationship only to the
previous ball played, i.e. the provisional ball.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 14:11:59
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
On 20 Sep 2006 10:37:07 -0700, "Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com > wrote:
>
>Rob Davis wrote:
>> Birdie Bill wrote:
>> > johnty wrote:
>> >>
>> >>No, this line of reasoning is wrong. The third ball, regardless of
>> >>where the second ball went, and regardless of whatever statement the
>> >>player may have made, is a continuation of the provisional ball. If the
>> >>original ball is found, all strokes from the second ball onwards are
>> >>disregarded.
>> >
>> >
>> > What I was trying to say, only with better words. Provided the
>> > second shot was properly declared a provisional, the player could
>> > shoot his competitor if he wanted, and any penalties resulting
>> > from that would be disregarded as long as he found the
>> > original ball.
>> >
>>
>> Can you cite the rule that supports this?
>>
>> The "note" in 27-2c says that any penalty strokes incurred with a
>> provisional are disregarded, but only the penalties "incurred solely by
>> playing that ball". In this case, there's another ball involved (the 3rd
>> shot), and if it turns out it's not a "provisional" then I think it
>> immediately becomes the ball "in play".
>>
>
>Note from 27-2a says in part:
> If another provisional ball is played, it bears the same relationship
>to the previous
> provisional ball as the first provisional ballbears to the original.
>
>And the decision is clear:
>
>27-2a/4 Three Balls Played from Same Spot; Only Second Ball Was
>Provisional Ball
>
>
>Q. A player, believing his tee shot might be lost or out of bounds,
>plays a provisional ball. His provisional ball is struck in the same
>direction as the original ball and, without any announcement, he plays
>another ball from the tee. This ball comes to rest on the fairway. What
>is the ruling?
>
>A. If the original ball is not lost or out of bounds, the player must
>continue play with that ball without penalty.
>If the original ball is lost or out of bounds, the player must continue
>play with the third ball played from the tee as, when this ball was
>played without any announcement, it rendered the provisional ball lost,
>regardless of the provisional ball's location. The player would lie 5
>with the third ball played from the tee.
>In both situations, the third ball bears a relationship only to the
>previous ball played, i.e. the provisional ball.
It sounds like you might have some personal experience with this
ruling.
--
jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 17:51:19
From: Rob Davis
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
Thor wrote:
> Rob Davis wrote:
>
>>Birdie Bill wrote:
>>
>>>johnty wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, this line of reasoning is wrong. The third ball, regardless of
>>>>where the second ball went, and regardless of whatever statement the
>>>>player may have made, is a continuation of the provisional ball. If the
>>>>original ball is found, all strokes from the second ball onwards are
>>>>disregarded.
>>>
>>>
>>>What I was trying to say, only with better words. Provided the
>>>second shot was properly declared a provisional, the player could
>>>shoot his competitor if he wanted, and any penalties resulting
>>>from that would be disregarded as long as he found the
>>>original ball.
>>>
>>
>>Can you cite the rule that supports this?
>>
>>The "note" in 27-2c says that any penalty strokes incurred with a
>>provisional are disregarded, but only the penalties "incurred solely by
>>playing that ball". In this case, there's another ball involved (the 3rd
>>shot), and if it turns out it's not a "provisional" then I think it
>>immediately becomes the ball "in play".
>>
>
>
> Note from 27-2a says in part:
> If another provisional ball is played, it bears the same relationship
> to the previous
> provisional ball as the first provisional ballbears to the original.
>
> And the decision is clear:
>
> 27-2a/4 Three Balls Played from Same Spot; Only Second Ball Was
> Provisional Ball
>
>
> Q. A player, believing his tee shot might be lost or out of bounds,
> plays a provisional ball. His provisional ball is struck in the same
> direction as the original ball and, without any announcement, he plays
> another ball from the tee. This ball comes to rest on the fairway. What
> is the ruling?
>
> A. If the original ball is not lost or out of bounds, the player must
> continue play with that ball without penalty.
> If the original ball is lost or out of bounds, the player must continue
> play with the third ball played from the tee as, when this ball was
> played without any announcement, it rendered the provisional ball lost,
> regardless of the provisional ball's location. The player would lie 5
> with the third ball played from the tee.
> In both situations, the third ball bears a relationship only to the
> previous ball played, i.e. the provisional ball.
>
Ahh ... didn't see that one. That "relationship" stuff wasn't clear to
me in the actual rule, but the decision certainly is. Thanks.
Rob
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 01:24:35
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
johnty wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:20:54 GMT, Rob Davis <davis.rob@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> His provisional slices and we both think its most likely in the water hazard
> > >> on the right. He asks if he can hit another provisional. I agree.
> > >
> > >Why is he hitting a third provisional if you think it's "most likely in
> > >the water hazard"? I think that's not "by the rules".
> >
> > Ahh, I missed that. So the third shot was *not* a provisional after
> > all!
>
> No, this line of reasoning is wrong. The third ball, regardless of
> where the second ball went, and regardless of whatever statement the
> player may have made, is a continuation of the provisional ball. If the
> original ball is found, all strokes from the second ball onwards are
> disregarded.
What I was trying to say, only with better words. Provided the
second shot was properly declared a provisional, the player could
shoot his competitor if he wanted, and any penalties resulting
from that would be disregarded as long as he found the
original ball.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 15:33:07
From: Rob Davis
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
Birdie Bill wrote:
> johnty wrote:
>
>>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:20:54 GMT, Rob Davis <davis.rob@verizon.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>His provisional slices and we both think its most likely in the water hazard
>>>>>on the right. He asks if he can hit another provisional. I agree.
>>>>
>>>>Why is he hitting a third provisional if you think it's "most likely in
>>>>the water hazard"? I think that's not "by the rules".
>>>
>>>Ahh, I missed that. So the third shot was *not* a provisional after
>>>all!
>>
>>No, this line of reasoning is wrong. The third ball, regardless of
>>where the second ball went, and regardless of whatever statement the
>>player may have made, is a continuation of the provisional ball. If the
>>original ball is found, all strokes from the second ball onwards are
>>disregarded.
>
>
> What I was trying to say, only with better words. Provided the
> second shot was properly declared a provisional, the player could
> shoot his competitor if he wanted, and any penalties resulting
> from that would be disregarded as long as he found the
> original ball.
>
Can you cite the rule that supports this?
The "note" in 27-2c says that any penalty strokes incurred with a
provisional are disregarded, but only the penalties "incurred solely by
playing that ball". In this case, there's another ball involved (the 3rd
shot), and if it turns out it's not a "provisional" then I think it
immediately becomes the ball "in play".
Thanks,
Rob
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 00:09:10
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
Rob Davis wrote:
> I don't think it's that simple, but a lot depends on the players intent
> and the wording of the original post is not clear. If I read 27-2a/2
> correctly, and the player hit the third ball as a "provisional", based
> solely on the belief that his 2nd ball was lost in the water hazard
> (which is how the OP sounds to me), then that ball is in fact NOT a
> provisional, and becomes the ball in play.
This is not correct.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 15:14:03
From: Rob Davis
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
johnty wrote:
> Rob Davis wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think it's that simple, but a lot depends on the players intent
>>and the wording of the original post is not clear. If I read 27-2a/2
>>correctly, and the player hit the third ball as a "provisional", based
>>solely on the belief that his 2nd ball was lost in the water hazard
>>(which is how the OP sounds to me), then that ball is in fact NOT a
>>provisional, and becomes the ball in play.
>
>
> This is not correct.
>
Uh OK ... could you cite the rule you're using so I might learn what is
correct? Thanks.
Rob
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 17:17:43
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:14:03 GMT, Rob Davis <davis.rob@verizon.net >
wrote:
> johnty wrote:
> > Rob Davis wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I don't think it's that simple, but a lot depends on the players intent
> >>and the wording of the original post is not clear. If I read 27-2a/2
> >>correctly, and the player hit the third ball as a "provisional", based
> >>solely on the belief that his 2nd ball was lost in the water hazard
> >>(which is how the OP sounds to me), then that ball is in fact NOT a
> >>provisional, and becomes the ball in play.
> >
> >
> > This is not correct.
> >
>
> Uh OK ... could you cite the rule you're using so I might learn what is
> correct? Thanks.
>
27
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 10:50:15
From: Zuke
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2006, gpsman wrote:
> Zuke wrote:
>> If he found the first one he is hitting 2 with that ball.
>>
>> From your description it sounds like he never declared that
>> he was hitting a provisional ("I suggested he hit a provisional").
>
> "His provisional slices..."
> -----
>
It's not a provisional until the player declares it is a provisional
to his playing partners. In his description this never occurred.
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 05:51:28
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:20:54 GMT, Rob Davis <davis.rob@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> His provisional slices and we both think its most likely in the water hazard
> >> on the right. He asks if he can hit another provisional. I agree.
> >
> >Why is he hitting a third provisional if you think it's "most likely in
> >the water hazard"? I think that's not "by the rules".
>
> Ahh, I missed that. So the third shot was *not* a provisional after
> all!
No, this line of reasoning is wrong. The third ball, regardless of
where the second ball went, and regardless of whatever statement the
player may have made, is a continuation of the provisional ball. If the
original ball is found, all strokes from the second ball onwards are
disregarded.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 15:54:22
From: Rob Davis
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
johnty wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:20:54 GMT, Rob Davis <davis.rob@verizon.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>His provisional slices and we both think its most likely in the water hazard
>>>>on the right. He asks if he can hit another provisional. I agree.
>>>
>>>Why is he hitting a third provisional if you think it's "most likely in
>>>the water hazard"? I think that's not "by the rules".
>>
>>Ahh, I missed that. So the third shot was *not* a provisional after
>>all!
>
>
> No, this line of reasoning is wrong. The third ball, regardless of
> where the second ball went, and regardless of whatever statement the
> player may have made, is a continuation of the provisional ball. If the
> original ball is found, all strokes from the second ball onwards are
> disregarded.
>
I don't think it's that simple, but a lot depends on the players intent
and the wording of the original post is not clear. If I read 27-2a/2
correctly, and the player hit the third ball as a "provisional", based
solely on the belief that his 2nd ball was lost in the water hazard
(which is how the OP sounds to me), then that ball is in fact NOT a
provisional, and becomes the ball in play. I think the fact that he has
put another ball "in play" (although mistakenly) takes precedence over
the original ball and 1st provisional.
But, if they believe the 2nd ball "may be lost outside a water hazard",
then I think all the provisionals are OK and when they find the original
ball it is the one "in play".
It can be tricky to determine whether a ball is "lost" or "in a water
hazard". The rules talk about “reasonable evidence” and the
"preponderance" of evidence. You are allowed to hit a provisional if
you're not sure, and then go take a look. But if this guy hit a
"provisional" because he believed his ball was in the hazard ... then
that ball is in play (as his 5th stroke I think).
Rob
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 05:43:37
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
Zuke wrote:
> If he found the first one he is hitting 2 with that ball.
>
> From your description it sounds like he never declared that
> he was hitting a provisional ("I suggested he hit a provisional").
> If you want to to proceed in that manner, his second ball is
> immediately in play no matter if you find the first one or not.
> In that case since you found neither the second or the
> third looks like he is teeing off hitting seven.
>
>
>
>
I think the Decisions on this aren't as clear as they could be. Rule
27-2 says "The player must inform his opponent in match play or his
ker or a fellow-competitor in stroke play that he intends to play a
provisional ball". The Decisions say "The player's statement must
specifically mention the words "provisional ball" or must make it
clear that he is proceeding under Rule 27-2a."
How can it say that you MUST do something, but then say you could do
something else? If the OP suggested the player took a provisional and
the player agreed, then I'd say that makes it clear he is hitting a
provisional (Maybe debatable whether he is offering advice, rather than
rules information...)
In my mind, there are plenty of forms of words that make it clear you
are proceeding under the provisional ball rule. Not long after I
started playing golf, I was involved in a match and hit my ball towards
some gorse. I said "I'm not sure if I'll find that one, I'll hit
another just in case". My opponent stayed silent until we had found my
first ball. She then informed that the second ball was the one in play
because I hadn't said 'provisional'. I still think it was perfectly
clear what I meant. Ever since then, I am very clear about saying
'provisional' and if another player tees up a second ball I'll always
confirm whether it is a provisional or not.
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 04:48:47
From:
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
pete z wrote:
> If the ball was most likely in the hazard, there is no such thing as a
> provisional.
No, the burden of evidence is much stronger than "most likely" being in
the hazard; if it's just most likely to be in the hazard, then the
provisional is in order (see 27-2).
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 01:21:25
From:
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
>This is probably an easier one but I can't find
>my rule book. At any rate, the situation was as
>follows:
>Semi-friendly game...semi...
>Opponent hooks his tee shot 90 yards out into a
>group of large old trees on left.
>Neither one of us see the ball come down.
>I suggest that he hits a provisional.
>His provisional slices and we both think its most likely
>in the water hazard on the right.
>He asks if he can hit another provisional. I agree.
>Third one is a hook to the left. Around the
>same place as the first one went though slightly better
>than the first.
>Leaving the tee box he states the make, number and
>order of each ball hit. This is agreed without argument
>or further question
>He finds his FIRST one and can't find the other
>two. It is certainly his first as his third was
>slightly further out. He plays the first.
>What is he laying now? 1? 2? 3? 4?
=3D=3D=3D=3D
he's laying one, shooting two, and just off the tee box, think what kind
of score he will end up with if the existing "progress" continues
through 18.
but that is really a mute point, the guy needs to take lessons, the poor
thing, tell him to - take a number.:--)
>m h o
> v =83e
>=A0=A0=A0=A0* d r i v e =A0l e s s -=A0c r e a t e =A0a =A0g l u t *
> d w n =A0w / t h e =A0$ c a l p e r - u $ e =A0l e $ $ =A0g a $
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 23:05:01
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
pete z wrote:
> Peter Strauss wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:40:42 GMT, "water" <roebaer@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is probably an easier one but I can't find my rule book. At any rate,
> > > the situation was as follows:
> > >
> > > Semi-friendly game...semi...
> > >
> > > Opponent hooks his tee shot 90 yards out into a group of large old trees on
> > > left.
> > >
> > > Neither one of us see the ball come down.
> > >
> > > I suggest that he hits a provisional.
> > >
> > > His provisional slices and we both think its most likely in the water hazard
> > > on the right.
> > >
> > > He asks if he can hit another provisional. I agree.
> > >
> > > Third one is a hook to the left. Around the same place as the first one went
> > > though slightly better than the first.
> > >
> > > Leaving the tee box he states the make, number and order of each ball hit.
> > > This is agreed without arguement or further question
> > >
> > > He finds his FIRST one and can't find the other two. It is certainly his
> > > first as his third was slightly further out. He plays the first.
> > >
> > > What is he laying now? 1? 2? 3? 4?
> > >
> > I would say 2. See 27-2a/4. (I'm assuming that when you agreed to
> > his playing another provisional ball that there was a chance that the
> > previous ball could have been lost NOT in the hazard. "Most likely"
> > is different than the stipulation of Rule 27, which states "If there
> > is reasonable evidence that the original <or in this case, the
> > provisional> is lost in a water hazard...etc." There is, I would say,
> > a difference between "most likely" and "reasonable evidence".
> > Probably. In any event, since he found his original ball, the others
> > are moot, and he must play the original.
> > "The third ball bears a relationship only to the previous ball played,
> > i.e. the provisional ball." (New decision this year)
> >
> > Peter
>
> If the ball was most likely in the hazard, there is no such thing as a
> provisional.
> Therefore, he played a wrong ball. If he had said, the ball is in the
> hazard,
> so I am hitting 5, if I don't find the first ball, he would be lying 1,
> hitting 2.
> IMO, he is lying 3 or 4, for hitting the wrong ball. Just my opinion.
The first ball was hit into some trees, not a water hazard. As long
as the second ball was properly declared a provisional, it doesn't
matter what happens after that in that sequence of events. Whatever
penalties might occur down that path are wiped out once the
original ball is found.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 22:59:13
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
gpsman wrote:
> Birdie Bill wrote: <brevity snip>
>
> > But, then, how could the OP ask if he was
> > laying 1 as a possibility?
>
> It's obviously a "trick" question.
>
> > Therefore, I have to stand by
> > my original answer as the only rational conclusion to the
> > intent of the question.
>
> The intent was to fool.
> -----
>
> - gpsman
You are grasping at straws. Admit defeat and move on. :-)
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 21:53:37
From: gpsman
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
Zuke wrote:
> If he found the first one he is hitting 2 with that ball.
>
> From your description it sounds like he never declared that
> he was hitting a provisional ("I suggested he hit a provisional").
"His provisional slices..."
-----
- gpsman
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 00:42:54
From: Zuke
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
If he found the first one he is hitting 2 with that ball.
From your description it sounds like he never declared that
he was hitting a provisional ("I suggested he hit a provisional").
If you want to to proceed in that manner, his second ball is
immediately in play no matter if you find the first one or not.
In that case since you found neither the second or the
third looks like he is teeing off hitting seven.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, water wrote:
> This is probably an easier one but I can't find my rule book. At any rate,
> the situation was as follows:
>
> Semi-friendly game...semi...
>
> Opponent hooks his tee shot 90 yards out into a group of large old trees on
> left.
>
> Neither one of us see the ball come down.
>
> I suggest that he hits a provisional.
>
> His provisional slices and we both think its most likely in the water hazard
> on the right.
>
> He asks if he can hit another provisional. I agree.
>
> Third one is a hook to the left. Around the same place as the first one went
> though slightly better than the first.
>
> Leaving the tee box he states the make, number and order of each ball hit.
> This is agreed without arguement or further question
>
> He finds his FIRST one and can't find the other two. It is certainly his
> first as his third was slightly further out. He plays the first.
>
> What is he laying now? 1? 2? 3? 4?
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 20:24:32
From: gpsman
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
Birdie Bill wrote: <brevity snip >
> But, then, how could the OP ask if he was
> laying 1 as a possibility?
It's obviously a "trick" question.
> Therefore, I have to stand by
> my original answer as the only rational conclusion to the
> intent of the question.
The intent was to fool.
-----
- gpsman
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 03:20:54
From: Rob Davis
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
OK ... I'll play.
water wrote:
> This is probably an easier one but I can't find my rule book. At any rate,
> the situation was as follows:
> Semi-friendly game...semi...
> Opponent hooks his tee shot 90 yards out into a group of large old trees on
> left.
> Neither one of us see the ball come down. I suggest that he hits a provisional.
>
> His provisional slices and we both think its most likely in the water hazard
> on the right. He asks if he can hit another provisional. I agree.
Why is he hitting a third provisional if you think it's "most likely in
the water hazard"? I think that's not "by the rules".
> Third one is a hook to the left. Around the same place as the first one went
> though slightly better than the first.
>
> Leaving the tee box he states the make, number and order of each ball hit.
> This is agreed without arguement or further question
>
> He finds his FIRST one and can't find the other two. It is certainly his
> first as his third was slightly further out. He plays the first.
>
> What is he laying now? 1? 2? 3? 4?
>
Playing the first ball is correct since it's been found (although I'd
have to double check re: that third provisional ... by the book he might
have incurred some penalty strikes there). If he actually "plays the
first", meaning he has hit anorther shot with the first ball, then he
laying 2.
Rob
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 11:59:26
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:20:54 GMT, Rob Davis <davis.rob@verizon.net >
wrote:
>> His provisional slices and we both think its most likely in the water hazard
>> on the right. He asks if he can hit another provisional. I agree.
>
>Why is he hitting a third provisional if you think it's "most likely in
>the water hazard"? I think that's not "by the rules".
Ahh, I missed that. So the third shot was *not* a provisional after
all!
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 20:19:37
From: pete z
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
Peter Strauss wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:40:42 GMT, "water" <roebaer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is probably an easier one but I can't find my rule book. At any rate,
> > the situation was as follows:
> >
> > Semi-friendly game...semi...
> >
> > Opponent hooks his tee shot 90 yards out into a group of large old trees on
> > left.
> >
> > Neither one of us see the ball come down.
> >
> > I suggest that he hits a provisional.
> >
> > His provisional slices and we both think its most likely in the water hazard
> > on the right.
> >
> > He asks if he can hit another provisional. I agree.
> >
> > Third one is a hook to the left. Around the same place as the first one went
> > though slightly better than the first.
> >
> > Leaving the tee box he states the make, number and order of each ball hit.
> > This is agreed without arguement or further question
> >
> > He finds his FIRST one and can't find the other two. It is certainly his
> > first as his third was slightly further out. He plays the first.
> >
> > What is he laying now? 1? 2? 3? 4?
> >
> I would say 2. See 27-2a/4. (I'm assuming that when you agreed to
> his playing another provisional ball that there was a chance that the
> previous ball could have been lost NOT in the hazard. "Most likely"
> is different than the stipulation of Rule 27, which states "If there
> is reasonable evidence that the original <or in this case, the
> provisional> is lost in a water hazard...etc." There is, I would say,
> a difference between "most likely" and "reasonable evidence".
> Probably. In any event, since he found his original ball, the others
> are moot, and he must play the original.
> "The third ball bears a relationship only to the previous ball played,
> i.e. the provisional ball." (New decision this year)
>
> Peter
If the ball was most likely in the hazard, there is no such thing as a
provisional.
Therefore, he played a wrong ball. If he had said, the ball is in the
hazard,
so I am hitting 5, if I don't find the first ball, he would be lying 1,
hitting 2.
IMO, he is lying 3 or 4, for hitting the wrong ball. Just my opinion.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 23:09:47
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
On 18 Sep 2006 20:19:37 -0700, "pete z" <pz0326@aol.com > wrote:
>
> Peter Strauss wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:40:42 GMT, "water" <roebaer@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is probably an easier one but I can't find my rule book. At any rate,
> > > the situation was as follows:
> > >
> > > Semi-friendly game...semi...
> > >
> > > Opponent hooks his tee shot 90 yards out into a group of large old trees on
> > > left.
> > >
> > > Neither one of us see the ball come down.
> > >
> > > I suggest that he hits a provisional.
> > >
> > > His provisional slices and we both think its most likely in the water hazard
> > > on the right.
> > >
> > > He asks if he can hit another provisional. I agree.
> > >
> > > Third one is a hook to the left. Around the same place as the first one went
> > > though slightly better than the first.
> > >
> > > Leaving the tee box he states the make, number and order of each ball hit.
> > > This is agreed without arguement or further question
> > >
> > > He finds his FIRST one and can't find the other two. It is certainly his
> > > first as his third was slightly further out. He plays the first.
> > >
> > > What is he laying now? 1? 2? 3? 4?
> > >
> > I would say 2. See 27-2a/4. (I'm assuming that when you agreed to
> > his playing another provisional ball that there was a chance that the
> > previous ball could have been lost NOT in the hazard. "Most likely"
> > is different than the stipulation of Rule 27, which states "If there
> > is reasonable evidence that the original <or in this case, the
> > provisional> is lost in a water hazard...etc." There is, I would say,
> > a difference between "most likely" and "reasonable evidence".
> > Probably. In any event, since he found his original ball, the others
> > are moot, and he must play the original.
> > "The third ball bears a relationship only to the previous ball played,
> > i.e. the provisional ball." (New decision this year)
> >
> > Peter
>
> If the ball was most likely in the hazard, there is no such thing as a
> provisional.
> Therefore, he played a wrong ball. If he had said, the ball is in the
> hazard,
> so I am hitting 5, if I don't find the first ball, he would be lying 1,
> hitting 2.
> IMO, he is lying 3 or 4, for hitting the wrong ball. Just my opinion.
"Most likely" does appear to allow for the possibility that the ball
might be elsewhere. That's different entirely from "reasonable
evidence" -- see 26-1/1. Even seeing a splash is not necessarily
prima facie evidence of the ball's being in the hazard, since balls
"sometimes skip out of hazards."
If there's deep/not-so-deep rough around but outside the hazard, there
certainly exists the possibility that the ball might be therein, eh?
"...a player may not deem his ball lost in a water hazard simply
because he thinks the ball may be in the hazard."
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 20:13:07
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
Peter Strauss wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2006 19:57:29 -0700, "Birdie Bill"
> <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Howard Brazee wrote:
> > > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:40:42 GMT, "water" <roebaer@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >He finds his FIRST one and can't find the other two. It is certainly his
> > > >first as his third was slightly further out. He plays the first.
> > > >
> > > >What is he laying now? 1? 2? 3? 4?
> > >
> > > He's taken one shot, and is laying 2.
> >
> > He is laying 1, and hitting 2. I'm sure that is
> > what you meant.
>
> Nope, 'scuse me, Brother Bill -- he said 'He plays the first'. So
> he's taken two shots at it, and he's lying 2, about to hit 3.
Um, I took that to mean that he was about to take a swing at
the first, not that he actually did yet. If the question was, what
was he laying after his second swing, then, yes, I would
have to say 2. But, then, how could the OP ask if he was
laying 1 as a possibility? Therefore, I have to stand by
my original answer as the only rational conclusion to the
intent of the question.
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 03:06:14
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:40:42 GMT, "water" <roebaer@hotmail.com > wrote:
> This is probably an easier one but I can't find my rule book. At any rate,
> the situation was as follows:
>
> Semi-friendly game...semi...
>
> Opponent hooks his tee shot 90 yards out into a group of large old trees on
> left.
>
> Neither one of us see the ball come down.
>
> I suggest that he hits a provisional.
>
> His provisional slices and we both think its most likely in the water hazard
> on the right.
>
> He asks if he can hit another provisional. I agree.
>
> Third one is a hook to the left. Around the same place as the first one went
> though slightly better than the first.
>
> Leaving the tee box he states the make, number and order of each ball hit.
> This is agreed without arguement or further question
>
> He finds his FIRST one and can't find the other two. It is certainly his
> first as his third was slightly further out. He plays the first.
>
> What is he laying now? 1? 2? 3? 4?
>
I would say 2. See 27-2a/4. (I'm assuming that when you agreed to
his playing another provisional ball that there was a chance that the
previous ball could have been lost NOT in the hazard. "Most likely"
is different than the stipulation of Rule 27, which states "If there
is reasonable evidence that the original <or in this case, the
provisional > is lost in a water hazard...etc." There is, I would say,
a difference between "most likely" and "reasonable evidence".
Probably. In any event, since he found his original ball, the others
are moot, and he must play the original.
"The third ball bears a relationship only to the previous ball played,
i.e. the provisional ball." (New decision this year)
Peter
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 20:03:55
From: gpsman
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
Birdie Bill wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:40:42 GMT, "water" <roebaer@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >He finds his FIRST one and can't find the other two. It is certainly his
> > >first as his third was slightly further out. He plays the first.
> > >
> > >What is he laying now? 1? 2? 3? 4?
> >
> > He's taken one shot, and is laying 2.
>
> He is laying 1, and hitting 2. I'm sure that is
> what you meant.
Prolly not. He's hit the ball twice and so lays 2 and is hitting 3.
-----
- gpsman
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 19:57:29
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:40:42 GMT, "water" <roebaer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >He finds his FIRST one and can't find the other two. It is certainly his
> >first as his third was slightly further out. He plays the first.
> >
> >What is he laying now? 1? 2? 3? 4?
>
> He's taken one shot, and is laying 2.
He is laying 1, and hitting 2. I'm sure that is
what you meant.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 11:55:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
On 18 Sep 2006 19:57:29 -0700, "Birdie Bill"
<bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote:
>> He's taken one shot, and is laying 2.
>
>He is laying 1, and hitting 2. I'm sure that is
>what you meant.
Yep.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 03:08:15
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
On 18 Sep 2006 19:57:29 -0700, "Birdie Bill"
<bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:40:42 GMT, "water" <roebaer@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >He finds his FIRST one and can't find the other two. It is certainly his
> > >first as his third was slightly further out. He plays the first.
> > >
> > >What is he laying now? 1? 2? 3? 4?
> >
> > He's taken one shot, and is laying 2.
>
> He is laying 1, and hitting 2. I'm sure that is
> what you meant.
Nope, 'scuse me, Brother Bill -- he said 'He plays the first'. So
he's taken two shots at it, and he's lying 2, about to hit 3.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 19:57:03
From: gpsman
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
water wrote: <brevity snip >
> He finds his FIRST one and can't find the other two. It is certainly his
> first as his third was slightly further out. He plays the first.
>
> What is he laying now? 1? 2? 3? 4?
2.
-----
- gpsman
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 02:53:46
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Rules Question
|
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:40:42 GMT, "water" <roebaer@hotmail.com > wrote:
>He finds his FIRST one and can't find the other two. It is certainly his
>first as his third was slightly further out. He plays the first.
>
>What is he laying now? 1? 2? 3? 4?
He's taken one shot, and is laying 2.
|
|
