Why’d they get rid of “goes forward to search”?

[Augster]

After thinking about how Mr. Bean was maybe interpreting it, is it possible it might be 50/50?  Like it “might be lost” or it “might not be lost”?

 

We have a hole that is a blind shot and if you try to carry the trees, and hear it hit one, you’ll find it about 4/5 times, 80%. I’ve always hit a provisional because, one time out of 5, I’d likely have to come back and retee as E-5 wouldn’t do you any good. 
 

If it were 50/50 (might/might not), I feel I wouldn’t be allowed a provisional. 
 

I’m guessing the ruling bodies left it intentionally vague to cover the 80/20, 90/10 situations even with the potential for abuse. I’d guess they are relying on peer pressure to keep a guy from hitting 10+ provisional balls on a hole where you can’t see it land, and potentially ALL of the balls “might be lost”. 
 

In casual play, his other friends would likely go ahead and play without him. In tournament play, he’d eventually be sanctioned for excessive delay. 

[Colin L]

59 minutes ago, Augster said:

After thinking about how Mr. Bean was maybe interpreting it, is it possible it might be 50/50?  Like it “might be lost” or it “might not be lost”?

 

We have a hole that is a blind shot and if you try to carry the trees, and hear it hit one, you’ll find it about 4/5 times, 80%. I’ve always hit a provisional because, one time out of 5, I’d likely have to come back and retee as E-5 wouldn’t do you any good. 
 

If it were 50/50 (might/might not), I feel I wouldn’t be allowed a provisional. 
 

I’m guessing the ruling bodies left it intentionally vague to cover the 80/20, 90/10 situations even with the potential for abuse. I’d guess they are relying on peer pressure to keep a guy from hitting 10+ provisional balls on a hole where you can’t see it land, and potentially ALL of the balls “might be lost”. 
 

In casual play, his other friends would likely go ahead and play without him. In tournament play, he’d eventually be sanctioned for excessive delay. 

That doesn't really work.  Might be lost obviously carries the implication the the ball might not be lost, but in this context has to be considered in as an either/or:  you consider your ball either might be lost or isn't going to be lost and act accordingly.  Assessing degrees of might be /might not be could be going through your mind as you decide whether to play a provisional , but wouldn't work as the basis of a ruling on whether a provisional was permissible.    In the end the player has to decide and provided it is not known that the ball is in a penalty area or out of bounds, on what grounds could you contest that decision.?

[Mr. Bean]

9 hours ago, sui generis said:

'Any ball you can’t physically see “might” be lost. '

 

This is how I see it. Remember the purpose of the provisional ball; it is explicitly stated in R18.3 as a procedure "to save time". 😀

 

So as a referee you would accept a provisional ball hit when the first drive was straight and headed towards the middle of the fairway that goes on and on but the landing area is a bit lower than the tee box and thus cannot be seen? I did not think so either.

 

The way I see the concept of PB is that one needs to have a reason to believe that the ball might be lost or OB. In my example there is no reason so PB is not allowed IMHO.

 

Never mind, this is not a big issue, I just feel the Rule could be simpler. Move on.

[Mr. Bean]

7 hours ago, 2bGood said:

'Might' isa  pretty low bar - it means it could be possible.

 

 

No. That would cover all possible situations, even those with an infinitesimal probability of happening. Like a ball hitting a casual fox wandering on the fairway in its rectum and fox running away with the ball. Could be possible. 😉

Edited May 13, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[2bGood]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

No. That would cover all possible situations, even those with an infinitesimal probability of happening. Like a ball hitting a casual fox wandering on the fairway in its rectum and fox running away with the ball. Could be possible. 😉

Funny you bring up the Fox, I played at golf course that had local rule for foxes running away with your ball as it was a very common occurrence. 

 

 

[2bGood]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

No. That would cover all possible situations, even those with an infinitesimal probability of happening. Like a ball hitting a casual fox wandering on the fairway in its rectum and fox running away with the ball. Could be possible. 😉

Just two questions:

 

- wha do you think the word might means in the context?

 

- where in the rules does it say you can't hit a provisional if there is only a tiny chance the ball is lost?

 

I truly stand by my interpretation that if you don't know the location of your ball - it might be lost and you can hit a provisional if you feel one is warranted. I am going to stick with that until I see a rule or interpretation that says otherwise. 

 

I have already outlined how I personally apply the rule, so I won't point that out again. But for me personally this discussion is hypothetical as I am not hitting provisional like I was giving out candy.

Edited May 13, 2021 by 2bGood

[Sawgrass]

49 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

Funny you bring up the Fox, I played at golf course that had local rule for foxes running away with your ball as it was a very common occurrence. 

 

 

Fox Meadow should provide a much clearer rule about fox action:

 

Deflects, but doesn’t “take?”

Ball in motion, ball at rest?

And how is this intended to differ from the normal ROG that address it (if in fact it is intended to differ)?

 

Not sly!

[2bGood]

2 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

Fox Meadow should provide a much clearer rule about fox action:

 

Deflects, but doesn’t “take?”

Ball in motion, ball at rest?

And how is this intended to differ from the normal ROG that address it (if in fact it is intended to differ)?

 

Not sly!

To be honest when I first saw that, I figured it was just 'marketing'. But sure enough when hit a ball on one of the fairways the first time I played there, this little fox comes out of the woods, grabs my ball and takes off. Pretty funny.  

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Just two questions:

 

- wha do you think the word might means in the context?

 

- where in the rules does it say you can't hit a provisional if there is only a tiny chance the ball is lost?

 

I truly stand by my interpretation that if you don't know the location of your ball - it might be lost and you can hit a provisional if you feel one is warranted. I am going to stick with that until I see a rule or interpretation that says otherwise. 

 

I have already outlined how I personally apply the rule, so I won't point that out again. But for me personally this discussion is hypothetical as I am not hitting provisional like I was giving out candy.

 

The way I see this Rule is that there needs to be some doubt whether the ball will be found. With no doubt - no PB. Sure, it is a judgement call but as I wrote in my example to Sui you are not allowed to hit a PB just because you do not see the ball land, you need to have some sort of uncertainty involved.

 

For example, on one course close by there is a short par 4 uphill. The landing area is very uneven and as it is higher than the tee boxes you seldom see where the ball stops but you are 100% certain it stopped in the fairway. So you do not see your ball but it cannot be lost. Or if I use your words, it 'could be lost' but the probability is truly small. No PB would be allowed should somebody for some mysterious reason wish to hit one.

 

I hope you got a grasp of my thinking.

[Augster]

I’m in the opposite camp. In Mr. Bean’s latest example, I STILL believe a player could hit a legal provisional. Since the ball can’t be physically seen, it might be lost. If the ruling bodies wanted a restriction on “might be lost”, they’d define it more narrowly. 
 

[2bGood]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

The way I see this Rule is that there needs to be some doubt whether the ball will be found. With no doubt - no PB. Sure, it is a judgement call but as I wrote in my example to Sui you are not allowed to hit a PB just because you do not see the ball land, you need to have some sort of uncertainty involved.

 

For example, on one course close by there is a short par 4 uphill. The landing area is very uneven and as it is higher than the tee boxes you seldom see where the ball stops but you are 100% certain it stopped in the fairway. So you do not see your ball but it cannot be lost. Or if I use your words, it 'could be lost' but the probability is truly small. No PB would be allowed should somebody for some mysterious reason wish to hit one.

 

I hope you got a grasp of my thinking.

I get what you are saying, but don't actually agree. 

 

The only time you can be 100% certain you know where the ball is is when you can see it. Any other time it might be lost. (I am ignoring lost in penalty areas for the moment). I assume you have played enough golf to have lost a ball when the shot was hit in what you thought would be the middle of the fairway. So 'might' is a very low bar for me. 

 

Practically speaking I don't think the RB are worried with abuse here and actually would encourage more use of provisionals.

 

I am still interested in your answer:

 

- what do you think the word might means in the context?

 

- where in the rules does it say you can't hit a provisional if there is only a tiny chance the ball is lost?

Edited May 13, 2021 by 2bGood

[Mr. Bean]

3 minutes ago, Augster said:

I’m in the opposite camp. In Mr. Bean’s latest example, I STILL believe a player could hit a legal provisional. Since the ball can’t be physically seen, it might be lost. If the ruling bodies wanted a restriction on “might be lost”, they’d define it more narrowly. 
 

 

If you saw the hole in question you would agree with me.

 

Say you have an elevated green and you only can see the front part of it but not even the hole. Behind the green there is fariway and then light rough. You hit a very good shot that lands before the hole and bounces maybe 2-3 yards ahead. At this point you say to your three friends 'I'll hit a provisional because I cannot see my ball and thus it may be lost'. What do you think they would say to you?

 

Honestly, guys! Unnecessary PB renders your original ball lost and that actually may happen to you if you think you are always entitled to hit a PB when you do not see your ball. It just isn't so.

[Mr. Bean]

6 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

I get what you are saying, but don't actually agree. 

 

The only time you can be 100% certain you know where the ball is is when you can see it.

 

So... if you sink a long 10-yard putt you cannot be sure where your ball is because you cannot see it..? Sure. Tell me more. 😂😂😂😂😂

[2bGood]

27 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So... if you sink a long 10-yard putt you cannot be sure where your ball is because you cannot see it..? Sure. Tell me more. 😂😂😂😂😂

No one was talking about putts if you can see the ball finish in the hole you 100% certainty of where it is.

 

...but sure a ball in the hole could be very reasonably be considered lost until the hole is checked. I have been in a group where a guy did hole out on a blind shot. Searched high and low for his ball not thinking it was in the hole and  actually took a stroke and distance penalty and then later found his ball in the hole. (first ball counts of course). 

Edited May 13, 2021 by 2bGood

[2bGood]

9 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

If you saw the hole in question you would agree with me.

 

Say you have an elevated green and you only can see the front part of it but not even the hole. Behind the green there is fariway and then light rough. You hit a very good shot that lands before the hole and bounces maybe 2-3 yards ahead. At this point you say to your three friends 'I'll hit a provisional because I cannot see my ball and thus it may be lost'. What do you think they would say to you?

 

Honestly, guys! Unnecessary PB renders your original ball lost and that actually may happen to you if you think you are always entitled to hit a PB when you do not see your ball. It just isn't so.

Fun examples - but back to the rules. Can you point me to the rule about unnecessary provisionals? How is that defined (in the rules)?

 

You gave some good examples when someone is very unlikely to hit a provisional, but for a PB to be against the rules 1 of 2 things need to occur:

 

1. They are aware the only possible place your ball could be is penalty area

2.There is no possibility their ball could be lost

 

 

 

 

 

 

[2bGood]

Just to add to the discussion the term changed from MAY to MIGHT after 2019. In my opinion This change means the RB's wanted the rules to be even more lenient in allowing PB's.

 

 might deals with situations that are speculative or did not actually happen, i.e. hypothetical, whereas may deals with situations that are possible or could be factual. An easy way to express/remember this difference is that might suggests a lower probability than does may.

Edited May 13, 2021 by 2bGood

[Augster]

This is real world. Happened in an event. 
 

I hook a ball toward OB on 14, hits a tree and gets knocked down. I say, “It’ll hit a provisional”. And a guy in my group says, “I can see the ball over there and it’s in play. You can’t hit a provisional”. I couldn’t see the ball from the tee and have hit a provisional probably a couple hundred times when I hit it on that line. The OB is very close. 
 

We go back and forth and to appease this knucklehead I decide not to hit a provisional. I walk up there, I’m 3 inches OB. Back to the tee I go. 
 

EVEN with a FC saying he sees it in play and I’m not allowed to hit a PB, I’m pretty sure I was allowed to hit a provisional ball legally. I couldn’t see my ball in play. 
 

From then on I always hit a provisional unless I KNOW the ball is in play on anything close or questionable. In the end, despite protestations and testimony from FC’s, I’m the one who will be held accountable and have to walk back if the ball is not found or is OB. 
 

All I got from my FC when we got to my ball was, “My bad.”  

[Mr. Bean]

38 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

Fun examples - but back to the rules. Can you point me to the rule about unnecessary provisionals? How is that defined (in the rules)?

 

You gave some good examples when someone is very unlikely to hit a provisional, but for a PB to be against the rules 1 of 2 things need to occur:

 

1. They are aware the only possible place your ball could be is penalty area

2.There is no possibility their ball could be lost

 

 

Rules do not say everything but in many cases one needs to find the essence of them. Maybe the easiest way to get a grip of this is to ask yourself a question 'am I sure I can find that ball'. If the answer is yes then that ball 'might not be lost' and you are not allowed to play a PB even if you did not have a visual contact with that ball, like in my example of that short par4.

 

At this point I am done with this. Time to do something else.

[Mr. Bean]

7 minutes ago, Augster said:

EVEN with a FC saying he sees it in play and I’m not allowed to hit a PB, I’m pretty sure I was allowed to hit a provisional ball legally. I couldn’t see my ball in play. 

 

Of course you were entitled to play a PB as you were not certain your ball is in bounds. Nothing unclear in that and is not even remotely linked to what we have been discussing here.

 

But time to move on, as I already told 2B.

[2bGood]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Rules do not say everything but in many cases one needs to find the essence of them. Maybe the easiest way to get a grip of this is to ask yourself a question 'am I sure I can find that ball'. If the answer is yes then that ball 'might not be lost' and you are not allowed to play a PB even if you did not have a visual contact with that ball, like in my example of that short par4.

 

At this point I am done with this. Time to do something else.

I agree with you with the change of one word.

 

You have to ask yourself "'am I sure I will find that ball'. If the answer is yes you are not allowed to play a PB" 

 

Anything outside that sentence does not matter in my view. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by 2bGood

[Augster]

1 minute ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Of course you were entitled to play a PB as you were not certain your ball is in bounds. Nothing unclear in that and is not even remotely linked to what we have been discussing here.

 

But time to move on, as I already told 2B.

I had a witness that could see my ball, testified it was in play, and was insisting if I tried to play a PB, I’d actually be lying 3 as he insisted I wasn’t allowed to put a PB in play. I only didn’t put a PB in play because I didn’t want to take it up with the committee after the round if, in fact, my first ball ended up in bounds. 

Absolutely applicable to what we are talking about. “I” couldn’t see my ball. And even though an FC was telling me 100% it was in play, I feel I could hit a provisional because it “might be lost or OB”. 
 

Any ball you can’t see where it ends up “might be lost”. Any ball hit toward OB, “might be OB”. Valid to hit a PB in both situations as both situations are the same. 

 

[rogolf]

29 minutes ago, Augster said:

I had a witness that could see my ball, testified it was in play, and was insisting if I tried to play a PB, I’d actually be lying 3 as he insisted I wasn’t allowed to put a PB in play. I only didn’t put a PB in play because I didn’t want to take it up with the committee after the round if, in fact, my first ball ended up in bounds. 

Absolutely applicable to what we are talking about. “I” couldn’t see my ball. And even though an FC was telling me 100% it was in play, I feel I could hit a provisional because it “might be lost or OB”. 
 

Any ball you can’t see where it ends up “might be lost”. Any ball hit toward OB, “might be OB”. Valid to hit a PB in both situations as both situations are the same. 

 

Apparently they aren't the same in Europe (even though the Rules are identical, the "essence" is different).  😏

Besserwisser again?

Edited May 14, 2021 by rogolf

[2bGood]

 

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by 2bGood

[Mr. Bean]

On 5/14/2021 at 3:13 AM, rogolf said:

Apparently they aren't the same in Europe (even though the Rules are identical, the "essence" is different).  😏

Besserwisser again?

 

Didn't see you take a stand on this. That is your style, never take a stand if that could be compromised. There is a name for that kind of behavior but one cannot write it down here but we all know the word, starts with the letter c.

[rogolf]

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Didn't see you take a stand on this. That is your style, never take a stand if that could be compromised. There is a name for that kind of behavior but one cannot write it down here but we all know the word, starts with the letter c.

Sure did take a stand, way back on page 1.  A player is entitled to hit a provisional any time he or she thinks their ball might be lost outside a penalty area or might be be out of bounds, just as the Rule says. (I supported 2bgood's position)

Edited May 15, 2021 by rogolf

[Colin L]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Didn't see you take a stand on this. That is your style, never take a stand if that could be compromised. There is a name for that kind of behavior but one cannot write it down here but we all know the word, starts with the letter c.

I don't really see this as Rogolf's style at all.  But I do see the abrasiveness and rudeness that is too often yours and frankly it gets very tedious.

[Mr. Bean]

15 hours ago, Colin L said:

I don't really see this as Rogolf's style at all.  But I do see the abrasiveness and rudeness that is too often yours and frankly it gets very tedious.

 

I only send back what I have been thrown at.

[nsxguy]

On 5/13/2021 at 9:59 PM, 2bGood said:

 

Your favorite sent what ?

[nsxguy]

On 5/15/2021 at 7:08 PM, Colin L said:

I don't really see this as Rogolf's style at all.  But I do see the abrasiveness and rudeness that is too often yours and frankly it gets very tedious.

 

9 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I only send back what I have been thrown at.

 

I'm sure this is your view of things.

 

From the outside I can assure you it is as Colin stated.

 

And fwiw, you are wrong and Augster, Ro, 2B and the others are correct.

 

As great a job as the R&A and USGA did in simplifying the Rules they are still complicated to a great many (of us).

 

"But If your ball might be lost outside a penalty area or be out of bounds".

 

Sans a rules interpretation, which I suspect you would have given us if it were present, of what "might" means in this context, it's just plain English, no matter how complicated you wish to make it.

 

So while, as you yourself brought up, if a player striped one dead straight over the middle of a hill to a very wide but blind fairway he most likely would not hit a provisional, BUT HE COULD. It still might be lost (or OB).

 

I'm not sure exactly what triggered it but I was really liking and enjoying the "new" Mr. Bean of the last 3 or 4(?) months.

 

Lightening up when possible and dare I say it, even sometimes showing a sense of humor.

 

Bring him back. Please. 🙏

[Mr. Bean]

On 5/17/2021 at 4:10 AM, nsxguy said:

So while, as you yourself brought up, if a player striped one dead straight over the middle of a hill to a very wide but blind fairway he most likely would not hit a provisional, BUT HE COULD. It still might be lost (or OB).

 

 

What triggered my interest in this issue was the claim that a player is entitled to hit a PB every time he does not have visual contact with that ball. I disagree with that argument for the very reason that a PB is to be hit in order to save time in cases where there is a chance the original ball (OB) may (or might, if you prefer) be lost. I have presented some examples already but I will assemble by reasoning in three more.

 

1) A wide and straight fairway with a small undulation in the middle. A player hits a straight drive and the ball lands on the fairway and just rolls out of sight into that undulation. That ball cannot be seen but it can only be lost if someone or something could take the ball and transport it away without anybody seeing it. Is hitting a PB in this case justified?

 

2) Same as in 1) but there is a bunker in the middle of the fairway. Everyone in the group sees the ball rolls into the bunker. That ball cannot be seen but it can only be lost if someone or something could take the ball and transport it away without anybody seeing it. Is hitting a PB in this case justified?

 

3) An elevated green and the hole cannot be seen from the 20 meters a player is making his chip. A good chip and the ball rolls towards the pin with a nice pace, not too fast. That ball cannot be seen but it can only be lost if someone or something could take the ball and transport it away without anybody seeing it. Is hitting a PB in this case justified?

 

My view is that PB is not justified in any of those situations as there is no real chance the OB might be lost. Some posters here say there is a chance, or at least they say the player is entitled to hit a PB because they have no visual contact with the ball. I disagree with that. Rogolf obviously agrees with those posters as the did not want to take a stand but only quoted the wordings from the Rules. In my book that is not taking a stand but this is again an issue one can have different views on.

 

I had a chat with two experienced fellow referees on this. Both said they would not allow a player to hit a PB in any of those situations because there is no real possibility for the OB to be lost. This is despite the wording in the Rules but because of the purpose (essence) of the Rule. I guess they must be wrong and besserwissers as well.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Mr. Bean