[lindy72]

Played in a handicap tournament in Myrtle Beach. Player 1, 2 and 3 tee off. Player 4 tees off and pulls the ball into a canal (lateral water hazard w/red stakes). We all saw it go in the canal, but he said he's hitting a provisional. This ball goes right, into a lake. Again we all saw it go in the lake (red stakes again). He said he's hitting another provisional ball. This one also goes right, into the same lake. He then said he saw where his first ball went into the canal and he would take a drop and hit from there, disregarding the 2 provisional balls. He drops his ball and said he's hitting 3. We couldn't question him because we didn't know the rule. And in the end we didn't ask the pro about it because the guy shot 116 (handicap grouping was 12-15). Does anyone know the correct ruling on which ball should have been played and penalty strokes (if any)? Thanks.....

[Ridgecrest18]

I do not believe that you can play a provisional if you original shot enters a Lateral or Water hazard..... A "provision" is only afforded when you original shot may be out-of-bounds or lost. If someone know the rules to differ from this, please feel free to correct me.

[limpwrist]

Ridgecrest is right. You can't hit a provisional for a ball believed to be lost in a water hazard. Thus, each subsequent tee shot hit became the ball in play, so his first "provisional" was his third shot and his second "provisional" was his fifth shot. Since he didn't take his drop in accordance with the rules based on where his third tee shot (fifth shot) crossed the margin of the hazard (in which case he would have been hitting 7 from there) and he didn't correct this mistake before teeing off on the next hole, he should have been disqualified.

[kevcarter]

27-2. Provisional Ball

a. Procedure

If a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally in accordance with Rule 27-1. The player must inform his opponent in match play or his marker or a fellow-competitor in stroke play that he intends to play a provisional ball, and he must play it before he or his partner goes forward to search for the original ball.

If he fails to do so and plays another ball, that ball is not a provisional ball and becomes the ball in play under penalty of stroke and distance (Rule 27-1); the original ball is lost.


27-2a/2 Provisional Ball Played Solely in Belief Original Ball Might Be in Water Hazard
Q. A player’s tee shot might be in a water hazard, but clearly it is not lost outside a water hazard or out of bounds. The player announces that, since his ball might be in the hazard, he is going to play a provisional ball and he does so. Rule 27-2a seems to prohibit a provisional ball in the circumstances. What is the ruling?

A. The player did not play a provisional ball which, according to the Definition of “Provisional Ball,” is a ball played under Rule 27-2 for a ball which may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds. The second ball from the tee was in play since it was not a provisional ball.

[limpwrist]

PS - Even if he would have corrected his mistake before teeing off on the next hole by going back to take relief based on the third tee shot, he would have also incurred a penalty for playing a wrong ball when he dropped based on where the first tee shot crossed the hazard. In that case, he would have been hitting 9 from the point where he would have taken relief (2 stroke penalty for playing the wrong ball).

[jjj912]

limpwrist, on Feb 17 2009, 09:08 PM, said:

PS - Even if he would have corrected his mistake before teeing off on the next hole by going back to take relief based on the third tee shot, he would have also incurred a penalty for playing a wrong ball when he dropped based on where the first tee shot crossed the hazard. In that case, he would have been hitting 9 from the point where he would have taken relief (2 stroke penalty for playing the wrong ball).

Actually, the player would be guilty of playing from the wrong place, not playing a wrong ball. The dropped ball would be a substituted ball and would be the ball in play, even though the ball was incorrectly substituted.

[limpwrist]

Thanks for clarifying that. You're correct, it is a wrong place vice wrong ball. However, reviewing that rule and relevant decisions has caused some confusion for me. Here is the decision for playing from a wrong place after dropping in accordance with rule 26-1

Quote

"Decision 26-1/17 Point Where Ball Last Crossed Margin of Lateral Water Hazard Determined and Ball Dropped and Played; Point
Then Proves to Be Wrong Point

Q. In the circumstances described in Decision 26-1/16, what is the ruling if A, having dropped a ball in a wrong place, plays it before his error is discovered?

A. A must continue play with the ball played from a wrong place, without penalty. Applying a penalty under Rule 26-1 for playing from a wrong place (see Rule 20-7) is not appropriate. Otherwise, a competitor would risk incurring a penalty every time he makes an honest judgment as to the point where his ball last crosses a water hazard margin and that judgment subsequently proves incorrect. "

This decision leads me to believe that it doesn't matter where he took the drop as long as he was dropping according to Decision 26-1/17. In other words, he could have dropped virtually anywhere without incurring a penalty for playing from the wrong place as long as he was making an "honest judgment" about where he believed the ball should be dropped. That makes no sense to me based on rule 20-7, which requires a mandatory two stroke penalty. Plus, in order to avoid disqualification the player is supposed to play a second ball from the right place and seek a committee determination as to whether playing from the wrong place afforded the player a significant advantage (serious breach) to determine which ball would count. Regardless of whether there was a serious breach or not, 20-7 says there should be a two stroke penalty, but 26-1/17 says no penalty for playing from the wrong place if taking relief under that rule. It seems like 26-1/17 supersedes 20-7, but it doesn't sound fair to me to give someone a pass for playing from the wrong place whether they knew it was the wrong place or not.

Quote

Rule 20-7c
"If a competitor makes a stroke from a wrong place, he incurs a penalty of two strokes under the applicable Rule. He must play out the hole with the ball played from the wrong place, without correcting his error, provided he has not committed a serious breach (see Note 1).

If a competitor becomes aware that he has played from a wrong place and believes that he may have committed a serious breach, he must, before making a stroke on the next teeing ground, play out the hole with a second ball played in accordance with the Rules. If the hole being played is the last hole of the round, he must declare, before leaving the putting green, that he will play out the hole with a second ball played in accordance with the Rules.

If the competitor has played a second ball, he must report the facts to the Committee before returning his score card; if he fails to do so, he is disqualified. The Committee must determine whether the competitor has committed a serious breach of the applicable Rule. If he has, the score with the second ball counts and the competitor must add two penalty strokes to his score with that ball. If the competitor has committed a serious breach and has failed to correct it as outlined above, he is disqualified.

Note 1: A competitor is deemed to have committed a serious breach of the applicable Rule if the Committee considers he has gained a significant advantage as a result of playing from a wrong place.

Note 2: If a competitor plays a second ball under Rule 20-7c and it is ruled not to count, strokes made with that ball and penalty strokes incurred solely by playing that ball are disregarded. If the second ball is ruled to count, the stroke made from the wrong place and any strokes subsequently taken with the original ball including penalty strokes incurred solely by playing that ball are disregarded."

[jjj912]

In the decision you reference, the player was proceeding in accordance with the rules: Using he estimated where the ball last crossed the margin of hazard and dropped as was appropriate. The player did not have any evidence or reason to suspect that the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard at a different spot until player C indicated otherwise. Of course, by the time player C noted that the estimated spot was inaccurate, the player had already taken a stroke at the dropped ball.

That is different than the case presented by the OP where it is known beforehand that taking relief where the first ball last crossed the margin of the hazard is not correct. The player should use point where the third ball (i.e. the second "provisional" ball) last crossed the margin (or play stoke and distance).

Had the sequence of events been 1.player dropped the ball at estimated sport, 2.player was informed that the estimate was not correct, 3.player played dropped ball anyway; then the player would have incurred the 2 stroke penalty under Rule 20-7.

Remember that dropping a ball incorrectly is not a penalty, per se. You can drop again, and keep dropping, without penalty until you correctly drop the ball. However, if you take a stroke at an incorrectly dropped ball, that is playing from the wrong place.

The decision 26/17 is basically a "What is fair?" kind of decision that was probably made considering Rule 1-4 (Points not covered under the Rules are decided in accordance with equity). The USGA apparently thought that it would be unfair to penalize players who are involved in the situation described in Decision 26/17.

Now, the real question, are you enlightened , or massively confused ?

[limpwrist]

Quote

it is known beforehand that taking relief where the first ball last crossed the margin of the hazard is not correct.

That's just it, in the OP's scenario, the player did not know he was proceeding in violation of the rules and his playing partners did not make him aware of that fact. Therefore, he believed he was proceeding in accordance with rule 26-1 as far as they knew.

I get what you're saying though and my original position that he should have been disqualified still applies.

[jjj912]

There's a difference between learning that an estimated reference point was inaccurately estimated and just flat not knowing the rules.

For the player talked about by the OP, I agree that a DQ would be appropriate. Although the DQ would be for signing an incorrect scorecard. Playing from the wrong place isn't an automatic DQ, the player had to gain a significant advantage and we don't know enough to know if he gained a significant advantage due to playing from the wrong place.