I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2

However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional ball, 
then decide not to look for the original!

We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked left. 
Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked straight to 
the provisional without looking for the original. I know we have the right 
to look for the original, and if we find it before they have played the 
provisional again then the original is  the ball in play.

I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original ball. 
You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont have to.

Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in these 
positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you like the 
provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit smelly, see if 
you can find the original!

Ian

"Ian"  writes:

> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
> 
> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
> 
> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
> in play.
> 
> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
> have to.
> 
> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
> smelly, see if you can find the original!

What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?

If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

"Leon Chamae"  wrote in message 
news:bazmyxwpn6k.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> "Ian"  writes:
>
>> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
>>
>> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
>> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
>>
>> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
>> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
>> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
>> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
>> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
>> in play.
>>
>> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
>> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
>> have to.
>>
>> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
>> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
>> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
>> smelly, see if you can find the original!
>
> What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?
>
> If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
> for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?
>
> -- 
>             Leon Chamae
>             Directeur du Personnel
>             Bureau de Change

Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a choice 
of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you 
intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, then 
the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. IMO.

"Ian"  writes:

> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
> 
> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
> 
> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
> in play.
> 
> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
> have to.
> 
> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
> smelly, see if you can find the original!

What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?

If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

"Leon Chamae"  wrote in message 
news:bazmyxwpn6k.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> "Ian"  writes:
>
>> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
>>
>> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
>> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
>>
>> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
>> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
>> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
>> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
>> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
>> in play.
>>
>> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
>> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
>> have to.
>>
>> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
>> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
>> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
>> smelly, see if you can find the original!
>
> What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?
>
> If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
> for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?
>
> -- 
>             Leon Chamae
>             Directeur du Personnel
>             Bureau de Change

Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a choice 
of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you 
intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, then 
the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. IMO.

"Ian"  writes:

> "Leon Chamae"  wrote in message
> news:bazmyxwpn6k.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> > "Ian"  writes:
> >
> >> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
> >>
> >> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
> >> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
> >>
> >> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
> >> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
> >> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
> >> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
> >> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
> >> in play.
> >>
> >> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
> >> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
> >> have to.
> >>
> >> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
> >> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
> >> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
> >> smelly, see if you can find the original!
> >
> > What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?
> >
> > If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
> > for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?
> >
> > -- 
> >             Leon Chamae
> >             Directeur du Personnel
> >             Bureau de Change
> 
> Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a
> choice of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad,
> and you intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably
> good shot, then the provisional should not be played. Should just be
> three off the tee. IMO.

That's a fine 'spirit of the game' argument for a specific set of facts
(that the player knew when he played the provisional ball that he
would not search for the original if he hit a good provisional).

However, it's simply not practical in most cases unless you want
to mandate a five minute search.

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

Ian in <bsImi.21890$_l6.11469@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>:

>However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional ball, 
>then decide not to look for the original!
>
>We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked left. 
>Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked straight to 
>the provisional without looking for the original. I know we have the right 
>to look for the original, and if we find it before they have played the 
>provisional again then the original is  the ball in play.
>
>I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original ball. 
>You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont have to.
>
>Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in these 
>positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you like the 
>provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit smelly, see if 
>you can find the original!

You get a choice, yes, but not at equal conditions.
Mind you, you'll be at three from the tee choosing a provisional.
In a medal, I am usually so friendly to accept my competitor's choice in
this situation, and sometimes I'm equally glad about their friendliness.

As a match opponent you have any chance to find it and call the other
player to identify it. And if the original has been found in an impossible
lie he can call it unplayable and walk back to play another. Even Tiger
does it. That is another choice - unfair?

My answer is that's not unfair, it's just an outcome of the rules. 

The price in the first situation is 2 strokes. In the latter situation it
is the uncertainty of the shot.

Take advantage of it if you can! Search your opponent's ball as long as you
can, otherwise the game continues.

Ciao,

Paul

"Ian"  writes:

> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
> 
> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
> 
> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
> in play.
> 
> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
> have to.
> 
> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
> smelly, see if you can find the original!

What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?

If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

"Leon Chamae"  wrote in message 
news:bazmyxwpn6k.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> "Ian"  writes:
>
>> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
>>
>> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
>> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
>>
>> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
>> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
>> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
>> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
>> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
>> in play.
>>
>> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
>> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
>> have to.
>>
>> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
>> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
>> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
>> smelly, see if you can find the original!
>
> What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?
>
> If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
> for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?
>
> -- 
>             Leon Chamae
>             Directeur du Personnel
>             Bureau de Change

Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a choice 
of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you 
intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, then 
the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. IMO.

"Ian"  writes:

> "Leon Chamae"  wrote in message
> news:bazmyxwpn6k.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> > "Ian"  writes:
> >
> >> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
> >>
> >> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
> >> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
> >>
> >> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
> >> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
> >> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
> >> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
> >> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
> >> in play.
> >>
> >> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
> >> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
> >> have to.
> >>
> >> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
> >> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
> >> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
> >> smelly, see if you can find the original!
> >
> > What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?
> >
> > If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
> > for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?
> >
> > -- 
> >             Leon Chamae
> >             Directeur du Personnel
> >             Bureau de Change
> 
> Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a
> choice of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad,
> and you intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably
> good shot, then the provisional should not be played. Should just be
> three off the tee. IMO.

That's a fine 'spirit of the game' argument for a specific set of facts
(that the player knew when he played the provisional ball that he
would not search for the original if he hit a good provisional).

However, it's simply not practical in most cases unless you want
to mandate a five minute search.

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

Ian in <bsImi.21890$_l6.11469@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>:

>However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional ball, 
>then decide not to look for the original!
>
>We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked left. 
>Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked straight to 
>the provisional without looking for the original. I know we have the right 
>to look for the original, and if we find it before they have played the 
>provisional again then the original is  the ball in play.
>
>I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original ball. 
>You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont have to.
>
>Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in these 
>positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you like the 
>provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit smelly, see if 
>you can find the original!

You get a choice, yes, but not at equal conditions.
Mind you, you'll be at three from the tee choosing a provisional.
In a medal, I am usually so friendly to accept my competitor's choice in
this situation, and sometimes I'm equally glad about their friendliness.

As a match opponent you have any chance to find it and call the other
player to identify it. And if the original has been found in an impossible
lie he can call it unplayable and walk back to play another. Even Tiger
does it. That is another choice - unfair?

My answer is that's not unfair, it's just an outcome of the rules. 

The price in the first situation is 2 strokes. In the latter situation it
is the uncertainty of the shot.

Take advantage of it if you can! Search your opponent's ball as long as you
can, otherwise the game continues.

Ciao,

Paul

"Ian"  writes:

> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
> 
> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
> 
> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
> in play.
> 
> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
> have to.
> 
> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
> smelly, see if you can find the original!

What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?

If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

"Leon Chamae"  wrote in message 
news:bazmyxwpn6k.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> "Ian"  writes:
>
>> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
>>
>> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
>> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
>>
>> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
>> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
>> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
>> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
>> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
>> in play.
>>
>> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
>> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
>> have to.
>>
>> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
>> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
>> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
>> smelly, see if you can find the original!
>
> What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?
>
> If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
> for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?
>
> -- 
>             Leon Chamae
>             Directeur du Personnel
>             Bureau de Change

Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a choice 
of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you 
intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, then 
the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. IMO.

"Ian"  writes:

> "Leon Chamae"  wrote in message
> news:bazmyxwpn6k.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> > "Ian"  writes:
> >
> >> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
> >>
> >> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
> >> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
> >>
> >> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
> >> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
> >> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
> >> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
> >> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
> >> in play.
> >>
> >> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
> >> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
> >> have to.
> >>
> >> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
> >> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
> >> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
> >> smelly, see if you can find the original!
> >
> > What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?
> >
> > If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
> > for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?
> >
> > -- 
> >             Leon Chamae
> >             Directeur du Personnel
> >             Bureau de Change
> 
> Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a
> choice of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad,
> and you intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably
> good shot, then the provisional should not be played. Should just be
> three off the tee. IMO.

That's a fine 'spirit of the game' argument for a specific set of facts
(that the player knew when he played the provisional ball that he
would not search for the original if he hit a good provisional).

However, it's simply not practical in most cases unless you want
to mandate a five minute search.

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

Ian in <bsImi.21890$_l6.11469@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>:

>However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional ball, 
>then decide not to look for the original!
>
>We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked left. 
>Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked straight to 
>the provisional without looking for the original. I know we have the right 
>to look for the original, and if we find it before they have played the 
>provisional again then the original is  the ball in play.
>
>I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original ball. 
>You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont have to.
>
>Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in these 
>positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you like the 
>provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit smelly, see if 
>you can find the original!

You get a choice, yes, but not at equal conditions.
Mind you, you'll be at three from the tee choosing a provisional.
In a medal, I am usually so friendly to accept my competitor's choice in
this situation, and sometimes I'm equally glad about their friendliness.

As a match opponent you have any chance to find it and call the other
player to identify it. And if the original has been found in an impossible
lie he can call it unplayable and walk back to play another. Even Tiger
does it. That is another choice - unfair?

My answer is that's not unfair, it's just an outcome of the rules. 

The price in the first situation is 2 strokes. In the latter situation it
is the uncertainty of the shot.

Take advantage of it if you can! Search your opponent's ball as long as you
can, otherwise the game continues.

Ciao,

Paul

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:11:58 GMT, Ian said...
> 
> Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a choice 
> of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you 
> intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, then 
> the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. IMO. 

It's not a choice in the proper sense of the word, though, because:
1. Your oppo can remove the choice if he finds your ball in bounds. 
Completely. The prov is dead.

And as Leon says, what is the alternative? Under what conditions could 
we realistically force someone to declare 3 off the tee?

-- 
Mark Myers
usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

"Ian"  writes:

> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
> 
> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
> 
> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
> in play.
> 
> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
> have to.
> 
> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
> smelly, see if you can find the original!

What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?

If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

"Leon Chamae"  wrote in message 
news:bazmyxwpn6k.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> "Ian"  writes:
>
>> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
>>
>> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
>> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
>>
>> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
>> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
>> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
>> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
>> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
>> in play.
>>
>> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
>> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
>> have to.
>>
>> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
>> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
>> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
>> smelly, see if you can find the original!
>
> What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?
>
> If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
> for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?
>
> -- 
>             Leon Chamae
>             Directeur du Personnel
>             Bureau de Change

Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a choice 
of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you 
intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, then 
the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. IMO.

"Ian"  writes:

> "Leon Chamae"  wrote in message
> news:bazmyxwpn6k.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> > "Ian"  writes:
> >
> >> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
> >>
> >> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
> >> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
> >>
> >> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
> >> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
> >> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
> >> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
> >> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
> >> in play.
> >>
> >> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
> >> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
> >> have to.
> >>
> >> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
> >> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
> >> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
> >> smelly, see if you can find the original!
> >
> > What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?
> >
> > If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
> > for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?
> >
> > -- 
> >             Leon Chamae
> >             Directeur du Personnel
> >             Bureau de Change
> 
> Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a
> choice of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad,
> and you intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably
> good shot, then the provisional should not be played. Should just be
> three off the tee. IMO.

That's a fine 'spirit of the game' argument for a specific set of facts
(that the player knew when he played the provisional ball that he
would not search for the original if he hit a good provisional).

However, it's simply not practical in most cases unless you want
to mandate a five minute search.

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

Ian in <bsImi.21890$_l6.11469@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>:

>However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional ball, 
>then decide not to look for the original!
>
>We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked left. 
>Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked straight to 
>the provisional without looking for the original. I know we have the right 
>to look for the original, and if we find it before they have played the 
>provisional again then the original is  the ball in play.
>
>I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original ball. 
>You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont have to.
>
>Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in these 
>positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you like the 
>provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit smelly, see if 
>you can find the original!

You get a choice, yes, but not at equal conditions.
Mind you, you'll be at three from the tee choosing a provisional.
In a medal, I am usually so friendly to accept my competitor's choice in
this situation, and sometimes I'm equally glad about their friendliness.

As a match opponent you have any chance to find it and call the other
player to identify it. And if the original has been found in an impossible
lie he can call it unplayable and walk back to play another. Even Tiger
does it. That is another choice - unfair?

My answer is that's not unfair, it's just an outcome of the rules. 

The price in the first situation is 2 strokes. In the latter situation it
is the uncertainty of the shot.

Take advantage of it if you can! Search your opponent's ball as long as you
can, otherwise the game continues.

Ciao,

Paul

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:11:58 GMT, Ian said...
> 
> Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a choice 
> of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you 
> intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, then 
> the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. IMO. 

It's not a choice in the proper sense of the word, though, because:
1. Your oppo can remove the choice if he finds your ball in bounds. 
Completely. The prov is dead.

And as Leon says, what is the alternative? Under what conditions could 
we realistically force someone to declare 3 off the tee?

-- 
Mark Myers
usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

"Mark Myers"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.2105a7a3b6456f06989723@news.altopia.net...
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:11:58 GMT, Ian said...
>>
>> Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a 
>> choice
>> of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you
>> intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, 
>> then
>> the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. 
>> IMO.
>
> It's not a choice in the proper sense of the word, though, because:
> 1. Your oppo can remove the choice if he finds your ball in bounds.
> Completely. The prov is dead.
>
> And as Leon says, what is the alternative? Under what conditions could
> we realistically force someone to declare 3 off the tee?
>
> -- 
> Mark Myers
> usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
> I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

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<<snip>>and he shall 
play it before he or his partner goes forward to *search* for the original 
ball

how can the ball be lost if no attempt is made to search for it? and the 
rule states that the provisional is played before the search commences. OK, 
Im splitting hairs with the wording, but the intent of the rule is to allow 
a ball to be in play if the original is lost or OOB. Not to continue play 
with the provisional as it is more likely to be in a better position for 
three than the original, if it is found.

Ian

I understand that as soon as you play the "provisional ball it becomes
the ball in play; so even if the opposing team or player find the
original it will be too late if you have played the provisional.

On 17 Jul, 11:35, Mark Myers  wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:11:58 GMT, Ian said...
>
>
>
> > Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a choice
> > of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you
> > intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, then
> > the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. IMO.
>
> It's not a choice in the proper sense of the word, though, because:
> 1. Your oppo can remove the choice if he finds your ball in bounds.
> Completely. The prov is dead.
>
> And as Leon says, what is the alternative? Under what conditions could
> we realistically force someone to declare 3 off the tee?
>
> --
> Mark Myers
> usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
> I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

"Ian"  writes:

> "Mark Myers"  wrote in message
> news:MPG.2105a7a3b6456f06989723@news.altopia.net...
> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:11:58 GMT, Ian said...
> >>
> >> Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a
> >> choice
> >> of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you
> >> intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good
> >> shot, then
> >> the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the
> >> tee. IMO.
> >
> > It's not a choice in the proper sense of the word, though, because:
> > 1. Your oppo can remove the choice if he finds your ball in bounds.
> > Completely. The prov is dead.
> >
> > And as Leon says, what is the alternative? Under what conditions could
> > we realistically force someone to declare 3 off the tee?
> >
> > -- 
> > Mark Myers
> > usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
> > I call that a radical interpretation of the text.
> 
> 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<<snip>>and he shall play it before he or his partner
> goes forward to *search* for the original ball
> 
> how can the ball be lost if no attempt is made to search for it? and
> the rule states that the provisional is played before the search
> commences. OK, Im splitting hairs with the wording, but the intent of
> the rule is to allow a ball to be in play if the original is lost or
> OOB. Not to continue play with the provisional as it is more likely to
> be in a better position for three than the original, if it is found.

As an exercise, why don't you re-write Rule 27-2 or a Decision
regarding that Rule to accomplish your goal?

You may find that fixing this bad result (your opinion) may
lead to worse consequences.  

The worse consequence that I mentioned in my first reply was a 
requirement that the player search for the full five minutes.  
However, you may be able to write a Rule or Decision that does 
not lead to that result.

I look forward to reading your Rule/Decision.

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

"Stewart"  wrote in message 
news:1184676269.480605.122760@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>I understand that as soon as you play the "provisional ball it becomes
> the ball in play; so even if the opposing team or player find the
> original it will be too late if you have played the provisional.

The provisional only becomes the ball in play once you have played it past 
the point at which the original ball may lie.  This is why there can 
sometimes be a bit of a 'race' between a matchplay opponent who wants to 
find your original ball in some ghastly place and you who want to continue 
with your provisional -so you hurry forward to hit your prov. before the 
original can be found!

-- 
Peace & Love
Janet H
(Tee off to reply)

"Ian"  wrote in message 
news:xG2ni.34041$nE2.11294@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Mark Myers"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.2105a7a3b6456f06989723@news.altopia.net...
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:11:58 GMT, Ian said...
>>>
>>> Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a 
>>> choice
>>> of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you
>>> intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, 
>>> then
>>> the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. 
>>> IMO.
>>
>> It's not a choice in the proper sense of the word, though, because:
>> 1. Your oppo can remove the choice if he finds your ball in bounds.
>> Completely. The prov is dead.
>>
>> And as Leon says, what is the alternative? Under what conditions could
>> we realistically force someone to declare 3 off the tee?
>>
>> -- 
>> Mark Myers
>> usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
>> I call that a radical interpretation of the text.
>
> 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<<snip>>and he 
> shall play it before he or his partner goes forward to *search* for the 
> original ball
>
> how can the ball be lost if no attempt is made to search for it? and the 
> rule states that the provisional is played before the search commences. 
> OK, Im splitting hairs with the wording, but the intent of the rule is to 
> allow a ball to be in play if the original is lost or OOB. Not to continue 
> play with the provisional as it is more likely to be in a better position 
> for three than the original, if it is found.
>
> Ian

You cannot declare a ball lost, thus the provisional.  However, if you want 
to ignore your original ball you can always declare it unplayable (anywhere 
but in a water hazard and a ball cannot be lost in a hazard anyway) and then 
play another ball which is then not provisional but the ball in play. You 
can't prevent a fellow competitor or opponent from searching for your ball 
if s/he wishes to.  The only way you can influence things is by hitting your 
provisonal ball past the point that the origianl is likely to be and thus 
then becoming the new ball in play.

At least, that is my understanding.  There is no onus on you to search 
cursorily or thoroughly for your ball but you have the penalty stroke 
instead which is, I suppose, considered the eqivalent of deciding that the 
origianl is likely to be unplayable or in such a place that you will take an 
extra stroke anyway.

-- 
Peace & Love
Janet H
(Tee off to reply)

Janet Homer in <469cc20d$0$1622$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>:

>>I understand that as soon as you play the "provisional ball it becomes
>> the ball in play; so even if the opposing team or player find the
>> original it will be too late if you have played the provisional.

That's too unprecise.

>The provisional only becomes the ball in play once you have played it past 
>the point at which the original ball may lie.

Not exactly. From the definition cited below, c) is what you are looking
for.

> This is why there can 
>sometimes be a bit of a 'race' between a matchplay opponent who wants to 
>find your original ball in some ghastly place and you who want to continue 
>with your provisional -so you hurry forward to hit your prov. before the 
>original can be found!

This comes to it's extreme when the provisional has been holed:
You have to pick it up before the first ball has been found.

From the RoG:

|Definition Lost Ball
|A ball is deemed “lost” if:
|a. It is not found or identified as his by the player within five
|minutes after the player’s side or his or their caddies have
|begun to search for it; or
|b. The player has made a stroke at a substituted ball; or
|c. The player has made a stroke at a provisional ball from the
|place where the original ball is likely to be or from a point
|nearer the hole than that place.

Ciao,

Paul

"Paul Schmitz-Josten"  wrote in message 
news:f7iiuh$s9i$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> Janet Homer in <469cc20d$0$1622$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>:
>
>>>I understand that as soon as you play the "provisional ball it becomes
>>> the ball in play; so even if the opposing team or player find the
>>> original it will be too late if you have played the provisional.
>
> That's too unprecise.
>
>>The provisional only becomes the ball in play once you have played it past
>>the point at which the original ball may lie.
>
> Not exactly. From the definition cited below, c) is what you are looking
> for.
>
>> This is why there can
>>sometimes be a bit of a 'race' between a matchplay opponent who wants to
>>find your original ball in some ghastly place and you who want to continue
>>with your provisional -so you hurry forward to hit your prov. before the
>>original can be found!
>
> This comes to it's extreme when the provisional has been holed:
> You have to pick it up before the first ball has been found.
>
> From the RoG:
>
> |Definition Lost Ball
> |A ball is deemed "lost" if:
> |a. It is not found or identified as his by the player within five
> |minutes after the player's side or his or their caddies have
> |begun to search for it; or
> |b. The player has made a stroke at a substituted ball; or
> |c. The player has made a stroke at a provisional ball from the
> |place where the original ball is likely to be or from a point
> |nearer the hole than that place.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul

Yes, thanks, Paul - I wasn't trying to quote the precise definition but only 
the general gist of things but your clarification is excellent.


-- 
Peace & Love
Janet H
(Tee off to reply)

The more I read, the more I start to appreciate how graciously competitions 
are played at my home club. I don't think I've played against anyone who 
wouldn't be happy to accept that taking the two shot penalty was sufficient 
...... I guess we're just not the ruthless competitors that others are

Martin

-- 
mjn at onetel dot com
"Ian"  wrote in message 
news:bsImi.21890$_l6.11469@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
>
> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional ball, 
> then decide not to look for the original!
>
> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked left. 
> Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked straight 
> to the provisional without looking for the original. I know we have the 
> right to look for the original, and if we find it before they have played 
> the provisional again then the original is  the ball in play.
>
> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original ball. 
> You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont have to.
>
> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in 
> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you like 
> the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit smelly, 
> see if you can find the original!
>
> Ian

Janet Homer in <469cd13c$0$1628$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>:

(lost ball)
>Yes, thanks, Paul - I wasn't trying to quote the precise definition but only 
>the general gist of things but your clarification is excellent.

In fact, I wanted to say it in my words in the first place. I'm not fond of
being a human interface for such texts but in this case nothing seemed
better than the original.

Ciao,

Paul

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:30:42 +0100, Martin said...
> The more I read, the more I start to appreciate how graciously competitions 
> are played at my home club. I don't think I've played against anyone who 
> wouldn't be happy to accept that taking the two shot penalty was sufficient 
> ..... I guess we're just not the ruthless competitors that others are

Well, anyone rushing off to look for a ball in the bundi is, in my 
perhaps limited experience, in the minority. Most golf I play, even the 
very competitive kind, is played pretty much how you describe.

But rule discussions very rarely take that into account. Discussing only 
the letter of the law can give a false impression as to how golf is 
actually played. In my experience rules application is usually 
courteous.

-- 
Mark Myers
usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

Janet Homer in <469cc44a$0$1593$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>:

>You cannot declare a ball lost, thus the provisional.  However, if you want 
>to ignore your original ball you can always declare it unplayable (anywhere 
>but in a water hazard and a ball cannot be lost in a hazard anyway) and then 
>play another ball which is then not provisional but the ball in play. You 
>can't prevent a fellow competitor or opponent from searching for your ball 
>if s/he wishes to.  The only way you can influence things is by hitting your 
>provisonal ball past the point that the origianl is likely to be and thus 
>then becoming the new ball in play.

We clarified this...

>At least, that is my understanding.  There is no onus on you to search 
>cursorily or thoroughly for your ball but you have the penalty stroke 
>instead which is, I suppose, considered the eqivalent of deciding that the 
>origianl is likely to be unplayable or in such a place that you will take an 
>extra stroke anyway.

Not exactly, in "rule thinking". The provisional only replaces a ball being
definitely lost or OOB and is not intended by the RoG to be used to avoid
an unknown, possibly bad lie for the price of two strokes. For instance, 
if you know that your ball will be deep in the gorse you will be very
reluctant to find it.
I suppose that the rulekeepers compromised here between the usually
unwanted choice of two balls and speed of play.

As I said, it's a choice with a price to pay, a high price IMHO at least in
Stableford comps for someone with zero or one stroke allowance: 
"Play Birdie (plus two) or Par (plus two) or accept a blob!"
In medal play things may be different when deciding between a "ghastly lie"
which might cost more than two strokes and a provisional shot which may be
good, fortunate or even optimal.

What about match play? It sounds strange that someone with two extra
strokes in his Rucksack should be likely to win the hole unless his
opponent made a mistake, too(?)

Ciao,

Paul

"Leon Chamae"  wrote in message 
news:bazps2rjihg.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
>
> I look forward to reading your Rule/Decision.
>
> -- 
>             Leon Chamae
>             Directeur du Personnel
>             Bureau de Change

I would suggest something along the lines of 27-2a/3
change the wording to

**abscence of a reasonable possibility that the player will want to find the 
original ball**

If you play a provisional it should, IMO, be because the original is 
possibly lost but you would prefer it not to be so.

Anyhow, an interesting discussion.

Ian

Ian in <DZ5ni.34059$nE2.32942@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>:

>I would suggest something along the lines of 27-2a/3
>change the wording to
>
>**abscence of a reasonable possibility that the player will want to find the 
>original ball**

How do you want to judge a player's wishes? Who should do so?

>If you play a provisional it should, IMO, be because the original is 
>possibly lost but you would prefer it not to be so.

What if part two of your definition is false?
No provisional granted should I prefer the ball to be lost?

Ciao,

Paul

"Paul Schmitz-Josten"  wrote in message 
news:f7iuh2$s9i$03$6@news.t-online.com...
> Ian in <DZ5ni.34059$nE2.32942@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>:
>
>>I would suggest something along the lines of 27-2a/3
>>change the wording to
>>
>>**abscence of a reasonable possibility that the player will want to find 
>>the
>>original ball**
>
> How do you want to judge a player's wishes? Who should do so?
>
>>If you play a provisional it should, IMO, be because the original is
>>possibly lost but you would prefer it not to be so.
>
> What if part two of your definition is false?
> No provisional granted should I prefer the ball to be lost?
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul

It should work in a similar way to the hole made by a burrowing animal when 
said hole is under a tree. Do you take releif, even though there is no way 
you would be able to play a shot? Do you play a provisional, with the intent 
that you will not look for the original if the provisional is good?

Golf is a game of conscience.

Ho hum

Ian

"Ian"  writes:

> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
> 
> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
> 
> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
> in play.
> 
> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
> have to.
> 
> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
> smelly, see if you can find the original!

What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?

If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

"Leon Chamae"  wrote in message 
news:bazmyxwpn6k.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> "Ian"  writes:
>
>> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
>>
>> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
>> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
>>
>> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
>> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
>> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
>> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
>> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
>> in play.
>>
>> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
>> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
>> have to.
>>
>> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
>> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
>> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
>> smelly, see if you can find the original!
>
> What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?
>
> If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
> for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?
>
> -- 
>             Leon Chamae
>             Directeur du Personnel
>             Bureau de Change

Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a choice 
of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you 
intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, then 
the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. IMO.

"Ian"  writes:

> "Leon Chamae"  wrote in message
> news:bazmyxwpn6k.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> > "Ian"  writes:
> >
> >> I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
> >>
> >> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional
> >> ball, then decide not to look for the original!
> >>
> >> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked
> >> left. Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked
> >> straight to the provisional without looking for the original. I know
> >> we have the right to look for the original, and if we find it before
> >> they have played the provisional again then the original is  the ball
> >> in play.
> >>
> >> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original
> >> ball. You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont
> >> have to.
> >>
> >> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in
> >> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you
> >> like the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit
> >> smelly, see if you can find the original!
> >
> > What is the alternative?  Would you mandate a 5-minute search?
> >
> > If I did not want to find my original ball and I was forced to search
> > for five minutes, how vigorously do you think I would search?
> >
> > -- 
> >             Leon Chamae
> >             Directeur du Personnel
> >             Bureau de Change
> 
> Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a
> choice of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad,
> and you intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably
> good shot, then the provisional should not be played. Should just be
> three off the tee. IMO.

That's a fine 'spirit of the game' argument for a specific set of facts
(that the player knew when he played the provisional ball that he
would not search for the original if he hit a good provisional).

However, it's simply not practical in most cases unless you want
to mandate a five minute search.

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

Ian in <bsImi.21890$_l6.11469@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>:

>However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional ball, 
>then decide not to look for the original!
>
>We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked left. 
>Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked straight to 
>the provisional without looking for the original. I know we have the right 
>to look for the original, and if we find it before they have played the 
>provisional again then the original is  the ball in play.
>
>I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original ball. 
>You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont have to.
>
>Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in these 
>positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you like the 
>provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit smelly, see if 
>you can find the original!

You get a choice, yes, but not at equal conditions.
Mind you, you'll be at three from the tee choosing a provisional.
In a medal, I am usually so friendly to accept my competitor's choice in
this situation, and sometimes I'm equally glad about their friendliness.

As a match opponent you have any chance to find it and call the other
player to identify it. And if the original has been found in an impossible
lie he can call it unplayable and walk back to play another. Even Tiger
does it. That is another choice - unfair?

My answer is that's not unfair, it's just an outcome of the rules. 

The price in the first situation is 2 strokes. In the latter situation it
is the uncertainty of the shot.

Take advantage of it if you can! Search your opponent's ball as long as you
can, otherwise the game continues.

Ciao,

Paul

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:11:58 GMT, Ian said...
> 
> Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a choice 
> of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you 
> intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, then 
> the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. IMO. 

It's not a choice in the proper sense of the word, though, because:
1. Your oppo can remove the choice if he finds your ball in bounds. 
Completely. The prov is dead.

And as Leon says, what is the alternative? Under what conditions could 
we realistically force someone to declare 3 off the tee?

-- 
Mark Myers
usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

"Mark Myers"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.2105a7a3b6456f06989723@news.altopia.net...
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:11:58 GMT, Ian said...
>>
>> Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a 
>> choice
>> of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you
>> intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, 
>> then
>> the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. 
>> IMO.
>
> It's not a choice in the proper sense of the word, though, because:
> 1. Your oppo can remove the choice if he finds your ball in bounds.
> Completely. The prov is dead.
>
> And as Leon says, what is the alternative? Under what conditions could
> we realistically force someone to declare 3 off the tee?
>
> -- 
> Mark Myers
> usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
> I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

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<<snip>>and he shall 
play it before he or his partner goes forward to *search* for the original 
ball

how can the ball be lost if no attempt is made to search for it? and the 
rule states that the provisional is played before the search commences. OK, 
Im splitting hairs with the wording, but the intent of the rule is to allow 
a ball to be in play if the original is lost or OOB. Not to continue play 
with the provisional as it is more likely to be in a better position for 
three than the original, if it is found.

Ian

I understand that as soon as you play the "provisional ball it becomes
the ball in play; so even if the opposing team or player find the
original it will be too late if you have played the provisional.

On 17 Jul, 11:35, Mark Myers  wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:11:58 GMT, Ian said...
>
>
>
> > Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a choice
> > of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you
> > intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, then
> > the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. IMO.
>
> It's not a choice in the proper sense of the word, though, because:
> 1. Your oppo can remove the choice if he finds your ball in bounds.
> Completely. The prov is dead.
>
> And as Leon says, what is the alternative? Under what conditions could
> we realistically force someone to declare 3 off the tee?
>
> --
> Mark Myers
> usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
> I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

"Ian"  writes:

> "Mark Myers"  wrote in message
> news:MPG.2105a7a3b6456f06989723@news.altopia.net...
> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:11:58 GMT, Ian said...
> >>
> >> Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a
> >> choice
> >> of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you
> >> intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good
> >> shot, then
> >> the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the
> >> tee. IMO.
> >
> > It's not a choice in the proper sense of the word, though, because:
> > 1. Your oppo can remove the choice if he finds your ball in bounds.
> > Completely. The prov is dead.
> >
> > And as Leon says, what is the alternative? Under what conditions could
> > we realistically force someone to declare 3 off the tee?
> >
> > -- 
> > Mark Myers
> > usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
> > I call that a radical interpretation of the text.
> 
> 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<<snip>>and he shall play it before he or his partner
> goes forward to *search* for the original ball
> 
> how can the ball be lost if no attempt is made to search for it? and
> the rule states that the provisional is played before the search
> commences. OK, Im splitting hairs with the wording, but the intent of
> the rule is to allow a ball to be in play if the original is lost or
> OOB. Not to continue play with the provisional as it is more likely to
> be in a better position for three than the original, if it is found.

As an exercise, why don't you re-write Rule 27-2 or a Decision
regarding that Rule to accomplish your goal?

You may find that fixing this bad result (your opinion) may
lead to worse consequences.  

The worse consequence that I mentioned in my first reply was a 
requirement that the player search for the full five minutes.  
However, you may be able to write a Rule or Decision that does 
not lead to that result.

I look forward to reading your Rule/Decision.

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

"Stewart"  wrote in message 
news:1184676269.480605.122760@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>I understand that as soon as you play the "provisional ball it becomes
> the ball in play; so even if the opposing team or player find the
> original it will be too late if you have played the provisional.

The provisional only becomes the ball in play once you have played it past 
the point at which the original ball may lie.  This is why there can 
sometimes be a bit of a 'race' between a matchplay opponent who wants to 
find your original ball in some ghastly place and you who want to continue 
with your provisional -so you hurry forward to hit your prov. before the 
original can be found!

-- 
Peace & Love
Janet H
(Tee off to reply)

"Ian"  wrote in message 
news:xG2ni.34041$nE2.11294@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Mark Myers"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.2105a7a3b6456f06989723@news.altopia.net...
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:11:58 GMT, Ian said...
>>>
>>> Yes, i know that. But the intent is to speed up play, not to give a 
>>> choice
>>> of which ball you would prefer to play? If the first is so bad, and you
>>> intend to play the provisional , so long as its a reasonably good shot, 
>>> then
>>> the provisional should not be played. Should just be three off the tee. 
>>> IMO.
>>
>> It's not a choice in the proper sense of the word, though, because:
>> 1. Your oppo can remove the choice if he finds your ball in bounds.
>> Completely. The prov is dead.
>>
>> And as Leon says, what is the alternative? Under what conditions could
>> we realistically force someone to declare 3 off the tee?
>>
>> -- 
>> Mark Myers
>> usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
>> I call that a radical interpretation of the text.
>
> 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<<snip>>and he 
> shall play it before he or his partner goes forward to *search* for the 
> original ball
>
> how can the ball be lost if no attempt is made to search for it? and the 
> rule states that the provisional is played before the search commences. 
> OK, Im splitting hairs with the wording, but the intent of the rule is to 
> allow a ball to be in play if the original is lost or OOB. Not to continue 
> play with the provisional as it is more likely to be in a better position 
> for three than the original, if it is found.
>
> Ian

You cannot declare a ball lost, thus the provisional.  However, if you want 
to ignore your original ball you can always declare it unplayable (anywhere 
but in a water hazard and a ball cannot be lost in a hazard anyway) and then 
play another ball which is then not provisional but the ball in play. You 
can't prevent a fellow competitor or opponent from searching for your ball 
if s/he wishes to.  The only way you can influence things is by hitting your 
provisonal ball past the point that the origianl is likely to be and thus 
then becoming the new ball in play.

At least, that is my understanding.  There is no onus on you to search 
cursorily or thoroughly for your ball but you have the penalty stroke 
instead which is, I suppose, considered the eqivalent of deciding that the 
origianl is likely to be unplayable or in such a place that you will take an 
extra stroke anyway.

-- 
Peace & Love
Janet H
(Tee off to reply)

Janet Homer in <469cc20d$0$1622$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>:

>>I understand that as soon as you play the "provisional ball it becomes
>> the ball in play; so even if the opposing team or player find the
>> original it will be too late if you have played the provisional.

That's too unprecise.

>The provisional only becomes the ball in play once you have played it past 
>the point at which the original ball may lie.

Not exactly. From the definition cited below, c) is what you are looking
for.

> This is why there can 
>sometimes be a bit of a 'race' between a matchplay opponent who wants to 
>find your original ball in some ghastly place and you who want to continue 
>with your provisional -so you hurry forward to hit your prov. before the 
>original can be found!

This comes to it's extreme when the provisional has been holed:
You have to pick it up before the first ball has been found.

From the RoG:

|Definition Lost Ball
|A ball is deemed “lost” if:
|a. It is not found or identified as his by the player within five
|minutes after the player’s side or his or their caddies have
|begun to search for it; or
|b. The player has made a stroke at a substituted ball; or
|c. The player has made a stroke at a provisional ball from the
|place where the original ball is likely to be or from a point
|nearer the hole than that place.

Ciao,

Paul

"Paul Schmitz-Josten"  wrote in message 
news:f7iiuh$s9i$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> Janet Homer in <469cc20d$0$1622$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>:
>
>>>I understand that as soon as you play the "provisional ball it becomes
>>> the ball in play; so even if the opposing team or player find the
>>> original it will be too late if you have played the provisional.
>
> That's too unprecise.
>
>>The provisional only becomes the ball in play once you have played it past
>>the point at which the original ball may lie.
>
> Not exactly. From the definition cited below, c) is what you are looking
> for.
>
>> This is why there can
>>sometimes be a bit of a 'race' between a matchplay opponent who wants to
>>find your original ball in some ghastly place and you who want to continue
>>with your provisional -so you hurry forward to hit your prov. before the
>>original can be found!
>
> This comes to it's extreme when the provisional has been holed:
> You have to pick it up before the first ball has been found.
>
> From the RoG:
>
> |Definition Lost Ball
> |A ball is deemed "lost" if:
> |a. It is not found or identified as his by the player within five
> |minutes after the player's side or his or their caddies have
> |begun to search for it; or
> |b. The player has made a stroke at a substituted ball; or
> |c. The player has made a stroke at a provisional ball from the
> |place where the original ball is likely to be or from a point
> |nearer the hole than that place.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul

Yes, thanks, Paul - I wasn't trying to quote the precise definition but only 
the general gist of things but your clarification is excellent.


-- 
Peace & Love
Janet H
(Tee off to reply)

The more I read, the more I start to appreciate how graciously competitions 
are played at my home club. I don't think I've played against anyone who 
wouldn't be happy to accept that taking the two shot penalty was sufficient 
...... I guess we're just not the ruthless competitors that others are

Martin

-- 
mjn at onetel dot com
"Ian"  wrote in message 
news:bsImi.21890$_l6.11469@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>I have read 27-2b/1 and 27-2c/2
>
> However, it just does not seem right that you can play a provisional ball, 
> then decide not to look for the original!
>
> We had this in a match at the weekend. Original ball hooked left. 
> Provisional ball smashed miles down the centre. Opponent walked straight 
> to the provisional without looking for the original. I know we have the 
> right to look for the original, and if we find it before they have played 
> the provisional again then the original is  the ball in play.
>
> I cant find anything that suggest you have to look for the original ball. 
> You should look for it, but if you decide not to, then you dont have to.
>
> Have i missed something in the rules?? I dont see how its fair that in 
> these positions you almost get a choice of which ball to play. If you like 
> the provisional, ignore the original. If the provisional is a bit smelly, 
> see if you can find the original!
>
> Ian

Janet Homer in <469cd13c$0$1628$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>:

(lost ball)
>Yes, thanks, Paul - I wasn't trying to quote the precise definition but only 
>the general gist of things but your clarification is excellent.

In fact, I wanted to say it in my words in the first place. I'm not fond of
being a human interface for such texts but in this case nothing seemed
better than the original.

Ciao,

Paul

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:30:42 +0100, Martin said...
> The more I read, the more I start to appreciate how graciously competitions 
> are played at my home club. I don't think I've played against anyone who 
> wouldn't be happy to accept that taking the two shot penalty was sufficient 
> ..... I guess we're just not the ruthless competitors that others are

Well, anyone rushing off to look for a ball in the bundi is, in my 
perhaps limited experience, in the minority. Most golf I play, even the 
very competitive kind, is played pretty much how you describe.

But rule discussions very rarely take that into account. Discussing only 
the letter of the law can give a false impression as to how golf is 
actually played. In my experience rules application is usually 
courteous.

-- 
Mark Myers
usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

Janet Homer in <469cc44a$0$1593$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>:

>You cannot declare a ball lost, thus the provisional.  However, if you want 
>to ignore your original ball you can always declare it unplayable (anywhere 
>but in a water hazard and a ball cannot be lost in a hazard anyway) and then 
>play another ball which is then not provisional but the ball in play. You 
>can't prevent a fellow competitor or opponent from searching for your ball 
>if s/he wishes to.  The only way you can influence things is by hitting your 
>provisonal ball past the point that the origianl is likely to be and thus 
>then becoming the new ball in play.

We clarified this...

>At least, that is my understanding.  There is no onus on you to search 
>cursorily or thoroughly for your ball but you have the penalty stroke 
>instead which is, I suppose, considered the eqivalent of deciding that the 
>origianl is likely to be unplayable or in such a place that you will take an 
>extra stroke anyway.

Not exactly, in "rule thinking". The provisional only replaces a ball being
definitely lost or OOB and is not intended by the RoG to be used to avoid
an unknown, possibly bad lie for the price of two strokes. For instance, 
if you know that your ball will be deep in the gorse you will be very
reluctant to find it.
I suppose that the rulekeepers compromised here between the usually
unwanted choice of two balls and speed of play.

As I said, it's a choice with a price to pay, a high price IMHO at least in
Stableford comps for someone with zero or one stroke allowance: 
"Play Birdie (plus two) or Par (plus two) or accept a blob!"
In medal play things may be different when deciding between a "ghastly lie"
which might cost more than two strokes and a provisional shot which may be
good, fortunate or even optimal.

What about match play? It sounds strange that someone with two extra
strokes in his Rucksack should be likely to win the hole unless his
opponent made a mistake, too(?)

Ciao,

Paul

"Leon Chamae"  wrote in message 
news:bazps2rjihg.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
>
> I look forward to reading your Rule/Decision.
>
> -- 
>             Leon Chamae
>             Directeur du Personnel
>             Bureau de Change

I would suggest something along the lines of 27-2a/3
change the wording to

**abscence of a reasonable possibility that the player will want to find the 
original ball**

If you play a provisional it should, IMO, be because the original is 
possibly lost but you would prefer it not to be so.

Anyhow, an interesting discussion.

Ian

Ian in <DZ5ni.34059$nE2.32942@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>:

>I would suggest something along the lines of 27-2a/3
>change the wording to
>
>**abscence of a reasonable possibility that the player will want to find the 
>original ball**

How do you want to judge a player's wishes? Who should do so?

>If you play a provisional it should, IMO, be because the original is 
>possibly lost but you would prefer it not to be so.

What if part two of your definition is false?
No provisional granted should I prefer the ball to be lost?

Ciao,

Paul

"Paul Schmitz-Josten"  wrote in message 
news:f7iuh2$s9i$03$6@news.t-online.com...
> Ian in <DZ5ni.34059$nE2.32942@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>:
>
>>I would suggest something along the lines of 27-2a/3
>>change the wording to
>>
>>**abscence of a reasonable possibility that the player will want to find 
>>the
>>original ball**
>
> How do you want to judge a player's wishes? Who should do so?
>
>>If you play a provisional it should, IMO, be because the original is
>>possibly lost but you would prefer it not to be so.
>
> What if part two of your definition is false?
> No provisional granted should I prefer the ball to be lost?
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul

It should work in a similar way to the hole made by a burrowing animal when 
said hole is under a tree. Do you take releif, even though there is no way 
you would be able to play a shot? Do you play a provisional, with the intent 
that you will not look for the original if the provisional is good?

Golf is a game of conscience.

Ho hum

Ian

"Ian"  wrote in message 
news:Ds7ni.21371$oa7.16951@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

Ian,

I am not sure what provoked your dislike of provisional balls.

I have a saying: Provisional balls go down the middle: second balls go where 
the first ball went.
It isn't true of course, but it often happens that the PB is good.

In my experience, if a player's first ball goes in a totally unplayable 
area, he plays 3 of the tee.
If he has any doubt at all, he plays a PB but with the intention of only 
looking for the OB in a reasonably playable position.

If the original ball is not found in a possibly playable place, he will 
abandon his search and go forward to play his PB.
Only if a ball is lost in a playable area, will the player look to search 
for the full five minutes.

If an OB in found in heavy rough or among trees, it is possible the player 
can get it out in one stroke onto the fairway and is now lying two, whereas 
the PB is lying three.
Alternatively, if found, he may be deem it unplayable and play it to a more 
advantageous place than the PB for three.

The opponent who searches for a ball the player does not now wish to find 
and finds it, gains little by doing so since the player may deem it 
unplayable, going back to the tee and playing three off the tee.
There is no reason why, when playing his third ball off the tee, it will be 
any better or worse than the original or PB played.

The only time I have known a player not to want to find a ball that his 
opponent would dearly like to find, is on a Par 3 where the player is 
certain to be down in 4 with the PB whereas he has no guarantee to make 4 
from the original if found or another ball from the tee.

Malcolm

"M L Wadsworth"  wrote in 
message news:bMCdnSWLFLJGiQDbnZ2dnUVZ8sCsnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Ian"  wrote in message 
> news:Ds7ni.21371$oa7.16951@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> Ian,
>
> I am not sure what provoked your dislike of provisional balls.
>
> I have a saying: Provisional balls go down the middle: second balls go 
> where the first ball went.
> It isn't true of course, but it often happens that the PB is good.
>
> In my experience, if a player's first ball goes in a totally unplayable 
> area, he plays 3 of the tee.
> If he has any doubt at all, he plays a PB but with the intention of only 
> looking for the OB in a reasonably playable position.
>
> If the original ball is not found in a possibly playable place, he will 
> abandon his search and go forward to play his PB.
> Only if a ball is lost in a playable area, will the player look to search 
> for the full five minutes.
>
> If an OB in found in heavy rough or among trees, it is possible the player 
> can get it out in one stroke onto the fairway and is now lying two, 
> whereas the PB is lying three.
> Alternatively, if found, he may be deem it unplayable and play it to a 
> more advantageous place than the PB for three.
>
> The opponent who searches for a ball the player does not now wish to find 
> and finds it, gains little by doing so since the player may deem it 
> unplayable, going back to the tee and playing three off the tee.
> There is no reason why, when playing his third ball off the tee, it will 
> be any better or worse than the original or PB played.
>
> The only time I have known a player not to want to find a ball that his 
> opponent would dea