Proposed Rule 23-2

[Phil Bridges]

A continual problem at local and state play has been the failure of a player to state he is playing a provisional ball. Many times I have had to interrupt a player and ask if he was playing a provisional ball, after he announced "Guess I'd better play another" or "It might be OB. I'll reload". Of course, my question is often answered with a look of disgust and some comment along the lines of "Of course it's a provisional". What is the problem with changing 23-2 so that the ball played under this Rule is deemed to be a provisional unless the player states it is the ball in play? As an example, 23-2 could read

"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 in accordance with Rule 23-1. This ball is deemed to be a provisional ball unless the player indicates to his opponent in match play or his marker or fellow-competitor in stroke play that he intends this ball to be his ball in play. If he does so, the original ball is lost."

John and David, I also appreciate the effort you have put into these proposals, and I am humbled by the kind comments of my good friend Quincy.

[aaa]

I echo the above. In my experience, by far the majority of time, players either intend to play a provisional or not play another ball at all.