2020 MGA Rules Quiz - Q25

25. Before beginning play of hole, a player places his club on the ground in the teeing area pointing

toward the hole. Prior to taking his stance for the stroke, the player lifts the club. The player then

takes his stance for the stroke, and because of the dew on the ground, there is a line left that helps

the player to align his feet for the stroke. The stroke is made. How many, if any, penalty strokes has

he incurred?

A. The player can only avoid penalty if he eliminates the dew line before playing the stroke.

B. The player may leave the dew line in place but is prohibited from using it for alignment.

C. The player is penalized two strokes for a violation of Rule 4.3.

D. The player is not penalized regardless of the dew line.

Nice question, poses situations not explicitly answered in the published words. There are issues here for RBs to rule on, IMO.

My answer (a stab in very partial light) is not precisely the same as any of those given. 2 stroke penalty for making a mark that assists the stroke, which I would treat as equivalent to setting down an object (10.2b(3)), courtesy of 20.3.

Consistent with this, the player could have avoided the penalty by eliminating the dew line before making the stroke, but the player did not do that, so penalty.

Superficially, the actions here seem to fit the general words at the start of Rule 4.3, but I see that as MGA intent rather than player intent.

I asked this question whether it is a breach if a player lays down a club in the dew and leaves a mark using it as alignment from himself John Paramor in February 2006. He refused to give a straight answer but simply said 'I would not do that on the other side of the pond'.

As a referee I would say that leaving a mark on the ground to assist alignment is a breach regardless of the intent. However, it would IMO be unjust to penalize a player if he removed the mark OR took his stance in a place where there would be no assistance of that mark. This seems to have been the spirit in the Big Bang of the Rules as many breaches can today be 'undone' with no penalty that pre-2019 meant a penalty straight away.

So my take is B as it sounds the fairest one.

FWIW, IMO R10.2b(3) says it is a penalty if the player takes his stance where he placed the object. It would not make any sense if he was penalized if he laid down a club on the right edge of the Teeing Area and then decided to play from the left edge with no club laid down. But I agree with antip, a ruling, and a firm one (finally!!!) is required.

'Consistent with this, the player could have avoided the penalty by eliminating the dew line before making the stroke, but the player did not do that, so penalty.'

But antip, option A describes that option. Why would you not choose that one?

Because of the misfit between the question and the answer. The question finishes with "The stroke is made. How many, if any, penalty strokes hashe incurred?" So A simply doesn't answer the question asked, it answers a different question. So I have identified what I think is the correct answer to the question. IMO, there are a few places in this year's quiz where there is evidence of poor editing of the language, this is one. The quiz is uncompromising in the demands it places on the reader's knowledge of the Rules. IMO, the same high standards need to be applied to the questions.

Your old JP reference is interesting, but this issue was recast by a number of the 2019 changes and my understanding now is deliberately making a mark to assist alignment is treated equivalently to setting down an object. But as you note, we also now have the provision that allows improvements to be removed before the stroke to avoid penalty.

'Because of the misfit between the question and the answer. The question finishes with "The stroke is made. How many, if any, penalty strokes has he incurred?" So A simply doesn't answer the question asked, it answers a different question. '

Sure, but as you see there are 2 options that would not be relevant if you took that so literally. They could have written 'if a stroke was made...' but IMO all options are available as they are.

'My answer (a stab in very partial light) is not precisely the same as any of those given. 2 stroke penalty for making a mark that assists the stroke, which I would treat as equivalent to setting down an object (10.2b(3)), courtesy of 20.3.'

I reckon that would be C then. Rule 4.3a directs you to 10.2b(3).

I reckon that would be C then. Rule 4.3a directs you to 10.2b(3)

I think it must be one or the other, because a second 4.3a penalty in a round gets you DQ, a second 10.2b(3) gets you another general penalty.

#25 D Rule 4.3; Rule 10.2b(3)

This certainly needs a written confirmation from the RBs.