2020 MGA Rules Quiz - Q1

[Vindog]

Clearly... I’m not sure either!

[sui generis]

"But the original ball was not a wrong ball. Because he picked it up and replaced it, those actions made it a substituted ball at a wrong place. It would have been a wrong ball if he had just played the original ball rather than picking it up and replacing it. Hope that helps?"

I, too, know that was the pre-2019 answer. (One I never liked.) There may be more to come.

Having said that, I'd like you to be correct as it took me years to accept pre-2019 and I don't wish to start over. ?

[rogolf]

What made it easy for me was old Decisions 15/14 or 28/15, where a previous version said something like, "when the player picked up the ball, he had ample time and opportunity to identify it as his original ball before he put that ball into play." That puts it squarely on the player to know what ball he has in his hands and is about to put into play. He may have picked up a stray ball, an abandoned ball or a ball that is lost after the search time has elapsed. All are wrong balls, and there's no penalty for picking them up, but when he puts that ball into play, it becomes HIS ball in play. It's just like taking another ball out of his bag and putting it into play.

[sui generis]

I know, I know. But what I don't like about this particular scenario is that the player is behaving somewhat responsibly. After all, he's doing what he should, namely identifying a ball rather than just carelessly making a stroke at it. The nuance is completely lost on everyone except the old guy with a badge and a radio. (Of course, my gripe is just with this one instance. I've not thought of the fifteen others to which the Rule is completely sensible.)

[Mr. Bean]

This is one of the black & white features of the Rules. Once you intend to put a ball in play that ball is in play regardless of other balls that might have been in play at the same time. Limiting that action somehow by distance between the balls or area of the course or similar would be a mission impossible. It is the player's responsibility to know what s/he is doing.

Once you substitute your BIP incorrectly you are allowed to correct your mistake but if you do not that ball remains to be the BIP. Quite straightforward, IMHO.

[HitEmTrue]

But if it remained a wrong ball, then the result for the player would have a greater chance of becoming DQ, wouldn’t it?

[bknaepen]

Shouldn’t he be DQ for serious breach? When the provisional became the ball in play, the only place where he could substitute another ball was the teeing area because the only applicable rule would have been to invoke stroke and distance. By playing from where he did, he played from a wrong place way closer to the hole.

[Mr. Bean]

From the description given in the question the spot where he (incorrectly) substituted his ball in play (i.e. that provisional ball) was not closer to hole than the spot where BIP laid ('The second ball lands in the middle of the fairway, 20 yards closer to the hole than where the original is likely to be.') so he did not gain advantage in distance. Not having been there it is not possible to say whether there would be a serious breach or not for other reasons but it seems that this incorrect substitution is what the question is after.

You need to distinguish substitution as per a Rule allowing that substitution from an incorrect substitution that may take place virtually anywhere. In such a case you need to evaluate the distance gained compared to the ball that was taken out of play, not the place where a correct substitution should have taken place.

[Halebopp]

These cases can get complicated and confusing. My rule of thumb is if you don't know where the ball in play is and put another ball in play, you are proceeding with S&D as other relief options require a reference point to begin with. But when you do know the location of the ball in play and substitute a ball in a wrong place, you have a reference point and you're simply taking relief outside of the relief area defined by that reference point (and the applicable rule) as opposed to invoking S&D.

[Mr. Bean]

Halebopp, how does your rule of thumb work in this case as the player thought he was holding his BIP in his hand? Sounds like he was unaware of the location of his BIP.

[Halebopp]

He was aware of the location of the ball in play, he was merely confused of which one of the balls was the one in play.

 

But once I got back to thinking about this scenario again, I feel like I'm falling deeper and deeper down the wrong ball/wrong place rabbit hole and I'm not sure I feel like digging myself out on a Saturday evening.

[rogolf]

Trade in your shovel for schnapps.

[bknaepen]

Thanks Mr Bean and Halebopp, your answers clarify the situation for me...

[Halebopp]

I haven't dug into the MGA Quiz yet but I was left wondering about this one and my head is spinning...

The original ball was the ball in play after it was substituted back into play and played from a Wrong Place. But, without any intent to use the Unplayable Ball rule before incorrectly substituting the original ball back into play, after further studying, it seems like there's no other place from which the player could play the next stroke than the teeing area. I had missed the fact a player needs the intention to use the Unplayable Ball rule before taking any action and therefore it can't be used in this case. Assuming there was nothing in the Conditions Affecting the Stroke with regard to the provisional ball that would warrant relief, I can't see any other result than the player's actions defaulting to S&D.

Therefore, to answer the MGA question, playing the wrongly substituted ball was a serious breach of playing from a wrong place and to correct the error the player would've needed to return to the tee, lying 6 (Provisional was the ball in play, lying 3, 2 PS for playing from a Wrong Place and 1 PS for S&D), hitting 7th. As the player failed to do so, the result is DQ.

But I have my concerns regarding this ruling. Take the old Decision 18-2/3, a player who takes relief from a boundary stake as if it were an immovable obstruction by using the ball in play incurs the general penalty. The mapping chart tells us the outcome of this Decision hasn't changed. But if the player didn't lift the ball in play but substituted it with another ball (as is allowed when taking relief from an IO), the player would've made an illegal substitution after playing the ball. As there would've been no rule allowing playing the ball from where it was, the player unknowingly invoked S&D and forced himself to return to where the previous stroke was made from with a total of 3 penalty strokes.

 

Now, if this is the case I'd still assume that had the provisional ball in the fairway been in, for example, Temporary Water, the breach might have not been a serious one as long as the Nearest Point of Complete Relief wouldn't have been in significantly worse place than the place from which the substituted ball was played. This would be based on the idea that it doesn't matter how far outside of the Relief Area you drop and play the ball when you fail to take relief within the RA, it only increases the chances of it being a serious breach. The Committee Procedures also guide us to save players from penalties by using and ruling by (possible) applicable rules when a player has proceeded under an inapplicable rule.

Also, I'm still confused as to why the Definition of Substitute doesn't include the case of using an inapplicable rule while the Definition of In Play and Rule 6.3 suggest a ball has been substituted even when an inapplicable rule has been used. Is that built into the last bullet point in the Definition, which states "The player was required under the Rules to put the original ball back in play rather than to substitute another ball."?

 

The only thing I'm currently sure of is the fact the Rules could be a lot clearer about this particular subject.

[Mr. Bean]

But Halebopp, substituting a ball in play when not allowed does not automatically mean invoking S&D. Say your ball is on the green and you substitute it when not allowed, what is the outcome? Remember the case of Roope Kakko many years ago when he lifted his ball from the green and tossed it over to his caddie who failed to catch it and the ball was lost in a water hazard? The only penalty was 2 PS for illegal substitution, no playing from wrong place as you are now suggesting. In this MGA case the player substituted his ball in play and it is the position of that ball and the ball put into play relative to the hole that matters, not the distance from the teeing area.

[Sawgrass]

The ball that was in play was the properly declared provisional, which was in the fairway and closer to the hole than the spot of the wrong-place substitution. No DQ for serious breach.

[antip]

Exactly. Only that correctly played provisional is permitted to replace a lost original ball, so it's position is the comparison point for considering serious breach. If we tweak that provisional scenario in the original question: a) if the provisional was known to be somewhere clearly inferior to where the substituted ball was played from, that stroke with the substituted ball would have been a serious breach, the stroke would not count and must be replayed from where the provisional ball lay; or b) if the provisional ball's position was not known, then that stroke with the substituted ball was a serious breach, does not count and must be replayed from the tee (with an additional S&D penalty).

[Halebopp]

Yes, incorrect substitution doesn't necessarily mean playing from a Wrong Place as there are cases in which the player simply uses a ball the player wasn't supposed to use. In my mind there are three different cases, in the first one a ball other than the original is played from the correct place, in the second a ball is played from a wrong place with KVC of the whereabouts of the original ball in play and thirdly the case in which a ball is substituted and played from a random place without KVC of where the original ball is. The first and last cases are pretty clear. But now I'm wondering if the second case is the same as the third.

I guess my short and simple question is, does the illegal Substitution need to be tied to or, shall we say, reasoned by an applicable rule? Based on the answers it sounds like it doesn't, which gives the same result as how I've been thinking about these situations before my very recent doubts.

In other words, if a player drops a ball (with the intention of it being the ball in play) in a random place with no regard to any actual rule and plays that ball, we don't need to look at which rule the player could have tried to use to justify playing from where the player did? All we're concerned with is whether the player had KVC where the original ball was and how that KVC relates to the position from which the player played? And when there's no KVC, how that place relates to the spot of the previous stroke?

[antip]

Hale

I really can't follow what you are asking or what is the issue you are seeking to better understand. Would it be simpler for you to frame a specific example with full facts to focus a discussion?

[Halebopp]

Ok, let's continue with the original MGA question.

What rule tells you that, when considering whether or not it was a serious breach of playing from a Wrong Place, you compare the spot from which the player played the original ball to the spot of the provisional ball in the fairway as opposed to the place from which the previous stroke was made?

 

Edit: As the provisional ball is the ball in play until a stroke is made at the substituted original ball, it makes sense the place from which the stroke was made is compared to the known location of the provisional. On the other hand the only rule allowing the player to play from a different place than where the provisional ball lies is S&D and therefore we'd need to compare the spot of the original ball to the teeing area.

[Sawgrass]

As to your edit, let's agree that by the time the player lifted the ball in the fescue, there was only one ball in play, the provisional in the fairway. The player then places a ball back in the fescue, with no right, and is thereby playing from a wrong place (irrespective of if this is a wrong S&D place or something else). A serious breach would require comparison of this fescue place to the place from which the ball in play should be played, and as there is no advantage playing from the fescue/further from the hole, there is no serious breach.

Note that the definition of Serious Breach compares the advantage one would have compared to "the stroke to be made from the right place" which in this instance is from the place the provisional lies.

[Halebopp]

@Sawgrass Note that the definition of Serious Breach compares the advantage one would have compared to "the stroke to be made from the right place" which in this instance is from the place the provisional lies.
But on what do you base your argument that the right place is where the provisional ball lies and not the teeing area? The only rule allowing the player to play a ball from a place other than where the provisional ball lies is S&D and if the player was using S&D, the correct place would be the teeing area. So, why hasn't the player unknowingly used S&D? While I still agree with you and my original comment in this thread, I haven't been able to come up with a definitive answer to that question, which makes me doubt myself.

[Sawgrass]

As I see it, THE right place is the place of the provisional. The fact that there might be a subsequent right place (on the tee) isn't material, we must only compare the position in the fescue from which the ball is illegally hit to the position of the provisional which should have been hit.

[Mr. Bean]

The issue is what is the Rule the player SHOULD invoke.

If I lift my ball from the fairway and place another ball one meter from that spot and make a stroke at that ball I am guilty of

1) playing from wrong place

2) incorrect substitution

But I am not expected to have invoked S&D as that is not the Rule I SHOULD have invoked. I SHOULD have replaced my ball but instead I invoked 2 other Rules and got penalized for that (by a general penalty). Furthermore, the spot (A) where I placed my ball is compared to the place (B) where I SHOULD have (re)placed it and if A gives me unfair advantage THEN it is a Serious Breach. No S&D involved whatsoever.

P.S. Afa your example reflecting the old 18-2a/3 thing is concerned that was not correct either and you will understand that as soon as you digest and fully comprehend what Sawgrass, antip and myself have been trying to explain.

[Halebopp]

My understanding of the issue has not changed, I was merely questioning it after thinking about a differing view on the subject and failing to find conclusive evidence one way or the other. The case with the old Decision was simply an example of a situation in which the "new, differing" idea seemingly falls apart, like I said at the time, I had my concerns about it.

But thanks to all of you for setting my mind at ease!

[antip]

But on what do you base your argument that the right place is where the provisional ball lies and not the teeing area? The only rule allowing the player to play a ball from a place other than where the provisional ball lies is S&D and if the player was using S&D, the correct place would be the teeing area. So, why hasn't the player unknowingly used S&D? While I still agree with you and my original comment in this thread, I haven't been able to come up with a definitive answer to that question, which makes me doubt myself.

Hale

I think the point that you are missing is that the provisional ball IS the ball that has been played under S&D for the original ball. That is, the S&D requirement has been met. And providing it was correctly put in play, the provisional is also the ONLY ball that can sub for the original ball.

[Halebopp]

I wasn't doubting the legitimacy of the Provisional or that it wasn't the ball in play until a stroke was made at the illegally substituted ball. My question was about which Rule, Definition or Interpretation confirms a player isn't unknowingly invoking S&D when he/she substitutes and plays a ball from a completely random place (which doesn't meet the criteria of any applicable rule) while being aware of the location from which he/she should have played.

[Sawgrass]

Hale, isn't it as simple as: if you are taking relief under an applicable rule in a wrong place, you've done just that. If you take relief in a wrong place when there was no applicable rule, you've taken S&D. Intention prevails.

[Mr. Bean]

So the applicable Rule in this case was substituting a ball (6.3b) ?

[Sawgrass]

As I see it, there is no "applicable rule" from which to lift and then replace a wrong ball (as this time-expired fescue ball was), so it's a S&D penalty. What do you think?