2020 MGA Rules Quiz - Q1

[Mr. Bean]

But then Halebopp is right, the player has invoked S&D thus playing from wrong place and it is a serious breach.

[Sawgrass]

The correct place was the place of the provisional in the fairway. The wrong place was the expired ball in the fescue, further from the hole than the provisional. How is that a serious breach?

[Mr. Bean]

Correct place for what? Which Rule the player invoked?

You responded to Halebopp that it all comes down to applicable/inapplicable Rule. If the only applicable Rule the player may have invoked in this situation is S&D then he played from a wrong place and it is a serious breach as he should have played from the tee. So there must be another, applicable Rule the player invoked by substituting his ball in play in a wrong place. Which Rule would that be?

[Sawgrass]

I don't agree with the assumptions in your question. The right place to play from was playing the provisional, which had been played from the tee as a S&D action, and this is the comparison point for the serious breach question. I understand that you don't like my answer, but it's nevertheless my answer. What is your therory?

[Mr. Bean]

I am still of the opinion that this is a case of substitution, i.e. we seem to agree with the outcome. I am merely trying to understand your response to Halebopp according to which there must be a Rule that was applicable in that situation, or at least that is how I understood your response to him. IMO that Rule is 6.3 which gives the player right to substitute a ball with certain limitations and in this particular case the player seems to have substituted his ball but in a wrong place and without authorization. i.e. outside the limitations. Thus it is not a S&D case. If it were then the correct place would be on the tee and that would lead us to a serious breach.

[Sawgrass]

I suspect we agree that the ball in the fescue was a lost ball/wrong ball by the time the player lifted and cleaned it. I don't believe that cleaning this type of wrong ball and replacing it is literally substituting, but rather putting a new ball in play in a wrong place. And if we are in agreement this far, I don't think this place is a serious breach given the provisional that was hit for fear of a lost ball -- which is exactly what happened.

[Mr. Bean]

But Sawgrass, if it is not substituting then it is bound to be S&D in your own words: '...putting a new ball in play in a wrong place' and that is a serious breach as the only place where you are allowed to put a new ball in play is on the tee.

[Newby]

#1 B Interpretation 18.3b/2; Rule 18.2a(1); Rule 7.3; Rule 6.3b (3)

[Sawgrass]

Yes, S&D, but a new ball WAS put in play on the tee.

[Mr. Bean]

Never mind, we are going in circles.

[Halebopp]

@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.In the situation we are concentrating on the new ball was put in play where the original ball was lost, lifted and placed. I agree with what you're saying above but what was the applicable rule to not force the player to take S&D for the second time after illegally substituting and playing a ball (the original) from a wrong place? Like you said, if there was no applicable rule, the player would've taken S&D, in this case for the second time. Is Rule 6.3 always applicable because substitution can be sometimes allowed? That's the only reason I've come up with.

[Sawgrass]

I now see what you're saying. I posit that since the provisional was in play, an illegal substitution/location was made rather than a S&D.

[Mr. Bean]

Finally