MGA Question 4

[Newby]

4. A player's ball is embedded in the general area. After lifting the ball to take relief, the player repairs the pitch mark to care for the course.

Which of the following is correct?

A. The player incurs no penalty regardless of where the dropped ball comes to rest in the relief area.

B. The player incurs the general penalty regardless of where the dropped ball comes to rest in the relief area.

C. The player incurs the general penalty if the pitch mark is on or close to the line of play once the ball comes to rest in the relief area.

D. The player incurs the general penalty only if the dropped ball comes to rest near the pitch mark.

[sui generis]

8.1a/8 – Altering Surface of Ground in Relief Area Is Not Allowed suggests B.

 

 

[Halebopp]

52 minutes ago, sui generis said:

8.1a/8 – Altering Surface of Ground in Relief Area Is Not Allowed suggests B.

 

Would you like to reconsider your answer? 🙂

 

I believe the answer is A.

[sui generis]

35 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

Would you like to reconsider your answer? 🙂

 

I believe the answer is A.

 

I have reconsidered. The reference point for an embedded ball is right behind the pitch-mark, thus I haven't done anything to the relief area. However, I'm not sure that I haven't improved my line of play. I'll get back to you on that. 🙂

[Bushwood Country Club]

Can anyone explain why the answer is NOT C?

[sui generis]

12 minutes ago, Bushwood Country Club said:

Can anyone explain why the answer is NOT C?

 

In due course, we may find that Halebopp is on the money. But the logic may be tortured and won't be revealed for some weeks. 😀

[Halebopp]

I'm not particularly fond of the answer A but looking at rule 8.1, the only limitation for a ball to be dropped is concerned with the relief area and the Conditions Affecting the Stroke don't really exist before the drop. I could be completely wrong though.

[sui generis]

58 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

I'm not particularly fond of the answer A but looking at rule 8.1, the only limitation for a ball to be dropped is concerned with the relief area and the Conditions Affecting the Stroke don't really exist before the drop. I could be completely wrong though.

 

Or, I suspect that you could be completely right. It's reasonable to think that without a ball on the ground that CATS for lie, stance and swing don't exist. Line of play is the problem, isn't it? But, perhaps not.

 

We think, somewhat narrowly, that the relief area is a benign patch of ground from which we can advance the ball toward the hole. Maybe that's not a good assumption. Perhaps a ball dropped into and coming to rest in a certain relief area could only be played out sideways or even backwards. Thus, a repaired pitch-mark isn't on or near the line of play.

 

The tricksters at the MGA may be trying to convince us that without a ball on the ground CATS don't exist. And, they're reminding us that our pre-2019 notions about repairing pitch-marks from embedded balls no longer apply.

[antip]

Answer is A.

 

The MGA has borrowed this question from the USGA Short Course on the Rules, Rnd 1, Q16.

 

16) True or False: Your ball is embedded in its own pitch-mark in the fringe just off the putting green. After lifting the ball and before taking relief, you tap down the pitch-mark to care for the course and then realize the repair of the pitch-mark could help you if the ball came to rest in a position where you might have to play through it. The dropped ball hits and comes to rest in the relief area and you play a low running chip shot directly 

 over the repaired pitch-mark. You get the general penalty under Rule 8.1a for improving your conditions affecting the stroke.

(a) True
(b) False

CORRECT ANSWER: False

Explanation: Hole 16 is similar to Hole 12. When and why you repaired the pitch-mark are both critical factors. First, the pitch-mark was not part of the conditions affecting the stroke when you repaired it so Rule 8.1 doesn’t apply - it was not part of the relief area (see Rule 16.3a for how embedded ball relief works) and you did not yet have a line of play.

Additionally, Rule 8.2 would apply only to actions you took to deliberately affect where your ball might roll or to affect a future stroke, which wasn’t why you fixed it. No penalty and play on.

 

 

To take this a step further, providing the player's motivation includes caring for the course, there is no penalty even if the player intends to improve their intended line (per Rule 8.2).

 

[sui generis]

26 minutes ago, antip said:

Answer is A.

 

The MGA has borrowed this question from the USGA Short Course on the Rules, Rnd 1, Q16.

 

16) True or False: Your ball is embedded in its own pitch-mark in the fringe just off the putting green. After lifting the ball and before taking relief, you tap down the pitch-mark to care for the course and then realize the repair of the pitch-mark could help you if the ball came to rest in a position where you might have to play through it. The dropped ball hits and comes to rest in the relief area and you play a low running chip shot directly 

 over the repaired pitch-mark. You get the general penalty under Rule 8.1a for improving your conditions affecting the stroke.

(a) True
(b) False

CORRECT ANSWER: False

Explanation: Hole 16 is similar to Hole 12. When and why you repaired the pitch-mark are both critical factors. First, the pitch-mark was not part of the conditions affecting the stroke when you repaired it so Rule 8.1 doesn’t apply - it was not part of the relief area (see Rule 16.3a for how embedded ball relief works) and you did not yet have a line of play.

Additionally, Rule 8.2 would apply only to actions you took to deliberately affect where your ball might roll or to affect a future stroke, which wasn’t why you fixed it. No penalty and play on.

 

 

To take this a step further, providing the player's motivation includes caring for the course, there is no penalty even if the player intends to improve their intended line (per Rule 8.2).

 

 

As discussed previously, it's thought by some that if the player's ball is in hand, in this case, the concept of CATS isn't relevant. Thus, fix the pitch-mark without penalty, no matter the player's motivation. (No CATS = no line of play.)

 

Suppose, that the player, with ball in hand, knowing R8.1 and CATS is irrelevant without a ball on the ground, decides to walk forward and break off a branch between the relief area and the hole. Following the fix the pitch-mark logic this would be okay, also?

 

It's winter here . . . we've little else to do, but head down the rabbit hole. 😉

[antip]

16 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

As discussed previously, it's thought by some that if the player's ball is in hand, in this case, the concept of CATS isn't relevant. Thus, fix the pitch-mark without penalty, no matter the player's motivation. (No CATS = no line of play.)

 

Suppose, that the player, with ball in hand, knowing R8.1 and CATS is irrelevant without a ball on the ground, decides to walk forward and break off a branch between the relief area and the hole. Following the fix the pitch-mark logic this would be okay, also?

 

It's winter here . . . we've little else to do, but head down the rabbit hole. 😉

Well, the "some" have a problem, having the ball in hand does not change Rule 8.2.

 

The USGA has ruled that if you repair that embedded pitch mark on the fringe while your ball is lifted to take embedded relief, and your motivation is simply that you believe it will interfere with your intended putt, then you have breached 8.2.

 

And I suggest precisely the same outcome applies to that second scenario. 

[sui generis]

2 hours ago, antip said:

Well, the "some" have a problem, having the ball in hand does not change Rule 8.2.

 

The USGA has ruled that if you repair that embedded pitch mark on the fringe while your ball is lifted to take embedded relief, and your motivation is simply that you believe it will interfere with your intended putt, then you have breached 8.2.

 

And I suggest precisely the same outcome applies to that second scenario. 

 

Thanks, antip, we'll chew on 8.2 for awhile. 😉

[davep043]

On 2/15/2021 at 7:38 PM, sui generis said:

Suppose, that the player, with ball in hand, knowing R8.1 and CATS is irrelevant without a ball on the ground, decides to walk forward and break off a branch between the relief area and the hole. Following the fix the pitch-mark logic this would be okay, also?

I would bow to the greater knowledge of many here, but it seems to me that the branch in question would be close enough to the intended line of play from anywhere within the relief area that breaking the branch would violate 8.1.

[sui generis]

25 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I would bow to the greater knowledge of many here, but it seems to me that the branch in question would be close enough to the intended line of play from anywhere within the relief area that breaking the branch would violate 8.1.

 

Antip's suggestion that 8.2 is relevant is where I headed next.

[TerpFangolfer]

Ok, my 1st response was C, but yes I guess A if its "care for course"

[Mr. Bean]

On 2/16/2021 at 1:56 AM, antip said:

Answer is A.

 

The MGA has borrowed this question from the USGA Short Course on the Rules, Rnd 1, Q16.

 

16) True or False: Your ball is embedded in its own pitch-mark in the fringe just off the putting green. After lifting the ball and before taking relief, you tap down the pitch-mark to care for the course and then realize the repair of the pitch-mark could help you if the ball came to rest in a position where you might have to play through it. The dropped ball hits and comes to rest in the relief area and you play a low running chip shot directly 

 over the repaired pitch-mark. You get the general penalty under Rule 8.1a for improving your conditions affecting the stroke.

(a) True
(b) False

CORRECT ANSWER: False

Explanation: Hole 16 is similar to Hole 12. When and why you repaired the pitch-mark are both critical factors. First, the pitch-mark was not part of the conditions affecting the stroke when you repaired it so Rule 8.1 doesn’t apply - it was not part of the relief area (see Rule 16.3a for how embedded ball relief works) and you did not yet have a line of play.

Additionally, Rule 8.2 would apply only to actions you took to deliberately affect where your ball might roll or to affect a future stroke, which wasn’t why you fixed it. No penalty and play on.

 

 

To take this a step further, providing the player's motivation includes caring for the course, there is no penalty even if the player intends to improve their intended line (per Rule 8.2).

 

 

The answer of that Short Course is a bit deficient as the repaired pitch-mark just MIGHT be part of the CATS depending on where the dropped ball ends up.

 

This is a perfect example why Rules of Golf are considered difficult to understand. If you break a branch and then decide to make a stoke from elsewhere you are penalized. But once you repair a pitch-mark that MIGHT give you an advantage there is no penalty even though it COULD give you an advantage.

 

There is a LOT of work in the Rules to make them truly credible.

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[antip]

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

The answer of that Short Course is a bit deficient as the repaired pitch-mark just MIGHT be part of the CATS depending on where the dropped ball ends up.

 

This is a perfect example why Rules of Golf are considered difficult to understand. If you break a branch and then decide to make a stoke from elsewhere you are penalized. But once you repair a pitch-mark that MIGHT give you an advantage there is no penalty even though it COULD give you an advantage.

 

There is a LOT of work in the Rules to make them truly credible.

 

The complexity is a result of different policy objectives sitting behind a rule. The want to penalize bad behaviour but they want to encourage/not penalize caring for the course. This leads us to the combination we currently have in 8.2 and 8.3; just bad behaviour (eg improving your line) gets you penalty but bad behaviour combined with good behaviour gets you no penalty.

So you may not like it, but there is a clear line drawn on that issue so it is not deficient IMO.

But things become yet more complicated when you combine this with a player that is making a 16.4 lift/exploration of whether the ball is in a relief situation and what that means for whether you can repair that embedded mark and RBs do not currently have answers to questions I have pitched in that space.

[Mr. Bean]

On 2/23/2021 at 3:26 AM, antip said:

The complexity is a result of different policy objectives sitting behind a rule. The want to penalize bad behaviour but they want to encourage/not penalize caring for the course. This leads us to the combination we currently have in 8.2 and 8.3; just bad behaviour (eg improving your line) gets you penalty but bad behaviour combined with good behaviour gets you no penalty.

 

 

Even that principle is far from flawless. If you do something for the care of the course but at the same time you improve your CATS for the next stroke you are penalized. Or not. And that makes the Rules very complicated as it all comes down to the intent of the player, and in some cases even beyond that.

[Newby]

#4 A Rule 8.1, Rule 16.3b