MGA Question 3

[Newby]

3. In a stroke play event, on a Par 4 hole, a player’s tee shot comes to rest in an unplayable spot in an area that the player believes should have been marked as ground under repair. The player takes relief into an area that could be permissible for either ground under repair relief or unplayable ball relief. The next shot heads towards out of bounds so the player hits a provisional. Before reaching the area where it is likely the ball went OB, the player hits the provisional again and the ball goes into the hole. At that point, the player chooses not to look for his original ball. The Committee rules that the original ball was in ground under repair after the tee shot.

The score on the hole is:

A. 4

B. 5

C. 6

D. 7

[antip]

Exceedingly ugly question, insufficient information. Toss it in the bin.

[Halebopp]

B. 5

[TerpFangolfer]

On 2/17/2021 at 1:44 AM, antip said:

Exceedingly ugly question, insufficient information. Toss it in the bin.

Agree totally...why (and when!) did the committee "rule"? He didn't play 2 balls, or ask as far as the question states. But assuming he did get that ruling then yes, I got B as well. 

[Colin L]

7 hours ago, TerpFangolfer said:

Agree totally...why (and when!) did the committee "rule"? He didn't play 2 balls, or ask as far as the question states. But assuming he did get that ruling then yes, I got B as well. 

 

He didn't have to play two balls when the relief areas for the two different situations coincided; one was enough.    But we're left to infer that he must have decided to proceed under Rule 20.1c(3) and, as required,  reported to the Committee for a ruling.  Well constructed  quiz questions don't work by leaving us to fill in gaps in the description of what happened.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Colin L

[Sawgrass]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

 

He didn't have to play two balls when the relief areas for the two different situations coincided; one was enough.    But we're left to infer that he must have decided to proceed under Rule 20.1c(3) and, as required,  reported to the Committee for a ruling.  Well constructed  quiz questions don't work by leaving us to fill in gaps in the description of what happened.

 

 

IMO 20.1c(3) is not applicable.  See:
 

20.1c(3)/7 – Player Allowed to Play One Ball Under Two Different Rules

 

 

[antip]

4 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

IMO 20.1c(3) is not applicable.  See:
 

20.1c(3)/7 – Player Allowed to Play One Ball Under Two Different Rules

 

 

Why do you see 20.1c(3)/7 as ruling out 20.1c(3)'s possible application to this scenario?

[Colin L]

4 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

IMO 20.1c(3) is not applicable.  See:
 

20.1c(3)/7 – Player Allowed to Play One Ball Under Two Different Rules

 

 

 

It's somewhat startling to have the very Interpretation on which I based the statement that playing one ball was sufficient cited as the reason why playing one ball to cover the two relief situations was not permissible. 😃   

 

The situation in Q3 is so similar - pretty well identical in fact -  to the illustrative one used in 20.1c(3)/7  that I assumed the question was set to test knowledge of that interpretation.   

[Sawgrass]

19 minutes ago, antip said:

Why do you see 20.1c(3)/7 as ruling out 20.1c(3)'s possible application to this scenario?

Quite simply, a second ball was not played under 20.1c(3).

[antip]

Just now, Sawgrass said:

Quite simply, a second ball was not played under 20.1c(3).

Doesn't 20.1c(3)/7 affirm a special case where a second ball does not need to be played for 20.1c(3) to apply?

[Sawgrass]

2 minutes ago, Colin L said:

 

It's somewhat startling to have the very Interpretation on which I based the statement that playing one ball was sufficient cited as the reason why playing one ball to cover the two relief situations was not permissible. 😃   

 

The situation in Q3 is so similar - pretty well identical in fact -  to the illustrative one used in 20.1c(3)/7  that I assumed the question was set to test knowledge of that interpretation.   

It was your earlier statement, “But we're left to infer that he must have decided to proceed under Rule 20.1c(3)” to which I was responding.  I don’t see how such an inference is required.

[Sawgrass]

My larger point is that I don’t see a gap in the facts stated in the question which prevents a ruling.

[Newby]

#3 B Interpretation 20.1c(3)/7, Rule 18.2, Rule 18.3, Rule 16.1