MGA Question 19

[Newby]

19. In stroke play, a player reaches a short Par 3 with an elevated green and a deep bunker fronting the green. The player’s tee shot lands in the bunker but it can not be seen from the tee. Upon reaching the bunker, the player is unable to spot his ball but after a brief search finds a ball buried in the bottom of the bunker. The player makes a stroke at the ball which plugs into the sandy face of the bunker two yards in front of the player. The player decides the next stroke is unplayable and lifts the ball from the sand intending to take relief. The player’s caddie begins raking the player’s footprints from the previous stroke to care for the golf course and dislodges another ball buried beneath the surface of the sand. The ball dislodged by the caddie’s actions is discovered to be the player’s original ball. The player disregards the ball played from the bunker prior to finding the original and returns to the tee to take stroke-and-distance relief rather than recreate the buried lie in the bunker. The player correctly takes stroke-and-distance relief and plays a stroke from the teeing area onto the green. The player walks to the green and sees that there is a puddle on the line of play to the hole. The ball is marked and lifted. A new ball is substituted as the player tries taking relief by placing the ball on the nearest point of complete relief from the puddle on the green. However, the ball will not stay at rest on this point due to the sharp undulation of the green after two attempts. When the player is finally able to find a spot where the ball stays at rest the putt is now twice as long compared to the original position. The player holes out with two putts.

What is the score for the hole?

A. 7

B. 8

C. 9

D. 10

[Halebopp]

Sounds like A. 7 to me.

[TerpFangolfer]

I got A...GP for wrong ball, then proceeds correctly for rest of hole = 7

[antip]

I suggest penalties for wrong ball, accidental movement of ball in play not in search and S&D, total 4 penalties plus 4 talent strokes, B.

[Halebopp]

3 hours ago, antip said:

I suggest penalties for wrong ball, accidental movement of ball in play not in search and S&D, total 4 penalties plus 4 talent strokes, B.

 

Quite right, the ball was moved rather than merely found when raking.

[limegreengent]

Guys

As the raking of the bunker 

(I) moved the ball and 

(2) improved the CAS (8.1)

before the player decided to play from outside the bunker - why have you both discounted the consequences of (2)?

 

Or is it your opinion that no improvement is affirmed in the text of the question,? 

[antip]

35 minutes ago, limegreengent said:

Guys

As the raking of the bunker 

(I) moved the ball and 

(2) improved the CAS (8.1)

before the player decided to play from outside the bunker - why have you both discounted the consequences of (2)?

 

Or is it your opinion that no improvement is affirmed in the text of the question,? 

I reflected on that issue, but concluded against adding extra penalty because a) we don't actually know/have information that the raking improved the CATS (we only know for sure that the movement/action of the caddie caused the original ball to move) and b) the player would, in any event, have had to re-create the original lie if the ball was played again from the original position it was moved from.   

[limegreengent]

8 hours ago, antip said:

I reflected on that issue, but concluded against adding extra penalty because a) we don't actually know/have information that the raking improved the CATS (we only know for sure that the movement/action of the caddie caused the original ball to move) and b) the player would, in any event, have had to re-create the original lie if the ball was played again from the original position it was moved from.   

 

Thank You for sharing your thoughts.

My additional thoughts:

If the raking of the foot prints did indeed fall foul of 8.1- the movement of the ball would not be penalised- Related acts-  Higher penalty breach takes precedence.

Your comments re lie appear  to be too specific- which I mean to say- Would it not be reasonable to conclude that the raking of foot prints uncovering the ball- would surely have  been deemed to have improved either his stance or line of play or line of swing - even if we ignore lie.

The decision by the player to take stroke and distance also means that replacement of the ball need not be considered.

 

Do we agree that caring for the course is not a get out of jail card for 8.1 or 9.4 

 

 

 

I doubt that the MGA answer to this question will   provide the necessary clarity for all of the 

Issues raised.🤔🤔

 

[antip]

2 hours ago, limegreengent said:

 

Thank You for sharing your thoughts.

My additional thoughts:

If the raking of the foot prints did indeed fall foul of 8.1- the movement of the ball would not be penalised- Related acts-  Higher penalty breach takes precedence.

Your comments re lie appear  to be too specific- which I mean to say- Would it not be reasonable to conclude that the raking of foot prints uncovering the ball- would surely have  been deemed to have improved either his stance or line of play or line of swing - even if we ignore lie.

The decision by the player to take stroke and distance also means that replacement of the ball need not be considered.

 

Do we agree that caring for the course is not a get out of jail card for 8.1 or 9.4 

 

 

 

I doubt that the MGA answer to this question will   provide the necessary clarity for all of the 

Issues raised.🤔🤔

 

This question is one of the worst this year in terms of lack of clear information for decision making. There is no information on the sequencing, assumptions must be made in places. For example, it is entirely possible that the movement of the original ball occurred during the original search and before finding and proceeding with the wrong ball. And there is no information on exactly what the caddie "improved" (if anything) beyond telling us that the original ball was moved. So none of this is worth losing any sleep over and I could not give two figs what the MGA believes the answer to be, not least because they hide behind a shallow listing of unexplained rule references and provide none of the essential information that explains which of their obfuscation they consider unimportant and which of their obfuscation they consider relevant.

 

Happily, some of the other questions are much more useful in a rules awareness building sense.

 

I agree if there is an 8.1 breach it would be relevant to the penalties and 'caring for the course' is not a hospital pass.

 

 

[Sawgrass]

1 hour ago, antip said:

 For example, it is entirely possible that the movement of the original ball occurred during the original search and before finding and proceeding with the wrong ball.
 

 

 

 

 

“The player’s caddie begins raking the player’s footprints from the previous stroke to care for the golf course and dislodges another ball buried beneath the surfaceof the sand.”

 

IMO your criticisms are way out of hand.

[TerpFangolfer]

I do agree with antip regarding what MGA does when they come out with the "answers". Drives me crazy too when they just list 2 rules & an Interp. with no narrative or explanation behind it...guess they feel its part of the "challenge " to figure out their references. Will wait and see if they do anything different this year.

[antip]

2 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

“The player’s caddie begins raking the player’s footprints from the previous stroke to care for the golf course and dislodges another ball buried beneath the surfaceof the sand.”

 

IMO your criticisms are way out of hand.

Then we can agree to differ. I make no apology for finding the MGA quiz to be a mix of questions covering the gamut of excellent to sometimes the total opposite. But I'm happy to hear your views on what is going on in questions like this, when you are moved to express a view.

[antip]

1 hour ago, TerpFangolfer said:

I do agree with antip regarding what MGA does when they come out with the "answers". Drives me crazy too when they just list 2 rules & an Interp. with no narrative or explanation behind it...guess they feel its part of the "challenge " to figure out their references. Will wait and see if they do anything different this year.

It doesn't 'drive me crazy', just disappoints that they fail to offer the participants a full explanation, that they don't maximise the learning opportunities for the widest possible audience. In the absence of sufficient explanation and self examination it risks coming across as elitist and putting many off engaging.

I appreciate the significant effort by many that goes into to preparing and publishing the quiz but think it fails to capitalise on those efforts. 

[limegreengent]

Thanks Guys for your input.

My tenuous answer is also B 8.

No Awareness. No Intended Stroke. Not Foreseeable.

No 8.1 breach.🤔

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sawgrass]

9 hours ago, antip said:

Then we can agree to differ. I make no apology for finding the MGA quiz to be a mix of questions covering the gamut of excellent to sometimes the total opposite. But I'm happy to hear your views on what is going on in questions like this, when you are moved to express a view.

I hoped my "view" was communicated in that the sentence I quoted from the OP clarified one of the issues you raised about overall clarity.  Raking the footprints from the previous stroke could only come after the previous stroke in the sand was made.

[antip]

10 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

I hoped my "view" was communicated in that the sentence I quoted from the OP clarified one of the issues you raised about overall clarity.  Raking the footprints from the previous stroke could only come after the previous stroke in the sand was made.

I don't believe the sentence you identify "clarifies" precisely when the original ball was first moved.

[Mr. Bean]

On 2/21/2021 at 2:46 PM, antip said:

I reflected on that issue, but concluded against adding extra penalty because a) we don't actually know/have information that the raking improved the CATS (we only know for sure that the movement/action of the caddie caused the original ball to move) and b) the player would, in any event, have had to re-create the original lie if the ball was played again from the original position it was moved from.   

 

My problem with this question is that we do not know if the player had decided not to continue from the bunker before or after the caddie raked the bunker. Just referring to care for the course is far from enough information to make a correct ruling.

[Newby]

#19 C Rule 6.3c(1), Rule 12.2b(2), Rule 18.1, Int. 18.1/2, Rule 9.4b, Int. 9.4b/2, Rule 1.3c(4), Rule 8.1a