MGA Question 22

[Newby]

22. In a stroke play competition, a player’s tee shot comes to rest in a small bush in a dry penalty area. The ball is found but it is impossible to reach with a club due to the bush. The player is then relieved to see that a nearby section of the penalty area is marked as a no play zone, and that if a stance is taken for a shot from the bush, the player’s feet would be inside the no play zone. The player moves back to the nearest point of complete relief from the no play zone and drops a ball in the penalty area within one club-length but no closer to the hole. The next stroke comes to rest out of bounds. Frustrated with the penalty area, the player decides to drop a ball outside of the penalty area using the point where the original tee shot last crossed the edge as the reference point. The player drops correctly, plays a stroke onto the green and two putts. Confident in his actions, the player later returns the scorecard to the Committee without discussion.

What should the score have been for the hole?

A. 6

B. 7

C. 8

D. Disqualification

[antip]

B. 7

[TerpFangolfer]

I got B

Spoiler

But debated D for a bit (for not reporting playing from wrong place). But ultimately when he finally took penalty relief he ended up in the right place.

 

[limegreengent]

Another poorly presented question with a total absence of all the facts necessary to come to the correct answer.

 

The most likely answer is 

D disqualification .

although a score of 9 is equally possible.

IMO 7 is a non runner.

 

 

[Halebopp]

I'm debating between 7 and 9.

 

Spoiler

1 tee shot, 2&3 serious breach of Wrong Place with NPZ relief, 4 relief from the PA, 5 onto the green, 6&7 putts.

 

1 tee shot, 2 relief from the PA (in wrong place, not a serious breach in relation to the actual relief area), 3 stroke, 4&5 penalties for Wrong Place, 6 S&D, 7 onto the green, 8&9 putts.

 

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, Halebopp said:

I'm debating between 7 and 9.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

1 tee shot, 2&3 serious breach of Wrong Place with NPZ relief, 4 relief from the PA, 5 onto the green, 6&7 putts.

 

1 tee shot, 2 relief from the PA (in wrong place, not a serious breach in relation to the actual relief area), 3 stroke, 4&5 penalties for Wrong Place, 6 S&D, 7 onto the green, 8&9 putts.

 

Tell me how you get nine?  I don't think there is free relief from the NPZ in this case, which means the initial drop into the PA was PA relief at a wrong place.

[Halebopp]

7 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Tell me how you get nine?  I don't think there is free relief from the NPZ in this case, which means the initial drop into the PA was PA relief at a wrong place.

 

Your line of thinking landed me at 9 strokes, check the hidden part of my comment. I agree, there's no free relief from the NPZ in this case.

 

I got 7 when I compared the illegal relief inside the PA to the ball's original position, which would be a serious breach of Wrong Place.

[limegreengent]

Correct Rogulf 

10

or disqualification

Miscounted 😘😘

not mis-logic?

 

 

NB Hale bopp

Spoiler

PLAYING FROM OUTSIDE PEN AREA AFTER GOING OB COSTS 2 Not 1

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by limegreengent
Clarity

[Halebopp]

1 hour ago, limegreengent said:

Correct Rogulf 

10

or disqualification

Miscounted 😘😘

not mis-logic?

 

 

NB Hale bopp

  Reveal hidden contents

PLAYING FROM OUTSIDE PEN AREA AFTER GOING OB COSTS 2 Not 1

 

 

Yes, relief from the PA and the S&D, strokes 2 and 6 in my calculation.

 

But yeah, now I got it, in this very peculiar situation the player would need to take penalty relief from the PA twice since the S&D relief area is in the PA. What a mistake-a to make-a (by the player that is).

[Mr. Bean]

I counted 9 and am waiting for the sorry excuse for an explanation from MGA...

Edited February 22, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

6 hours ago, antip said:

B. 7

 

Would you care to count the strokes in order for us to understand how you came to that number? 

[Mr. Bean]

4 hours ago, Halebopp said:

I'm debating between 7 and 9.

 

  Hide contents

1 tee shot, 2&3 serious breach of Wrong Place with NPZ relief, 4 relief from the PA, 5 onto the green, 6&7 putts.

 

1 tee shot, 2 relief from the PA (in wrong place, not a serious breach in relation to the actual relief area), 3 stroke, 4&5 penalties for Wrong Place, 6 S&D, 7 onto the green, 8&9 putts.

 

 

That 9 is exactly my line of thinking. I cannot understand how the player could get away from playing from a wrong place.

[Halebopp]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

That 9 is exactly my line of thinking. I cannot understand how the player could get away from playing from a wrong place.

 

Like noted above, that 9 really should be 10. If the Wrong Place wasn't a serious breach, the relief area for the S&D is still inside the penalty area. Therefore taking relief from it for any subsequent shot would result in a second penalty relief as we have a completely new situation with the ball in play inside the PA (if we didn't skip the S&D drop inside the PA) and the original relief from the PA is now irrelevant.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Halebopp

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, Halebopp said:

 

Like noted above, that 9 really should be 10. If the Wrong Place wasn't a serious breach, the relief area for the S&D is still inside the penalty area. Therefore taking relief from it for any subsequent shot would result in a second penalty relief as we have a completely new situation with the ball in play inside the PA (if we didn't skip the S&D drop inside the PA) and the original relief from the PA is now irrelevant.

 

So... the player gets the penalty for relief from a PA twice, is that it?

 

Wow... that is not what I read from the Rules...

 

But then again, there are many things in the Rules that can be construed in too many ways.

 

EDIT: How come MGA did not follow that line of thinking..? 🧐

Edited February 22, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[Halebopp]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So... the player gets the penalty for relief from a PA twice, is that it?

 

Wow... that is not what I read from the Rules...

 

Yes because he took relief from the Penalty Area twice. The first time when he failed to actually drop the ball outside of the PA. But certainly that failure doesn't relieve him/her of the penalty.

 

But because it wasn't a serious breach of playing from a wrong place, the place is regarded as "acceptable" with the two-stroke penalty. Then the player hits the ball OB. And since the ball was played from the PA, the relief area for S&D is inside the PA. And now we have a completely new situation. The ball is inside the PA completely legitimately and the only way to get it out of there is by playing it or taking relief outside of it and adding another penalty stroke to the score.

 

Unless the original drop away from the NPZ is compared to the lie in the bush and the stroke that sent the ball OB is a serious breach, in which case the relief outside of the PA corrects the mistake and we end up with a score of 7.

[Mr. Bean]

6 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

Yes because he took relief from the Penalty Area twice. The first time when he failed to actually drop the ball outside of the PA. But certainly that failure doesn't relieve him/her of the penalty.

 

But because it wasn't a serious breach of playing from a wrong place, the place is regarded as "acceptable" with the two-stroke penalty. Then the player hits the ball OB. And since the ball was played from the PA, the relief area for S&D is inside the PA. And now we have a completely new situation. The ball is inside the PA completely legitimately and the only way to get it out of there is by playing it or taking relief outside of it and adding another penalty stroke to the score.

 

Unless the original drop away from the NPZ is compared to the lie in the bush and the stroke that sent the ball OB is a serious breach, in which case the relief outside of the PA corrects the mistake and we end up with a score of 7.

 

2nd paragraph makes sense, thank you. But the 3rd makes no sense as we have no clue what kind of advantage the player might have got. The original text made no indication towards SB. 

 

In the end, we are here discussing which of the answers NOT included in the options of the Quiz is correct. Nice quiz.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[antip]

My accounting is like this:

a. One stroke into PA

b. There is no relief from the NPZ (17.1e(2))

c. Player has then played from a wrong place and it is serious breach (ball was impossible to reach with club), so player gets the general penalty (2SP), but the stroke does not count and any penalty solely incurred in playing that ball (the additional 17.1 penalty referred to on p.429 and the OOB penalty) therefore does not count

d. Player then takes 17.1d correctly for 1SP (it is not a 17.2 issue because the stroke from the PA did not count) and makes 3 strokes to get ball into hole

 

Total 4 (counting) talent strokes and 3 penalties.

 

I believe this is an excellent question because all the facts of the case are laid out very clearly, even though applying the rules here is diabolical - but that is a rules issue, not a question issue.

 

It goes without saying there are no rulings in such a complicated space - particularly aspects of what I have included in c. above.

 

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, antip said:

My accounting is like this:

a. One stroke into PA

b. There is no relief from the NPZ (17.1e(2))

c. Player has then played from a wrong place and it is serious breach (ball was impossible to reach with club), so player gets the general penalty (2SP), but the stroke does not count and any penalty solely incurred in playing that ball (the additional 17.1 penalty referred to on p.429 and the OOB penalty) therefore does not count

d. Player then takes 17.1d correctly for 1SP (it is not a 17.2 issue because the stroke from the PA did not count) and makes 3 strokes to get ball into hole

 

Total 4 (counting) talent strokes and 3 penalties.

 

I believe this is an excellent question because all the facts of the case are laid out very clearly, even though applying the rules here is diabolical - but that is a rules issue, not a question issue.

 

It goes without saying there are no rulings in such a complicated space - particularly aspects of what I have included in c. above.

 

So, the player took relief under an inapplicable Rule?  If so, the Committee needs to determine the Rule to apply based on the player's actions.  Which Rule(s) would the Committee determine to be applicable in this situation?  Isn't it similar to 6C(9) second bullet in the Official Guide?

Edited February 23, 2021 by rogolf

[antip]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

So, the player took relief under an inapplicable Rule?  If so, the Committee needs to determine the Rule to apply based on the player's actions.  Which Rule(s) would the Committee determine to be applicable in this situation?  Isn't it similar to 6C(9) second bullet in the Official Guide?

Yes, but 14.7 serious breach words appear to override the penalty in this special case. That is, Rule 14.7 and Cttee Proc 6C(9) directly contradict each other. 

One for RBs to decide.

IMO, an excellent question. 

[rogolf]

12 minutes ago, antip said:

Yes, but 14.7 serious breach words appear to override the penalty in this special case. That is, Rule 14.7 and Cttee Proc 6C(9) directly contradict each other. 

One for RBs to decide.

IMO, an excellent question. 

Help me out here.  What is the serious breach if the Committee applies Rule 17.1d - penalty relief but in a wrong place?

[Halebopp]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

Help me out here.  What is the serious breach if the Committee applies Rule 17.1d - penalty relief but in a wrong place?

 

In that case there isn't one, most probably. It's hard to imagine things being that much better inside the PA than in the proper relief area outside of it. Unless the relief area is much further away from the hole than where the NPZ relief was taken.

[antip]

3 hours ago, rogolf said:

Help me out here.  What is the serious breach if the Committee applies Rule 17.1d - penalty relief but in a wrong place?

I'm assessing the difference between where the ball lay and where the player played from.  I don't see any examples in the rules or interpretations that decide serious breach by comparing where a ball was played from with where the ball could have been played from if some form of penalty relief had been employed. 

 

[limegreengent]

11 hours ago, antip said:

My accounting is like this:

a. One stroke into PA

b. There is no relief from the NPZ (17.1e(2))

c. Player has then played from a wrong place and it is serious breach (ball was impossible to reach with club), so player gets the general penalty (2SP), but the stroke does not count and any penalty solely incurred in playing that ball (the additional 17.1 penalty referred to on p.429 and the OOB penalty) therefore does not count

d. Player then takes 17.1d correctly for 1SP (it is not a 17.2 issue because the stroke from the PA did not count) and makes 3 strokes to get ball into hole

 

Total 4 (counting) talent strokes and 3 penalties.

 

 

 

 

Respectfully I do not agree with your summary above.

 

(b) There is relief from the NPZ in this scenario. It is mandatory under penalty of one stroke. 

 

(c) In order to assess a spot as  a wrong place  - there must be a right place. 

The right place cannot be the bush.To have played a stroke at the ball in this spot, standing in the NPZ, would be playing from a wrong place.

 

 

Playing from any of the options under 17.1d would be "the right place'"

 

 

One can work out why the questioner provided options

6 ,7,8 strokes.

 6 and 8 mainly involves miscounting whilst 7 involves either free relief or serious breach considerations.

 

7 strokes.

1.We know that free relief is unavailable .

2.We also know that the player must report to the  Committee  when a serious breach is corrected.

He did not do so.

 

Both of these statements  means  that 7 must be incorrect.

 

I.M.O  I still believe that the question lacks the necessary facts to distinguish between 

10 strokes or Disqualification.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by limegreengent

[TerpFangolfer]

1 hour ago, limegreengent said:

 

Respectfully I do not agree with your summary above.

 

(b) There is relief from the NPZ in this scenario. It is mandatory under penalty of one stroke. 

 

(c) In order to assess a spot as  a wrong place  - there must be a right place. 

The right place cannot be the bush.To have played a stroke at the ball in this spot, standing in the NPZ, would be playing from a wrong place.

 

 

Playing from any of the options under 17.1d would be "the right place'"

 

 

One can work out why the questioner provided options

6 ,7,8 strokes.

 6 and 8 mainly involves miscounting whilst 7 involves either free relief or serious breach considerations.

 

7 strokes.

1.We know that free relief is unavailable .

2.We also know that the player must report to the  Committee  when a serious breach is corrected.

He did not do so.

 

Both of these statements  means  that 7 must be incorrect.

 

I.M.O  I still believe that the question lacks the necessary facts to distinguish between 

10 strokes or Disqualification.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My interpretation for the NPZ is no relief because it is unreasonable- the question states it's "impossible" to reach the ball in the bush with a club....so he can't get relief for the npz. Then as antip stated the subsequent drop out of the PA corrects the wrong place.

Edited February 23, 2021 by TerpFangolfer

[Sawgrass]

1 hour ago, limegreengent said:

 

 

(c) In order to assess a spot as  a wrong place  - there must be a right place. 

The right place cannot be the bush.To have played a stroke at the ball in this spot, standing in the NPZ, would be playing from a wrong place.

 

 

Playing from any of the options under 17.1d would be "the right place'"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I question that your assertion that the bush could not be a "right place."  I don't believe the right place is defined by your chosen stance.

[Imp]

3 hours ago, limegreengent said:

 

Respectfully I do not agree with your summary above.

 

(b) There is relief from the NPZ in this scenario. It is mandatory under penalty of one stroke. 

 

17.e.2: "But there is no free relief from interference by the no play zone under (2): When playing the ball as it lies would be clearly unreasonable because of something other than the no play zone (for example, when a player is unable to make a stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush)"

The rules even call out that if the ball is in the bush that is in the PA, and not in the NPZ, and cannot make a swing, you don't get 1SP/relief from the NPZ.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Imp

[rogolf]

If the player had decided his actions constituted a serious breach and was correcting that serious breach, he would be dq'd for not reporting that to the Committee, as per 14.7b(2).

[limegreengent]

" Set the Cat amongst the Pigeons😂😁

 

Terpfangolfer / Imp

Please read my remarks again together with 17.1e(2) - 

First Bullet point.

 I never said free relief.

 I said Mandatory relief under penalty.

I believe Everyone who has been following this thread realises that Free Relief is not available.🤗🤗

 

Sawgrass 

I take your point and agree that

'Stance alone" is not the "sole' determining factor and did not intend as such.

Any interference to a stroke by a NPZ would be relevant.

 

As part of the focus of the question was concerned with stance  - I was only illustrating that this type of interference automatically made the  the ball  '" position a wrong place''

 

"A place from where a stroke is not allowed ."

 

Pretend the Bush was not there.   It would still be a place where a stroke is not allowed.

 

Of course the practicality of playing the stroke ( by the presence of the Bush ) raises the additional questions fundamental to free relief or not.

 

My view is unaltered.

Whether there is a serious Breach would depend on facts unknown to us

A Comparison of where the stroke was played after incorrectly taking relief ( wrong place) and where the player was allowed to drop to satisfy 17.1d ( right place)🤔

 

 

 

[Imp]

12 minutes ago, limegreengent said:

" Set the Cat amongst the Pigeons😂😁

 

Terpfangolfer / Imp

Please read my remarks again together with 17.1e(2) - 

First Bullet point.

 I never said free relief.

 I said Mandatory relief under penalty.

I believe Everyone who has been following this thread realises that Free Relief is not available.🤗🤗

Please quote where either of us mentioned "free" either... I even went as far as saying "1SP". I simply quoted the rule agreeing with you that it's not free relief, (so 2 places in my post saying it's not free) but that wasn't why I quoted it, it was the 'bush" part. You're skimming stuff and doing yourself a disservice.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Imp

[limegreengent]

Imp

When your response to my posting begins with a word for word statement of why free relief is not available - I think that it was not unreasonable for me to interpret the remarks as I did.

To save duplication I also  addressed my opening remarks to Terpfangolfer to re-iterate that penalty relief under 17.1d was available in this scenario.

 

Let's not get in a huff over this.

There has probably been some mis comprehension by all of us.

It's not only the rules authorities who do not explain things clearly and consider the " Big Bucks"

supporting them.

 

What do you think is the correct answer to this question? 🤔🤔

Edited February 23, 2021 by limegreengent
Clarity I hope?