MGA Question 22

[Sawgrass]

1 hour 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.🤗🤗

 

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)🤔

 

 

 

In my view the bush prevents free relief, yet is a “right place” irrespective of stance. If you’re up against an ob fence, that doesn’t preclude your being in a right place — same with being near a NPZ. Anyway, one could always shorten the distance one chooses to stand from the ball, play in a different direction, or swing opposite-handed to avoid the NPZ. 

[rogolf]

Imo, any conclusion that there is a serious breach in this situation only leads to one answer - D, disqualification.

A serious breach would not be part of A, B or C, since he failed to notify the Committee.

[Imp]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

Imo, any conclusion that there is a serious breach in this situation only leads to one answer - D, disqualification.

A serious breach would not be part of A, B or C, since he failed to notify the Committee.

And that's where I was leaning, but ... how will the committee know if it was a serious breach, if the player didn't mention anything, and the question mentions nothing of the FCs/marker saying anything either (lot's of "what ifs" that go unanswered in 22)?

I'm relying on 20.1.C, in that the player didn't discuss with FCs what he was doing (not mentioned in the question at least), being 'sure of themselves', and in not doing so, I believe would constitute a serious breach there. While the player "thought it was easy" they proceeded wrongly... Discussing with FCs should/could have been done in the least and if there was indecision on the rules between the player and FCs in the correct spot to play the ball, the player would have been covered playing 2 balls from the different spots in the least, and then gone to committee. Not doing any of that, should be a DQ.

 

[rogolf]

5 minutes ago, Imp said:

And that's where I was leaning, but ... how will the committee know if it was a serious breach, if the player didn't mention anything, and the question mentions nothing of the FCs/marker saying anything either (lot's of "what ifs" that go unanswered in 22)?

I'm relying on 20.1.C, in that the player didn't discuss with FCs what he was doing (not mentioned in the question at least), being 'sure of themselves', and in not doing so, I believe would constitute a serious breach there. While the player "thought it was easy" they proceeded wrongly... Discussing with FCs should/could have been done in the least and if there was indecision on the rules between the player and FCs in the correct spot to play the ball, the player would have been covered playing 2 balls from the different spots in the least, and then gone to committee. Not doing any of that, should be a DQ.

 

Read 14.7b(2) and note the second bullet.

[Imp]

2 hours ago, rogolf said:

Read 14.7b(2) and note the second bullet.

Yep. DQ.

[antip]

The question is what should the score for the hole have been. It is not how should the Committee rule. DQ (outside stableford etc) is not a score for the hole.

[rogolf]

What should the score have been is really an irrelevant question, the result is DQ.

But I don't put it past the MGA to be asking that type of misleading question!

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by rogolf

[limegreengent]

23 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

In my view the bush prevents free relief, yet is a “right place” irrespective of stance. If you’re up against an ob fence, that doesn’t preclude your being in a right place — same with being near a NPZ. Anyway, one could always shorten the distance one chooses to stand from the ball, play in a different direction, or swing opposite-handed to avoid the NPZ. 

Thank you Sawgrass

I welcome your contrary viewpoint- It's good to test the old grey cells in this Lockdown period. 😁 

 

Let me try to state my understanding of the context of Wrong v Right  Place in this scenario and how it impacts on your scenarios above.

Establishing the applicable rule is vital in coming to your decision as well as where a stroke is made.

 

Your OB Fence.

 Applicable Rule 

9.1

Consequently if you move or lift it when not permitted then it must be replaced.

The original spot is the right place in this example.

Any other spot where a stroke is" MADE' is the wrong place.

The reason 

'" Because this rule 9.1 does not require or allow the player to play from another spot.

(Applicable rule)

 

Now before moving to our scenario let's look at a comparable situation -easier to follow.

 

Wrong Green.

Ball laying on green.

Applicable Rule 13.1f

This rule prohibits play of the ball and the ball MUST be played from a spot permitted by the rules.

The Applicable Rule.

 

Consequently any other spot where a stroke is MADE is a wrong place including the spot on the green.

The reason because 13.1f Is the Applicable Rule and spot cannot be on the green.

 

Now apply these principles to the scenario under discussion.

 

NPZ/ Penalty Area.

The Applicable Rule is 17.1d 

( First bullet point of 17.1e(2).

 

The application of this rule in these circumstances requires that the ball shall be played outside of this penalty area under any of the options applicable.

 

All of these spots are Right Places if a stroke is made from them. All other spots are Wrong Places if a stroke is made from them including any spots inside the Penalty Area including the Original spot in the Bush.

 

Thereto - When Comparing 

Wrong Place and Right Place You use as the Wrong Place any spot in the Penalty Area where a stroke is made and the Right Place is any of your permitted options.

The Bush in the Penalty Area is not a Right Place and cannot be used as such for Serious Breach Considerations when 17.1d is the Applicable Rule.

 

This is my viewpoint.

😀😁😂

 

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by limegreengent

[kjelllkri]

I count 9 strokes
==================

1 TS from the tee

1 PS R17.1 - The applicable rule for the drop from the NPZ is R17.1

2 PS He should have dropped outside the PA. Wrong place. Not serious.

1 TS to OOB

1 PS R17.2b

1 TSs to green
2 putts
 

[Halebopp]

49 minutes ago, kjelllkri said:

I count 9 strokes
==================

1 TS from the tee

1 PS R17.1 - The applicable rule for the drop from the NPZ is R17.1

2 PS He should have dropped outside the PA. Wrong place. Not serious.

1 TS to OOB

1 PS R17.2b

1 TSs to green
2 putts
 

 

You forgot one. 🙂

[Sawgrass]

3 hours ago, limegreengent said:

Thank you Sawgrass

I welcome your contrary viewpoint- It's good to test the old grey cells in this Lockdown period. 😁 

 

Let me try to state my understanding of the context of Wrong v Right  Place in this scenario and how it impacts on your scenarios above.

Establishing the applicable rule is vital in coming to your decision as well as where a stroke is made.

 

Your OB Fence.

 Applicable Rule 

9.1

Consequently if you move or lift it when not permitted then it must be replaced.

The original spot is the right place in this example.

Any other spot where a stroke is" MADE' is the wrong place.

The reason 

'" Because this rule 9.1 does not require or allow the player to play from another spot.

(Applicable rule)

 

Now before moving to our scenario let's look at a comparable situation -easier to follow.

 

Wrong Green.

Ball laying on green.

Applicable Rule 13.1f

This rule prohibits play of the ball and the ball MUST be played from a spot permitted by the rules.

The Applicable Rule.

 

Consequently any other spot where a stroke is MADE is a wrong place including the spot on the green.

The reason because 13.1f Is the Applicable Rule and spot cannot be on the green.

 

Now apply these principles to the scenario under discussion.

 

NPZ/ Penalty Area.

The Applicable Rule is 17.1d 

( First bullet point of 17.1e(2).

 

The application of this rule in these circumstances requires that the ball shall be played outside of this penalty area under any of the options applicable.

 

All of these spots are Right Places if a stroke is made from them. All other spots are Wrong Places if a stroke is made from them including any spots inside the Penalty Area including the Original spot in the Bush.

 

Thereto - When Comparing 

Wrong Place and Right Place You use as the Wrong Place any spot in the Penalty Area where a stroke is made and the Right Place is any of your permitted options.

The Bush in the Penalty Area is not a Right Place and cannot be used as such for Serious Breach Considerations when 17.1d is the Applicable Rule.

 

This is my viewpoint.

😀😁😂

 

 

 

 

In the subject case, the ball is only prohibited from being played if you take a particular stance. If you take a different stance, the ball may be played.  It is valid to attempt a stroke from the opposite side, for instance.

 

My view therefore remains that the comparison between the original valid location in the bush and the illegal location (in the PA further back after the drop) yields a significant breach.

 

But perhaps you already understood my above point and reject it. If so, I wonder if you would ding me for hitting from a wrong place if I did make that opposite side stroke . . .

 

Edit: BTW, I don’t believe I could find a more agreeable fellow with whom I could disagree. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Sawgrass

[rogolf]

28 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

In the subject case, the ball is only prohibited from being played if you take a particular stance. If you take a different stance, the ball may be played.  It is valid to attempt a stroke from the opposite side, for instance.

 

My view therefore remains that the comparison between the original valid location in the bush and the illegal location (in the PA further back after the drop) yields a significant breach.

 

But perhaps you already understood my above point and reject it. If so, I wonder if you would ding me for hitting from a wrong place if I did make that opposite side stroke . . .

 

Edit: BTW, I don’t believe I could find a more agreeable fellow with whom I could disagree. 

Back to Question 22, I wonder if this is intended to be a situation as described in 1.3c(4)/4?

[Mr. Bean]

On 2/23/2021 at 10:19 AM, antip said:

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. 

 

 

I am stepping in late and have not yet read all the posts but the issue of a serious breach is the least described in the Rules of all possible things and I have not yet seen any, ANY, logical approach to that issue.

 

The only guideline I have seen is and has been significant advantage. Dropping a ball in the PA instead of dropping a ball on the fairway of equal distance cannot be a serious breach if the determining factor is significant advantage.

[Mr. Bean]

On 2/23/2021 at 7:44 PM, rogolf said:

Imo, any conclusion that there is a serious breach in this situation only leads to one answer - D, disqualification.

A serious breach would not be part of A, B or C, since he failed to notify the Committee.

 

Where does the serious breach come from? Please do explain.

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

My view therefore remains that the comparison between the original valid location in the bush and the illegal location (in the PA further back after the drop) yields a significant breach.

 

The way I see it is that the comparison must be made between the place the player dropped his ball (= incorrect place) and the place he SHOULD have dropped his ball (= correct place). After all, the player takes (penalty) relief from the bush/NPZ as he is allowed to, now it is only question where should he drop his ball.

[limegreengent]

3 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

In the subject case, the ball is only prohibited from being played if you take a particular stance. If you take a different stance, the ball may be played.  It is valid to attempt a stroke from the opposite side, for instance.

 

My view therefore remains that the comparison between the original valid location in the bush and the illegal location (in the PA further back after the drop) yields a significant breach.

 

But perhaps you already understood my above point and reject it. If so, I wonder if you would ding me for hitting from a wrong place if I did make that opposite side stroke . . .

 

Edit: BTW, I don’t believe I could find a more agreeable fellow with whom I could disagree. 

 

Thank you for your kind remarks.

-----------------

""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. "

-------------

I believe that I now understand a possible reason why there may be some disagreement between us

I have taken the highlighted words at their face value.

It is impossible to reach the ball with a club.

My comprehension of the second paragraph is that if the player took a stance he would be standing in the NPZ but the shot is still not playable

 

If this is a miscomprehension on my part ( and others) and that a stroke at the ball is reasonable (albeit r/handed,l/ handed, etc) and interfered by NPZ, this would completely change the scenario as bullet point 2 would come into play and the drop and stroke would be valid.

 

If bullet 2 does not apply( which I still believe) then I still maintain that  original spot in the Bush cannot be a "right place"

 

 

MGA Certainly do not deserve any plaudits for their continuing poor presentation of the Quiz 😣😣

 

And Yes - If the circumstances were such that  you did make a stroke in the Penalty Area whilst standing in a NPZ - I WOULD PING you  WITH A PENALTY ( same as Wrong green) even though you were civil to me.😂

Aplace prohibited by the applicable rule.

Edited February 24, 2021 by limegreengent

[rogolf]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Where does the serious breach come from? Please do explain.

I'm not suggesting that there is a serious breach, but others have considered that possibility. 

[Mr. Bean]

2 minutes ago, rogolf said:

I'm not suggesting that there is a serious breach, but others have considered that possibility. 

 

Well dodged 😁

[Sawgrass]

54 minutes ago, limegreengent said:

 

-----------------

""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. "

-------------

 

 

And Yes - If the circumstances were such that  you did make a stroke in the Penalty Area whilst standing in a NPZ - I WOULD PING you  WITH A PENALTY ( same as Wrong green) even though you were civil to me.😂

Aplace prohibited by the applicable rule.

For the record, my side question to you was whether you’d ding me for a wrong place if I took the precaution of avoiding taking a stance in the NPZ yet made a stroke in an unusual way.

 

I also believe it possible to make a legal stroke at a ball which can not be reached by a club — for instance by striking a root which might then move your ball.  All still leading to the OP ball being in a valid place from which to make a stroke.

[limegreengent]

30 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

For the record, my side question to you was whether you’d ding me for a wrong place if I took the precaution of avoiding taking a stance in the NPZ yet made a stroke in an unusual way.

 

 

 

No 

 

From what I heard about your golf there is nothing normal about it.

[rogolf]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Well dodged 😁

I'm not dodging anything.  My point regarding the question was that if there was a serious breach, as others had theorized, there was no point in trying to figure out the score as the player would be dq'd for not reporting to the Committee.

[Newby]

#22 D Rule 17.1e(2), Rule 14.7b(2)

[Halebopp]

So, there was a serious breach. Either the ball crossed into the PA significantly further away from the hole than where the bush was or the spot from which the ball was played (after taking relief from the NPZ) is compared to its original position in the bush.

 

The one thing that seems clear is that an accidental correction of playing from a wrong place counts as a correction.

[limegreengent]

6 hours ago, Halebopp said:

So, there was a serious breach. Either the ball crossed into the PA significantly further away from the hole than where the bush was or the spot from which the ball was played (after taking relief from the NPZ) is compared to its original position in the bush.

 

The one thing that seems clear is that an accidental correction of playing from a wrong place counts as a correction.

 

The only conclusion that can be drawn from MGA's answer is;

1 .They regard and intend  the player's stroke from the Penalty area to be a serious breach .(their reference to 14.7b(2) and They interpret the subsequent play from outside the penalty area to be an attempted correction.

(their reference to 14.7b(2).

 

2. The unreporting of the above resulting as Disqualification.

 

 

Your references to the Bush in your opening paragraph   form an  incorrect basis for a serious breach deduction.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2021 by limegreengent

[Sawgrass]

2 minutes ago, limegreengent said:

 

The only conclusion that can be drawn from MGA's answer is;

1 .They regard  the player's stroke from the Penalty area as a serious breach .(their reference to 14.7b(2) and They interpret the subsequent play from outside the penalty area to be an attempted correction.

(their reference to 14.7b(2).

 

2. The unreporting of the above resulting as Disqualification.

 

 

Your references to the Bush in your opening paragraph   form an  incorrect basis for a serious breach deduction.

 

 

 

 

Irrespective of whether the play from outside the PA was an "intentional attempted correction" or an "inadvertent lucky experience counting as a correction," don't you agree that the player should be held accountable for the same obligation to inform the committee?  Or should the rules allow the ignorant player more latitude than the deliberate player?

[limegreengent]

6 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

Irrespective of whether the play from outside the PA was an "intentional attempted correction" or an "inadvertent lucky experience counting as a correction," don't you agree that the player should be held accountable for the same obligation to inform the committee?  Or should the rules allow the ignorant player more latitude than the deliberate player?

Agree👍

 If a serious breach has occurred the player is accountable to report to the 

Committee.

No extra latitude

 

 

[Halebopp]

14 minutes ago, limegreengent said:

 

The only conclusion that can be drawn from MGA's answer is;

1 .They regard and intend  the player's stroke from the Penalty area to be a serious breach .(their reference to 14.7b(2) and They interpret the subsequent play from outside the penalty area to be an attempted correction.

(their reference to 14.7b(2).

 

2. The unreporting of the above resulting as Disqualification.

 

 

Your references to the Bush in your opening paragraph   form an  incorrect basis for a serious breach deduction.

 

 

 

 

 

Quite right, shouldn't dig too deep into these in morning time.

[Mr. Bean]

Once again, a poorly laid out question.

 

I wonder what we are supposed to learn from these quiz questions as most of them are at least somewhat ambiguous and such essential information lacks that a referee can easily acquire on the course by asking questions from the players.

 

If the goal is to make Rules look even more complicated then it is a task well done.

[Mr. Bean]

Can someone explain to me at which point the serious breach took place? I cannot find it.