More Rules intrigue

[antip]

41 minutes ago, limegreengent said:

Antip

 I would be grateful if you can elucidate a little further.

 

I can see that when a player  ‘INITIALLY ‘    makes a stroke that will count in his score (eg  11.1b(2)  /  Or hitting power lines) )  but is required to replay - this is a ball that is initially in play from a valid stroke and hence fits the bill as an intervening event - whether or not it is correctly replayed or not.

 

Playing a wrong ball is never a stroke that will count in your score but just a breach of the rules ( akin to a practice stroke ) and does not seem to fit the bill.

 

Furthermore if the first stroke at a wrong ball was classified as an intervening event , then would not further strokes at the same wrong ball also be breaches under 1.3 c(4). ** even if the player is still unaware.( and this is not the ruling is it ) 

The  impression that your statement suggests is further penalties **

 

or is the playing of the wrong ball an exception to 1.3c(4)

 

or is the fifth dot point in rule 6.3c providing the removal of further penalties.?

 

Just how much clarity came from the person conducting the workshop.

 

Further comments from you would be appreciated.

 

Nothing so specific I'm afraid. In the workshop, it was only posed as a general question, from the perspective if a stroke is cancelled/does not count, does that mean it cannot be a 'completed stroke' and therefore is not an Intervening Event. Answer - no. It was only a general response to a non-specific question. There were no specific follow ups or discussion of specific scenarios, including the wrong ball issues you raise. That said, nothing I've seen/heard to date suggests that anything has changed in respect of wrong balls, strokes played from outside the teeing area and the like.

 

Prior to the Workshop, I'd kind of gotten the impression that more would be forthcoming from RBs on 1.3c(4). But there was no indication of specific plans for that, only a general observation that if they have more to say it would likely be in the 'normal' quarterly Clarification update process.

[davep043]

7 hours ago, antip said:

I was able to ask this in a Workshop, answered clearly that it is an intervening event (IE) - for the purposes of 1.3c(4) a stroke that does not count is still an IE.

Thanks.  Now that I've refreshed my memory, this came up in the December workshop I attended, and the instructors were a bit uncertain, promised us they'd revisit the question the following day.  Unfortunately, the next day's instruction was cancelled due to the power station vandalism in NC, but the discussion continued in a Facebook group populated by some pretty knowledgeable folks.  I'm glad that you got a definitive response.

[Mr. Bean]

On 2/10/2023 at 1:11 PM, Newby said:

For the purpose of applying this Rule, there are two intervening events:

• The completion of a stroke, and 

• Being aware or becoming aware of a breach of a Rule (this includes when a player knows they breached a Rule, when the player is told of a breach, or when the player is uncertain whether or not they have breached a Rule.)

 

Edit: Just reread the OP and realised the first wrong ball was spotted and therefore clause 2 above applies. 

But I'm puzzled about the use of and  between the clauses.

Does it mean:

There are simply two conditions (A & B) and either has to apply

or

That both A and B have to apply?

 

 

 

It is not a question that both conditions have to be met but that there are two conditions giving rise to an intervening event. That is whty there is AND.

[Mr. Bean]

7 hours ago, antip said:

I was able to ask this in a Workshop, answered clearly that it is an intervening event (IE) - for the purposes of 1.3c(4) a stroke that does not count is still an IE.

 

So, if I make a stroke at a wrong ball on the PG and that ball hits an animal and I replay that stroke it means my next stroke will be playing from a wrong place and additional 2 PS.

 

I find that extremely harsh and against the principle that continuation of playing a wrong ball is not a separate infraction. Also that is not listed as an IE, so I wonder which acts will be added to the non-existing list of IE's next...

[davep043]

56 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So, if I make a stroke at a wrong ball on the PG and that ball hits an animal and I replay that stroke it means my next stroke will be playing from a wrong place and additional 2 PS.

 

I find that extremely harsh and against the principle that continuation of playing a wrong ball is not a separate infraction. Also that is not listed as an IE, so I wonder which acts will be added to the non-existing list of IE's next...

To me, the specifics relating to a Wrong Ball override the more general provisions of 1.3c(4).  In the situation you've described, Id say that replaying the cancelled stroke at the Wrong Ball is a continuation of playing that Wrong Ball, just as it would be if the leaf hadn't intervened and the player had tapped in a second putt.  

I can envision a scenario in which a cancelled stroke does make a difference.  I ask another player in my group where I should aim my putt.  I stroke the putt, and it hits that same blowing leaf, which cancels that stroke and requires me to replay the stroke.  I ask a different player in my group how much the putt breaks.  If the cancelled stroke is an Intervening Event, I have two General Penalties (4 strokes total) for breaches of 10.2a.  If the cancelled stroke is NOT an Intervening Event, I get only a single GP.

[Colin L]

Dave

Firstly, apologies for taking so long to respond and secondly thanks for raising this (to use the term in the title of the thread) intriguing issue.  The question in my mind  is whether 1.3c(4) takes precedence over 6.3c(1)/1  or vice versa.  I had forgotten about the latter and so had not seen its potential relevance.   I was too busy making final preparation for a week pursuing my true winter sport of skiing (winter golf ain't quite the same!) and will probably be too occupied with it in the coming week to engage.  I've welcomed the change to intervening event as a great simplification of a somewhat obscure rule, but it has its challenges.  I'll watch this space with interest.

[antip]

9 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So, if I make a stroke at a wrong ball on the PG and that ball hits an animal and I replay that stroke it means my next stroke will be playing from a wrong place and additional 2 PS.

 

I find that extremely harsh and against the principle that continuation of playing a wrong ball is not a separate infraction. Also that is not listed as an IE, so I wonder which acts will be added to the non-existing list of IE's next...

See my reply to LimeGreenGent. I don't believe the answer applies to that situation and no specific situation was discussed. I think the better way to interpret their comment is a stroke doesn't count/cancelled situation does not mean it will not be an IE.

[Mr. Bean]

16 hours ago, davep043 said:

I can envision a scenario in which a cancelled stroke does make a difference.  I ask another player in my group where I should aim my putt.  I stroke the putt, and it hits that same blowing leaf, which cancels that stroke and requires me to replay the stroke.  I ask a different player in my group how much the putt breaks.  If the cancelled stroke is an Intervening Event, I have two General Penalties (4 strokes total) for breaches of 10.2a.  If the cancelled stroke is NOT an Intervening Event, I get only a single GP.

That is rather clear as there are two separate advices asked for two separate strokes. Same result would be if I asked another player if I am overswinging two separate times when playing a single wrong ball. However, it is interesting to ponder can there be an IE effecting only to the advices and not to playing wrong ball.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

8 hours ago, antip said:

See my reply to LimeGreenGent. I don't believe the answer applies to that situation and no specific situation was discussed. I think the better way to interpret their comment is a stroke doesn't count/cancelled situation does not mean it will not be an IE.

 

That makes much more sense as a stroke is an IE and a cancelled stroke is also a stroke.

[sui generis]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

That makes much more sense as a stroke is an IE and a cancelled stroke is also a stroke.

 Suppose we think of a "cancelled stroke" not as a stroke which didn't happen, but a stroke which doesn't count. 

[Mr. Bean]

15 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 Suppose we think of a "cancelled stroke" not as a stroke which didn't happen, but a stroke which doesn't count. 

 

Indeed.