Feedback on a couple questions

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, antip said:

Your highlighting of only part of my paragraph misrepresents and distorts the issue and it seems you also have not recognised a critical feature of 9.4b/6's scenario. In that case, the player was permitted to lift the ball so there is no separate penalty for moving the ball in play. My point is unchanged and unchallenged: if you lift your ball under an inapplicable rule and subsequently decide to do S&D there are two separate issues to be accounted for. 

 

With all respect, you also wrote 'The only way it is only one penalty stroke is if you lift your ball in play to play again from the previous place - ie intent present before the ball is moved' and that is not correct IMO. In the scenario of 9.4b/6 the player had the intent to take free relief from the GUR and only having lifted his ball in play realized he did not want to take that free relief. So he had no intent to take S&D before he lifted the ball.

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, antip said:

That 2019 innovation - 19.3b.

 

Ok, I have never considered that as a penalty for breach of a Rule, more like a prize you need to pay for getting out of the bunker. But thanks, and thanks to Sui as well, E-5 is also a new innovation and some courses actually use it, I have heard.

[rogolf]

26 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Ok, I have never considered that as a penalty for breach of a Rule, more like a prize you need to pay for getting out of the bunker. But thanks, and thanks to Sui as well, E-5 is also a new innovation and some courses actually use it, I have heard.

Those are the two new (2019) instances that I was referring to as two stroke penalties in match play.

[rogolf]

It would be interesting to have a discussion on 9.4b/6 (particularly the last bullet point) and 18.1/2 to understand/elucidate the outcomes.

 

[Mr. Bean]

56 minutes ago, rogolf said:

It would be interesting to have a discussion on 9.4b/6 (particularly the last bullet point) and 18.1/2 to understand/elucidate the outcomes.

 

 

I cannot find any conflict with those two. In 9.4b/6 the player was allowed to lift their ball, in 18.1/2 was not. A major difference.

[nsxguy]

17 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

"D" is the obvious answer as others have pointed out since there's no score revealed for players "B" or "D".

 

But I suspect the questioner is assuming players B&D were irrelevant to the final outcome. Why ? IDK. 🙃

 

20 hours ago, TerpFangolfer said:

Oh yes, and thanks Dave and others for pointing out what I missed about A - for ex, if it was stroke play I had A with 6 (only 1 stroke for placing when needed to drop) should have been 2 strokes & a 7 due to Gen pen.

 

Assuming, as I suggested earlier, the question assumes B&D are irrelevant to the outcome, the answer IS "B" but, as davep (and others) have suggested, it's because "A" was DQ'd from that hole, the General Penalty for match play being loss of hole and NOT because of a 2 stroke (GP) penalty. 👍

 

3 hours ago, davep043 said:

We've had different experiences in this, I've seen the General Penalty applied in this way (the correct way per the Rules) numerous times, both under the "old Rules" as well as under the current Rules.  The previous rules didn't use the term General Penalty, but for a number of breaches the penalty was "Loss of Hole in Match Play", and the fourball rules indicated that these penalties only DQed the individual player for that hole, not the entire team.

 

 

As mentioned, I've been in casual games (i.e. NOT formal tournaments) and we've used stroke play rules even though our scoring was match play so we didn't think of applying match play rules.

 

I'd like to think I got the main(?) point of the situation correct as I did know the process for returning to the previous place was different for being on the green rather than off. ("C" gets to replay and "A" is a case of tough luck).

 

I would like to think that if our match was in that situation I'd have known the "A" guy would have to DROP since he/I was taking penalty relief from the PA but,,,,,,, HAD one of us placed that ball AND we recognized after the fact the ball should have been dropped it's likely we'd have (incorrectly as it turns out) added 2 strokes.

 

Anyway, assuming I was correct earlier in that "B" and "D" were irrelevant to the (awful) question then B is the correct answer ("C" wins the hole), just not for the reason that I and TERP originally thought (2 strokes).

 

Anywho, I believe I found the appropriate rule - (23.8(a)1)

 

"In match play, a player who gets the general penalty (loss of hole) has no score that can count for the side on that hole; but this penalty has no effect on the partner, who may continue to play for the side on that hole."

 

Since the "place instead of drop" incurs the GP, "A" is out of the hole.

 

Thanks gents !!! I love this place.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by nsxguy

[limegreengent]

18 hours ago, antip said:

 

And, by the way, A took 6, not 7. There are four talent strokes and one wrong place penalty. There is no PA penalty because the player was not taking PA relief (no intent). This PA quirk got a serious work out in the 2021 USGA Short Course.

 

 

In a stroke play event:

I agree with some of the other replies - 7 strokes.

This is different from the Short Course scenarios.

The penalty area here is a Red Herring . The ball could have finished anywhere.

The player was under the misapprehension that he had to cancel the stroke and play again from the original place.

It was clearly his intention to play again from the original spot - albeit he thought it was free.

The old decision 27/17 points us in the correct direction.

The player is ruled as taking s/d relief in the wrong place.

4 talent shots

,3 penalty strokes

 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, limegreengent said:

In a stroke play event:

I agree with some of the other replies - 7 strokes.

This is different from the Short Course scenarios.

The penalty area here is a Red Herring . The ball could have finished anywhere.

The player was under the misapprehension that he had to cancel the stroke and play again from the original place.

It was clearly his intention to play again from the original spot - albeit he thought it was free.

The old decision 27/17 points us in the correct direction.

The player is ruled as taking s/d relief in the wrong place.

4 talent shots

,3 penalty strokes

 

 

I am afraid you are wrong here. As antip wrote the player had no intent to take relief from PA thus he was not taking any S&D either.

 

I must admit that I would have gone for 7 as well based on old Rules but so much has changed and I think we should believe what has been taught at a USGA Short Course.

 

However, here's something for antip to respond as he has been part of that serious work out: As the player was penalized for placing a ball instead of dropping one, what is the Rule he is invoking that requires dropping?

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Mr. Bean

[limegreengent]

Hi Mr Bean

Of course Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.😀

 

I never said the player intended to take Penalty relief- in fact I stressed that the deflected ball could have gone anywhere and the ruling would be the same - ( unless it was holed)

 

We have a player incorrectly believing that he can proceed under 11.1b exception -  and dropping and playing under an inapplicable rule.

He could have corrected this error before playing the ball.

However when he played the ball we must allocate a rule.

The applicable rule is either 9.4  or 18.1.

 

When this player lifted the ball it was  with the clear intention of playing it again from the original spot as he believed this was mandatory under 11.1b exception albeit erroneously  with  no penalty.

This is exactly the circumstances of 27/17- 

(believing that his original stroke should be cancelled and that he must play again -penalty free.)

The mapping summary says that this decision remains unaltered and quotes 18.1 as the applicable rule.

 

The short course scenario involving the penalty area is completely different.

 

It's nice to be different 😂

 

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by limegreengent

[Mr. Bean]

I guess we need to wait until antip explains the entire scenario.

[antip]

deleted

Edited January 6, 2022 by antip
still thinking

[limegreengent]

10 hours ago, antip said:

Dear LGG

I am in admiration of anyone that retains such a good working connection to the old stuff. However, due to explicit discussions between the RBs in 2021, that mapping summary is no longer valid in its reference to the continuing application of 27/17.

What has changed is RBs now agree that when a player plays again from the previous location under the mistaken belief that a stroke does not count/is cancelled, that will be treated as S&D, despite the player not having intent for S&D. Some examples:

1. Player's 2 foot putt loops the hole, comes back and hit the player's foot. Unaware MLR D-7 is in effect, the player believes stroke does not count and replaces and plays again. Ruling - player proceeded under S&D. (This is from the RB on your side of the pond.)

2. Player's stroke from fairway hits power lines. In mistaken belief MLR E-11 applies and stroke does not count, player proceeds under 14.6. Ruling - player proceeded under S&D. (This from the RB on the other side of the pond.)

The USGA also gave this issue a run in the 2021 Short Course R4Q3 with a putting green case. You may also find interesting the extended discussion on this question in the Webinar Recap which also highlights some downstream consequences of the RBs decisions here - issues which I know the RBs are still considering.

Returning to the OP example: as you note, the player mistakenly thought the 11.1b exception applied and that his stroke did not count, so replaced. IF the player had realised that to replay required a drop (under 14.6) and not placed, he would have been subject to only 1 stroke penalty (per the RB discussion above), but placing instead of dropping turns that one stroke penalty into a wrong place general penalty.

So I remain in the total score of 6 camp, 4 actual strokes plus the general penalty.

 

 

Thank you Antip  and I appreciate all the extra facts that you have supplied.

I have revisited R4Q3 and have no problems with that ruling as I also do not have any concerns with the other examples you quoted.

I believe that our scenario is analogous .

The player always intended to play again from the original spot.

I am sure Antip that - Yes

I just don't believe that you would say - that a wrong place cannot occur and would be impossible in any of these examples-- as in all these cases the starting point Is to decide on the applicable rule which was determined to be  S/D.

 

That is all that has occurred in our example-  a wrong place by placing instead of dropping under the appointed rule.🤔

Edited January 6, 2022 by limegreengent

[antip]

1 minute ago, limegreengent said:

Thank you Antip  and I appreciate all the extra facts that you have supplied.

I have revisited R4Q3 and have no problems with that ruling as I also do not have no concerns with the other examples you quoted.

I believe that our scenario is analogous .

However I don't believe that you would say that a wrong place cannot occur in any of these examples where the ruling was that the player proceeded under S/D.

 

That is all that has occurred in our example by placing instead of dropping.🤔

As you are now aware, I had deleted that post while I reflected on some further angles. But your 'quote' of it resurrected it.😀 One angle I was concerned with was my suggestion that the mapping summary reference to 27/17 was no longer accurate. On further reflection, I think the RB decisions in 2021 are not inconsistent with that mapping summary reference (I was impugning the document inappropriately).

I also now agree that a total stroke play score would be 7. Had the player proceeded correctly under 14.6, the score would have been 5 (no LOH penalty, only S&D) but in placing rather than dropping, that penalty count escalates to 3.

To conclude, there was a lot of good quality rules issues in the questions, just some non-trivial glitches in the delivery.

[rogolf]

Agree on the 3 ps - 1 for s&d, 2 for wrong place (placed when drop was required).

[limegreengent]

4 minutes ago, antip said:

As you are now aware, I had deleted that post while I reflected on some further angles. But your 'quote' of it resurrected it.😀 One angle I was concerned with was my suggestion that the mapping summary reference to 27/17 was no longer accurate. On further reflection, I think the RB decisions in 2021 are not inconsistent with that mapping summary reference (I was impugning the document inappropriately).

I also now agree that a total stroke play score would be 7. Had the player proceeded correctly under 14.6, the score would have been 5 (no LOH penalty, only S&D) but in placing rather than dropping, that penalty count escalates to 3.

To conclude, there was a lot of good quality rules issues in the questions, just some non-trivial glitches in the delivery.

 

Thank you Antip

and I very much appreciate and respect your comments and the manner that you have displayed in our discussion on this matter.

🤗🤗

 

[antip]

1 hour ago, limegreengent said:

 

Thank you Antip

and I very much appreciate and respect your comments and the manner that you have displayed in our discussion on this matter.

🤗🤗

 

Thank you, no question the rules are an interesting journey at times.

Shortly, we'll have the joy of watching the MGA do their annual rule tormenting stint.

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, antip said:

Shortly, we'll have the joy of watching the MGA do their annual rule tormenting stint.

 

Our friend, Sawgrass, is beavering away at right now. 

[antip]

2 hours ago, sui generis said:

 

Our friend, Sawgrass, is beavering away at right now. 

Now I'm concerned, I don't think we've seen him on these pages since the first half of 2021.....has he been at it that long?

[Mr. Bean]

Although I am highly relieved that two posters were active and finally confirmed that my initial though was correct I am still puzzled about the initial answer given by @antip. Thus I would very much like to hear what was the question he wrestled with in the USGA Short Course as that was the reason I discarded my own deduction.

[antip]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

Although I am highly relieved that two posters were active and finally confirmed that my initial though was correct I am still puzzled about the initial answer given by @antip. Thus I would very much like to hear what was the question he wrestled with in the USGA Short Course as that was the reason I discarded my own deduction.

Do you mean the no penalty area penalty?

[Mr. Bean]

38 minutes ago, antip said:

Do you mean the no penalty area penalty?

 

This one:

 

Q1: writer has screwed up reference to four ball. Make it singles match play, A v C and it all comes together fine. The rules content here is very good - two players apparently taking precisely the same action in response to the same stimulus (Stripes US cousin repeatedly tormenting golfers on or near the green) gets very different outcomes when one was on the fringe and one was on the green. That is an excellent rules issue to be alert to.

And, by the way, A took 6, not 7. There are four talent strokes and one wrong place penalty. There is no PA penalty because the player was not taking PA relief (no intent). This PA quirk got a serious work out in the 2021 USGA Short Course.

[antip]

8 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

This one:

 

Q1: writer has screwed up reference to four ball. Make it singles match play, A v C and it all comes together fine. The rules content here is very good - two players apparently taking precisely the same action in response to the same stimulus (Stripes US cousin repeatedly tormenting golfers on or near the green) gets very different outcomes when one was on the fringe and one was on the green. That is an excellent rules issue to be alert to.

And, by the way, A took 6, not 7. There are four talent strokes and one wrong place penalty. There is no PA penalty because the player was not taking PA relief (no intent). This PA quirk got a serious work out in the 2021 USGA Short Course.

This is Round 3, Q9 in the 2021 Short Course. Their answer is b. There is no 17.1d penalty because the player had no intent to take PA relief.

 

With Model Local Rule E-12 in effect, your tee shot on a par-3 just carries a yellow penalty area and comes to rest in a greenside bunker. You treat the ball as unplayable and take back-on-the-line relief outside the bunker in a narrow strip of land between the bunker and the penalty area. Your chosen reference point on the line behind the bunker is a few inches in front of the penalty area. You drop a ball that lands on the yellow line and it rolls less than one club-length from the reference point, coming to rest inside the penalty area. You lift that ball to drop it again and this time it lands in the general area, rolls less than one club-length and comes to rest in the penalty area. You then lift the ball and place it on the spot in the general area where the ball landed on the second drop and play onto the putting green. At that point, another player questions your procedure and you consult a referee. What is the correct ruling?
a. You lie four on the putting green, including two penalty strokes under Rule 19.3b for taking back-on-the-line relief outside the bunker.
b. You get two penalty strokes for taking back-on-the-line relief outside the bunker under Rule 19.3b, plus two more penalty strokes for lifting your ball when not allowed and playing it from a wrong place. You lie six on the putting green.
c. You get two penalty strokes for taking back-on-the-line relief outside the bunker under Rule 19.3b. When you lifted that ball, you were considered to be taking penalty relief under Rule 17.1, getting one more penalty stroke. You lie five on the putting green.
d. You get two penalty strokes for taking back-on-the-line relief outside the bunker under Rule 19.3b. When you lifted that ball, the only Rule that applied was 17.1d. Because you had no reference point for taking relief under Rule 17.1d(2), your only option was to take stroke-and-distance relief. You get one penalty stroke under Rule 17.1d(1), plus two more penalty strokes for playing from a wrong place, which is also a serious breach. You must return to the tee where you will be playing your 7th stroke.

[antip]

On 1/6/2022 at 12:26 PM, limegreengent said:

 

Thank you Antip

and I very much appreciate and respect your comments and the manner that you have displayed in our discussion on this matter.

🤗🤗

 

Dear LGG

At the risk of thickening the plot further......

The more I think about this, the more I convince myself that total stroke play penalties should be 2 not 3. That is, the assigned rule should be 9.4/14.7  (2SP total) not 18.1/14.7 (3SP total).

The RB advice that has come on this "S&D can be applied when there is no intent" is specific to the published examples that I touch on above. There is no RB advice yet on the different issues in OPs Q1 to the effect that S&D must be included in the penalties in such a scenario. There seems to be some parallels here with the no PA penalty when there is no PA relief intent.

I will make further submission, but I think it would be valuable to have an official response to this kind of scenario.

[Colin L]

On 1/5/2022 at 3:49 PM, Mr. Bean said:

 

With all respect, you also wrote 'The only way it is only one penalty stroke is if you lift your ball in play to play again from the previous place - ie intent present before the ball is moved' and that is not correct IMO. In the scenario of 9.4b/6 the player had the intent to take free relief from the GUR and only having lifted his ball in play realized he did not want to take that free relief. So he had no intent to take S&D before he lifted the ball.

I've never been asked, but I think the way I would explain 9.4b/6 to a player is that he would understand that if he lifts his ball anywhere without a rule that allows it, he has to replace it and take a penalty stroke.  Then, he can decide how he wants to continue - play it as it lies or, as is always available, to take penalty relief.  If he takes unplayable relief,  he has to take the penalty stroke for that as well as the one for wrongly lifting the ball.   The same applies if his ball is in GUR and he lifts it in error except that he is allowed to take a shortcut to taking relief without physically replacing his ball.  There are still two separate events, however - lifting the ball without a covering rule and taking relief, each with its penalty.  But if the player whose ball is in GUR decides straight off to take penalty relief and then lifts his ball, he has done so with the sanction of a rule and so there is only one event and one penalty.

 

Which is what I thought Antip was pointing out - if somewhat more succinctly.  Perhaps I have misunderstood your point which, given the way I started in this thread could well be possible. 🙂

 

Just exploring, by the way, to get my head round this conversation.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Colin L

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

I've never been asked, but I think the way I would explain 9.4b/6 to a player is that he would understand that if he lifts his ball anywhere without a rule that allows it, he has to replace it and take a penalty stroke.  Then, he can decide how he wants to continue - play it as it lies or, as is always available, to take penalty relief.  If he takes unplayable relief,  he has to take the penalty stroke for that as well as the one for wrongly lifting the ball.   The same applies if his ball is in GUR and he lifts it in error except that he is allowed to take a shortcut to taking relief without physically replacing his ball.  There are still two separate events, however - lifting the ball without a covering rule and taking relief, each with its penalty.  But if the player whose ball is in GUR decides straight off to take penalty relief and then lifts his ball, he has done so with the sanction of a rule and so there is only one event and one penalty.

 

Which is what I thought Antip was pointing out - if somewhat more succinctly.  Perhaps I have misunderstood your point which, given the way I started in this thread could well be possible. 🙂

 

Just exploring, by the way, to get my head round this conversation.

 

 

 

But if you read 9.4b/6 very carefully you will see that in one and only one instance the player gets only one penalty stroke instead of two WITHOUT the intent to take a penalty and that is what I have always wondered why. @ antip kindly tried to explain the difference a while back but I am still bewildered why S&D gets the player less penalties than other options of unplayable ball.

 

But wrt antip' post that I commented it was the question of intent. In 9.4b/6 last bullet case the player has no intent to take S&D before he lifts the ball. That was my point.

[Mr. Bean]

5 hours ago, antip said:

Dear LGG

At the risk of thickening the plot further......

The more I think about this, the more I convince myself that total stroke play penalties should be 2 not 3. That is, the assigned rule should be 9.4/14.7  (2SP total) not 18.1/14.7 (3SP total).

 

 

So you are suggesting that S&D and WP should be related acts and 2+1 = 2, is that it? The same way as if a player accidentally moved their ball in play (eg. in the fairway) and did not replace it but played it from a WP?

[antip]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

But if you read 9.4b/6 very carefully you will see that in one and only one instance the player gets only one penalty stroke instead of two WITHOUT the intent to take a penalty and that is what I have always wondered why. @ antip kindly tried to explain the difference a while back but I am still bewildered why S&D gets the player less penalties than other options of unplayable ball.

 

But wrt antip' post that I commented it was the question of intent. In 9.4b/6 last bullet case the player has no intent to take S&D before he lifts the ball. That was my point.

I'm sure we've gone around this circle before. If you lift your ball under any rule that permits a free lift, but then decide that you will take S&D, that will always be one stroke penalty even though you did not have intent to do S&D when you lifted.

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

1 minute ago, antip said:

I'm sure we've gone around this circle before. If you lift your ball under any rule that permits a free lift, but then decide that you will take S&D, that will always be one stroke penalty even though you did not have intent to do S&D when you lifted.

 

 

 

That I understand but I do not understand why. But never mind, the important thing is to get it right, I do not have to understand the reasons behind it.

[antip]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So you are suggesting that S&D and WP should be related acts and 2+1 = 2, is that it? The same way as if a player accidentally moved their ball in play (eg. in the fairway) and did not replace it but played it from a WP?

Yes. I've sent in scenarios both on and off the putting green in which the player intended to play again from the same place having mistakenly believed the stroke needed to be replayed, without S&D intent, but also screwed up the rule 14.6 process. 

[limegreengent]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

But if you read 9.4b/6 very carefully you will see that in one and only one instance the player gets only one penalty stroke instead of two WITHOUT the intent to take a penalty and that is what I have always wondered why. @ antip kindly tried to explain the difference a while back but I am still bewildered why S&D gets the player less penalties than other options of unplayable ball.

 

But wrt antip' post that I commented it was the question of intent. In 9.4b/6 last bullet case the player has no intent to take S&D before he lifts the ball. That was my point.

 

There are TWO examples / bullet points / where the player receives only 1 penalty stroke.(4 and 5).

 

These two options are really connected to taking Rule 16 relief to avoid a penalty.

 

In these two bullet points the player has lifted his ball when PERMITTED to take relief

Okay so far - No penalty.

 

Now he realises he doesn't want to do this and proceeding under Unplayable would be better.

He does not want to incur a penalty stroke for lifting and not taking relief so his only option is to proceed under Rule 16.and then go Unplayable.

 

Two of the Unplayable options relate to a ball in play because you must have a reference point to proceed and a drop will be required to establish reference points .

Drop under 16 and select your Unplayable option from your new reference point.

Outcome 1 penalty stroke

Bullet Point 4.

 

 

In your 3rd and remaining Unplayable option (Stroke and Distance) -

the reference point has already been established for you ( spot of last stroke)

The authorities are not going to insist that---

you drop a ball under 16 and then under this S/D option  pick up the ball  straight away-

 because the reference point will not change (dropped or not) .

It would be a complete waste of time.

This procedure is similar to not having to replace a ball when you have already decided to proceed under a rule.(14.2/1)

 

So you go back to the spot of  the original shot for one penalty shot.

Bullet Point 5

 

I suppose that you could consider these to be NOTIONAL drops and Replace.

 

It all about expediting the procedure to save time.

 

Hope this helps.😱😱

Edited January 7, 2022 by limegreengent