Welcome
Welcome to golfrules

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Q11

Re: Q11

Postby Doug » Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:19 pm

no argument there
User avatar
Doug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: Wetherby, UK
Your location: UK

Re: Q11

Postby Adrian Mackenzie » Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:29 pm

Mr. Bean wrote:
Doug wrote:But it doesn't say that the fact that the ball was holed has been undone.



It is actually extremely strange that a stroke is undone but the consequences of the strike are not. Normally one sees that only in fairy tales.


It is of interest to read below what was posted on another Forum in relation to the change in D 19-1/3
AM

Extract from post.

Let me share the original scenario of Decision 19-1/3.

The earliest Decision I can trace back was Decision 19-1/4. This Decision was renamed 19-1/3 after 1988.

Ball Deflected into Hole by Moving Outside Agency Not Replayed.

Q : In stroke play, a competitor putts and his ball is deflected into the hole by a moving outside agency. The competitor did not replay the stroke as required by Rule 19-1b and played from the next tee. What is the ruling ?

A : The competitor is disqualified under Rule 3-2 for failing to hole out.

This Decision was revised in 1998 and the scenario was changed and has remained so up to today.

Decision 19-1/3 ( 1998) Ball Played from Putting Green Deflected by Moving Outside Agency ; Stroke Not Replayed.

Q : In stroke play, a competitor putts and his ball is deflected by a moving outside agency other than a worm or an insect. The competitor did not replay the stroke as required by Rule 19-1b, holed out and then played from the next tee. What is the ruling?

A : The stroke that was deflected by the outside agency does not count in the competitor's score. When the competitor failed to replay the stroke he played from wrong place. If the breach was a serious one, he is disqualified - Rule 20 - 7b. Otherwise, the score with the original ball counts and he incurs a penalty of two strokes for a breach of Rule 19. ( Revised )

The reason for the revision was given in the 1998-99 Decision Book.

Question amended for clarification and answer revised to state that the deflected stroke does not count but the competitor's failure to replay the stroke results in his playing from a wrong place.
Adrian Mackenzie
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:18 pm
Your location: SP Brazil

Re: Q11

Postby Mr. Bean » Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:28 am

Adrian Mackenzie wrote:The reason for the revision was given in the 1998-99 Decision Book.

Question amended for clarification and answer revised to state that the deflected stroke does not count but the competitor's failure to replay the stroke results in his playing from a wrong place.


Thank you Adrian for the history part. It reveals the idea behind the change but also tells us that the lords did not think the consequences fully through.

The cancelled stroke here seems to have been parallelled to an accidental moving of a ball at rest (R18). In such a case the ball is in play after it has been moved but must be replaced. If it is not replaced the player incurs a penalty of 2 strokes (in sp) for playing from a wrong place and in the case of a serious breach (e.g. D18-2a/8.5) he is DQ'd. However, apparently the lords failed to further consider the (original) situation where the deflected ball after a stroke goes into the hole and is not replaced. In such a case there is no playing from a wrong place or failure to hole out unlike in Rule 18 situations leading to a bizarre situation of a ball having been holed with a stroke without a stroke.

It seems to me that the Decision in question should have been maintained as it was.
Mr. Bean
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:26 pm
Your location: Finland, Vantaa

Re: Q11

Postby regole » Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:46 pm

Hi All

Sorry if resurrected this quiz.
Have any of you then had some contact with the R&A to find out their position?

Thanks and Regards
regole
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:16 pm
Your location: Cagliari / Sardegna

Re: Q11

Postby regole » Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:33 pm

regole wrote:
----Messaggio originale----
Da: [email protected]
Data: 30/03/2015 22.46
A:xxxxxxxx
Ogg: RE: Q11 - 2015 MGA Rules Quiz

xxxxxx,

I’ve been waiting for this email…what took so long!?

RE Q#11. We agree… he failed to replay and incurred a two-stroke penalty for that. Decision 19-1/3 clarifies the deflected stroke does not count in his score. The ball was holed so there’s no issue w R3-2.
Cute question, interesting outcome.


Let me know if you want to discuss further.

Brm



From:xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2015 4:32 PM
To: Brian Mahoney
Subject: Q11 - 2015 MGA Rules Quiz

Hi Brian,
I do not agree with the answer you give to the quiz question.
It is my personal opinion but the decision that you mentioned has nothing to do with the situation represented in the quiz.
And I explain why.
In the situation described in the quiz the player has not played from a wrong place, he has not own played. So what got to do the D. 19-1/3?
In the decision the ball has been holed after the deviation but at following a stroke by the player. In the situation given with the quiz the ball has been holed a result of a deviation by a OA. Waves for which if the player does not correct the error is in breach of Rule 3-2.
So the DQ is not for playing from a wrong place, but because the player has not holed out.
What is your opinion?

Kind Regards
xxxxx


At this point only the RB can clarify in a definitive way. It is not possible that the player also if not disqualified to close the hole even in only 4 shots :shock:




The situation was too interesting so I asked today to RB's and I wanted to share it with you the answer that was immediate and at the same time succinct:

- the player is disqualified.

Then that is what all of us, unless the gurus of the MGA, we supported since the moment in which the quiz was proposed.
To me personally left a bitter taste in the mouth this significant difference in ruling.
At this point I think that someone who reads and who has contacts with MGA, should be doing this situation which has the embarrassing :shock:

Regards
regole
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:16 pm
Your location: Cagliari / Sardegna

Re: Q11

Postby Chippings » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:38 pm

Regole
A genuine thank you for this information. No big surprise ! Not the first mistake made by MGA.
As I have already commented -- they have asked an almost identical question this year which I criticised and about which I refused to comment. I was interested to see if they had changed their position ?
However more importantly and with great respect I do not think that the ruling body's time should be spent answering hypothetical quiz questions -- a sure way to lose goodwill?
Queries re the current rule changes -- that's different.
Respectfully
Chippings
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:00 pm
Your location: Bristol

Previous

Return to 2015 MGA Quiz

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred