What did she score for the hole?

[Fourputt]

I'll go with the majority.  I can see a final score of 9 for this one. 

Tee shot

Stroke from DZ  + 1 penalty stroke for 26-1 + 2 penalty strokes for teeing the ball - total 5 so far

Drop in DZ under stroke and distance - total 6

stroke from DZ - 7 so far

2 putts = 9 - grand total

[Dormie1360]

5 hours ago, ColinL said:

I made it 9 strokes without looking at any of the replies in the thread, having decided that playing again from the DZ was stroke and distance.  I’m surprised that the USGA brings in the question of the player’s intention.  She played another stroke from where her original ball was last played which, according to 27-1a is deemed to be stroke and distance whatever might have been in her mind and whether or not the original ball could be seen:

Except as otherwise provided in the Rules, if a player makes a stroke at a ball from the spot at which the original ball was last played, he is deemed to have proceeded under penalty of stroke and distance.

 

That's what I originally thought as well.  The issue I was not sure of was  the application of R20-5 from a drop zone.  With a teeing area if the player returns to the teeing area and plays again anywhere in the area, it complies with 20-5, ....... R27-1.    If a drop zone is through the green, would the player be required to play from her previous spot in the drop zone, not just drop anywhere in the circle?  If that's the case, unless she played exactly from the previous spot the ruling goes back to whether or not she knew where here first ball was.  If she did, it's 2 PS for a WP, the applicable rule is 13-1.  If not the applicable rule is 27-1 and 20-7 for a total of 3 PS. (The committee ruled the former, not the latter.)

Anyway I agree intent has nothing to do with the possible application of R27-1, however to only receive 1 PS for the 2nd drop zone stroke, the player had to comply with 20-5. 

[Dormie1360]

8 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Technically since the player played the second ball from the DZ under stroke and distance, even though she didn't know that at the time, she was entitled to substitute a ball.

Agreed.  If  27-1 was not the ruling however, (which seems to be what the committee is saying) a substitution would not be allowed.  So although she did two things wrong, an incorrect substitution and playing from a wrong place, the player get's a "quantity discount" of only 2PS..

[Asheville]

I just ploughed through Lew Blakey's:

 http://throughthegreen.org/linked/what_is_the_applicable_rule_-_2016.pdf

On the last page, he offers the opinion that if a player knows the location of his ball in play yet intentionally substitutes a ball, then 27-1 is not the correct Rule to use.

In the original situation, I see it as 5 + 5 PS = 10. (Ball in WH for 1 PS, wrong place for 2 PS and improper substitution for 2 more PS.)

[Fourputt]

3 hours ago, Asheville said:

I just ploughed through Lew Blakey's:

 http://throughthegreen.org/linked/what_is_the_applicable_rule_-_2016.pdf

On the last page, he offers the opinion that if a player knows the location of his ball in play yet intentionally substitutes a ball, then 27-1 is not the correct Rule to use.

In the original situation, I see it as 5 + 5 PS = 10. (Ball in WH for 1 PS, wrong place for 2 PS and improper substitution for 2 more PS.)

We just had another discussion on a similar incident a month or so ago, and it was stated unequivocally that regardless of what the player thinks he is doing, when he incorrectly plays the second ball from the original spot he is playing under stroke and distance - essentially the stroke and distance penalty supersedes the others as being adequate to ensure that no advantage is gained by the incorrect act.  

For me that makes it a simple rule to understand and eliminates all of the confusion.  I can't imagine that any 2 or 3 committees would come up with the same answer otherwise.  The ruling becomes too convoluted otherwise.  Making it so complicated that even those of us who are more or less familiar with the rules get lost in the process is a lose/lose scenario. 

[Dormie1360]

 

For those still interested......

I got an opinion elsewhere that a drop zone loses it's status as such after the first stroke.  So when the player returned to the drop zone she needed to drop the ball at the previous spot (where she originally teed it) in order to avoid a Wrong Place penalty.  She did not and that's why the committee ruled 2PS for a wrong place. They also ruled no serious breach with either stroke made from the drop zone.  If she had dropped at the previous spot, the penalty would have been stroke and distance, as Fourputt and others have mentioned.  Intent doesn't matter in this case.

Whenever a player does not proceed according to the rules, the referee or committee will need to determine an applicable rule that covers what the player actually did. Our player should have continued with her original ball played from the drop zone.  However she did not.  She substituted a new ball and dropped it somewhere else on the course, other than where her original ball lay, and other than the spot where she previously made a stroke.

So when she did this, the location of the original ball, and whether or not she knew where it was became a factor in the ruling.  Apparently she knew where the original ball was, because the committee assigned just 2PS.  If she did not know where the original ball was, Rule 27 would have to become the applicable rule, however along with the 1PS under R27 she would have received additional 2PS for playing from the wrong place.  Remember, R27 requires the player to play from the previous spot which she did not.  The committee would also have to determine if this stroke from the wrong place gave her a significant advantage resulting in a Serious Breach penalty.

This is an excellent article from Lew Blakey's sight covering the issues involving a player incorrectly substituting their ball in play.

What's the Applicable Rule

Edited January 23, 2016 by Dormie1360

[Club Rat]

3 hours ago, Dormie1360 said:

So when the player returned to the drop zone she needed to drop the ball at the previous spot (where she originally teed it) in order to avoid a Wrong Place penalty.  She did not and that's why the committee ruled 2PS for a wrong place

Now that makes sense to the ruling, but the OP did not indicate the player re-dropped incorrectly or where it occurred in the DZ.

She basically must have drop more than 2 club lengths or in front of the point she tee'd in the DZ.

Maybe I missed the post declaring the P for that action?

[Dormie1360]

31 minutes ago, Club Rat said:

Now that makes sense to the ruling, but the OP did not indicate the player re-dropped incorrectly or where it occurred in the DZ.

She basically must have drop more than 2 club lengths or in front of the point she tee'd in the DZ.

Maybe I missed the post declaring the P for that action?

You have to infer that's what she did based on how the committee ruled. BTW she would not have to have dropped 2 club lengths away to be in breach although she could very well have. Dropping a ball on the spot where the previous stroke was played, no closer, means just that.   Most people can probably hit within 6 inches of the spot, certainly within a foot.  

If you don't know the spot you must estimate the spot, once you do, that is the "SPOT".

Edited January 24, 2016 by Dormie1360

[Club Rat]

2 minutes ago, Dormie1360 said:

Dropping a ball on the spot where the previous stroke was played, no closer, means dropping as close as you can to that spot.

Good point.

[Asheville]

35 minutes ago, Dormie1360 said:

You have to infer that's what she did based on how the committee ruled. BTW she would not have to have dropped 2 club lengths away to be in breach although she could very well have. Dropping a ball on the spot where the previous stroke was played, no closer, means just that.   Most people can probably hit within 6 inches of the spot, certainly within a foot.  

If you don't know the spot you must estimate the spot, once you do, that is the "SPOT".

My sense of it, John, is that the player was attempting to remedy her incorrect play (using a tee) from the dropping zone by correctly dropping a ball and replaying the shot from somewhere within the DZ with no regard to exercising her right to a R27-1.

I'll see if I can work on it some tomorrow with the referee who was on the scene.

[ColinL]

Looking back at the OP there is nothing to indicate that the drop was not as near as possible to where the previous stroke had been made.  In my understanding,  we have to deem that whatever her thoughts may have been and whether or not she could see the original ball,  if her drop was from where her previous stroke was made,  she played under 27-1 and the substitution was legitimate.

Agreed, that if the ball was not dropped at the same spot , it was an incorrect substitution, played from a wrong place even it was dropped somewhere in the DZ.

Thanks to Dormie for pursuing the matter of the status of the DZ.  I recollect last year we had to use artificial mats for a couple of DZs at my club and that I included in the LR the clarification that at any other time than taking relief from the DZ, the mats were simply obstructions.  I can’t say I thought about the stroke and distance possibility, just the situation where a ball came to rest on or near the mat and there was interference. Right enough, however,  any stroke after the relief stroke  from the mat  is at "any other time”.

 

Edited January 24, 2016 by ColinL

[Dormie1360]

10 hours ago, Asheville said:

My sense of it, John, is that the player was attempting to remedy her incorrect play (using a tee) from the dropping zone by correctly dropping a ball and replaying the shot from somewhere within the DZ with no regard to exercising her right to a R27-1.

I'll see if I can work on it some tomorrow with the referee who was on the scene.

 

Sorry for posting your article again, should have looked closer.

I feel bad for the player, she was just trying to do what she thought was right and wound up with a whole lot of penalty strokes.  There is a reason why they call it a "DROP" zone, however.

[David in FL]

Just tangential to the topic, but if the FC who notified her of the first breach saw her teeing the ball up, I would have hoped that she would have stopped her prior to the stroke....

[Asheville]

39 minutes ago, Dormie1360 said:

 

Sorry for posting your article again, should have looked closer.

I feel bad for the player, she was just trying to do what she thought was right and wound up with a whole lot of penalty strokes.  There is a reason why they call it a "DROP" zone, however.

It can be maddening how sometimes the words mean what they mean and sometimes they don't. :)

6 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Just tangential to the topic, but if the FC who notified her of the first breach saw her teeing the ball up, I would have hoped that she would have stopped her prior to the stroke....

One would hope so, David. We've all had occasions when something didn't look right but we couldn't bring ourselves to say, "Stop." I'll not hesitate as a referee but as a fellow-competitor . . . .

[Martyn W]

Interesting stuff. One thing I'm not getting is the incorrect substitution penalty. Lew Blakey makes the point about knowing where the original is making the substitution incorrect; my question is what about substituting a ball when the original is not immediately (within a few seconds according to 18/11) recoverable, which is permitted? We also have the exception to 15-2:  " If a player incurs a penalty for making a stroke from a wrong place, there is no additional penalty for substituting a ball when not permitted. "

[Asheville]

13 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

Interesting stuff. One thing I'm not getting is the incorrect substitution penalty. Lew Blakey makes the point about knowing where the original is making the substitution incorrect; my question is what about substituting a ball when the original is not immediately (within a few seconds according to 18/11) recoverable, which is permitted? We also have the exception to 15-2:  " If a player incurs a penalty for making a stroke from a wrong place, there is no additional penalty for substituting a ball when not permitted. "

Upon further reflection, Martyn, I believe that you're correct. I have since amended my penalty calculation to: WH = 1 PS  plus 2 x wrong place = 4 PS (or if I read D1-4/12 in a certain way I could give her only 2 PS for related acts result in one Rule being breached more than once  a single penalty applies.)

Edited January 24, 2016 by Asheville

[Rulesman]

28 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

 We also have the exception to 15-2:  " If a player incurs a penalty for making a stroke from a wrong place, there is no additional penalty for substituting a ball when not permitted. "

Thanks Martyn for raising this. It has been niggling me also.

[Dormie1360]

2 hours ago, Martyn W said:

Interesting stuff. One thing I'm not getting is the incorrect substitution penalty. Lew Blakey makes the point about knowing where the original is making the substitution incorrect; my question is what about substituting a ball when the original is not immediately (within a few seconds according to 18/11) recoverable, which is permitted? We also have the exception to 15-2:  " If a player incurs a penalty for making a stroke from a wrong place, there is no additional penalty for substituting a ball when not permitted. "

 

2 hours ago, Rulesman said:

Thanks Martyn for raising this. It has been niggling me also.

 

I'm slow today.  What is the Issue?  Are we talking about he OP or something else?