Golf Magazine Rules Quiz Question

[Missouri Swede]

I was looking through the digital tablet edition of the December 2014 issue of Golf magazine.  In the “Ask the Rules Guy” section they have a few rules quiz questions.  This was one of the questions:

The correct answer given is:

I don’t get it.  They don’t say that player B is a partner of player A, so from that I infer that he’s either an opponent (match play) or fellow-competitor (stroke play).

If I’m reading the rules correctly, rule 18-3a says that if it’s match play, “if, during search for a player’s ball, an opponent  … moves the ball, touches the ball or causes it to move, there is no penalty.  If the ball is moved, it must be replaced.” And rule 18-4 says that if it’s stroke play, “if a fellow-competitor … moves the ball, moves the ball or causes it to move, there is no penalty.  If the ball is moved, it must be replaced.”

So why is the correct ruling a one stroke penalty for player B?  I don’t see any decision at usga.org about these rules that looks applicable.  What am I missing? Thanks.

[Asheville]

You're on the right track. Without knowing the form of play, the question cannot be answered.

[Fourputt]

Without having read either post, only the question from the article, I was scratching my head thinking that there had to be a third answer - "Neither".  I realize that the answer is different if they are partners, but since that wasn't stated, I assumed that they were either opponents or fellow competitors.  Then I look at the answers available and I think that they have to be partners or the possible outcome would have different options. WTF??

If a magazine is going to run an article like that, they really need to find someone who actually knows the rules to edit it before publication.  All they did with that bit was confuse the issue, not instruct.  This is the second time I've seen one of their rules articles called to question.

[ColinL]

Agreed.  The only circumstance in which there would be a penalty   would be if the two were partners in a side. And if that were the case it would be A who incurred the penalty, not B (Rule 18-2a).

[boogielicious]

Without having read either post, only the question from the article, I was scratching my head thinking that there had to be a third answer - "Neither".  I realize that the answer is different if they are partners, but since that wasn't stated, I assumed that they were either opponents or fellow competitors.  Then I look at the answers available and I think that they have to be partners or the possible outcome would have different options. WTF??

If a magazine is going to run an article like that, they really need to find someone who actually knows the rules to edit it before publication.  All they did with that bit was confuse the issue, not instruct.  This is the second time I've seen one of their rules articles called to question.

But that would break their streak of never having a reporter actually fact check any of their stories!

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Without having read either post, only the question from the article, I was scratching my head thinking that there had to be a third answer - "Neither".  I realize that the answer is different if they are partners, but since that wasn't stated, I assumed that they were either opponents or fellow competitors.  Then I look at the answers available and I think that they have to be partners or the possible outcome would have different options. WTF??

If a magazine is going to run an article like that, they really need to find someone who actually knows the rules to edit it before publication.  All they did with that bit was confuse the issue, not instruct.  This is the second time I've seen one of their rules articles called to question.

But that would break their streak of never having a reporter actually fact check any of their stories!

One of the many reasons why I don't subscribe to any golf magazines.  I did, about 25 years ago, but I began to see that they were: 1) more advertisements than substance, even in the so-called articles; 2) tended to repeat much of the same information on about 2 or 3 year cycle; 3) seemed to be more of a gear catalog than an informative magazine (since I'm not a gearhead, that bit is worthless to me).  And that is above and beyond the inaccuracies like the above rules question.  Just not worth my time or money.

[Patch]

Based on the info given, and player "A" did not move the ball, the only answer was player "B". Perhaps the person who drafted the question wanted the reader to assume they were partners. At best, a poorly worded, and/or missing info question. Hope player "B" showed player "A" the ball's original lie.

[ColinL]

Patch,

If they were not partners there would be no penalty to  either  in stroke play (18-1)  or in match play (18-3a).

[Missouri Swede]

Perhaps the person who drafted the question wanted the reader to assume they were partners.

But if they were partners, the penalty goes to player A, not to player B (rule 18-2a).  So that doesn't work either.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Without having read either post, only the question from the article, I was scratching my head thinking that there had to be a third answer - "Neither".  I realize that the answer is different if they are partners, but since that wasn't stated, I assumed that they were either opponents or fellow competitors.  Then I look at the answers available and I think that they have to be partners or the possible outcome would have different options. WTF??

If a magazine is going to run an article like that, they really need to find someone who actually knows the rules to edit it before publication.  All they did with that bit was confuse the issue, not instruct.  This is the second time I've seen one of their rules articles called to question.

But that would break their streak of never having a reporter actually fact check any of their stories!

One of the many reasons why I don't subscribe to any golf magazines.  I did, about 25 years ago, but I began to see that they were: 1) more advertisements than substance, even in the so-called articles; 2) tended to repeat much of the same information on about 2 or 3 year cycle; 3) seemed to be more of a gear catalog than an informative magazine (since I'm not a gearhead, that bit is worthless to me).  And that is above and beyond the inaccuracies like the above rules question.  Just not worth my time or money.

I know what I am getting Rick for Xmas!!!

[Missouri Swede]

Here's another one.  The September issue of Golf magazine is out.  One of the rules questions got me thinking a little bit.  Here’s the question:

My first thought was:  the OB stake is NOT an obstruction (from definition of Out of Bounds), and therefore cannot be moved to provide relief, so my answer is TRUE (he may not move the stake).

I then read their answer and my jaw dropped a little:

I was (and am) a bit perplexed by their answer.  On further reflection, I think that the answer to their question as written is FALSE, but only because of the logic of the way they wrote the question:

The posed statement is that the play “may not move an out of bounds stake … because he doesn’t control anything that is out of bounds.”  I propose that (1) it is true that he may not move an out of bounds stake, but (2) the “because” is completely incorrect, making their statement incorrect.  The reason he may not move the stake is not because he doesn’t control it, but because the RoG define it as not being an obstruction (and therefore it is not subject to relief under 24-1a).

That being said, I think that their explanation is completely wrong and gives the the incorrect take-home message.  They end up saying that you can move an out of bounds stake, when the RoG specifically deny relief under 24-1a.

(FWIW, I also noted that their picture shows a red stake, which is incorrect for an OB stake.)

Anyone else have a take on the question?  Or did I misunderstand what they're getting at?

[Fourputt]

Here's another one.  The September issue of Golf magazine is out.  One of the rules questions got me thinking a little bit.  Here’s the question:

My first thought was:  the OB stake is NOT an obstruction (from definition of Out of Bounds), and therefore cannot be moved to provide relief, so my answer is TRUE (he may not move the stake).

I then read their answer and my jaw dropped a little:

I was (and am) a bit perplexed by their answer.  On further reflection, I think that the answer to their question as written is FALSE, but only because of the logic of the way they wrote the question:

The posed statement is that the play “may not move an out of bounds stake … because he doesn’t control anything that is out of bounds.”  I propose that (1) it is true that he may not move an out of bounds stake, but (2) the “because” is completely incorrect, making their statement incorrect.  The reason he may not move the stake is not because he doesn’t control it, but because the RoG define it as not being an obstruction (and therefore it is not subject to relief under 24-1a).

That being said, I think that their explanation is completely wrong and gives the the incorrect take-home message.  They end up saying that you can move an out of bounds stake, when the RoG specifically deny relief under 24-1a.

(FWIW, I also noted that their picture shows a red stake, which is incorrect for an OB stake.)

Anyone else have a take on the question?  Or did I misunderstand what they're getting at?

They are deliberately obfuscating the answer by showing a red lateral water hazard stake then asking about an out of bounds stake.  As they stated the answer they are correct, but it's a pretty confusing link between question and answer.   The answer given doesn't really pertain to the question that was asked.

[ColinL]

Here's another one.  The September issue of Golf magazine is out.  One of the rules questions got me thinking a little bit.  Here’s the question:

My first thought was:  the OB stake is NOT an obstruction (from definition of Out of Bounds), and therefore cannot be moved to provide relief, so my answer is TRUE (he may not move the stake).

I then read their answer and my jaw dropped a little:

I was (and am) a bit perplexed by their answer.  On further reflection, I think that the answer to their question as written is FALSE, but only because of the logic of the way they wrote the question:

The posed statement is that the play “may not move an out of bounds stake … because he doesn’t control anything that is out of bounds.”  I propose that (1) it is true that he may not move an out of bounds stake, but (2) the “because” is completely incorrect, making their statement incorrect.  The reason he may not move the stake is not because he doesn’t control it, but because the RoG define it as not being an obstruction (and therefore it is not subject to relief under 24-1a).

That being said, I think that their explanation is completely wrong and gives the the incorrect take-home message.  They end up saying that you can move an out of bounds stake, when the RoG specifically deny relief under 24-1a.

(FWIW, I also noted that their picture shows a red stake, which is incorrect for an OB stake.)

Anyone else have a take on the question?  Or did I misunderstand what they're getting at?

I think you are over-analysing.  Quite simply it is bollox.

[natureboy]

I think you are over-analysing.  Quite simply it is bollox.

I think this thread has identified the intern's job at Golf magazine.

[Missouri Swede]

Once again, Golf magazine tries its hand at RoG instruction (October issue):

The correct answer (I think) is that the question cannot be answered due to insufficient information in the wording of the question, since they don’t specify who is looking for (and moving) the ball.

1. My initial reading assumed that a player was looking for his own ball.  As far as I can tell from 18-2a, none of the exceptions that would allow for “no penalty” would apply.  (Sorry, I don’t think “the rough” qualifies as an “abnormal ground condition.”)  In this case, the answer given is incorrect, since it carries a one stroke penalty.
2. The other possibility is that another player moves the ball.  In match play, an opponent searching for the other player’s ball would receive no penalty (18-3a). In stroke play, a fellow-competitor is not penalized for moving another player’s ball, whether during a search or not (18-4).  But we aren’t told that the “mover” is searching for someone else’s ball.

Did I miss anything?  The answer doesn’t expand on what “that case” refers to (being in the rough? stroke play? player’s own ball?), so we can’t reverse-engineer the intended question.

Once again, it seems that they have a poorly worded question, with an incomplete answer (come on guys, would it kill you to give a rule number?!) that only confuses.

The trend is getting so bad that this is the first part of the magazine I look at when the digital version is out!

[Fourputt]

Once again, Golf magazine tries its hand at RoG instruction (October issue):

The correct answer (I think) is that the question cannot be answered due to insufficient information in the wording of the question, since they don’t specify who is looking for (and moving) the ball.

My initial reading assumed that a player was looking for his own ball.  As far as I can tell from 18-2a, none of the exceptions that would allow for “no penalty” would apply.  (Sorry, I don’t think “the rough” qualifies as an “abnormal ground condition.”)  In this case, the answer given is incorrect, since it carries a one stroke penalty.

The other possibility is that another player moves the ball.  In match play, an opponent searching for the other player’s ball would receive no penalty (18-3a). In stroke play, a fellow-competitor is not penalized for moving another player’s ball, whether during a search or not (18-4).  But we aren’t told that the “mover” is searching for someone else’s ball.

Did I miss anything?  The answer doesn’t expand on what “that case” refers to (being in the rough? stroke play? player’s own ball?), so we can’t reverse-engineer the intended question.

Once again, it seems that they have a poorly worded question, with an incomplete answer (come on guys, would it kill you to give a rule number?!) that only confuses.

The trend is getting so bad that this is the first part of the magazine I look at when the digital version is out!

Yep.  The question can't be answered without a lot more information.  Who moved the ball?  If the player caused it to move, then 2 possibilities exist.  He replaces the ball and incurs one penalty stroke, or he fails to replace the ball and incurs two penalty strokes.  If another player caused it to move then it must be replaced and no penalty is assessed.  If the ball is not replaced then the player whose ball it is still incurs a two stroke penalty (the general penalty for breach of Rule 18) for not replacing the ball when required to do so.

[ColinL]

Does anyone who subscribes to the magazine ever contact it to point out these mistakes?  And if so what sort of answer do you get?  Is a correction ever published?

[Missouri Swede]

Does anyone who subscribes to the magazine ever contact it to point out these mistakes?  And if so what sort of answer do you get?  Is a correction ever published?

I emailed the rulesguy at the magazine last December and last month (one time each). No reply at all. Thinking of a letter to the editor this time.