I think he gets penalized 2 strokes because he played from the wrong place ("gravity" is not considered an external factor). He should've replaced it to where it lay and play from there. Since he fails to put it back to where it belonged, 2 penalty strokes for breaching 18-2.

Q5:
5) In stroke play, a player whose ball is in casual water and easily retrievable mistakes the casual water for a water hazard. The player drops another ball in accordance with Rule 26-1 and plays it. A fellow-competitor informs him of the fact that his ball had been in casual water and that he was entitled to free relief in accordance with Rule 25-1. How should the player proceed?
a. The player must continue play, incurring the one-stroke penalty for relief from a water hazard.
b. The player incurs four penalty strokes, must abandon the ball played under Rule 26-1 which was inapplicable, retrieve the ball in the casual water, and take relief in accordance with Rule 25-1.
c. The player, with no penalty assessed, must abandon the ball played under the inapplicable Rule and proceed in accordance with Rule 25-1.
d. The player incurs a two-stroke penalty and must continue play with the substituted ball.

Now, that's easy, decision 25-1b/13 matches this exactly => 2 penalty strokes thus answer d.

Let's speed things up a bit, Q6:
6) A competitor’s tee shot is found in a lateral water hazard. The ball lies among dry, sparse, dead bushes, which are still rooted in the hazard, and underneath a detached tree limb that rests on the ground outside the hazard but extends over it. The competitor steps a few yards away from the area and takes three practice swings, breaking numerous branches on the bushes with each swing, but not touching the ground. The competitor takes his stance and makes a stroke at the ball. On his backswing, he breaks additional branches on the bushes and strikes the overhanging detached tree limb, which moves. He continues the stroke and plays the ball out of the hazard. Which of the following statements is true?
a. The competitor has incurred a two-stroke penalty for multiple acts of testing the condition of the hazard.
b. The competitor has incurred a two-stroke penalty for improving the area of his intended swing by breaking branches on the bushes during his backswing.
c. The competitor has incurred a two-stroke penalty for improving the area of his intended swing by breaking branches on the bushes during his backswing and a second two-stroke penalty for moving the overhanging detached tree limb, for a total penalty of four strokes.
d. The competitor has incurred a two-stroke penalty for moving the overhanging detached tree limb.

jev wrote:

I think he gets penalized 2 strokes because he played from the wrong place ("gravity" is not considered an external factor). He should've replaced it to where it lay and play from there. Since he fails to put it back to where it belonged, 2 penalty strokes for breaching 18-2.

My disagreement with this is in the fact that neither rule 18-2b nor the exception to rule 18-2b mentions anything about an outside agency.

Quote:

Let's speed things up a bit, Q6: 6) A competitor’s tee shot is found in a lateral water hazard. The ball lies among dry, sparse, dead bushes, which are still rooted in the hazard, and underneath a detached tree limb that rests on the ground outside the hazard but extends over it. The competitor steps a few yards away from the area and takes three practice swings, breaking numerous branches on the bushes with each swing, but not touching the ground. The competitor takes his stance and makes a stroke at the ball. On his backswing, he breaks additional branches on the bushes and strikes the overhanging detached tree limb, which moves. He continues the stroke and plays the ball out of the hazard. Which of the following statements is true? a. The competitor has incurred a two-stroke penalty for multiple acts of testing the condition of the hazard. b. The competitor has incurred a two-stroke penalty for improving the area of his intended swing by breaking branches on the bushes during his backswing. c. The competitor has incurred a two-stroke penalty for improving the area of his intended swing by breaking branches on the bushes during his backswing and a second two-stroke penalty for moving the overhanging detached tree limb, for a total penalty of four strokes. d. The competitor has incurred a two-stroke penalty for moving the overhanging detached tree limb.

This is one of those rules that give me a headache. It's also the reason why, if I find myself in a red staked area, I will take the one stroke penalty and a drop unless I can make my full stroke without making any contact with any of the various junk that might be in the way. Personally, I think he should only be assigned one two-stroke penalty, but I would completely understand if he was assigned a second one for a second breach of the rules.

#6 would be D

I think you're right Player. It can't be (a) since "testing" would involve touching the ground. It can't be (b) because the backswing is part of the swing and thus it's no "improving the area for his intended swing" (and thus (c) is not right too). You can't touch a loose impediment in the backswing and that seems to be what is meant in (d). Bad question if you ask me.

Question #7:
7) In stroke play, a player hits a five-iron over an elevated green. Upon reaching the green, he realizes there is a large bunker surrounded by thick grass next to the green and a lateral water hazard approximately 25 yards beyond the bunker. The player does not see his ball so he assumes it rolled into the lateral water hazard. He takes relief under R26-1c and plays his next shot onto the green. As he’s walking back towards the green, he sees his original ball in the bunker partially covered by leaves. The player should:
a. Abandon the substituted ball and play his original ball in the bunker, incurring a two-stroke penalty.
b. Complete the hole with the substituted ball, incurring a two-stroke penalty.
c. Abandon the substituted ball and drop a ball at the spot where he last played his original ball, incurring a total of three penalty strokes.
d. Complete the hole with the substituted ball, incurring a total of three penalty strokes.

jev wrote:

Question #7: 7) In stroke play, a player hits a five-iron over an elevated green. Upon reaching the green, he realizes there is a large bunker surrounded by thick grass next to the green and a lateral water hazard approximately 25 yards beyond the bunker. The player does not see his ball so he assumes it rolled into the lateral water hazard. He takes relief under R26-1c and plays his next shot onto the green. As he’s walking back towards the green, he sees his original ball in the bunker partially covered by leaves. The player should: a. Abandon the substituted ball and play his original ball in the bunker, incurring a two-stroke penalty. b. Complete the hole with the substituted ball, incurring a two-stroke penalty. c. Abandon the substituted ball and drop a ball at the spot where he last played his original ball, incurring a total of three penalty strokes. d. Complete the hole with the substituted ball, incurring a total of three penalty strokes.

I don't think any of these answers are correct. The closest to correct would be C. However, according to rule 20-7, this depends on whether or not the rules committee would have deemed the dropping of the ball to be a serious breach of the rules. I can see some instances where a drop in that situation might not be an unfair advantage, so that means that there are some instances where answer D would also be correct. The correct method of play would be to finish out the hole with the substituted ball andthen go back to the teeing ground and play a second ball invoking stroke and distance. Once the round is complete, the rulescommitte would have to decide whether or not the drop was a serious breach, and then they would decide which ball to use. Either way, though, it's a penalty of three total strokes.

jev wrote:

Question #7: 7) In stroke play, a player hits a five-iron over an elevated green. Upon reaching the green, he realizes there is a large bunker surrounded by thick grass next to the green and a lateral water hazard approximately 25 yards beyond the bunker. The player does not see his ball so he assumes it rolled into the lateral water hazard. He takes relief under R26-1c and plays his next shot onto the green. As he’s walking back towards the green, he sees his original ball in the bunker partially covered by leaves. The player should: a. Abandon the substituted ball and play his original ball in the bunker, incurring a two-stroke penalty. b. Complete the hole with the substituted ball, incurring a two-stroke penalty. c. Abandon the substituted ball and drop a ball at the spot where he last played his original ball, incurring a total of three penalty strokes. d. Complete the hole with the substituted ball, incurring a total of three penalty strokes.

I believe "C" is correct. Since the player was not virtually certain that his ball was in the water hazard, he should not have proceeded under 26-1.c. As soon as he played his substituted ball, the original ball was considered "lost" even though he subsequently found it. At that point he should return to the tee under the "lost ball" rule and add an additional 2 strokes for playing from a wrong place (20-7.c.)

Decision 26/1-3 describes this exactly, I too think answer C is the right one.

Q8:
8) A competitor’s ball lies in a water hazard after his first stroke from the tee on a par three. He makes a stroke at the ball and the ball comes to rest out of bounds. The competitor drops a ball in the water hazard and the ball comes to rest in a poor lie. He abandons the dropped ball, which was easily retrievable, and drops a second ball, using as the reference point the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard before it came to rest in the hazard. He holes out the ball so dropped in two more strokes. His score for the hole is:
a. 5.
b. 6.
c. 7.
d. 8.

jev wrote:

Q8: 8) A competitor’s ball lies in a water hazard after his first stroke from the tee on a par three. He makes a stroke at the ball and the ball comes to rest out of bounds. The competitor drops a ball in the water hazard and the ball comes to rest in a poor lie. He abandons the dropped ball, which was easily retrievable, and drops a second ball, using as the reference point the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard before it came to rest in the hazard. He holes out the ball so dropped in two more strokes. His score for the hole is: a. 5. b. 6. c. 7. d. 8.

So when do we get an easy question? I think he was laying "3" after he dropped back into the hazard. When he decided the lie was too poor, he took another stroke penalty to return to the spot where his first stroke last crossed the margin of the hazard, so he lays "4" after dropping. He then takes two more strokes for a "6". I am not confident with that answer and would seek concurrence from the rest of my group before proceeding.

bkuehn1952 wrote:

jev wrote: Q8: 8) A competitor’s ball lies in a water hazard after his first stroke from the tee on a par three. He makes a stroke at the ball and the ball comes to rest out of bounds. The competitor drops a ball in the water hazard and the ball comes to rest in a poor lie. He abandons the dropped ball, which was easily retrievable, and drops a second ball, using as the reference point the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard before it came to rest in the hazard. He holes out the ball so dropped in two more strokes. His score for the hole is: a. 5. b. 6. c. 7. d. 8. So when do we get an easy question? I think he was laying "3" after he dropped back into the hazard. When he decided the lie was too poor, he took another stroke penalty to return to the spot where his first stroke last crossed the margin of the hazard, so he lays "4" after dropping. He then takes two more strokes for a "6". I am not confident with that answer and would seek concurrence from the rest of my group before proceeding.

My initital answer would be the same, but that seems too easy given the nature of the rest of the questions. So now I'm gonna go look it up.

bkuehn1952 wrote:

So when do we get an easy question?

That wasn't too difficult now, was it? . I concur, it would be 6.

Question 9 happens all the time, though usually one plays first and than fishes for other balls:
9) In stroke play, a player’s ball is in a water hazard in a playable position. An abandoned ball lies in the water nearby his ball and he retrieves it with his club. What is the ruling?
a. The player has tested the condition of the hazard and incurs the general penalty.
b. The player has not tested the condition of the hazard, but incurs a penalty for touching the water prior to his stroke.
c. The player has not tested the condition of the hazard, but incurs a penalty for touching the abandoned ball with his club.
d. The player incurs no penalty.

I keep wondering how many we've gotten right - is it March already?

jev wrote:

bkuehn1952 wrote: So when do we get an easy question? That wasn't too difficult now, was it? . I concur, it would be 6. Question 9 happens all the time, though usually one plays first and than fishes for other balls: 9) In stroke play, a player’s ball is in a water hazard in a playable position. An abandoned ball lies in the water nearby his ball and he retrieves it with his club. What is the ruling? a. The player has tested the condition of the hazard and incurs the general penalty. b. The player has not tested the condition of the hazard, but incurs a penalty for touching the water prior to his stroke. c. The player has not tested the condition of the hazard, but incurs a penalty for touching the abandoned ball with his club. d. The player incurs no penalty.

This is why I never retrieve balls with my club!

I know he's going to incur a penalty. I'm thinking either A or B are correct.

jev wrote:

Question 9 happens all the time, though usually one plays first and than fishes for other balls: 9) In stroke play, a player’s ball is in a water hazard in a playable position. An abandoned ball lies in the water nearby his ball and he retrieves it with his club. What is the ruling? a. The player has tested the condition of the hazard and incurs the general penalty. b. The player has not tested the condition of the hazard, but incurs a penalty for touching the water prior to his stroke. c. The player has not tested the condition of the hazard, but incurs a penalty for touching the abandoned ball with his club. d. The player incurs no penalty. I keep wondering how many we've gotten right - is it March already?

March?? We still have to deal with the extra day they stuck into February.

As to the question, the player has to have his head examined for sticking his club into the water. I would consider the action "testing" and suggest that the action results in a 2 stroke penalty (a.). If he had made the case prior to his action that the abandoned ball interfered with his intended play, I might give him some leeway under the exception for removing an "obstruction". In this instance, however, he appears to have merely taken leave of his senses so give him what he deserves.

I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention, What was the question again?

bkuehn1952 wrote:

If he had made the case prior to his action that the abandoned ball interfered with his intended play, I might give him some leeway under the exception for removing an "obstruction".

Where does it say that anyone has to give notice before removing a movable obstruction from anywhere?

Rulesman wrote:

bkuehn1952 wrote: If he had made the case prior to his action that the abandoned ball interfered with his intended play, I might give him some leeway under the exception for removing an "obstruction". Where does it say that anyone has to give notice before removing a movable obstruction from anywhere?

I agree that generally one does not need to seek permission. However, the action of sticking the club in the water and scooping out a ball strikes me as testing unless he pointed out prior to his fishing expedition that an abandoned ball was interfering with his intended stroke. The ball was near the player's own ball but it was not mentioned that it was close enough to be a problem.