4BBB Ruling

[brfcfan]

2 incidents happened yesterday on the same hole. I was down for a 4, my partner had already picked up. Both my opponents were on the green, one was there for 2 and the other for 5 nett 4. They were both on the same line and the guy who already had taken too many shots and was out of the hole putted down. My question is, was he allowed to do that given he was out of the hole already or is it upto me to have said pick it up? To make matters worse his partner stood directly behind him when he took the putt which I said was against the rules but someone had a different view after the game?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Was this matchplay?

 

[brfcfan]

Yes

 

[brfcfan]

Yeah I think unless you give the putt he can carry on. But the 2nd part is against the rules.

I think that he shouldn't have carried on but noone I have spoken too knows 100% which is right or wrong. Even asked a rules official who was recently at Pebble Beach officiating and he didnt know the answer either.

 

[Kellfire]

I think that he shouldn't have carried on but noone I have spoken too knows 100% which is right or wrong. Even asked a rules official who was recently at Pebble Beach officiating and he didnt know the answer either.

You know someone who officiated at Pebble that didn’t know the answer to this one? Wow.

 

[duncan mackie]

I wasn't invited to officiate at Pebble....😣

However the relevant ruling you are looking for now lies in 23.8 (2) second bullet and is clarified exactly as presented in interpretation 23.8 (2)/1

Hope this helps you in any future discussions

Edited for transposed numbers

 

[brfcfan]

You know someone who officiated at Pebble that didn’t know the answer to this one? Wow.

I was surprised too, but I guess he only officiates in stroke

I wasn't invited to officiate at Pebble....😣

However the relevant ruling you are looking for now lies in 28.3 (2) second bullet and is clarified exactly as presented in interpretation 28.3 (2)/1

Hope this helps you in any future discussions

:0).......sorry Duncan on the R&A website the rules only go upto 24 where are you getting this ruling from? Thanks

 

[duncan mackie]

I was surprised too, but I guess he only officiates in stroke


:0).......sorry Duncan on the R&A website the rules only go upto 24 where are you getting this ruling from? Thanks

Sorry - I was a little distracted here today

23.8 (2) and 23.8 (2)/1

Also applicable to strokeplay

I will edit the above for others (your question will hold the old quote)

 

[Colin L]

Duncan has a Tardis of a rule book: it holds much more than would seem likely from the Police Box sized exterior.

He has the right numbers but not quite in the right order and no doubt meant Rule 23.8 and and Interpretation 23.8a(2)/1.

As I read the situation the OP describes, the opponent who was "out of the hole" had the right to play unless you had conceded the putt even although it was going to help his partner. Had you conceded it, he would not have been permitted to play if, as was the case, it would have helped his partner. See the Exception in 23.6.

The partner is not, however, permitted to stand behind his partner from when he starts to take his stance to completion of the stroke. Both partners get the general penalty and the side loses the hole. Had he stood to the side and observed the putt, all would have been well.

 

[brfcfan]

Sorry - I was a little distracted here today

23.8 (2) and 23.8 (2)/1

Also applicable to strokeplay

I will edit the above for others (your question will hold the old quote)

I have just read this paragraph and I cannot see any mention of if you can or cannot carry on playing the hole. In singles matchplay it doesnt matter, but in 4BBB it does because in this case he gave his partner the line. I didnt give him the putt as I was expecting him to have picked up.

If he had been further away than me he would have been perfectly within his rights to carry on and I would have conceded the putt, but because I had already holed out I dont believe he should have made a stroke at the ball given he had already taken too many shots.

 

[Colin L]

He had the right to continue playing the hole which is not completed. Your opponents had not holed out, you hadn't conceded their next strokes and you hadn't conceded the hole. See Rule 23.3c(1)

 

[brfcfan]

He had the right to continue playing the hole which, because you did not concede the putt, the side has not completed. See Rule 23.3c(1)

Ahh yes that is a little clearer, I dont agree with the rule but memo to self is to make sure I concede that putt. It does seem strange to have to concede a putt to a guy who cannot win or halve the hole.

Though RANDA was supposed to be speeding up the game! After a 5 hour round at Hever yesterday it doesnt feel like it.

 

[duncan mackie]

I have just read this paragraph and I cannot see any mention of if you can or cannot carry on playing the hole. In singles matchplay it doesnt matter, but in 4BBB it does because in this case he gave his partner the line. I didnt give him the putt as I was expecting him to have picked up.

If he had been further away than me he would have been perfectly within his rights to carry on and I would have conceded the putt, but because I had already holed out I dont believe he should have made a stroke at the ball given he had already taken too many shots.

Sorry I was responding to the whole of your post, which this seemed to cover -

• Player B takes a stance for a putt and makes the strokewhile Player A deliberately stands in a location on or close to an extension of the line of play behind the ball for any reason. Player B is in breach of Rule 10.2b(4) (Standing Behind Player) for taking a stance when Player A is in such a location and will get the general penalty.
  Further, when Player A's putt is on the same line as Player B's and Player B makes a stroke while Player A is on an extension of Player B's line of play, Player B's breach helped Player A so Player A also gets the same penalty as Player B.

With regard to what the situation would be if the player hadn't breached 10.2b (4) it would depend on whether the players ball was still live. In this case he has already played more strokes than could count and I would rule by analogy to the third bullet point of the same decision ie that his putt constituted a practice stroke etc

If his putt was still live ie he was putting for a half and his partner was putting for the win, you would have to decide whether to concede the stroke or not, and any ruling would depend on what happened after that in terms of concession but continued, or not conceded but partner stood behind to observe as breaches.

 

[duncan mackie]

He had the right to continue playing the hole which is not completed. Your opponents had not holed out, you hadn't conceded their next strokes and you hadn't conceded the hole. See Rule 23.3c(1)

23.3 (c) in this context is at odds with bullet 3 of 23.8 (2)/1

Now, somewhere in the various rules is a reference to play solely for the purpose of assisting a partner - but that also references playing away from the hole!

I think it would be helpful to have a reference to the continuation of play for the purpose of assisting a partner once a player's score is no longer relevant to the outcome of the hole; or put another way, I believe that isn't intended to be permitted but is only referenced as such in a round about way!

Edit - if it was a club knockout and you had made a timely claim we could have got a ruling from the R&A. Unfortunately they are a little less forthcoming with hypotheticals

 

[Colin L]

Duncan,
I don't see the second bullet of the Interpretation as being concerned with anything other than clarifying that
a. if Player A stands behind Player B, his partner, after B has started taking his stance, Player B alone gets a penalty;
but
b. if A's putt is going to be on the same line as B's, he also gets a penalty because the 10.2b(4) breach will assist him in his play.

But that's all. Whether B was entitled to make the stroke is a separate matter. The only circumstance I'm aware of which would preclude his making the putt is, as you mention, where B deliberately putts away from his line in order to assist his partner.

I reckon that it is, as the OP has realised, a matter of realising he needs to concede the putt. He is responsible for looking after his own interests.

 

[duncan mackie]

Duncan,
I don't see the second bullet of the Interpretation as being concerned with anything other than clarifying that
a. if Player A stands behind Player B, his partner, after B has started taking his stance, Player B alone gets a penalty;
but
b. if A's putt is going to be on the same line as B's, he also gets a penalty because the 10.2b(4) breach will assist him in his play.

But that's all. Whether B was entitled to make the stroke is a separate matter. The only circumstance I'm aware of which would preclude his making the putt is, as you mention, where B deliberately putts away from his line in order to assist his partner.

I reckon that it is, as the OP has realised, a matter of realising he needs to concede the putt. He is responsible for looking after his own interests.

Third bullet...

 

[backwoodsman]

Third bullet...

Think I'm still with Colin on this?

Does not third bullet involve a player playing a ball which he wouldn't be entitled to play? Whereas the OP describes a situation where a player is completing a hole with a legitimate ball - just merely one that won't affect the result of the hole.

Ie, where in the rules does it say that a player can't complete a hole, even though doing so won't affect the result if the hole? (In effect, under what precise rule does his "legitimate stroke" become a "practice stroke")

As an aside, and not that it now has any bearing - the new rules are the rules - did there not used to be a Decision that covered this precise point? Or is my memory up tne creek.

 

[duncan mackie]

Think I'm still with Colin on this?

Does not third bullet involve a player playing a ball which he wouldn't be entitled to play? Whereas the OP describes a situation where a player is completing a hole with a legitimate ball - just merely one that won't affect the result of the hole.

Ie, where in the rules does it say that a player can't complete a hole, even though doing so won't affect the result if the hole? (In effect, under what precise rule does his "legitimate stroke" become a "practice stroke")

As an aside, and not that it now has any bearing - the new rules are the rules - did there not used to be a Decision that covered this precise point? Or is my memory up tne creek.

I'm not disagreeing with any interpretation of the various aspects - in many ways that's the problem.
The 3rd bullet of that interpretation seems to saying that you can't continue play to assist your partner after you are out of hole, but is worded in a manner that would also include other factors.
23.3 confirms when a side has completed the hole; but 6.5 is more helpful (in this context) regarding a player's completion of the hole - and includes the situation where his score cannot affect the result of the hole.
One to be clarified IMO.

 

[Colin L]

I'm not disagreeing with any interpretation of the various aspects - in many ways that's the problem.
The 3rd bullet of that interpretation seems to saying that you can't continue play to assist your partner after you are out of hole, but is worded in a manner that would also include other factors.
23.3 confirms when a side has completed the hole; but 6.5 is more helpful (in this context) regarding a player's completion of the hole - and includes the situation where his score cannot affect the result of the hole.
One to be clarified IMO.

The player in bullet point 3 decides not to complete the hole which implies that he could have chosen to do so. The player in the OP has not, as far as the narrative goes, in any way indicated that he is not going to complete the hole - neither by words nor by an action like picking up his ball. He apparently just carries on playing even though his score cannot count - as he can do, there being nothing in the Rules to stop him so doing.

6.5 doesn't quite apply to Four Ball; we have to refer to 23.3c which states when the hole is completed. In the situation discussed, the side hasn't holed out, the partners' putts haven't been conceded and the hole has not been conceded. There's nothing to stop the player who is out of contention from playing.

I'm not really seeing the difficulty here - which is always a bit worrying lest I'm missing something.

 

[Crazyface]

Interesting question. BUT WHAT IS THE ANSWER !!!! Me ed urts after reading 1/2 of that lot.