A rule conundrum!

[Martin Button]

Hi. As an ex-rugby referee I am a bit of a rules geek and my friends come to me for golf rulings! One friend recently played a singles knock-out match that he had played (and won) and as he was telling me about it mentioned that they had started at the tenth. I immediately told him that I thought he was now disqualified but that I would look in to it further.

The rules/decisions that I considered were as follows;

Rule 2 - you must play the match over a stipulated round (i.e. in the correct order)
Rule 1-3 - you cannot agree to waive any rule (in match play disqualification for both players)

Therefore by agreeing to play the round back nine first my view was that they immediately disqualified themselves.

However;

Rule 1-3 (decision 2) - in order to be in breach of rule 1-3 the players must be aware that they are doing so (agreeing to breach the rules) and if they are not aware that they are breaching the rules there is no penalty.

Rule 6 (just to complicate matters) - the player and caddie are responsible for knowing the rules.

So, if under rule 6 the player (and caddie if appropriate) are responsible for knowing the rules, how can rule 1-3 decision 2 excuse a player who does not know the rules?

Is my friend disqualified by playing the match in the wrong order (i.e. not the stipulated round)? My friend probably should have known better. I suspect his opponent did not know the rules!

Does the fact that the result of the match has been posted (rule 2-5 decision 14) have any bearing or does the fact that agreeing to play the match in the wrong order disualify them and hence over-rule everything?

 

[rulefan]

There is no penalty for not knowing Rule 6-1.

If the players do not know Rule 2-1, they cannot make an agreement to breach it. Rule 1-3 does not apply. 1-3/2 reigns.

 

[Martin Button]

There is no penalty for not knowing Rule 6-1.

If the players do not know Rule 2-1, they cannot make an agreement to breach it. Rule 1-3 does not apply. 1-3/2 reigns.

To be honest, although my first thought was that they had disqualified themselves, I was aware of the other rules/decisions that might 'save' them, in particular rule 1-3/2 (hence my original post), and in the end I came to the same conclusion as you, bizarre though I find it to be. I do find it hard to accept, however!

As an ex-rugby referee I can imagine the chaos in a game of rugby played under similar rules; "Sorry ref. I wasn't aware of the rule that you can't punch an opponent as hard as possible in the face, so although that's what I did, because I didn't know the rule, you can't penalize me for it!"

In all other sports the rules are the rules and if you are in breach, even if you were unaware of them, you suffer the consequences. I don't know why golf should have a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card simply for not being aware that you had breached a rule.

My suspicion is that my friend did know the rules as he commented, "As I stood on the tenth tee waiting to start the match I thought of you!" This seems to indicate that he was aware they were (or might be) breaking the rules. If that is the case, 1-3/2 would not reign anyway.

But if you (and indeed I) are correct in our interpretation of this situation (that rule 1-3/2 reigns), it appears to me that the ONLY rule/decision any golfer needs to know is 1-3/2. He/she is then safe from any rule infraction; "Sorry, what was that? I've breached a rule? It's not a problem, I don't know any of the rules except for rule 1-3/2 and under rule 1-3/2 I am excused any penalty for breaching any other rule (that I don't know)!"

So just say you were unaware of the rule and you will get away with it Scot-free! I accept this might be a rather flippant argument, but 1-3/2 just seems a very odd ruling to me. If you play a game you should play it to the rules; have a duty to know the rules (as would appear to be the case under 6-1), and suffer the consequences if you don't play to those rules. If you can escape penalty by not knowing the rules, there is no point in having the rules in the first place!

 

[HawkeyeMS]

I think you might be getting a bit ahead of yourself. The committee can allow players to start on another hole than the first. i.e. the 10th or, in the case of a shotgun start, the hole you are allocated.

We have a rule that says that matches can start on the 10th tee and I doubt that is uncommon. You should probably check your club, they will have the answer.

 

[Colin L]

Martin.

I think you have misunderstood the limited application of Decision 1-3/2. It only applies to an agreement between players to waive a rule and it only applies to Rule 1-3. If the players didn't know there was a rule to be waived, they can't have come to an agreement to waive a rule. No such agreement exists. All the Decision exempts them from is the penalty for breaching 1-3.

It is not a general excuse for getting out of a penalty for doing something you didn't know was a breach of a rule. Say another player moves a twig out of his way when his ball is in a bunker and I, as a referee, let him know that he has breached a rule. He incurs the penalty whether he knew the rule or not. Just the same as you would have awarded a penalty against a player who, heaven forfend, acted in a ruffianly manner, decked an opponent with his fist and told you he didn't know this wasn't allowed. The offence exists.

 

[Martin Button]

Hi. Thanks for that. All comments appreciated and welcomed.

I am aware that there can be local rules for competitions, but in this case there is no such rule - the stipulated round for all matches played at our club is playing the course in its correct order.

Also for handicap purposes, certainly at our club anyway, the player receiving shots, if he thought about it sufficiently, would be foolish to agree to start at hole ten as stroke index 1 is hole 9. So if the back nine is played first, they would not get a shot on stroke index 1 hole until the eighteenth hole that they played rather than on the 9th hole if played in the correct order. This could be crucial.

Interestingly, in the match that my friend played, the handicap difference is full handicap, not 3/4 of the difference (or any other fraction) and he was the player giving shots away - I think he was giving six or seven shots away. Therefore if you were to play in the same competition against a scratch handicap player you would be even worse off playing the back nine first! Receiving 9 shots, you would then receive 6 shots in the first 14 holes and receive 3 of your shots in the final three holes, but if you played the course in its correct order you would have received 8 shots on the first 14 holes and all of your shots on completion of 17 holes. This could have a huge impact on your chances of winning the match!

Playing the course in reverse order (back nine first) might not have such an impact on your course but more often than not, playing the course in the wrong order will benefit one of the players to the detriment of the other if the course was played in the correct order. This is why, I think, playing the 'stipulated round' is crucial for a competition - especially a match play competition - to be fair (to everyone).

 

[Martin Button]

Hi Colin

Thanks also for your comments, I did say in an earlier post that my argument that all you needed to know was rule 1-3/2 could be considered a flippant argument, although the actual example used in 1-3/2 does (in my opinion anyway) appear to add weight to this.

That aside, I am not sure as to what you think the ruling should be?

In this particular case the facts are that the two players decided to play the course in reverse order because a (scratch) team match was about to start on the first tee and this would have delayed them (or if they had gone out first, perhaps put them under pressure to keep moving along). Therefore there was no agreement as such to waive rule 2-1, but in playing the match in this order they did in fact breach rule 2-1. So does 1-3/2 apply (i.e. save them) or are they disqualified?

 

[Foxholer]

Hi. Thanks for that. All comments appreciated and welcomed.

I am aware that there can be local rules for competitions, but in this case there is no such rule - the stipulated round for all matches played at our club is playing the course in its correct order.

Also for handicap purposes, certainly at our club anyway, the player receiving shots, if he thought about it sufficiently, would be foolish to agree to start at hole ten as stroke index 1 is hole 9. So if the back nine is played first, they would not get a shot on stroke index 1 hole until the eighteenth hole that they played rather than on the 9th hole if played in the correct order. This could be crucial.

Interestingly, in the match that my friend played, the handicap difference is full handicap, not 3/4 of the difference (or any other fraction) and he was the player giving shots away - I think he was giving six or seven shots away. Therefore if you were to play in the same competition against a scratch handicap player you would be even worse off playing the back nine first! Receiving 9 shots, you would then receive 6 shots in the first 14 holes and receive 3 of your shots in the final three holes, but if you played the course in its correct order you would have received 8 shots on the first 14 holes and all of your shots on completion of 17 holes. This could have a huge impact on your chances of winning the match!

Playing the course in reverse order (back nine first) might not have such an impact on your course but more often than not, playing the course in the wrong order will benefit one of the players to the detriment of the other if the course was played in the correct order. This is why, I think, playing the 'stipulated round' is crucial for a competition - especially a match play competition - to be fair (to everyone).

Congu recommend that 1st, 9th, 10th and 18th holes have Strok Indexes (SIs) of 9 at least - to handle such situations. That, of course, introduces some corruption, but is slightly less 'destructive'! Remember too that SI does not always equate to hole difficulty! There IS, or at least has been, a 'Stableford Index' that has been able to be applied that perhaps reflects better each hole's difficulty - though even that can vary depending on the level of players in the analysis of results!

 

[Old Skier]

Strange that you mentioned that the "handicap difference was full and not 3/4". Full is the correct handicap difference in individual matchplay or did you mention that just to make a point on the SI.

 

[fundy]

Hi. Thanks for that. All comments appreciated and welcomed.

I am aware that there can be local rules for competitions, but in this case there is no such rule - the stipulated round for all matches played at our club is playing the course in its correct order.

Also for handicap purposes, certainly at our club anyway, the player receiving shots, if he thought about it sufficiently, would be foolish to agree to start at hole ten as stroke index 1 is hole 9. So if the back nine is played first, they would not get a shot on stroke index 1 hole until the eighteenth hole that they played rather than on the 9th hole if played in the correct order. This could be crucial.

Interestingly, in the match that my friend played, the handicap difference is full handicap, not 3/4 of the difference (or any other fraction) and he was the player giving shots away - I think he was giving six or seven shots away. Therefore if you were to play in the same competition against a scratch handicap player you would be even worse off playing the back nine first! Receiving 9 shots, you would then receive 6 shots in the first 14 holes and receive 3 of your shots in the final three holes, but if you played the course in its correct order you would have received 8 shots on the first 14 holes and all of your shots on completion of 17 holes. This could have a huge impact on your chances of winning the match!

Playing the course in reverse order (back nine first) might not have such an impact on your course but more often than not, playing the course in the wrong order will benefit one of the players to the detriment of the other if the course was played in the correct order. This is why, I think, playing the 'stipulated round' is crucial for a competition - especially a match play competition - to be fair (to everyone).

On what basis?

 

[Martin Button]

Only mentioned it just to emphasize that if Foxholer had played in the same competition at my club with his handicap of 9 against a scratch player he would receive three of those shots in the final 4 holes if playing the course the wrong way round.

I'm sure he would have been aware that in an individual match the handicap difference was the full handicap, but others might not be aware of the increase to full from three-quarters (and from 3/4 to 90% in pairs) as they are fairly recent changes and might have thought he would have received fewer shots. So simply mentioned it in the interests of clarity.

 

[rulefan]

Therefore there was no agreement as such to waive rule 2-1, but in playing the match in this order they did in fact breach rule 2-1. So does 1-3/2 apply (i.e. save them) or are they disqualified?

As there was no referee with them, penalties for breaches of any rules are down to the players. If neither makes a claim, in effect, the is no breach to penalise.

 

[duncan mackie]

In all other sports the rules are the rules and if you are in breach, even if you were unaware of them, you suffer the consequences. I don't know why golf should have a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card simply for not being aware that you had breached a rule.

Just going back to this as I think it's fundamental in understanding ingredients the application of the associated rules by the committee.

Firstly, I do not agree with your first premise - many many people breach the rules of their sports all the time and suffer no penalty at all. This is because the principle is that the referee adjudicates and allocates penalties. Perversely this also means that you can be penalised for breaking a rule you didn't actually break - but that's another issue!

Second, it all comes down to section 1, para 2, of the rules document. " Golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and to abide by the Rules."
From this you get all the rulings related to a lack of knowledge about the rules. Committees and fellow competitors protect the interests of the field where they are in a position to do so - in a match it fundamentally falls to opponents to protect their own interests, which include the facility to question and refer to the committee for a decision.

 

[Martin Button]

Hi Duncan

Thank you - a point very well made. I can agree - and going back to my rugby refereeing days it was certainly the case - that in all sports players sometimes break the rules and do not get penalised and other times don't break the rules and do get penalised.

But you also make a very valid point that golf in particular relies on the integrity of the individuals to show consideration for other players and to abide by the rules. The main reason I have put this question to this forum is not for myself but for the simple reason that my friend wishes to know the answer to the question as he is Mr Integrity himself! So I posted the question on his behalf. In the meantime he has been asking our professional and others within the club for their opinion (most which seem to be, "what on earth are you worried about - just get on with it!").

But, as my friend is a man of utmost integrity, all other issues aside - presented with the facts, if the rules are applied correctly, is he disqualified for not playing the stipulated round or, as rulefan suggested (and I tend to agree with, at least so far), does rule 1-3/2 reign because they were unaware they had agreed to waive rule 2-1?

 

[Old Skier]

No DQ as per most posts above.

 

[rulefan]

if the rules are applied correctly, is he disqualified for not playing the stipulated round or, as rulefan suggested (and I tend to agree with, at least so far), does rule 1-3/2 reign because they were unaware they had agreed to waive rule 2-1?

There is no DQ (or other penalty) because neither player claimed the the other breached a rule. As I said, no claim for a breach means there was no breach.

Remember this is matchplay without a referee. Matchplay with a referee or strokeplay are different beasts.

 

[Three]

Only mentioned it just to emphasize that if Foxholer had played in the same competition at my club with his handicap of 9 against a scratch player he would receive three of those shots in the final 4 holes if playing the course the wrong way round.

So what?
On the holes he doesn't get a shot, they should score the same.
On the holes he does get a shot, the other player should score one shot less.
Over 18 holes, the score should be all square irrelevant of where the shots are taken.
The importance of where the shots are allocated is one of the biggest myths in amateur golf today in my opinion. Every argument I've ever heard for changing from the original difficulty ranking is based purely on hypothetical situations and bad psychology.

If I had 3 shots and they came on the last 3 holes I would love it, I would also love it if I was giving 3 shots and they came on the the last 3. For every negative scenario, there's an opposite positive scenario, none of it based on fact.
Total screw up.

 

[cliveb]

So what?
On the holes he doesn't get a shot, they should score the same.
On the holes he does get a shot, the other player should score one shot less.

To be pedantic, this isn't how it works.
Consider a 5 handicapper (player A) playing against a 10 handicapper (player B).
The holes on which the A should score one less than B are SI's 6 to 10.
But it's on SI's 1 to 5 where B gets his shots - where the handicapping system expects them to take the same number of strokes.

It's always struck me as wrong - surely the higher handicapper should get his shots on those holes where he would normally get a shot and his opponent doesn't, but presumably there's a rationale to why it's the way it is. (Perhaps the rationale is as simple as it being easier for the players to work out which holes they get shots on?)

 

[Three]

To be pedantic, this isn't how it works.
Consider a 5 handicapper (player A) playing against a 10 handicapper (player B).
The holes on which the A should score one less than B are SI's 6 to 10.
But it's on SI's 1 to 5 where B gets his shots - where the handicapping system expects them to take the same number of strokes.

It's always struck me as wrong - surely the higher handicapper should get his shots on those holes where he would normally get a shot and his opponent doesn't, but presumably there's a rationale to why it's the way it is. (Perhaps the rationale is as simple as it being easier for the players to work out which holes they get shots on?)

http://www.littleastongolf.co.uk/scorecard

Can't really argue.

Take a look at the Little Aston scorecard, in particular the 4th and 9th. I remember playing there early 90s and the 4th was Stroke 1 then , albeit it's a genuinely easy, short par 4. Their rationale was along the lines of , a scratch player will birdie it so other players should get a shot.
Take a look at the 9th, described on the website as a very difficult par 3, yet ranked as SI 18!

They've basically just done what they want, which makes absolutely no more or less sense than any other system. There cannot be any better or worse ways of allocating the strokes when the system is designed solely for the whole range of amateur golfers and all the variables contained therein.

 

[rulie]

There is no DQ (or other penalty) because neither player claimed the the other breached a rule. As I said, no claim for a breach means there was no breach.

Remember this is matchplay without a referee. Matchplay with a referee or strokeplay are different beasts.

This is the correct answer. How and where strokes are allocated is irrelevant.