A rule conundrum!

[Three]

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.

I'm not arguing as I'm not sure on the ruling, but I find this a bit troubling.

If the players turn up for their match after work and the first tee is busy, they could agree to start on another hole, agree to claim ignorance if they were found out, and get away with it?

 

[rulie]

I'm not arguing as I'm not sure on the ruling, but I find this a bit troubling.

If the players turn up for their match after work and the first tee is busy, they could agree to start on another hole, agree to claim ignorance if they were found out, and get away with it?

[h=2]The Spirit of the Game[/h] 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. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf.



"Cheaters will cheat" but that's not the spirit of the game.

 

[Three]

[h=2]The Spirit of the Game[/h] 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. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf.



"Cheaters will cheat" but that's not the spirit of the game.

That doesn't answer anything.

I find it difficult to believe that two players can start on the wrong hole of a stipulated round and get away with it through ignorance of the rule.

Or feigning ignorance of a rule....

 

[rulie]

That doesn't answer anything.

I find it difficult to believe that two players can start on the wrong hole of a stipulated round and get away with it through ignorance of the rule.

Or feigning ignorance of a rule....

"Feigning ignorance of a Rule" is not consistent with the spirit of the game. If they are doing so, they should be dq'd.

 

[Three]

"Feigning ignorance of a Rule" is not consistent with the spirit of the game. If they are doing so, they should be dq'd.

That's exactly my point. That doesn't apply to other rules.

Ah well, learn something every day 👍

 

[doublebogey7]

That's exactly my point. That doesn't apply to other rules.

Ah well, learn something every day 

In match it does, whatever the rule, players cannot be penalised for agreeing to wave that rule if they were not aware a rule was being broken.

 

[Martin Button]

Well you are entitled to your view, but consider this; you are playing a match on my course and you receive one shot from your opponent (received on hole 9, SI 1).

The match doesn't quite go in accordance with your argument as to how the scores should go (based on SI's), but the match is very tight. You use your shot well on hole 9 to win the hole and this means that coming down the eighteenth you are one down with one to play. You still have the opportunity to halve the match (or take it in to extra holes). If, however, you played the course back nine first and scored exactly the same on each hole as you did playing the course in the correct order, after playing 17 holes and before you played the last hole (where you would have won the hole, you have lost the game 2&1. I doubt that you would now love receiving your shot on the final hole? OK in theory you would still have lost the match by one hole, but playing it in the correct order gives you a chance to win the eighteenth hole and halve the match. Playing the course the wrong way does not give you this opportunity - you have lost the match in 17 holes.

The other thing with my course, the two most difficult holes (based on competition results - How Did I Do compares average score to par and lists the holes in order of difficulty) are, without doubt, holes 17 & 18. These are strokes index 4 & 10 whereas hole 9 (SI 1) is around the ninth hardest hole on the course. Therefore it is definitely an advantage on my course to play the course in its correct order and to have received your shots before playing the last two holes which, using actual results over many years, should be SI's 1 & 2 based on difficulty.

 

[rulefan]

That doesn't answer anything.

I find it difficult to believe that two players can start on the wrong hole of a stipulated round and get away with it through ignorance of the rule.

Or feigning ignorance of a rule....

So how do you determine that a) they breached the (starting) rule and b) they knew the rule?

And as it is a match without a referee, each player is permitted by the rules to ignore any breaches by his opponent.
Being a match, each player is responsible for his own destiny. He has no need to protect anyone else.

The only constraint is making an agreement to knowingly not play by the Rules of Golf.

 

[Martin Button]

Well to be fair my original post was simply to ask if (both) players were disqualified by breaching rule 2-1 and not playing the stipulated round. I would agree that in terms of this question, how and where strokes are allocated are, indeed, irrelevant.

The consensus appears to be that my friend is not disqualified because as he (or they both) were unaware of the rule that they should play the match over a 'stipulated round' (i.e. in the correct order), rule (or decision) 1-3/2 saves them.

Some subsequent posts have been about an additional (and rather throwaway comment) I made saying that purely from a tactical point of view, at my course my view is that it is better to play the course in its correct order because the SI system on the course means that (in many instances) you receive your shots sooner than you would if you play the course back nine first. This post seems to then have got a life of its own, as often seems to be the case in such forums! Not that I object - I am interested to see different viewpoints on this matter.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

My personal uneducated view is that in a singles knockout match, if the players agree , then it shouldn't matter which order the holes are played, one player will progress to the next round.
It's a match that doesn't affect anybody else, so what's the issue, both players are playing the same course, 1 wins, 1 loses.

 

[duncan mackie]

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?

I agree with Rulefan's comments.

 

[Martin Button]

Although I (probably) accept and agree with rulefan's take on this, this is essentially the thing that I also find troubling.

Not, perhaps, someone claiming ignorance - because I would hope that didn't happen - but simply the facts that rule/decision 1-3/2 suggests that if I played in the match knowing the rules (and hence aware that playing the match back nine first was not playing the stipulated round), I should be disqualified for agreeing to waive the rules. Certainly if someone else did find out and questioned the result then I would then be disqualified, but in fact, knowing the rules, I should immediately disqualify myself! However, someone else does the same but, because they were unaware they had agreed to waive a rule (to play the stipulated round), they are not disqualified as rule/decision 1-3/2 saves them. It just seems a bizarre anomaly to me.

One other point which I think rulefan may be overlooking is the fact if others see a rule infringement (or become aware of it) they may report that rule infringement and penalties may still be imposed. Recent professional events and public intervention has highlighted this. This might open up a whole new can of worms in this forum (apologies if it does!) and it may all change when/if the new rules come into effect, but at the moment, at least, I don't think it is correct to say that in a match, the match is simply governed by the individual players who are playing. For example, if in a medal you saw a rules infraction in another pairing playing another hole, my understanding is that it is within your rights to raise the point and see how that had been dealt with by the player (and pairing) concerned. Perhaps they were not aware that a rule had been infringed. For example, if a one of them had grounded a club in a bunker but neither he or his partner were aware that this resulted in a penalty, if you don't say anything that player may win a competition that he wouldn't otherwise have won. I don't think this is any different if you see someone playing in a match? The player grounding his club may go on to win (or halve) a match he might otherwise have lost if you don't say anything?

And if I may counter any arguments that you don't have a duty to intervene, I do doubt that most of us would do this (intervene), but the answer is that you probably should! If the player was playing with you and incurred a penalty you would point it out. Therefore how is this different to seeing someone in the match in front of you incur a penalty that you think (or even know) has not been taken into account?

 

[Martin Button]

Thank you. As I have said in a number of other posts, I also tend to agree with rulefan, so I will pass this on to my friend. But although I agree, I still think it odd! However, such is life, I shall leave it at that and move on!

 

[duncan mackie]

Although I (probably) accept and agree with rulefan's take on this, this is essentially the thing that I also find troubling.

Not, perhaps, someone claiming ignorance - because I would hope that didn't happen - but simply the facts that rule/decision 1-3/2 suggests that if I played in the match knowing the rules (and hence aware that playing the match back nine first was not playing the stipulated round), I should be disqualified for agreeing to waive the rules. Certainly if someone else did find out and questioned the result then I would then be disqualified, but in fact, knowing the rules, I should immediately disqualify myself! However, someone else does the same but, because they were unaware they had agreed to waive a rule (to play the stipulated round), they are not disqualified as rule/decision 1-3/2 saves them. It just seems a bizarre anomaly to me.

One other point which I think rulefan may be overlooking is the fact if others see a rule infringement (or become aware of it) they may report that rule infringement and penalties may still be imposed. Recent professional events and public intervention has highlighted this. This might open up a whole new can of worms in this forum (apologies if it does!) and it may all change when/if the new rules come into effect, but at the moment, at least, I don't think it is correct to say that in a match, the match is simply governed by the individual players who are playing. For example, if in a medal you saw a rules infraction in another pairing playing another hole, my understanding is that it is within your rights to raise the point and see how that had been dealt with by the player (and pairing) concerned. Perhaps they were not aware that a rule had been infringed. For example, if a one of them had grounded a club in a bunker but neither he or his partner were aware that this resulted in a penalty, if you don't say anything that player may win a competition that he wouldn't otherwise have won. I don't think this is any different if you see someone playing in a match? The player grounding his club may go on to win (or halve) a match he might otherwise have lost if you don't say anything?

And if I may counter any arguments that you don't have a duty to intervene, I do doubt that most of us would do this (intervene), but the answer is that you probably should! If the player was playing with you and incurred a penalty you would point it out. Therefore how is this different to seeing someone in the match in front of you incur a penalty that you think (or even know) has not been taken into account?

There is absolutely no doubt that not knowing the rules can be advantageous in many situations; as has been specifically posted the real issue this creates is where do you draw the line between someone not having a clue, and someone who has an inkling that what they did might have been a breach of a rule but consciously chooses not to find out. The classic discussion on rule forums worldwide revolves around whether if a fellow competitor raises an issue in passing this means that the player can no longer claim ignorance. Basically how precisely, or forcefully, does a FC have to raise a possible breach under 34-1b/1.5 for the player to become responsible. But let's not take this thread that way (mainly because it would have to be a committee judgement on any individual case!).

Your second point relates to stroke play. Rulefan would have deliberately not referenced it as this was a matchplay situation. I originally referenced that stroke play was different in this regard - and it is!

Your third paragraph - you most definitely do have a duty to intervene in such situations and the rules make this clear (with associated penalties to you if you don't meet this duty). Not relevant here.

 

[Martin Button]

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.

Well you are entitled to your view, but consider this; you are playing a match on my course and you receive one shot from your opponent (received on hole 9, SI 1).

The match doesn't quite go in accordance with your argument as to how the scores should go (based on SI's), but the match is very tight. You use your shot well on hole 9 to win the hole and this means that coming down the eighteenth you are one down with one to play. You still have the opportunity to halve the match (or take it in to extra holes). If, however, you played the course back nine first and scored exactly the same on each hole as you did playing the course in the correct order, after playing 17 holes and before you played the last hole (where you would have won the hole, you have lost the game 2&1. I doubt that you would now love receiving your shot on the final hole? OK in theory you would still have lost the match by one hole, but playing it in the correct order gives you a chance to win the eighteenth hole and halve the match. Playing the course the wrong way does not give you this opportunity - you have lost the match in 17 holes.

The other thing with my course, the two most difficult holes (based on competition results - How Did I Do compares average score to par and lists the holes in order of difficulty) are, without doubt, holes 17 & 18. These are strokes index 4 & 10 whereas hole 9 (SI 1) is around the ninth hardest hole on the course. Therefore it is definitely an advantage on my course to play the course in its correct order and to have received your shots before playing the last two holes which, using actual results over many years, should be SI's 1 & 2 based on difficulty.
Read more at http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?91824-A-rule-conundrum!/page3#3EHxkVUxTVrdc5yz.99

 

[Martin Button]

I have tried reply to everyone who has posted comment and I thank you all for your input.

However I have just realized, being new to this forum malarkey (and also growing old!), that some of my posts should have been replied, "reply with quote" instead of "post quick reply". Hence some of my posts, replying to previous posts, do not appearing in the logical order! I do apologize to all and promise to do better in future (like I promise myself every time I have finished a round of golf)!

 

[Colin L]

...you are playing a match on my course and you receive one shot from your opponent (received on hole 9, SI 1).

If your club followed the CONGU recommendation, SI 1 would not be on Hole 9 in the first place. It would be near the middle of either the outward or the inward half depending on which half the odd numbers had been allocated to. SI 2 would be near the middle of the other half. The recommendations are detailed and a bit complex but the main point is that they are designed for match play and include advice on the distribution of indices if matches are sometimes started on the 10th. Page 76 of the CONGU manual if you have any energy left after such an impressively long argument!

 

[Three]

So how do you determine that a) they breached the (starting) rule and b) they knew the rule?

And as it is a match without a referee, each player is permitted by the rules to ignore any breaches by his opponent.
Being a match, each player is responsible for his own destiny. He has no need to protect anyone else.

The only constraint is making an agreement to knowingly not play by the Rules of Golf.

Yes, fair enough.
Like I say, learn something every day.

 

[Three]

. Playing the course the wrong way does not give you this opportunity - you have lost the match in 17 holes.[/COLOR]

If I'm playing a match and receiving 1shot, it makes absolutely zero difference to me where I get that shot.

If I'm 2 down after 17, then I've been beaten, I should have been all square after 17.
Following this argument, had I previously received a shot and only been one down, then I will "theoretically" lose 1 down as we are supposed to half every hole.

If I'm receiving a shot on the last, I'll go out with a great attitude that I'll have an advantage on the last hole if we get there.
If I'm giving a shot on the last hole I'll go out with a great attitude that I can win the match before the opponent gets a shot.
It's all in the head, that's why there can be no right or wrong.

 

[Three]

If your club followed the CONGU recommendation, SI 1 would not be on Hole 9 in the first place. It would be near the middle of either the outward or the inward half depending on which half the odd numbers had been allocated to. SI 2 would be near the middle of the other half. The recommendations are detailed and a bit complex but the main point is that they are designed for match play and include advice on the distribution of indices if matches are sometimes started on the 10th. Page 76 of the CONGU manual if you have any energy left after such an impressively long argument!

The recommendations are nonsense.