A rule conundrum!

[Martin Button]

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!

I will pass it on to my friend - ironically he is a member of the committee and in theory someone who would rule on any rule infraction - and perhaps this is something that the club needs to look at then and change the SI on hole 9. Thanks again for your input.

 

[Colin L]

The recommendations are nonsense.

You have an argument to support that assertion?

 

[duncan mackie]

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.

You need to consider all possibilities and issues associated with matchplay.

1. If you got, or give, 1 shot, hole 1 is clearly not the hole it should happen on because a tied match will continue to that hole and clearly have too much influence on the potential result.
2. Momentum is accepted to be a practical factor in many head to head sports. It follows that having stroke 1, 2, 3 etc on consecutive holes (or tight together) should be avoided. (I was giving 4 shots yesterday and SI 2, 3 and 4 were the 8th,9th and 10th holes - yuk.

There isn't any real relevance to whether shots should be given on harder, or easier, holes - there's no more logic to a player getting 1 shot having it on the hardest or easiest hole (I subscribe to the view that the easiest hole is probably more appropriate but that's irrelevant).
the distribution of the strokes is the single most important point for matchplay (to effectively neutralise any possible impact).

 

[Three]

You have an argument to support that assertion?

Yes, clear as day in this thread.

 

[cliveb]

And as it is a match without a referee, each player is permitted by the rules to ignore any breaches by his opponent.

Just to make sure I understand this correctly...

In the context of a match without a referee, if the two players agree to start on a hole other than the 1st, then they are effectively both agreeing to ignore their opponent's infraction of rule 2-1, and there is no penalty to either of them. They play out their match and the result stands.

If that is indeed how it works, then that is reassuring to players at my club, because we routinely start matches on the 10th if the front nine of the course happens to be busy. I've never heard anyone complain about it.

 

[Three]

You need to consider all possibilities and issues associated with matchplay.

1. If you got, or give, 1 shot, hole 1 is clearly not the hole it should happen on because a tied match will continue to that hole and clearly have too much influence on the potential result.
2. Momentum is accepted to be a practical factor in many head to head sports. It follows that having stroke 1, 2, 3 etc on consecutive holes (or tight together) should be avoided. (I was giving 4 shots yesterday and SI 2, 3 and 4 were the 8th,9th and 10th holes - yuk.

There isn't any real relevance to whether shots should be given on harder, or easier, holes - there's no more logic to a player getting 1 shot having it on the hardest or easiest hole (I subscribe to the view that the easiest hole is probably more appropriate but that's irrelevant).
the distribution of the strokes is the single most important point for matchplay (to effectively neutralise any possible impact).

As I keep saying, the only arguments I ever see are from really weak, negative thinking. If it affects you negatively to give consecutive shots, you arent thinking properly. You should be thinking "great, 3 of his 4 shots out the way with 8 holes to go".

 

[Colin L]

Yes, clear as day in this thread.

You mean this sort of thing?

If I had 3 shots and they came on the last 3 holes I would love it,


You are getting 3 strokes in a match and they come at 16, 17 and 18. You get beaten 4&3. What evening effect have your strokes had on the match?

 

[pogle]

Just to make sure I understand this correctly...

In the context of a match without a referee, if the two players agree to start on a hole other than the 1st, then they are effectively both agreeing to ignore their opponent's infraction of rule 2-1, and there is no penalty to either of them. They play out their match and the result stands.

If that is indeed how it works, then that is reassuring to players at my club, because we routinely start matches on the 10th if the front nine of the course happens to be busy. I've never heard anyone complain about it.

If both players know that they aren't allowed to start on any hole other than the first, yet they agree to do so, then they are liable to be DQ'ed as they are agreeing to waive a rule of golf. How this could be proven is difficult, unless the players admit it.

If the players don't know about the starting tee restriction or they don't realise this restriction falls under the rules of golf (rather than being a club regulation) , then there is no agreement to waive the rules and there is no penalty if no claim is made. (And it's hard to imagine one of the players making a claim as the claimant is also guilty!)

 

[Three]

You mean this sort of thing?

If I had 3 shots and they came on the last 3 holes I would love it,


You are getting 3 strokes in a match and they come at 16, 17 and 18. You get beaten 4&3. What evening effect have your strokes had on the match?

I was 4 down when I should have been all square, therefore I lost fair and square.
Where I get my 3 shots is completely irrelevant if I'm 4 down for the remaining 15 holes when we're playing off scratch.

Your question is absolutely typical of the only argument there is for allocating shots on specific holes, ie you make up a scenario that suits your example.

So are you clearly of the opinion that it is completely unfair to have to wait til the 16th to get my 3 shots?

 

[Martin Button]

If both players know that they aren't allowed to start on any hole other than the first, yet they agree to do so, then they are liable to be DQ'ed as they are agreeing to waive a rule of golf. How this could be proven is difficult, unless the players admit it.

If the players don't know about the starting tee restriction or they don't realise this restriction falls under the rules of golf (rather than being a club regulation) , then there is no agreement to waive the rules and there is no penalty if no claim is made. (And it's hard to imagine one of the players making a claim as the claimant is also guilty!)

Thank you. Probably the most definitive answer I have had so far to my original question.

The answer (not yours, but simply the fact that the answer to my question appears to be that if the players are unaware they have agreed to waive rule 2-1 - to play the stipulated round - decision, 1-3/2 exempts them from disqualification) still appears to be a a rather bizarre decision to me.

I suppose players in other sports can play the sport but also be unaware of the rules. Usually, of course, they will be punished regardless by a referee, but sometimes it will be missed and the player will get away with it, even if subsequently informed that he/she has broken that rule. I suppose this is the logic behind decision 1-3/2.

But golf, certainly at amateur level anyway, is a game usually played without referees - as a previous poster has said, it is basically self governed. Therefore I remain uncomfortable with decision 1-3/2. I accept it, but I am uncomfortable with it. It is far more logical, to me anyway, to say that in match/competition where there is no referee, if a rule is broken (however or whoever draws attention to it) these are the rules and these are the consequences of breaking the rules, whether knowingly or not.

However, my friend will be able to sleep peacefully knowing he can now arrange his next match. Of course, now that he knows this rule (that a match/competition MUST be played over a stipulated round - in other words in the correct order) and cannot be varied unless the committee has stipulated that play may start from the tenth or any other tee, if he does so in the future he must disqualify himself! As, presumably, must all others who have read this thread!

 

[rulefan]

It is far more logical, to me anyway, to say that in match/competition where there is no referee, if a rule is broken (however or whoever draws attention to it) these are the rules and these are the consequences of breaking the rules, whether knowingly or not.

I assume you mean stroke play when you say competition. You simply cannot compare match play without a referee and stroke play without referees.

In the former, the player must/may protect his own interest via rule 2-5. In the latter, the rest of the field cannot know what another player is or is not doing, so their interest is protected by the committee (with the help of 3-3 if used).

In essence, an opponent is the referee.

 

[HampshireHog]

At our place you may start at either the 1st or 10th, but in the event of extra holes being required they must​ start from the 1st.

 

[Colin L]

I was 4 down when I should have been all square, therefore I lost fair and square.
Where I get my 3 shots is completely irrelevant if I'm 4 down for the remaining 15 holes when we're playing off scratch.

Your question is absolutely typical of the only argument there is for allocating shots on specific holes, ie you make up a scenario that suits your example.

So are you clearly of the opinion that it is completely unfair to have to wait til the 16th to get my 3 shots?

I can't understand any of this except the last sentence, the answer to which is yes, of course I am. I don 't imagine I walk alone.

 

[Martin Button]

I assume you mean stroke play when you say competition. You simply cannot compare match play without a referee and stroke play without referees.

In the former, the player must/may protect his own interest via rule 2-5. In the latter, the rest of the field cannot know what another player is or is not doing, so their interest is protected by the committee (with the help of 3-3 if used).

In essence, an opponent is the referee.

To clarify, what I meant was "in a sport ​where there is no referee......."

 

[Three]

I can't understand any of this except the last sentence, the answer to which is yes, of course I am. I don 't imagine I walk alone.

What do you mean you don't understand?
You gave a hypothetical situation that I'm getting 3 shots and they come on 16, 17 and 18, but I lose 4&3. The above is my response.
Read it again if you don't understand, I think my English is good enough.

So, you have now made a statement that the player receiving 3 shots, and gets them on 16, 17 and 18, is at a disadvantage because he might not reach the 16th tee.
Now, for every person who agrees with that, there will be somebody who says, hang on a minute, surely it's unfair to GIVE the 3 shots on the last 3 holes. They will then quote a hypothetical situation opposite to yours, eg they are 2 down with 3 to play.
NEITHER argument has any logical merit.

Let's say I give you 6 shots, tell me exactly which holes you want them on to gain maximum advantage in your mind?

 

[rulefan]

Let's say I give you 6 shots, tell me exactly which holes you want them on to gain maximum advantage in your mind?

Ir's not about gaining an advantage. It is about equalising the opportunity..

 

[Three]

Ir's not about gaining an advantage. It is about equalising the opportunity..

I'm saying it only makes a difference in people's heads, nowhere else.
ColinL is insistent that if a player receives 3 shots, he is at a disadvantage if he receives them on the last 3 holes.
I am asking Colin to tell me exactly where he would like to take 6 shots against me in order to give himself, in his head, an advantage. He can take them at any hole, I want to to hear his logic....

 

[TomTom]

To clarify, what I meant was "in a sport ​where there is no referee......."

Golf has referees.

 

[rulefan]

Very rarely.

 

[TomTom]

Very rarely.

Mostly in proper golf