Am i allowed to continue playing ??

[Orikoru]

Two comments: first, we can agree to disagree on undue delay. IMO, once the player decided he wished to continue play, he gets the 5.6 penalty and that is how I as referee would rule. Reason is not complicated: it is the player's turn to play yet he failed to proceed while the opponent a) played a stroke into a bunker b) went into that bunker and thinned a stroke into another bunker and c) made their way to the other bunker and then duffed another stroke. All this while it is the other player's turn to play. If that is not undue delay, I don't know what is. IMO, there is no way a player can simply discontinue play when it is his turn, for however many minutes the opponent took for those multiple strokes, and then just jump back into the fray without rule 5.6 implications ("A player must not unreasonably delay play......".)
Second: opponents do not have free rein to agree to play out of turn. While permitted under specific circumstances (6.4a(2) Exception) - to save time - if players agree to play out of turn solely for other reasons, those players have agreed to waive a rule (1.3b(1)). And the permitted agreement must be freshly agreed on every occasion. In the OP, it didn't appear to occur at all. And there is no such thing as 'implicit' agreement to play out of turn.

He might have delayed playing his own shot but he didn't delay 'play' as a whole, because the other guy was playing instead. Play was still continuing. They weren't both standing around waiting for something.

 

[salfordlad]

He might have delayed playing his own shot but he didn't delay 'play' as a whole, because the other guy was playing instead. Play was still continuing. They weren't both standing around waiting for something.

That's an interesting argument - you cannot be done for unreasonable delay if it is only you that has stopped but others are still proceeding.

 

[Orikoru]

That's an interesting argument - you cannot be done for unreasonable delay if it is only you that has stopped but others are still proceeding.

I thought 'undue delay of play' meant things that hold up play for others on the course. For example taking shelter from the rain when others want to continue. But if you don't play and someone else continues instead then nobody's play has been delayed except your own.

 

[Beedee]

I thought 'undue delay of play' meant things that hold up play for others on the course. For example taking shelter from the rain when others want to continue. But if you don't play and someone else continues instead then nobody's play has been delayed except your own.

If the last group in a comp shelters from the rain when all the groups ahead played on, I'd still expect them to be done for undue delay.

 

[rulie]

Two comments: first, we can agree to disagree on undue delay. IMO, once the player decided he wished to continue play, he gets the 5.6 penalty and that is how I as referee would rule. Reason is not complicated: it is the player's turn to play yet he failed to proceed while the opponent a) played a stroke into a bunker b) went into that bunker and thinned a stroke into another bunker and c) made their way to the other bunker and then duffed another stroke. All this while it is the other player's turn to play. If that is not undue delay, I don't know what is. IMO, there is no way a player can simply discontinue play when it is his turn, for however many minutes the opponent took for those multiple strokes, and then just jump back into the fray without rule 5.6 implications ("A player must not unreasonably delay play......".)
Second: opponents do not have free rein to agree to play out of turn. While permitted under specific circumstances (6.4a(2) Exception) - to save time - if players agree to play out of turn solely for other reasons, those players have agreed to waive a rule (1.3b(1)). And the permitted agreement must be freshly agreed on every occasion. In the OP, it didn't appear to occur at all. And there is no such thing as 'implicit' agreement to play out of turn.

I would be more direct - by the player's words and actions, he had implied a concession. If I were the opponent, for clarity, I would have asked what he was doing.

 

[Orikoru]

If the last group in a comp shelters from the rain when all the groups ahead played on, I'd still expect them to be done for undue delay.

Yeah, sure, I just mean it's the principle. While they're doing that nobody is playing so it's delaying play, as opposed to the example here where nobody is being delayed as such.

 

[nyckuk]

Don,t think ill be going on any of these Forum meets ...Ill be 10 shots down before I've tee'd off on the first.

 

[Colin L]

Play has not been delayed in any way. It was continuous.
The player did not "fail" to play. He said to his opponent to "carry on" and the opponent did so. The agreement to play out of turn is explicit in the player's saying "carry on" and implicit in the opponent's doing so.
The player was in a bizarre sort of way, attempting to save time, the time it would take to walk back and put another ball into play. His notion was that it would be a waste of time should his opponent put even halving the hole out of reach. It was for his opponent to say "you're not on", but he didn't. He went along with it and this being match play, that's just fine provided they did not agree to ignore a rule. Given the nonsense that was going on, I just can't see either of them having sufficient clue about the rules to be complicit in that!

In the end, I see two players who played out a hole in an odd sort of way, both agreeing comfortably it would seem with what was going on and taking no longer to complete the hole than it would have had it been played more conventionally. Nothing in my view to get bothered about, although it makes for a good story for the bar.

 

[nyckuk]

Definately not "defiantly"

 

[salfordlad]

As I said earlier, I think there is an interesting issue here. Some views are there is no undue delay if some play is still happening, with Colin's embellishment to that argument that if something is still happening it must be by agreement and players can agree to change order of play. My view there is that has some force in stroke play but that option is significantly restricted in match play.
5.6a just says "a player must not unreasonably delay play...". There is nothing stating explicitly whether that means an individual's play or is limited to action that results in the group time being delayed. But all other material in the rule focuses on the individual player action and 5.6b is all about a player getting on with every stroke - which is why I remain of the view the OP is undue delay - the player continuously failed to get on with playing while an opponent got on with multiple strokes. I think it is an interesting issue to get an RB read on.

 

[salfordlad]

I would be more direct - by the player's words and actions, he had implied a concession. If I were the opponent, for clarity, I would have asked what he was doing.

Absolutely, the opponent should have gone "your stroke now...". I'd like to think he learned that matchplay 101 lesson from this bizarre experience.

 

[Colin L]

As I said earlier, I think there is an interesting issue here. Some views are there is no undue delay if some play is still happening, with Colin's embellishment to that argument that if something is still happening it must be by agreement and players can agree to change order of play. My view there is that has some force in stroke play but that option is significantly restricted in match play.
5.6a just says "a player must not unreasonably delay play...". There is nothing stating explicitly whether that means an individual's play or is limited to action that results in the group time being delayed. But all other material in the rule focuses on the individual player action and 5.6b is all about a player getting on with every stroke - which is why I remain of the view the OP is undue delay - the player continuously failed to get on with playing while an opponent got on with multiple strokes. I think it is an interesting issue to get an RB read on.

But how do you square this with what I would suggest is a fact - that play has not in any way been delayed?

Edit
An afterthought to that: you seem to want to penalise the player for not playing while his opponent was, by agreement, playing.

 

[rulefan]

" I couldn't be bothered to go back "

Surely an unnecessary delay?

 

[Colin L]

It didn't delay play as his opponent was playing. It postponed his going back, that's all.

 

[rulefan]

It didn't delay play as his opponent was playing. It postponed his going back, that's all.

If he chose to go back before his opponent holed out his opponent would have to wait until he got back and made his stroke.
If he chose to go back after his opponent holed there would be a delay whilst he got back and made his stroke.

 

[Colin L]

I'm getting a bit lost now. The time taken to to go back to play his shot under S&D would be the same at whatever point it occurred.

But the garden calls and I'd only be repeating what I've said already to carry on. To be convinced I need to be shown that it took unduly longer to complete the hole in the way it was played than it would have had he gone back, played and the pair of them continued the hole in a more orthodox manner.

 

[Biggleswade Blue]

Match play
Both playing our second shots to the green , I had a shot on this hole over him
he hits his into a Red penalty area (ditch) by the green
I shank mine , lost ball , so drop and hit another and miss left into some light ruff to the left off the green
We find his in the ditch and he takes a drop
we both then looked for mine , the rough was slightly thicker than originally thought but just couldn't find it , even though we see it bounce a few times
The 3 minutes was up , I couldn't be bothered to go back to hit another as he was just off the green , I told him to carry on , but didn't conceded the hole
He then duffed it into the bunker then thinned it out into another bunker and duffed it out of that one
As i had a shot on this hole i thought if i go back and drop another i might have a chance of halving or even winning the hole.
He was happy for me to go back , but we werent sure about the ruling

Was it ok for him to continue to see if it was worth me going back , or should i declared what i was doing after my 3 minutes was up

He won the hole anyway , just wanted to know for future reference , in case i had won the hole

Bizarrely, I had this exact circumstance yesterday! I had been 3 off the tee, and played my fourth, when my opponent lost the ball on his second shot. In my naivity, as we finsihed the search for his ball, I said I'd play my next, and then (assuming he didn't find his ball in the meantime, which he didn't) he could decide whether he wanted to go back and play. As soon as I had said it, this thread came to mind but I felt I should honour the offer. In then end it didn't make a difference to the result of the hole, or indeed the match. Next time, I will ask my oponent to decide what he wants to do, before I play.

 

[nyckuk]

Bizarrely, I had this exact circumstance yesterday! I had been 3 off the tee, and played my fourth, when my opponent lost the ball on his second shot. In my naivity, as we finsihed the search for his ball, I said I'd play my next, and then (assuming he didn't find his ball in the meantime, which he didn't) he could decide whether he wanted to go back and play. As soon as I had said it, this thread came to mind but I felt I should honour the offer. In then end it didn't make a difference to the result of the hole, or indeed the match. Next time, I will ask my oponent to decide what he wants to do, before I play.

What ever you do , don't post a question about it on here