Attending the flag.

[salfordlad]

This seems the most sensible answer to a rules question, but itself does not say which way the tie should be awarded in committee. There is a hint that A should lose the tie for failure to hole out.
Suggesting that B should lose the tie in future events is interesting. I cannot see the difference in Bs actions here, and in future events where he does the same thing, and its considered a serious breach, and he loses the tie.

If this unfortunate scenario were to cross my desk, and the tie required a resolution, I would DQ Player B under 1.2a, as he acted 'contrary to the spirit of the game'. Why should he get away with it the first time, but be DQ'd the second time after a warning?

Its a great question though.

Two brief reactions.
1. No "hint" is being offered. The facts are not provided to enable a decision - why did the match cease? We are not told how that unfolded. If A ceased play because they didn't like B's behaviour, walking off the course, then A breached 5.7 and the penalty is DQ. But the OP provided no basis for a decision.
2. On your approach of DQing B off the bat, see the 6th bullet point in 1.2a/1. I think that provides direct RB guidance that your proposed approach is not supported by the Rules of Golf in a situation a bit more serious than not attending the flag. (I don't see the stroke play versus match play angle as ground changing.)
Untangling poor behaviour on the course within the constraints of the Rules can be a challenge for any Committee. Fortunately, it is not very common but if/when it happens it is going to test one's mettle, patience and wisdom.

 

[salfordlad]

All I was asking for was somebody to yes or no. Does it really have to made complicated? You rules guys might understand all the terminology etc but sometimes it's not clear to the rest of us simpletons.

LOL, good luck with extracting such an answer from the 500+ pages. Yes or no answers could also indicate the respondent is not fully aware of the issues.

 

[IanMcC]

Two brief reactions.
1. No "hint" is being offered. The facts are not provided to enable a decision - why did the match cease? We are not told how that unfolded. If A ceased play because they didn't like B's behaviour, walking off the course, then A breached 5.7 and the penalty is DQ. But the OP provided no basis for a decision.
2. On your approach of DQing B off the bat, see the 6th bullet point in 1.2a/1. I think that provides direct RB guidance that your proposed approach is not supported by the Rules of Golf in a situation a bit more serious than not attending the flag. (I don't see the stroke play versus match play angle as ground changing.)
Untangling poor behaviour on the course within the constraints of the Rules can be a challenge for any Committee. Fortunately, it is not very common but if/when it happens it is going to test one's mettle, patience and wisdom.

Thanks for this. So, in a nutshell, the committee would need more facts to reach a decision, I suppose.

 

[Beedee]

Two brief reactions.
1. No "hint" is being offered. The facts are not provided to enable a decision - why did the match cease? We are not told how that unfolded. If A ceased play because they didn't like B's behaviour, walking off the course, then A breached 5.7 and the penalty is DQ. But the OP provided no basis for a decision.
2. On your approach of DQing B off the bat, see the 6th bullet point in 1.2a/1. I think that provides direct RB guidance that your proposed approach is not supported by the Rules of Golf in a situation a bit more serious than not attending the flag. (I don't see the stroke play versus match play angle as ground changing.)
Untangling poor behaviour on the course within the constraints of the Rules can be a challenge for any Committee. Fortunately, it is not very common but if/when it happens it is going to test one's mettle, patience and wisdom.

Unless I'm looking at the wrong thing, what does refusing to mark a ball have to do with anything?

Also, given that the 9th bullet reads "Repeatedly using vulgar or offensive language", why is at least half the field not disqualified in every comp?

Tbh my reading of the bullets is that anything that's done deliberately that's a bit off, and impacts other players could be taken as grounds for DQ. They do cover a pretty broad range - from taking the flag and inserting it up player B for being a prat, down to swearing - all grounds for DQ.

The examples in the not-DQ list are distinctly more minor or clearly accidental.

 

[Jigger]

If I was on the committee I’d be pushing for them both to be knocked out due to unsportsmanlike behaviour. The one constant for me is that they both abandoned the match and conceded.

 

[salfordlad]

Unless I'm looking at the wrong thing, what does refusing to mark a ball have to do with anything?

It's an example of poor behaviour that I think is more serious than refusing to tend the flagstick, but despite this, the clarification makes clear that a specific episode would not qualify as a serious breach.

 

[clubchamp98]

If I was on the committee I’d be pushing for them both to be knocked out due to unsportsmanlike behaviour. The one constant for me is that they both abandoned the match and conceded.

But player A hasnt done anything wrong.
his request for the flag to be attended was refused.
He abandons the match to seek a comittiee ruling.
How is that a concession?

 

[RichA]

But player A hasnt done anything wrong.
his request for the flag to be attended was refused.
He abandons the match to seek a comittiee ruling.
How is that a concession?

In the virtual reality that is this hypothetical scenario we've created, how can any player's unilateral decision to abandon the match be anything other than a concession?

 

[salfordlad]

In the virtual reality that is this hypothetical scenario we've created, how can any player's unilateral decision to abandon the match be anything other than a concession?

It's not a concession, see 3.2b(2) "a concession is made only when clearly communicated". If one player only abandoned a match to seek a ruling, the other wanting to play on, the player abandoning would be DQ under Rule 5.7a. But if they stop play by agreement, for example, to seek a ruling, that is not a breach for any player unless it delays the competition.

 

[BiMGuy]

In this hypothetical situation. Player A would probably be losing the match and looking for a way out. No one who is winning a match would throw a tantrum and walk off.

I would either call it a concession or a causing undue delay.

 

[RichA]

It's not a concession, see 3.2b(2) "a concession is made only when clearly communicated". If one player only abandoned a match to seek a ruling, the other wanting to play on, the player abandoning would be DQ under Rule 5.7a. But if they stop play by agreement, for example, to seek a ruling, that is not a breach for any player unless it delays the competition.

I've no idea if the Rules of Golf has some unique definition, but in any other language the verb abandon means it's over, not suspended temporarily.

 

[salfordlad]

I've no idea if the Rules of Golf has some unique definition, but in any other language the verb abandon means it's over, not suspended temporarily.

Is there a point here? I've given you the guidance in the Rules, identifying why this is not a concession and affirming the Rules answer if one player has abandoned the match. I've also identified a possible alternate Rules outcome IF there was an agreement by both players to stop play.