Ball moved in the process of address

[Foxholer]

Yes. I know of no exception to 1-3 for sporting agreements. All breaches of the rules are done in a sporting manner. I am philosophically opposed to making rulings based on players' motives or state of mind or my concept of fairness unless the rule clearly requires it. (I am in a camp that used to be called hardliners.)

But they haven't waived it! They have merely breached it. And the consequence/penalty of breaching it is that any 'claim' is rejected.

The 'Rules is Rules' concept is totally reasonable - and fundamental to RofG! Otherwise the visible slight movement of the ball or failure to sign a card could be disregarded too!

 

[Colin L]

Contained in this artfully crafted phrase is "agreement to defer making a claim."



Yes. I know of no exception to 1-3 for sporting agreements. All breaches of the rules are done in a sporting manner. I am philosophically opposed to making rulings based on players' motives or state of mind or my concept of fairness unless the rule clearly requires it. (I am in a camp that used to be called hardliners.)

I don't disagree that this probably happens all the time and a local committee would not DQ the players, but the purpose of this board is to apply the rules to facts presented, not look for ways to support erroneous rulings or misconceptions about the rules. IMHO

Atticus, you continue to insist that Rule 3-1 is applicable to the situation described by the OP. It isn't. The players have not in any way agreed to waive a Rule. The idea that they have agreed to defer making a claim makes no sense. Even if nothing more was said than the player saying, "I'm not sure if this is right or what penalty there might be, so I'll play from here and we can ask when we get in for a ruling and sort out the outcome of the match then," and his opponent saying, "That's fine by me" is there a problem? Implicit in that conversation is that the opponent is making a claim. In any case, the OP later clarified that the opponent had made a claim.

 

[atticusfinch]

And never the twain shall meet. Pals?

 

[bladeplayer]

And never the twain shall meet. Pals?

out of genuine curiosity, your way out the course , both not sure on a rule & cant or mayb wont agree on a decision , or have different interpretation of the rule , how in your opinion do the resolve it without agreeing to waive it until they finish ?

That is a total Genuine question by the way

 

[Colin L]

out of genuine curiosity, your way out the course , both not sure on a rule & cant or mayb wont agree on a decision , or have different interpretation of the rule , how in your opinion do the resolve it without agreeing to waive it until they finish ?

That is a total Genuine question by the way

If you are both in doubt, you agree before the next hole to refer the matter to the Committee as the players do in Decision 2-5/8.
http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-02/#d2-5-8

As you'll see from that Decision, and as I hope Atticus notes, the agreement to refer to the Committee is acceptable. It might be worth mentioning too that Rule 2-5 is not just about disputes but also about doubts as to how to proceed. Both players can share doubts without being in dispute. If the matter is in dispute, the procedure in 2-5 is followed.

 

[Tashyboy]

When you play off 24 (me) your knowledge of the rules is probably to a 24 mentality as well. There are some on here that know the rules on here inside out and others who are as knowledgable that have a different slant on the same ruling. I know a lack of knowledge of the rules in my sense is not an excuse but if was was to learn all of the r & a rules before I played I would never get on the course.

That aside I find it a bit odd that a gentlemans agreement on a specific ruling can create such a problem. Thanks for the replys but am not to sure am any wiser.

PS C On my way! On England.

 

[atticusfinch]

That aside I find it a bit odd that a gentlemans agreement on a specific ruling can create such a problem.

Tashy,see rule 1-3. It says ANY agreement to waive a rule is prohibited. Gentlemen's agreements are the worst because everybody feels all warm and fuzzy about them.

The disagreement here is that there was no agreement to waive a rule. If there had been the others would agree with me to DQ the offenders.

There are of course no rules police so you won't be sent to Coventry.

 

[Tashyboy]

Tashy,see rule 1-3. It says ANY agreement to waive a rule is prohibited. Gentlemen's agreements are the worst because everybody feels all warm and fuzzy about them.

The disagreement here is that there was no agreement to waive a rule. If there had been the others would agree with me to DQ the offenders.

There are of course no rules police so you won't be sent to Coventry.

Thank god for that because I called at Coventry on the way back from a weekend in Warwick. Someone said to me whilst there. "The council manged to do what the Luftwaffe could not,ruin Coventry"

 

[bladeplayer]

If you are both in doubt, you agree before the next hole to refer the matter to the Committee as the players do in Decision 2-5/8.
http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-02/#d2-5-8

As you'll see from that Decision, and as I hope Atticus notes, the agreement to refer to the Committee is acceptable. It might be worth mentioning too that Rule 2-5 is not just about disputes but also about doubts as to how to proceed. Both players can share doubts without being in dispute. If the matter is in dispute, the procedure in 2-5 is followed.

Thank you Colin