Can wrong free relief turn into unplayable?

[rulie]

Good discussion. Imo, the serious breach dq option must stay in the Rules, just as the serious breach of misconduct dq must stay. Both are Committee decisions.

 

[salfordlad]

Something I find curious and interesting - if we look at these words from the USGA

"If you told the player he could play from the wrong place but he'd have to take two penalty strokes and he'd rather do that than play from the right place - you've got a serious breach."

That is exactly what MLR E-5 (Alternative to S&D for lost ball or ball OB) permits!

 

[salfordlad]

Good discussion. Imo, the serious breach dq option must stay in the Rules, just as the serious breach of misconduct dq must stay. Both are Committee decisions.

Interestingly, we do not need to rely on 14.7 serious breach to DQ where the action is clear bad behaviour, deliberately putting a ball into an incorrect, advantageous position and playing it. In such a case, 1.2a can get the DQ job done - see the 8th bullet point in 1.2a/1 (included from 2019, inspired by the Phil Mickelson US Open incident).
And because of that, some believe serious breach wrong place DQ could be removed and 14.7 significantly simplified.

 

[Backache]

I might try this in the Club Champs, just in case there is any subjectivity in "Serious Breach", and my Committee sees it as a 2-shot penalty offence.

It may be the greatest example of using the rules to your advantage, if I end up becoming Club Champ.

A very unimaginative use of the ruling. I would drop it directly in the hole and would have holed out with my last shot , thus incurring no penalty at all.

 

[Steven Rules]

Something I find curious and interesting - if we look at these words from the USGA

"If you told the player he could play from the wrong place but he'd have to take two penalty strokes and he'd rather do that than play from the right place - you've got a serious breach."

That is exactly what MLR E-5 (Alternative to S&D for lost ball or ball OB) permits!

 

[Steven Rules]

Interestingly, we do not need to rely on 14.7 serious breach to DQ where the action is clear bad behaviour, deliberately putting a ball into an incorrect, advantageous position and playing it. In such a case, 1.2a can get the DQ job done - see the 8th bullet point in 1.2a/1 (included from 2019, inspired by the Phil Mickelson US Open incident).
And because of that, some believe serious breach wrong place DQ could be removed and 14.7 significantly simplified.

Maybe, but that bullet point in 1.2a/1, as currently worded, wouldn't cover the unintentional/innocent/ignorant wrong place serious breach.

 

[salfordlad]

Maybe, but that bullet point in 1.2a/1, as currently worded, wouldn't cover the unintentional/innocent/ignorant wrong place serious breach.

Yes, hence the "some believe" qualification. All substantive change brings trade offs.

 

[twrmgoat]

It is very rare that there is a serious breach of playing from a wrong place, particularly under an action which would comply with Rule 19.

To the original poster - what was determined by the Committee to be the reason for DQ that made it more serious than the two stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place (Rule 14.7)?

Firstly, thanks for the replies, and general discussion.
The original decision for DQ for serious breach was just on the basis that clearly there was a decent advantage in playing from the new position. The obstruction (a hole information board on a tee adjacent to a green) now didn’t prevent a 25 yard pitch towards the hole. But player could have played to a different part of the green.

Reading the discussion here then a two shot penalty and no DQ is more appropriate.

 

[salfordlad]

Firstly, thanks for the replies, and general discussion.
The original decision for DQ for serious breach was just on the basis that clearly there was a decent advantage in playing from the new position. The obstruction (a hole information board on a tee adjacent to a green) now didn’t prevent a 25 yard pitch towards the hole. But player could have played to a different part of the green.

Reading the discussion here then a two shot penalty and no DQ is more appropriate.

Yes, that really doesn't sound like a significant advantage gained. The advantage appears to simply be an enhanced opportunity to get up and down.

 

[rulie]

Yes, that really doesn't sound like a significant advantage gained. The advantage appears to simply be an enhanced opportunity to get up and down.

Agree. Perhaps an inexperienced official/Committee with a difficult decision? But their decision is final.
And experience is what you get right after you needed it!

 

[KenL]

Agree. Perhaps an inexperienced official/Committee with a difficult decision? But their decision is final.
And experience is what you get right after you needed it!

Given that many match and handicap people are volunteers and operate on their own I expect most of them are inexperienced in such matters.

 

[rulie]

Given that many match and handicap people are volunteers and operate on their own I expect most of them are inexperienced in such matters.

I think that we're all volunteers?

 

[salfordlad]

I think that we're all volunteers?

You don't declare the sandwich and drink on the tax return?

 

[rulie]

You don't declare the sandwich and drink on the tax return?

Not a chance!

 

[twrmgoat]

Agree. Perhaps an inexperienced official/Committee with a difficult decision? But their decision is final.
And experience is what you get right after you needed it!

So the DQ stands as the comp was closed with that ruling? And a score (for handicapping purpose) of net double bogey (double bogey) applies rather than the bogey which would apply with just a two shot penalty?

 

[KenL]

I think that we're all volunteers?

No, there are clubs with a paid match secretary.

 

[rulie]

So the DQ stands as the comp was closed with that ruling? And a score (for handicapping purpose) of net double bogey (double bogey) applies rather than the bogey which would apply with just a two shot penalty?

Yes, the DQ stands once the result of the competition is final (besides, the Committee's decision is final).