Can't score on stableford - rules on continuing play

[Swango1980]

Good spot Swinglowandslow. I believe this was also mentioned in the other related thread (which I've not looked at since my last post, and refuse to do so), and has got lost in the plethora of comments. But, it is worth stressing that Interpretation as you have:

Example of when a player is between the play of 2 holes:

Stableford, Par/ Bogey, and Maximum Score - When the player has holed out, or has picked up after scoring zero points, losing the hole or reaching the maximum score.

The highlighted words above would seem to make it clear that once you have picked up, you are now between the play of 2 holes, and any stroke that's not a putt of chip would be considered a practice shot, if done so before you tee off on the next. When it was brought up in the other thread, I believe the "loophole" that some were trying to exploit is that, in the OP case, he didn't actually find his ball so didn't literally pick it up. I think that interpretation is overly literal.

Anyway, good research by yourself and sensible opinion.

 

[robinthehood]

Good spot Swinglowandslow. I believe this was also mentioned in the other related thread (which I've not looked at since my last post, and refuse to do so), and has got lost in the plethora of comments. But, it is worth stressing that Interpretation as you have:

Example of when a player is between the play of 2 holes:

Stableford, Par/ Bogey, and Maximum Score - When the player has holed out, or has picked up after scoring zero points, losing the hole or reaching the maximum score.

The highlighted words above would seem to make it clear that once you have picked up, you are now between the play of 2 holes, and any stroke that's not a putt of chip would be considered a practice shot, if done so before you tee off on the next. When it was brought up in the other thread, I believe the "loophole" that some were trying to exploit is that, in the OP case, he didn't actually find his ball so didn't literally pick it up. I think that interpretation is overly literal.

Anyway, good research by yourself and sensible opinion.

The OP in the other thread for which you no longer read but are 100% sure is correct.
He makes no mention of picking up.
Simply the player in question put another ball in play rather than walk back to the tee.

 

[Swango1980]

The OP in the other thread for which you no longer read but are 100% sure is correct.
He makes no mention of picking up.
Simply the player in question put another ball in play rather than walk back to the tee.

Yes, if you read my full post there, you would have seen that I made the point people such as yourself made this argument.

 

[robinthehood]

Yes, if you read my full post there, you would have seen that I made the point people such as yourself made this argument.

You've written so many long winded posts I wouldn't know which to look at.
Despite there are decisions and rule that show the OP made a mistake I don't see what your point is anymore.

 

[Swango1980]

You've written so many long winded posts I wouldn't know which to look at.
Despite there are decisions and rule that show the OP made a mistake I don't see what your point is anymore.

If you don't understand, don't comment then, it adds nothing. I guess my problem was that I tried my best to put my opinion across to people who seem to lack understanding, but over SOME of their heads, so unfortunately that lead to me personally trying to clarify my position, and stating all related rules at one point or another, not just the first one you stumble across (Rule 5.5a). I'll give credit to some, who at least make a reasonable case either way. Anyway, from now on I'll ensure I'll not respond to anything like this again, unless any new information becomes available. If you genuinely want to know my opinion, see my last post on the other thread. However, I suspect you have no interest and only care that you disagree regardless. Which is fine, but you don't need to keep telling me.

The last genuinely interesting point on this thread was by Swinglowandslow, #60, for those who have just come fresh to this.

 

[chrisd]

The last genuinely interesting point on this thread was by Swinglowandslow, #60, for those who have just come fresh to this.

But it's only genuinely interesting because it suits your narrative

 

[rulefan]

I guess my problem was that I tried my best to put my opinion across to people who seem to lack understanding

I think that is the problem. It is your opinion.
The R&A would seem to have two opinions depending on the questions asked about two slightly different situations.
I have an opinion on one but not on the other. I think your opinion relates to both situations described.
I am awaiting a definitive ruling from the R&A.

 

[robinthehood]

If you don't understand, don't comment then, it adds nothing. I guess my problem was that I tried my best to put my opinion across to people who seem to lack understanding, but over SOME of their heads, so unfortunately that lead to me personally trying to clarify my position, and stating all related rules at one point or another, not just the first one you stumble across (Rule 5.5a). I'll give credit to some, who at least make a reasonable case either way. Anyway, from now on I'll ensure I'll not respond to anything like this again, unless any new information becomes available. If you genuinely want to know my opinion, see my last post on the other thread. However, I suspect you have no interest and only care that you disagree regardless. Which is fine, but you don't need to keep telling me.

The last genuinely interesting point on this thread was by Swinglowandslow, #60, for those who have just come fresh to this.

I mean I dont know what youre talking about anymore. Its been shown many times that the OP made a big mistake and you were incorrect in agreeing with him.

I assume you accept that now? Or are you still trying to save face?

 

[rulefan]

I'm not sure whether Swango has changed his mind or not but I can understand why he may not have done. The R&A responses appear to be in conflict. We don't yet know why. I have speculated as to why but it may be one is simply a mistake.

 

[RulesGuy]

Intent is inextricably linked to the concept of legal certainty. One cannot breach a law that is neither clear nor readily obtainable and judging by the voluminous posts and sometimes acrimonious debate the rule appears opaque and IMHO this widespread practice cannot in all reasonableness be subject to penalty. The R&A should let us know by way of clarification and then everyone can chill.

Swango ….in other rules there is no doubt a player gets a penalty when there was no intent whatsoever such as …... moving an out of bounds post even if the player immediately finds out the mistake and rectified it. Not quite. 18.1.c.1

 

[robinthehood]

Can someone explain what the below means please.?


7-2/1.7 Explanation of “Strokes Played in Continuing the Play of a Hole” Q. Rule 7-2 states that strokes played in continuing the play of a hole, the result of which has been decided, are not practice strokes.

What is meant by “continuing the play of a hole”?
A. This phrase covers situations in which a player plays the remainder of the hole with one ball in play. Its interpretation is not restricted to continuing the play of the hole in accordance with the Rules and includes, for example, situations where a player plays a ball from a spot close to where his original ball went out of bounds or in the area where it was lost.

That's the old descision....
And you can find the Mapping Chart to check what happened to the Decision 7-2/1.7 in 2019 here, which tells us it didn't change and is now covered by Rule 5.5a (pasted above):

http://www.walkercup.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2019/rules/Mapping Summary Chart - FINAL - revised 8.16.2019.pdf

 

[Swango1980]

RulesGuy. I can't quite find that reference number in the Rules or Interpretations. An earlier point I made was, if the player removed the OB post and then rectified it, they'd still be subject to penalty.

Not sure if you are saying that is the case or not. If it is not the case, perhaps it changed in new rules. However, I cant quite find the reference now, and frustrating trying to on my phone

Rulefan, for the record, not changed my view. But, just keeping quiet on it now as I don't think I can add anything more that I haven't already. I did ask for clarification, but I will await it see if they can. I certainly don't want to be running back and forth to them though, I am sure they have much more important things to be doing.

 

[RulesGuy]

RulesGuy. I can't quite find that reference number in the Rules or Interpretations. An earlier point I made was, if the player removed the OB post and then rectified it, they'd still be subject to penalty.

Not sure if you are saying that is the case or not. If it is not the case, perhaps it changed in new rules. However, I cant quite find the reference now, and frustrating trying to on my phone

Rulefan, for the record, not changed my view. But, just keeping quiet on it now as I don't think I can add anything more that I haven't already. I did ask for clarification, but I will await it see if they can. I certainly don't want to be running back and forth to them though, I am sure they have much more important things to be doing.

Hi Swango. Sorry my mistake. The new rule is 8.1.c.1 not rule 18 which changed the previous position

 

[rulie]

RulesGuy. I can't quite find that reference number in the Rules or Interpretations. An earlier point I made was, if the player removed the OB post and then rectified it, they'd still be subject to penalty.

Not sure if you are saying that is the case or not. If it is not the case, perhaps it changed in new rules. However, I cant quite find the reference now, and frustrating trying to on my phone

Rulefan, for the record, not changed my view. But, just keeping quiet on it now as I don't think I can add anything more that I haven't already. I did ask for clarification, but I will await it see if they can. I certainly don't want to be running back and forth to them though, I am sure they have much more important things to be doing.

See Rule 8.1c(1), first bullet...

 

[Swango1980]

Thanks RulesGuy and Rulie. My mistake, but glad to be made aware. It's interesting the tweaks that were made to the new rules, outside the highly publicised ones.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I think that is the problem. It is your opinion.
The R&A would seem to have two opinions depending on the questions asked about two slightly different situations.
I have an opinion on one but not on the other. I think your opinion relates to both situations described.
I am awaiting a definitive ruling from the R&A.

I think that is the best solution. You are clearly a rules aficionado with, I imagine, contacts with the R&A. It will help us all to receive the definitive answer from them. Thank you

 

[rulefan]

I can now confirm that the R&A have advised that both situations are considered to be covered by the last bullet of 5.5.

These are not practice strokes:
Strokes made by a player in playing out a hole whose result has been decided.

5.5b/1 could be misleading but that Interpretation is explaining when practice between holes is permitted (i.e. chipping and putting is permitted). It is not determining whether or not a player is continuing the play of a hole.

 

[robinthehood]

I mean this was never in any doubt.

 

[rulefan]

I mean this was never in any doubt.

Really?

 

[Swango1980]

I can now confirm that the R&A have advised that both situations are considered to be covered by the last bullet of 5.5.

These are not practice strokes:
Strokes made by a player in playing out a hole whose result has been decided.

5.5b/1 could be misleading but that Interpretation is explaining when practice between holes is permitted (i.e. chipping and putting is permitted). It is not determining whether or not a player is continuing the play of a hole.

Thanks Rulefan. I to have received clarification from the R&A. They acknowledge that there has been some confusion, essentially to do with a quirk in Stableford. I'll post the full question / answer on that other thread.