False info (?) on update of rules

[Deleted member 25172]

I just had someone share this in our club swindle group. I cannot find anything like this regarding the update of the rules.

This another example of this website who make up their own rules perhaps, or is it me who’s not doing a particularly good job at finding the updated rules?

 

[salfordlad]

Yes, simply rubbish.

 

[Deleted member 25172]

As I thought. Thanks.

 

[Neilds]

I was under the impression that, in match play, you could ignore a rule breach - Is this correct?

 

[Crow]

I was under the impression that, in match play, you could ignore a rule breach - Is this correct?

It is, but if you point the breach out then you're no longer ignoring it and both parties now have knowledge of the breach.
To play on without incurring the penalty means an agreement to ignore the rules, which I believe incurs a DQ.

 

[Deleted member 25172]

I'm getting confused now. @salfordlad can you please help?

Reading this and to me it does look like you could point it out. As long as the player who first asked what club his opponent is hitting keeps his mouth shut and not agreeing to anything.

Example:

Player A - "What club you hitting there?"

Player B - "Asking me that could actually cause you to lose the hole, but I won't act on it this time."

Player A - "Ok."

Outcome - No loss of hole for player A, no DQ for either player A or B, as it was B's sole decision.

 

[salfordlad]

It is, but if you point the breach out then you're no longer ignoring it and both parties now have knowledge of the breach.
To play on without incurring the penalty means an agreement to ignore the rules, which I believe incurs a DQ.

This is the way I (and every other rules person I know) has previously understood the current rules to work. But I was not aware (prior to engaging in this thread) of this new 3.2d(4)/1 Clarification. I discuss this issue further below.

 

[salfordlad]

First, a confession. My post #2 above was based on my current understanding, was coloured by all the guff we have been seeing from the Golf Handicap Association, and I was not alert to the new Clarification 3.2d(4)/1. Taking that on face value, it is saying that both players could not be DQ for agreeing not to apply the rules because there is no 'agreement' between two players not to apply the penalty. Interestingly, it goes on to say that a player's sole decision not to act on a breach after telling the opponent of that decision cannot be rescinded after either player makes another stroke on that hole or when either play from the next tee (whichever comes first). However, that means the player CAN change their mind and impose the penalty BEFORE that 'too late' trigger is reached. I draw attention to this simply as an observation.

But here's my problem with suggesting that is the end of the issue: the person that breached the rule now knows they have breached a rule. And Rule 1.3b(1) states if a person knows they have breached a rule, they must apply the penalty to themselves (if it is not too late to do so) or be DQed. That is, just the one player is DQed. I also note this rule draws no distinction between stroke play and match play although the time limits may apply differently in each case.

So I would really like to access input from RBs on precisely how these rules relate to each other. Is that obligation for a player to impose a known breach to themselves over-ridden by an opponent saying I choose not to impose this breach? That is, is there from January a new and unstated Exception in Rule 1.3b(1)?

I think further official guidance is required. And thank you, Lilyhawk, for raising this theme, there's plenty to chew on here. That attachment in your first post is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Steven Rules]

This is the way I (and every other rules person I know) has previously understood the current rules to work.

Ditto. The late Barry Rhodes also held that view.

Curiouser and curiouser.

3.2d(4)/1 is not in the 2019 Rules but it has made its debut in the 2023 Rules without any fanfare and no mention at all in the Outcome Changes: 2019 Rules to 2023 Rules Comparison

Now the contradictory thing is that under 1.3b(1) if a player knows they have breached a Rule that involves a penalty and deliberately fails to apply the penalty, the player is disqualified. There is no distinction in this Rule between stroke play and match play. So, under this Rule, once the breach is pointed out to the player, the player has no option or discretion and must apply the penalty.

Edit. I think I was writing this while #8 was being posted. We seem to have identified the same key issues.

 

[rulefan]

Re post #6

The 2023 Clarification goes on to say:

The following examples illustrate when there is an agreement between the player and the opponent:

• During play of a hole, the player sees their opponent lift their ball for identification without first marking its spot. The player tells the opponent that failure to mark is a breach of the Rules but, after discussion, the player and opponent conclude that they don’t want to apply penalties in situations where there is no clear advantage from the breach of the Rule. As both players were involved in determining the outcome of the situation, and they then agreed not to apply the penalty, there has been an agreement to ignore the breach of the Rules, and both players are disqualified under Rule 1.3b.
• During play of a hole, the opponent advises the player that they (the opponent) touched sand on their backswing in a bunker. The player confirms that this is a loss of hole penalty, but the opponent suggests to the player that they overlook the breach as no real advantage was gained. The player decides not to apply the penalty. As the player was influenced by the opponent in their decision not to act on the breach there has been an agreement, and both players are disqualified under Rule 1.3b. (New)

 

[Crow]

Talk about muddying the waters, I'm glad I decided not to bother keeping fully up with the rules after some of the ridiculous 2019 changes.

 

[Deleted member 25172]

Re post #6

The 2023 Clarification goes on to say:

The following examples illustrate when there is an agreement between the player and the opponent:

• During play of a hole, the player sees their opponent lift their ball for identification without first marking its spot. The player tells the opponent that failure to mark is a breach of the Rules but, after discussion, the player and opponent conclude that they don’t want to apply penalties in situations where there is no clear advantage from the breach of the Rule. As both players were involved in determining the outcome of the situation, and they then agreed not to apply the penalty, there has been an agreement to ignore the breach of the Rules, and both players are disqualified under Rule 1.3b.
• During play of a hole, the opponent advises the player that they (the opponent) touched sand on their backswing in a bunker. The player confirms that this is a loss of hole penalty, but the opponent suggests to the player that they overlook the breach as no real advantage was gained. The player decides not to apply the penalty. As the player was influenced by the opponent in their decision not to act on the breach there has been an agreement, and both players are disqualified under Rule 1.3b. (New)

It does, but what about the scenario as posted by me, where the player who broke the rule does not say anything when it's pointed out? I read it as it's then no penalty, but which salfordlad and Steven Rules has pointed out, that contradicts 1.3b.

Player has been told he has broken a rule of which a penalty applies, and if he doesn't apply it, he's disqualified?

And as they now both know about the rule break and ignores it, by not applying the rule, even though the word agreement isn't used, they should automatically be disqualified.

There's also no reference to any exception to 10.2a, which would be the 3.2d(4)/1. Wouldn't such a change in the rules warrant that?

My head is about to explode.

 

[salfordlad]

My head is about to explode.

Relax, I'm sure we will be able to access more guidance before too long. More broadly, I'm finding lots to like in the 2023 tweaks, this issue is the first I'm seeing that appears to clash with the existing stuff.

 

[Swango1980]

Re post #6

The 2023 Clarification goes on to say:

The following examples illustrate when there is an agreement between the player and the opponent:

• During play of a hole, the player sees their opponent lift their ball for identification without first marking its spot. The player tells the opponent that failure to mark is a breach of the Rules but, after discussion, the player and opponent conclude that they don’t want to apply penalties in situations where there is no clear advantage from the breach of the Rule. As both players were involved in determining the outcome of the situation, and they then agreed not to apply the penalty, there has been an agreement to ignore the breach of the Rules, and both players are disqualified under Rule 1.3b.
• During play of a hole, the opponent advises the player that they (the opponent) touched sand on their backswing in a bunker. The player confirms that this is a loss of hole penalty, but the opponent suggests to the player that they overlook the breach as no real advantage was gained. The player decides not to apply the penalty. As the player was influenced by the opponent in their decision not to act on the breach there has been an agreement, and both players are disqualified under Rule 1.3b. (New)

I'm having to read both those examples several times to try and wrap my head around them.

Is the key difference this:

In the first example, both player and opponent didn't want to apply the penalty. So, this is OK and move on. But in the second example, the player was actually going to apply the penalty (which seems the more honourable thing to do), but their opponent convinced them that there was no need (also seems like an honourable thing to do). But, because the opponent influenced a different decision, both are no DQed?

 

[Deleted member 25172]

I'm having to read both those examples several times to try and wrap my head around them.

Is the key difference this:

In the first example, both player and opponent didn't want to apply the penalty. So, this is OK and move on. But in the second example, the player was actually going to apply the penalty (which seems the more honourable thing to do), but their opponent convinced them that there was no need (also seems like an honourable thing to do). But, because the opponent influenced a different decision, both are no DQed?

No, I believe both examples are two different ways to showcase what an agreement could look like, leading to both players being DQ'd in both instances.

 

[Swango1980]

No, I believe both examples are two different ways to showcase what an agreement could look like, leading to both players being DQ'd in both instances.

Ahh, I read it wrong. A clear example of focusing on the agreement bit, and misreading the bit that both are DQed anyway

 

[Deleted member 25172]

Ahh, I read it wrong. A clear example of focusing on the agreement bit, and misreading the bit that both are DQed anyway

Still doesn't make any sense though all of this. Eagerly awaiting some of the rules aficionados to dig into this to get to the bottom. To me it almost looks like like the rule makers at the R&A may have had a few before coming up with this. But I'm sure there's a thing, two or a dozen that I'm missing here.

 

[Swango1980]

Still doesn't make any sense though all of this. Eagerly awaiting some of the rules aficionados to dig into this to get to the bottom. To me it almost looks like like the rule makers at the R&A may have had a few before coming up with this. But I'm sure there's a thing, two or a dozen that I'm missing here.

It does seem weird.

Basically if the opponent says "you broke a rule there, but I won't penalise you" then the player can decide to get away with the breach, and they move on?

But if the opponent says "you broke a rule there", then the player says "oh, ok, I'll apply the penalty", then the opponent says "no, don't worry, I'll not ask you to take the penalty", then both are disqualified for an agreement?

 

[D-S]

If the opponent says "you broke a rule there, but I won't penalise you" and the player says "oh, I now know that this was a penalty but thank you very much for not penalising me, even though you could have" has he now agreed and therefore they should both be DQ'd?

 

[rulefan]

If the opponent says "you broke a rule there, but I won't penalise you" and the player says "oh, I now know that this was a penalty but thank you very much for not penalising me, even though you could have" has he now agreed and therefore they should both be DQ'd?

That was/is my dilemma.