False info (?) on update of rules

[Backsticks]

One of those examples that shows how the less you know the rules of golf, the more fun it is, and the better your chances of winning against those who put in the effort of learning them.

 

[Colin L]

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?

Just a thought having only taken a brief moment to absorb all of this. The Clarification clearly allows the opponent to refer to the breach and state he is not calling it (startlingly new), and states that once the statement is made the matter is finished. It then does not matter what the player says in response because he is referring to a past, completed and unchangeable decision. He is not agreeing with his. opponent in the process of the latter's reaching his decision.

 

[clubchamp98]

Can maybe understand an agreement in match play. It’s just you two!
But in stroke play you have to think of the rest of the field,
Any breach is a penalty no agreements allowed.

 

[salfordlad]

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?

Not quite enough information there to conclude agreement, you'd have to pose the question explicitly IMO. It is acknowledgement, even appreciation but could also be "I respect your decision" rather than "I agree with your decision". Anyway, I'm thinking this is not the hairiest issue for the moment. Rule 1.3b(1) says the breacher MUST apply a known penalty to themself or be DQed. And that is why the current conventional wisdom is you can only "educate" your opponent to their breach after the next hole commences (or before match result final for breach on 18th hole). The new clarification is only telling us there may be no "agreement" that would require both to be DQed. Some part of the new world is yet unexplained (or even mistaken, perish the thought) - or conventional wisdom itself is based on a misunderstanding.

 

[salfordlad]

Can maybe understand an agreement in match play. It’s just you two!
But in stroke play you have to think of the rest of the field,
Any breach is a penalty no agreements allowed.

The Clarification is only related to match play (rule 3.2).

 

[clubchamp98]

Not quite enough information there to conclude agreement, you'd have to pose the question explicitly IMO. It is acknowledgement, even appreciation but could also be "I respect your decision" rather than "I agree with your decision". Anyway, I'm thinking this is not the hairiest issue for the moment. Rule 1.3b(1) says the breacher MUST apply a known penalty to themself or be DQed. And that is why the current conventional wisdom is you can only "educate" your opponent to their breach after the next hole commences (or before match result final for breach on 18th hole). The new clarification is only telling us there may be no "agreement" that would require both to be DQed. Some part of the new world is yet unexplained (or even mistaken, perish the thought) - or conventional wisdom itself is based on a misunderstanding.

If you know you should have a penalty.
Agreement or not ,you are giving wrong information about your strokes taken when you declare your score for the hole.
Seems a silly rule that is just not nessesary.
If you break a rule just take the penalty.

 

[nickjdavis]

If player A notices that B breaches a rule in matchplay but does not want to apply the penalty, he should just keep his mouth shut....will save a lot of problems.

 

[rulefan]

If player A notices that B breaches a rule in matchplay but does not want to apply the penalty, he should just keep his mouth shut....will save a lot of problems.

Or wait 'til you get to the next green

 

[salfordlad]

If player A notices that B breaches a rule in matchplay but does not want to apply the penalty, he should just keep his mouth shut....will save a lot of problems.

Perhaps not. If it is a rule breach that your opponent does repeatedly (because they simply don't know the rule) do you want to say nothing for the entire round?

The more I cogitate this new Clarification, the more I come to the view that 1.3b(1) is not triggered and the conventional wisdom (that you cannot mention a breach on the hole it occurs and fail to impose it) is incorrect - it was merely masquerading as a sacred cow.

So to return to Lilyhawk's original post and question: yes that article attached to the original post was rubbish - because it claimed that a rule had changed. Nothing has changed, we've just had our (mis)understanding corrected.

 

[Colin L]

Perhaps not. If it is a rule breach that your opponent does repeatedly (because they simply don't know the rule) do you want to say nothing for the entire round?

The more I cogitate this new Clarification, the more I come to the view that 1.3b(1) is not triggered and the conventional wisdom (that you cannot mention a breach on the hole it occurs and fail to impose it) is incorrect - it was merely masquerading as a sacred cow.

So to return to Lilyhawk's original post and question: yes that article attached to the original post was rubbish - because it claimed that a rule had changed. Nothing has changed, we've just had our (mis)understanding corrected.

The same conclusion as I came to, if a little more tentatively, on another forum. The reason why 1.3b(1) is not triggered is, in my view, because its disqualification is a) for an agreement between two players to waive a rule which cannot be the case here where one player has, on his own, decided as is his rule-given right, to ignore a breach and b) since the breach is being ignored there is no penalty and the opponent cannot therefore have deliberately failed to apply a penalty. That cannot be new.

 

[Swango1980]

To conclude. You can ignore a breach, no problem if you stay quiet. However, if you tell the player you are ignoring the breach, and therefore you are both aware the breach took place, both are DQed?

 

[rulefan]

To conclude. You can ignore a breach, no problem if you stay quiet. However, if you tell the player you are ignoring the breach, and therefore you are both aware the breach took place, both are DQed?

This is what the discussion is about. See the subtle difference between the bold words

The following examples illustrate when there is not an agreement between a player and an 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 advises the opponent that they (the player) are not going to act on the breach. It was the player’s sole decision not to act on the breach and, consequently, there has not been an agreement.
• 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 advises the opponent that they (the player) are not going to act on the breach. It was the player’s sole decision not to act on the breach and, consequently, there has not been an agreement.

In such cases when a player makes a sole decision not to act on a breach and tells the opponent of that decision, the player may not change that decision after either player makes another stroke on the hole, or if no more strokes are made on that hole, once either player makes a stroke from the next teeing area.

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]

This is pure splitting hairs and the differences between DQ and not DQ are very small and would be hard to determine in hindsight at a rules investigation.

In the second example of a DQ, who is to say that the player had not already made up his mind not to apply the penalty before the opponent made his suggestion, therefore, the player wasn't influenced in his decision.

We'd all been happy with our understanding of the rule prior to this, now we have an opened can of worms in front of us.

 

[Colin L]

This is pure splitting hairs and the differences between DQ and not DQ are very small and would be hard to determine in hindsight at a rules investigation.

In the second example of a DQ, who is to say that the player had not already made up his mind not to apply the penalty before the opponent made his suggestion, therefore, the player wasn't influenced in his decision.

We'd all been happy with our understanding of the rule prior to this, now we have an opened can of worms in front of us.

I actually find the distinction very clear and the Clarification helpful. There is a very obvious difference between the player stating that he is ignoring a breach and a conversation about whether he should or not. The statement is clearly an already made decision reached without any form of discussion or collusion with his opponent. A discussion as to whether he should ignore it, no matter whether the player or opponent initiated the discussion, indicates that the player has not yet decided. By opening up or being open to such a discussion, he shows that he not made up his mind and if the outcome is that he does decide to ignore the breach, that is an agreement.

The most important part of the Clarification is, in any case, taking away the absurdity of the orthodox notion that the player's merely mentioning to the opponent at the time that he was overlooking a breach was tantamount to the pair of them agreeing to waive a rule.

 

[Deleted member 25172]

Perhaps not. If it is a rule breach that your opponent does repeatedly (because they simply don't know the rule) do you want to say nothing for the entire round?

The more I cogitate this new Clarification, the more I come to the view that 1.3b(1) is not triggered and the conventional wisdom (that you cannot mention a breach on the hole it occurs and fail to impose it) is incorrect - it was merely masquerading as a sacred cow.

So to return to Lilyhawk's original post and question: yes that article attached to the original post was rubbish - because it claimed that a rule had changed. Nothing has changed, we've just had our (mis)understanding corrected.

I'm not even gonna try to pretend to understand the rules at anywhere near the levels of the rules guru's here, but to me, as a person trying to understand the rules to the best of my ability, and having a bog standard intellect, this isn't easy to digest.

I still cannot wrap my head around why 1.3b(1) would be superseded as there's no mention of any exemption or anything that I can see?

 

[Swango1980]

This is what the discussion is about. See the subtle difference between the bold words

The following examples illustrate when there is not an agreement between a player and an 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 advises the opponent that they (the player) are not going to act on the breach. It was the player’s sole decision not to act on the breach and, consequently, there has not been an agreement.
• 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 advises the opponent that they (the player) are not going to act on the breach. It was the player’s sole decision not to act on the breach and, consequently, there has not been an agreement.

In such cases when a player makes a sole decision not to act on a breach and tells the opponent of that decision, the player may not change that decision after either player makes another stroke on the hole, or if no more strokes are made on that hole, once either player makes a stroke from the next teeing area.

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 get the clarifications about making a sole decision or not, in those examples presented. But, just to make sure I get it what are the answers to the following 2 scenarios:

1. Opponent ignores a breach, but says nothing to the player until after the round:

2. Opponent sees a breach. Tells the player immediately a breach has been made, but his happy to ignore the penalty. The player, who was unaware of the breach when made, but now aware, ignores the breach and moves on without applying a penalty

 

[nickjdavis]

I actually find the distinction very clear and the Clarification helpful. There is a very obvious difference between the player stating that he is ignoring a breach and a conversation about whether he should or not. The statement is clearly an already made decision reached without any form of discussion or collusion with his opponent. A discussion as to whether he should ignore it, no matter whether the player or opponent initiated the discussion, indicates that the player has not yet decided. By opening up or being open to such a discussion, he shows that he not made up his mind and if the outcome is that he does decide to ignore the breach, that is an agreement.

.

So this might have saved some red faces at my place a few (6 or 7) years ago. Were a small friendly club, pretty much everyone knows each other and due to our random drawn comps at the time most regular comp players have played with other regular comp players at some time or another.

4BBB matchplay final. Team A are 2up putting out on the 15th. One of team A has his teenage son caddying for him (not a common occurrence...sometimes a players golfing wife might come out for a walk round and "caddy" for a player...but its not usual to have caddies...even in finals).

Teenage son spots rules breach by team B and instead of consulting with his dad about whether to call the penalty or not (if I remember correctly it was about one of team B standing behind the line of the putt when his partner was putting) he shouted out that the player shouldn't have been stood there and that it was a penalty.

Under our collective previous misapprehensions, because team A had effectively raised the issue, it wasn't being ignored and therefore the penalty had to be applied. It lead to a degree of discomfort for the player concerned and the match win was somewhat soured.

Now, based on what I've read above, the players dad could immediately have followed with..."but we are choosing to ignore the breach"...and all would be well.....no discussion or conversation...just an immediate axe, terminating the comment made by his caddie.

Is that correct?

 

[Swango1980]

So this might have saved some red faces at my place a few (6 or 7) years ago. Were a small friendly club, pretty much everyone knows each other and due to our random drawn comps at the time most regular comp players have played with other regular comp players at some time or another.

4BBB matchplay final. Team A are 2up putting out on the 15th. One of team A has his teenage son caddying for him (not a common occurrence...sometimes a players golfing wife might come out for a walk round and "caddy" for a player...but its not usual to have caddies...even in finals).

Teenage son spots rules breach by team B and instead of consulting with his dad about whether to call the penalty or not (if I remember correctly it was about one of team B standing behind the line of the putt when his partner was putting) he shouted out that the player shouldn't have been stood there and that it was a penalty.

Under our collective previous misapprehensions, because team A had effectively raised the issue, it wasn't being ignored and therefore the penalty had to be applied. It lead to a degree of discomfort for the player concerned and the match win was somewhat soured.

Now, based on what I've read above, the players dad could immediately have followed with..."but we are choosing to ignore the breach"...and all would be well.....no discussion or conversation...just an immediate axe, terminating the comment made by his caddie.

Is that correct?

This is what I am still not clear on, hence my 2 examples above. Once the son raised the issue, the opponents are now aware a breach has taken place. If a breach has taken place, there will be a penalty associated with it, which they may then be thinking will apply. But, the dad then says they will ignore the breach, and now the players know the penalty will not be enforced. So, is that both sides agreeing not to apply the penalty, and therefore DQ for both? Or, would the players have had to say first "OK, we'll apply the penalty", and then if the dad said we'll ignore it, and they moved on without penalty, the DQ only applies then?

 

[Colin L]

I get the clarifications about making a sole decision or not, in those examples presented. But, just to make sure I get it what are the answers to the following 2 scenarios:

1. Opponent ignores a breach, but says nothing to the player until after the round:

2. Opponent sees a breach. Tells the player immediately a breach has been made, but his happy to ignore the penalty. The player, who was unaware of the breach when made, but now aware, ignores the breach and moves on without applying a penalty

As I see it:
1. The matter ended when the opponent decided to ignore the breach and they moved on. Whether he is told immediately, later in the round, in the bar afterwards or never, there is nothing for the player to do (apart, perhaps, from buying his opponent a pint).
2. The opponent has chosen to ignore the breach. There is no penalty for the player to apply.

 

[Colin L]

This is what I am still not clear on, hence my 2 examples above. Once the son raised the issue, the opponents are now aware a breach has taken place. If a breach has taken place, there will be a penalty associated with it, which they may then be thinking will apply. But, the dad then says they will ignore the breach, and now the players know the penalty will not be enforced. So, is that both sides agreeing not to apply the penalty, and therefore DQ for both? Or, would the players have had to say first "OK, we'll apply the penalty", and then if the dad said we'll ignore it, and they moved on without penalty, the DQ only applies then?

There's no agreement there. If the opponents are told in a clear statement by the player that the breach is being ignored, that's it.