False info (?) on update of rules

[Swango1980]

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.

Thanks. So I'm thinking DQ to both only applies if the player was actually happy to apply the penalty (i.e indicated they'd apply it), and then didn't after the opponent said they'd ignore it? At that point, it is then obvious the player was influenced by the opponent in coming to a different outcome.

Of course, it probably doesn't matter in virtually all cases anyway. If both players agree to something, they'll just get on with things and be none the wiser. Only if a referee, or 3rd party was present to witness the conversation, would the players ever be DQed for any well intentioned discussion to ignore a breach.

Years ago I had a mixed match against a lady very high up and recognised in England Golf. When addressing the ball in a bunker, I accidentally grounded my club. I called it immediately, and asked what the penalty was. She was very nice about it, and said not to worry about it, so we all just moved on and had a good round of golf (we got thrashed). Strictly, I'm thinking if this happened today (and maybe back then), we both would be technically DQed

 

[Deleted member 25172]

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.

So rule 1.3b(1) is superseded then? I still don't understand how that is. Just because the opponent has chosen to ignore the breach doesn't mean it hasn't happened. The breach has still taken place and the opponent has informed the player about it. The player now subsequently knows he has breached a rule, of which a penalty applies, and if he knows it, then he's bound to apply this penalty. Am I missing the exemption of this in rule somewhere in 1.3b(1)?

 

[Colin L]

Thanks. So I'm thinking DQ to both only applies if the player was actually happy to apply the penalty (i.e indicated they'd apply it), and then didn't after the opponent said they'd ignore it? At that point, it is then obvious the player was influenced by the opponent in coming to a different outcome.

Of course, it probably doesn't matter in virtually all cases anyway. If both players agree to something, they'll just get on with things and be none the wiser. Only if a referee, or 3rd party was present to witness the conversation, would the players ever be DQed for any well intentioned discussion to ignore a breach.

Years ago I had a mixed match against a lady very high up and recognised in England Golf. When addressing the ball in a bunker, I accidentally grounded my club. I called it immediately, and asked what the penalty was. She was very nice about it, and said not to worry about it, so we all just moved on and had a good round of golf (we got thrashed). Strictly, I'm thinking if this happened today (and maybe back then), we both would be technically DQed

I'm not seeing how a statement by a player that he had breached a rule, followed by a statement by his opponent that he would ignore it could be construed in any way to be an agreement to waive a rule. The player has done what he should have done by telling his opponent of the breach and the opponent has exercised his rule-given right to ignore it.
Regarding the past event, I think we should be mindful that we are talking about a new Clarification of an existing and unchanged rule. It tells about the application of the rule and I suspect it may have been introduced in order to deal with a long-standing misunderstanding of that rule. That's just conjecture on my part. For what it's worth, I would reckon the conversation between you and your opponent was a simple exchange of information - you that you had touched the sand and she that she was ignoring it - and now would have the guidance this Clarification to say that there was nothing untoward about it.

 

[Colin L]

So rule 1.3b(1) is superseded then? I still don't understand how that is. Just because the opponent has chosen to ignore the breach doesn't mean it hasn't happened. The breach has still taken place and the opponent has informed the player about it. The player now subsequently knows he has breached a rule, of which a penalty applies, and if he knows it, then he's bound to apply this penalty. Am I missing the exemption of this in rule somewhere in 1.3b(1)?

What penalty?

 

[Swango1980]

I'm not seeing how a statement by a player that he had breached a rule, followed by a statement by his opponent that he would ignore it could be construed in any way to be an agreement to waive a rule. The player has done what he should have done by telling his opponent of the breach and the opponent has exercised his rule-given right to ignore it.
Regarding the past event, I think we should be mindful that we are talking about a new Clarification of an existing and unchanged rule. It tells about the application of the rule and I suspect it may have been introduced in order to deal with a long-standing misunderstanding of that rule. That's just conjecture on my part. For what it's worth, I would reckon the conversation between you and your opponent was a simple exchange of information - you that you had touched the sand and she that she was ignoring it - and now would have the guidance this Clarification to say that there was nothing untoward about it.

OK, but then I am not tying up your statement above in bold, with the following:

"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."

Surely the quoted statement above is a statement basically says: player breached a rule, opponent highlighted this, player knew the penalty, opponent says they are happy to overlook the breach, player does not penalise themselves, both players disqualified

What is the difference between both situations? In the bit in bold from your reply, you are suggesting that the player knows there is a rules breach, the opponent says they will overlook it, and they can both move on without penalty or DQ.

 

[Deleted member 25172]

What penalty?

Gonna spell out a situation again, cause I still do not understand.

Player A is in the bunker. Player A touches the sand with his club before taking the stroke.

Question:
Has there been a rule breach in the above fictional scenario?


Continuing.

As player A walks on to the green for his next shot, his opponent, player B, tells player A that he saw player A's club grounded/touched the sand in the bunker. Player B further tells player A that grounding/tocuhing the sand with the club in the bunker comes with a general penalty, in this case, loss of hole. Player B is feeling friendly today however, so he tells player A that he will not act on it. Player A does not respond.

Question:

Does player A now know that a rule breach has taken place from his action in the bunker?

If no, please explain.

If yes, please explain how rule 1.3b(1) is now not applicable?

 

[salfordlad]

I would reckon the conversation between you and your opponent was a simple exchange of information - you that you had touched the sand and she that she was ignoring it - and now would have the guidance this Clarification to say that there was nothing untoward about it.

I think this one is as clear as can be. Player states very clearly to opponent that they have breached a rule and seeks to confirm the precise penalty. 1.3b(1) first double arrow is very clearly applicable here. The penalty must be applied or the player is DQ. The opponent says don't worry about it and they both carry on without the penalty applying. IMO, 1.3b(1) second arrow point is very clearly applicable here, they have agreed not to apply the penalty. I do not see any scope for an opponent to say "don't worry about it" in the case of a player advising the opponent that they have breached a rule.

 

[Colin L]

• If the player knows or believes that the opponent has breached a Rule that has a penalty, the player may choose whether or not to act on the breach. [3.2d(4)]

Are you saying that a player loses that choice if the way in which he comes to know that his opponent has breached a rule is by his opponent telling him Or is it the manner of the telling that you are saying is tantamount to an agreement? If the latter, I think I would disagree that there is any such significance in a friendly expression like "don't worry about it." That seems to me just a way of saying "I'm not acting on the breach."

 

[Swango1980]

• If the player knows or believes that the opponent has breached a Rule that has a penalty, the player may choose whether or not to act on the breach. [3.2d(4)]

Are you saying that a player loses that choice if the way in which he comes to know that his opponent has breached a rule is by his opponent telling him Or is it the manner of the telling that you are saying is tantamount to an agreement? If the latter, I think I would disagree that there is any such significance in a friendly expression like "don't worry about it." That seems to me just a way of saying "I'm not acting on the breach."

And is this not where the uncertainty is? Is there a difference between that bullet point and:

"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."

 

[salfordlad]

• If the player knows or believes that the opponent has breached a Rule that has a penalty, the player may choose whether or not to act on the breach. [3.2d(4)]

Are you saying that a player loses that choice if the way in which he comes to know that his opponent has breached a rule is by his opponent telling him Or is it the manner of the telling that you are saying is tantamount to an agreement? If the latter, I think I would disagree that there is any such significance in a friendly expression like "don't worry about it." That seems to me just a way of saying "I'm not acting on the breach."

The former. If your opponent comes to you and says I just committed a penalty offence, then the opponent cannot not apply a penalty, period. That broken egg cannot be reformed, the cat is out of the bag, etc, etc. And if you then say "don't worry about it" and no penalty is applied then both players are DQ. IMO, it is no accident that the only examples of 'no agreement' in the new clarification is when it is the non-breaching person that initiated the contact, stating there was a breach but he/she would not be acting on it.

 

[Colin L]

The former. If your oppsonent comes to you and says I just committed a penalty offence, then the opponent cannot not apply a penalty, period. That broken egg cannot be reformed, the cat is out of the bag, etc, etc. And if you then say "don't worry about it" and no penalty is applied then both players are DQ. IMO, it is no accident that the only examples of 'no agreement' in the new clarification is when it is the non-breaching person that initiated the contact, stating there was a breach but he/she would not be acting on it.

OK. Can you point me to where the player's right to choose not to act on a breach is explicitly withheld because his opponent makes him aware of the breach because I can't see it?

 

[rulefan]

Player A is in the bunker. Player A touches the sand with his club before taking the stroke.
Question:
Has there been a rule breach in the above fictional scenario?
Yes but no penalty yet

As player A walks on to the green for his next shot, his opponent, player B, tells player A that he saw player A's club grounded/touched the sand in the bunker. Player B further tells player A that grounding/tocuhing the sand with the club in the bunker comes with a general penalty, in this case, loss of hole. Player B is feeling friendly today however, so he tells player A that he will not act on it. Player A does not respond.
Question:
Does player A now know that a rule breach has taken place from his action in the bunker?
Yes

If yes, please explain how rule 1.3b(1) is now not applicable?
A has made no comment re the application of a penalty so there has been no agreement.
1.3b(1)/1 – If two or more players agree to ignore any Rule or penalty they know applies

 

[D-S]

I am just trying to imagine two normal golfers who would go over the conversation that they had just had on the 13th fairway and after a detailed examination of the wording come to the conclusion that what they have just said is actually an agreement to waive a rule - they then say to each other ‘oh well we are now both DQd’. Then they quietly walk back to the clubhouse for a cup of tea.

 

[Deleted member 25172]

@rulefan

A has made no comment re the application of a penalty so there has been no agreement.
1.3b(1)/1 – If two or more players agree to ignore any Rule or penalty they know applies

No, but B has mention that there has been a rules breach. So, now player A is aware he himself has broken the rules (if we in this case can assume that he trust that what player B has said is correct). And if he knows he has broken the rules, he need to apply a penalty on himself. Agreement or no agreement.

 

[Crow]

I can imagine this whole "I'm not acting on the breach" malarkey escalating into several such exchanges during a match as one player now feels that they owe the other a favour, and to be sure that the opponent knows that the favour has been rescinded says "I'm not going to act on that breach either".
And some one-upmanship then ensues as each tries to better the other in their conduct.

Yes, this is a highly unlikely scenario, but I've always thought that the rules sought to make things simple and clear (at least I did so up until 2019), but this clarification does not follow that principle. (At least in my humble not-a-rules-official understanding)

 

[Imurg]

(At least in my humble not-a-rules-official understanding)

Which is how it should be
99.999% of golfers don't have vast rules knowledge like some do.
Rules and explanations of rules need to be clear, concise and without the ability,ity to read something into it that isn't there..
If our Rules Gurus are struggling then what chance the ordinary Joe on the fairway....

 

[clubchamp98]

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.

I can imagine this whole "I'm not acting on the breach" malarkey escalating into several such exchanges during a match as one player now feels that they owe the other a favour, and to be sure that the opponent knows that the favour has been rescinded says "I'm not going to act on that breach either".
And some one-upmanship then ensues as each tries to better the other in their conduct.

Yes, this is a highly unlikely scenario, but I've always thought that the rules sought to make things simple and clear (at least I did so up until 2019), but this clarification does not follow that principle. (At least in my humble not-a-rules-official understanding)

in a match I can’t understand why a rule breach would be overlooked.
Your in a match !

 

[salfordlad]

OK. Can you point me to where the player's right to choose not to act on a breach is explicitly withheld because his opponent makes him aware of the breach because I can't see it?

Can we back up a step Colin? Are you comfortable with the notion that the player in match play that realizes they have just breached a rule and announces that to their opponent cannot possibly fail to apply the penalty? Is your question focussed on whether the subsequent "don't worry about it" and no penalty applies has implications for both players?

 

[salfordlad]

@rulefan

A has made no comment re the application of a penalty so there has been no agreement.
1.3b(1)/1 – If two or more players agree to ignore any Rule or penalty they know applies

No, but B has mention that there has been a rules breach. So, now player A is aware he himself has broken the rules (if we in this case can assume that he trust that what player B has said is correct). And if he knows he has broken the rules, he need to apply a penalty on himself. Agreement or no agreement.

View attachment 45611

I'll jump in here to let you know I have had an opportunity to get a view from an RB person on the question is the opponent that has been informed of their breach obligated to impose the penalty on themself. Answer is as the opponent didn't know they breached a rule and because a breach may be overlooked in match play this is not a 1.3b issue for the opponent.

 

[rulie]

I'll jump in here to let you know I have had an opportunity to get a view from an RB person on the question is the opponent that has been informed of their breach obligated to impose the penalty on themself. Answer is as the opponent didn't know they breached a rule and because a breach may be overlooked in match play this is not a 1.3b issue for the opponent.

Thanks.