False info (?) on update of rules

[Deleted member 25172]

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.

Ok, thanks! Not that I’ll lose any sleep over it, but if you as a seasoned rules person have to go higher up to get it confirmed, what chance do “normal” golfers have to get it right.

 

[salfordlad]

Ok, thanks! Not that I’ll lose any sleep over it, but if you as a seasoned rules person have to go higher up to get it confirmed, what chance do “normal” golfers have to get it right.

That's what the forum is for. It is the discussions in places like this that have informed many of the improvements that RBs have made in the 2023 rules. Some tweaks, though, can take a little more effort to get familiar with, particularly if they arrive without fanfare. I have other angles on this 3.2d(4) issue currently being explored so more information will hopefully be available in the near term. The moral is, keep the questions coming if something is unclear.

 

[backwoodsman]

So, have I got this right in my head ...

Situation: Player A undertakes an action that is contrary to the rules ...

Scenario 1. Player A is aware they had breached a rule and that a penalty is applicable for said breach. So player A is obliged to impose the penalty on themself and should advise opponent B of it? But if opponent B says 'don't worry, ignore it' then that's an agreement to waive the rules?

Scenario 2. Player A is unaware they had breached a rule - but their opponent B, is aware they had done so. So opponent B can a) ignore it and keep schtum, b) can advise player A of the breach but say 'I'm ignoring it...', or c) can advise player A of the breach and say 'sorry mate, you've just got a penalty.'

Or am I barking up the wrong tree.

 

[rulie]

So, have I got this right in my head ...

Situation: Player A undertakes an action that is contrary to the rules ...

Scenario 1. Player A is aware they had breached a rule and that a penalty is applicable for said breach. So player A is obliged to impose the penalty on themself and should advise opponent B of it? But if opponent B says 'don't worry, ignore it' then that's an agreement to waive the rules?

Scenario 2. Player A is unaware they had breached a rule - but their opponent B, is aware they had done so. So opponent B can a) ignore it and keep schtum, b) can advise player A of the breach but say 'I'm ignoring it...', or c) can advise player A of the breach and say 'sorry mate, you've just got a penalty.'

Or am I barking up the wrong tree.

Of course, it's only applicable in match play - you've noted that by using "opponent".
Scenario 1 - imo, that's an agreement to waive a penalty, resulting in dq for both player and opponent
Scenario 2 - imo, player B has all three choices available to him within the Rules. I'd prefer to use only a or c.

 

[backwoodsman]

Of course, it's only applicable in match play - you've noted that by using "opponent".
Scenario 1 - imo, that's an agreement to waive a penalty, resulting in dq for both player and opponent
Scenario 2 - imo, player B has all three choices available to him within the Rules. I'd prefer to use only a or c.

Ta. (And yep - I was referring to matchplay only)

 

[Colin L]

Of course, it's only applicable in match play - you've noted that by using "opponent".
Scenario 1 - imo, that's an agreement to waive a penalty, resulting in dq for both player and opponent

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.

But the Clarification explicitly tells us that if the opponent informs the player that he, the opponent, had breached a rule and if the player states that he is not going to act on it, there has been no agreement. The player is even allowed to confirm that there is a penalty. How does that sit with your statement that if the opponent says he has breached a rule with a penalty, he cannot not apply a penalty?

• 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.

Does this not say that the player who breached the rule can indeed initiate the contact without it necessarily leading to an agreement?

The difference in the situations which we are told do add up to an agreement is that there are conversations about what they want to do. In the the first, the players discuss the matter and decide not to apply rules where no advantage is gained. In the second, the opponent suggests to the player that he does not apply the penalty and the player makes his decision not to as a result.

 

[salfordlad]

But the Clarification explicitly tells us that if the opponent informs the player that he, the opponent, had breached a rule and if the player states that he is not going to act on it, there has been no agreement. The player is even allowed to confirm that there is a penalty. How does that sit with your statement that if the opponent says he has breached a rule with a penalty, he cannot not apply a penalty?

• 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.

Does this not say that the player who breached the rule can indeed initiate the contact without it necessarily leading to an agreement?

The difference in the situations which we are told do add up to an agreement is that there are conversations about what they want to do. In the the first, the players discuss the matter and decide not to apply rules where no advantage is gained. In the second, the opponent suggests to the player that he does not apply the penalty and the player makes his decision not to as a result.

My up front comment is this is an excellent discussion to be having.

I think there is a subtle but critical difference in the bullet point you cite and the case we are discussing. The issue is awareness of the breach/penalty. When the opponent tells the player "I have breached a rule by touching sand on my backswing", IMO, there is no going back, he cannot not apply a penalty. This is the fundamental principle of rule 1.3b(1)'s first double arrow point. And Rules trump Clarifications. [As an aside, a key aim of the 2023 revamp was to eliminate the few situations in the 2019 Rules where that principle had been breached.] Then if the player states "don't worry about it" and they proceed without applying the penalty, we have an agreement. IMO it cannot, in this scenario, be a decision solely by the player because the information that it was a breach and a penalty did not come from the player.

For what it is worth, here's the pre-2019 Decision that the mapping summary says remains valid in the form of 1.3b(1):

1-3/4
Failure of Players to Apply Known Penalty
Q. In a match, a player discovers at the 2nd hole that he has 15 clubs in his
bag contrary to Rule 4-4a, but his opponent refuses to apply the penalty. The
extra club is declared out of play and the match continues. The Committee
disqualifies both players. Is this correct?
A. Yes. Since the players agreed to waive the penalty, they should be
disqualified under Rule 1-3.

I don't believe the new Clarification alters any of this, but it is one of the further questions I currently have upstairs. I will share answers.

 

[Colin L]

Thanks for putting the question "upstairs" and we can await the answer with interest. But I just don't get the "subtle difference". In the bullet pointed illustration in the new clarification the opponent states that he breached a rule. He must have awareness of having done so in order to say so. Wherein lies the difference?

The Clarification unequivocally tells me that if my opponent informs me that he has breached a rule that carries a penalty, I still have the choice to set aside the penalty. That is new and if applied to the same situation as in 1-3/4, would lead to a different conclusion. I can't see any other way of reading and applying it. Perhaps we are to infer that by informing the player of a breach, an opponent has met his 1.3b(1) obligation as he is accepting that there is a penalty to be applied but that the right to set aside that penalty remains open to the player?

I happen to think it makes sense and is generally a Good Thing but we certainly need clarification of the Clarification .

 

[salfordlad]

Thanks for putting the question "upstairs" and we can await the answer with interest. But I just don't get the "subtle difference". In the bullet pointed illustration in the new clarification the opponent states that he breached a rule. He must have awareness of having done so in order to say so. Wherein lies the difference?

The Clarification unequivocally tells me that if my opponent informs me that he has breached a rule that carries a penalty, I still have the choice to set aside the penalty. That is new and if applied to the same situation as in 1-3/4, would lead to a different conclusion. I can't see any other way of reading and applying it. Perhaps we are to infer that by informing the player of a breach, an opponent has met his 1.3b(1) obligation as he is accepting that there is a penalty to be applied but that the right to set aside that penalty remains open to the player?

I happen to think it makes sense and is generally a Good Thing but we certainly need clarification of the Clarification .

The opponent did not say they breached a rule. That is the critical issue. The opponent says only they touched sand on their backswing in the bunker. We have no information suggesting the opponent is aware that action is a breach of a rule. This appears to match all other examples in the Clarification, there is no awareness with the opponent, it is only the player that informs the opponent that a penalty has been incurred. IMO, this awareness is the critical issue. If the opponent themselves knows they have breached - prior to the advice of the player to this effect - then this example would not be in the Clarification.
Behind this discussion, IMO, is the following immutable fact: a player in match play CANNOT overlook/prevent a penalty applying to their opponent in all circumstances. I see two very clear situations where they cannot: 1. When the opponent themselves is aware of the breach/penalty without hearing that from the player; and 2. In a match with referee assigned when the referee witnesses the breach.

 

[Colin L]

I see. We are expected to understand from the Clarification that we assume that the opponent who tells the player that he touched sand with his backswing is ignorant of the fact that it is a breach of a rule when one could equally take that he is well aware of the fact and that that is why he is telling the player? Also the player confirms that it is a loss of hole penalty. When you confirm something with another person, does that not normally mean that they have put forward the possibility of what you are confirming? At the least, the opponent is aware that he might have breached a rule. We might take it a bit further and say that he is aware that he probably did but we can't measure different degrees of awareness. In practice, if any player told me he had touched sand with his backswing in a bunker without any query as to whether it was a breach, I would take it without even thinking about it that he was doing so because he was knew it was a breach.

If the illustration in the Clarification does not have the straightforward significance which I have taken it to have but requires the mental gymnastics which you are capable of, I'd say - with a deal of irritation I confess - that it is badly written. It should explicitly state what you have teased out of it. That it doesn't might be significant and might favour my more uncomplicated reading but I'll have to wait for what you ascertain from them upstairs. Thanks in advance for that.

 

[Swango1980]

In summary, I think we need a clarification of the Clarification. And, once we have that, might be wise to have a clarification of the clarification of the Clarification, just so we can all clarify we are happy with the Clarification.

 

[Colin L]

In summary, I think we need a clarification of the Clarification. And, once we have that, might be wise to have a clarification of the clarification of the Clarification, just so we can all clarify we are happy with the Clarification.

Could you clarify what you've just said?

 

[rulefan]

We are expected to understand from the Clarification that we assume that the opponent who tells the player that he touched sand with his backswing is ignorant of the fact that it is a breach of a rule when one could equally take that he is well aware of the fact and that that is why he is telling the player?
............. In practice, if any player told me he had touched sand with his backswing in a bunker without any query as to whether it was a breach, I would "take" it without even thinking about it that he was doing so because he was knew it was a breach.

Colin
How would you "take" the following
1) A touches the sand but says nothing. B informs him that he touched the sand and that it is a breach but he won't apply the penalty. A says he didn't know he had touched the sand.
2) A touches the sand and tells B but says nothing about a breach. B says that he knew and that it is a breach but he won't apply the penalty. A says he didn't know it was a breach.

 

[salfordlad]

I see. We are expected to understand from the Clarification that we assume that the opponent who tells the player that he touched sand with his backswing is ignorant of the fact that it is a breach of a rule when one could equally take that he is well aware of the fact and that that is why he is telling the player? Also the player confirms that it is a loss of hole penalty. When you confirm something with another person, does that not normally mean that they have put forward the possibility of what you are confirming? At the least, the opponent is aware that he might have breached a rule. We might take it a bit further and say that he is aware that he probably did but we can't measure different degrees of awareness. In practice, if any player told me he had touched sand with his backswing in a bunker without any query as to whether it was a breach, I would take it without even thinking about it that he was doing so because he was knew it was a breach.

If the illustration in the Clarification does not have the straightforward significance which I have taken it to have but requires the mental gymnastics which you are capable of, I'd say - with a deal of irritation I confess - that it is badly written. It should explicitly state what you have teased out of it. That it doesn't might be significant and might favour my more uncomplicated reading but I'll have to wait for what you ascertain from them upstairs. Thanks in advance for that.

Yep, we are awaiting the wisdom from on high. I suspect that the easy thing to agree on today is whatever they were trying to tell us is not wonderfully clear. And their attempts to tell us something they think we need to know, at least in the unheralded/unexplained way they have done it, raises more questions than answers. But thank you for your engagement and input, I have appreciated it.

 

[Colin L]

I thought I had exhausted what I could say on this (and probably exhausted everyone who has bothered reading it) but it occurred to me to put it into the context of where I "come from" in the matter of the rules as it is, I should think, where most of us whether spare time journeyman referees like me or just players who want to play by the rules are coming from. As a referee, I have been educated in and examined on the extant Rules and Decisions/interpretations/Clarifications as written. At each change, the old has been discarded and the new embraced. After the 2019 revision, I was required to undertake the Level 2 course and examination all over again. As before, everything was based on the new Rules as written and the implicit expectation was that our understanding of them and our application of them on the course was entirely centred on the Rules as written. Those trained and examined post-2019 may never even hear of Decisions and those post-2023 may never know about interpretations. And that is the message I would pass on to players.

We must understand every Rule or Clarification solely on what it currently says. On the course, if ever challenged by a player, I would only, could only refer to the words in the rule book to explain or justify a ruling. He or she would not be convinced by a reference to a principle carried through from the pre-2019 Rules expressed in a Decision listed in a book which is gathering dust on a bookshelf. How many of us, for instance, known about the mapping summary and of those who do, how many have a copy of it?

In summary from that perspective:

Rule 3.2d(4) states,
that a player may choose not to act on a breach of a rule by his opponent that he knows about ; and,
that there must be no agreement to disregard a penalty for a known breach.

There is no qualification of the word "knows" to exclude the player's knowing because his opponent told him of the breach. "Agreement" in its normal meaning is an arrangement reached by two parties, arrived at some levels through a process of negotiation and at lower ones just by the exchange of a few words of discussion. Whatever, it is a process. An exchange like "I breached a rule, or maybe breached a rule" met by " I'm disregarding it" is sanctioned by the current Rule and does not amount to a process leading to an agreement. And again just from its own words, the current Clarification supports that.

And now, I promise, I will go silent on the topic.

 

[Swango1980]

I thought I had exhausted what I could say on this (and probably exhausted everyone who has bothered reading it) but it occurred to me to put it into the context of where I "come from" in the matter of the rules as it is, I should think, where most of us whether spare time journeyman referees like me or just players who want to play by the rules are coming from. As a referee, I have been educated in and examined on the extant Rules and Decisions/interpretations/Clarifications as written. At each change, the old has been discarded and the new embraced. After the 2019 revision, I was required to undertake the Level 2 course and examination all over again. As before, everything was based on the new Rules as written and the implicit expectation was that our understanding of them and our application of them on the course was entirely centred on the Rules as written. Those trained and examined post-2019 may never even hear of Decisions and those post-2023 may never know about interpretations. And that is the message I would pass on to players.

We must understand every Rule or Clarification solely on what it currently says. On the course, if ever challenged by a player, I would only, could only refer to the words in the rule book to explain or justify a ruling. He or she would not be convinced by a reference to a principle carried through from the pre-2019 Rules expressed in a Decision listed in a book which is gathering dust on a bookshelf. How many of us, for instance, known about the mapping summary and of those who do, how many have a copy of it?

In summary from that perspective:

Rule 3.2d(4) states,
that a player may choose not to act on a breach of a rule by his opponent that he knows about ; and,
that there must be no agreement to disregard a penalty for a known breach.

There is no qualification of the word "knows" to exclude the player's knowing because his opponent told him of the breach. "Agreement" in its normal meaning is an arrangement reached by two parties, arrived at some levels through a process of negotiation and at lower ones just by the exchange of a few words of discussion. Whatever, it is a process. An exchange like "I breached a rule, or maybe breached a rule" met by " I'm disregarding it" is sanctioned by the current Rule and does not amount to a process leading to an agreement. And again just from its own words, the current Clarification supports that.

And now, I promise, I will go silent on the topic.

This all makes sense.

Which is why I was trying to wrap my head around what was being said, and giving scenarios to see when DQ for both players may be the proper outcome according to the rules.

So, if an opponent says "I breached a rule, and I'll take the appropriate penalty", and the player says "I will not act on that breach, so you do not need to apply a penalty", then unless the opponent still applies the penalty, that sounds like an agreement to come to a different outcome? Hence both players are disqualified?

Whereas, if a player says "you just breached a rule, but I will not act on it", then perhaps there is no agreement to come to a different outcome, as the opponent was probably (hopefully) unaware of the breach, and was therefore not committed to applying any penalty?

 

[salfordlad]

Colin
Here's one bit of information I can add now. You previously interpreted the written Clarification as saying once a player stated clearly, solely from their own decision, that they would not apply the penalty then that was it, it was equivalent to a concession, there is no going back. My read of the clarification was different - that the player's sole decision not to apply a penalty is not irreversible, it can be entirely reversed (penalty applied) prior to the trigger point of any stroke being played. That window, likely, is only a small one, but it is real. I have had confirmation that view is correct, the player can literally reverse their announcement providing it is within that timing window. Why would they do that? Sometimes folk don't react kindly to being told they have committed a breach and so there could be a possibility of disharmony which may result in a player reconsidering being a nice guy and simply trying to educate the opponent.
On another theme, I have confirmation that a player's "right" to overlook a breach does not exist when a referee is assigned to the match - the referee still must act on any breach they are aware of.
The main remaining issue I am awaiting advice on is whether, as you have concluded, the player can enable an opponent's penalty not to apply even when the player only learns about the penalty from the advice of the opponent - ie can a player effectively "turn off" a penalty (providing it is achieved without any "agreement") at any time other than when there is a referee assigned and aware of the breach.

 

[Backsticks]

• 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.

But surely, even if the player (who didnt touch the sand) is saying they wont apply it, the opponent (who touched the sand) must still apply the penalty?
If he applies the penalty, then they are not in agreement : one applies the penalty, one doesnt = disagreement.

If the opponent doesnt apply the penalty on himself, then his action agrees with the choice of the player (who didnt touch the sand), so they have agreed not to apply the penalty. So are dqd.

So effectively, the opponent has no choice but to apply the penalty?

 

[clubchamp98]

What is the reason a player can disregard a penalty by their opponent ?

Most people would make them knock a tricky put in , so why let them off with a rule breach.?

Some new players and more cynical one could take this to medal play and not apply a penalty because they think they can waiver a penalty.

 

[Swango1980]

What is the reason a player can disregard a penalty by their opponent ?

Most people would make them knock a tricky put in , so why let them off with a rule breach.?

Some new players and more cynical one could take this to medal play and not apply a penalty because they think they can waiver a penalty.

Because, the outcome of a penalty or no penalty only directly impacts them, and no one else. Maybe they are just being nice. Or, maybe there could be a situation where the person who made a rule breach would actually favour the penalty, rather than the outcome of the shot they just played? For example, they might have put themselves in a horrid position, whereas a penalty and playing again would actually be less severe for them?