False info (?) on update of rules

[chrisd]

I can see fair minded players refusing to accept the waiving of a rules transgression, how will that work?

 

[Colin L]

The option of ignoring a breach has been around for a long time. What is the experience of it so far, I wonder?
if it came to Committee decision, I would go for the penalty not being applied because the Rule sanctions the opponent to ignore the breach.

 

[chrisd]

The option of ignoring a breach has been around for a long time. What is the experience of it so far, I wonder?
if it came to Committee decision, I would go for the penalty not being applied because the Rule sanctions the opponent to ignore the breach.

I've ignored breaches on a number of occasions but never told the opponent/s. Equally I've pulled a few up when they have breached the rules and not known, it really has depended on the state of the match at that particular time

In a 4bbb match, down the first, one of the pair fished his ball out of the stream and walked over to the fairway (several yards away) took a drop and played on. We pretty much had the 1st hole in our pocket so we didn't bother to correct him

 

[Colin L]

Thanks for the insights. That's much as you might wish it to be - getting on with the game.

 

[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.

I now have further information and am responding here because it adds to the answers above.

I have confirmation a player can overlook an opponent's breach even when the player only learns about the breach from the advice of the opponent.

The context for 3.2d(4)/1 is, to date, there have been different views on this question: can a player overlook an opponent's breach and tell their opponent they’re doing so before the time limit for a ruling request has ended without there being an agreement not to apply a penalty? 2023 resolves this difference.

Specific times when a player's "right" to choose to overlook a breach do not apply are if a referee is assigned to a match (the referee must act on any breach they are aware of) or the player (or even the opponent - see below) consults a referee/Committee seeking a ruling on whether the opponent has breached a rule. Again, the referee/Committee must apply any breach and all are bound by the answer.

I can see fair minded players refusing to accept the waiving of a rules transgression, how will that work?

Your "fair minded player" has a couple of options. They could explain that they do not want any freebies or to be protected from their error so they want the appropriate penalty to apply. As noted above, the other player could agree to revoke their decision not to apply, providing it was before any further strokes. In this case, they would be agreeing to apply the penalty (the normal rules default). Your "fair minded player" also has other options: a) make a concession (Rule 3.2b) or b) seek a ruling on applying a penalty to themself (unusual, but hey....). If the ruling request is timely (before the next hole starts) the referee/Committee would have no option but to apply the penalty.

To add a final caution here, if your "fair minded player" engages in a substantive discussion and at the end of it the penalty is not applied or a ruling sought, there is a significant risk this would constitute an agreement not to apply a penalty.

 

[tobybarker]

Once someone knows that they have broken a rule there should simply be no option but to take the penalty. No agreements, no implicit agreement by keeping schtum. If your FC didn't mention the transgression in s stroke play event then they ought to be sanctioned if that comes to light somehow later.

 

[salfordlad]

Once someone knows that they have broken a rule there should simply be no option but to take the penalty. No agreements, no implicit agreement by keeping schtum. If your FC didn't mention the transgression in s stroke play event then they ought to be sanctioned if that comes to light somehow later.

This is precisely what rules 1.3b(1) and 20.1c(2) require in stroke play (including Stableford, par etc).

 

[clubchamp98]

I've ignored breaches on a number of occasions but never told the opponent/s. Equally I've pulled a few up when they have breached the rules and not known, it really has depended on the state of the match at that particular time

In a 4bbb match, down the first, one of the pair fished his ball out of the stream and walked over to the fairway (several yards away) took a drop and played on. We pretty much had the 1st hole in our pocket so we didn't bother to correct him

If he thinks that’s the correct procedure though.
He might do it in a medal leaving somebody else to put him straight.

If the same scenario happened down the first extra hole would you say anything then ?
If he says “ that’s where I dropped before and you never said anything”

We get drummed into us about the rules ,then we can choose not to use them.

 

[chrisd]

Just read an email received this morning from the R&A with the 2023 rule changes and nothing is mentioned about the subject of matchplay and disclosure of rule transgressions

 

[chrisd]

If he thinks that’s the correct procedure though.
He might do it in a medal leaving somebody else to put him straight.

If it were a medal I would tell him immediately. On the first hole of a pairs knockout I didn't want to risk an argument and play the rest of the round with bad feeling, given that some players don't take kindly to being told. Also he may have done it knowing that the hole was over for him.

 

[clubchamp98]

If it were a medal I would tell him immediately. On the first hole of a pairs knockout I didn't want to risk an argument and play the rest of the round with bad feeling, given that some players don't take kindly to being told. Also he may have done it knowing that the hole was over for him.

Yes I get that .
But was drummed into us that you abide by the rules.
In all my years as a golfer nobody has ever done this to or against me.
If we broke a rule we just took the penalty.
If you lost the hole so be it.
I personally would not let anyone off a rule breach especially if I am giving shots.
And would expect the same from my op.
Takes all kinds though.

 

[3offTheTee]

Is a new Rule Book being produced for the 2023 Rules please? If so when will it be available?

 

[Steven Rules]

Specific times when a player's "right" to choose to overlook a breach do not apply are if a referee is assigned to a match

Does this extend to the two key situations where player discretion/options are critical to the tactics of the match - specifically when the opponent plays out of turn or from outside the teeing area?

 

[Steven Rules]

Is a new Rule Book being produced for the 2023 Rules please? If so when will it be available?

No. The R&A will no longer be printing rule books. You need to use the rules app. If you had previously downloaded the 2019 app it should have automatically updated to the 2023 version by now. (mine has)

Additionally, the serious student of the rules can purchase the 'Official Guide to the Rules of Golf' from the usual online book stores but all the content can be found in the app.

 

[salfordlad]

Does this extend to the two key situations where player discretion/options are critical to the tactics of the match - specifically when the opponent plays out of turn or from outside the teeing area?

We are only discussing the right to overlook a penalty and they are not in that camp.

 

[salfordlad]

No. The R&A will no longer be printing rule books. You need to use the rules app. If you had previously downloaded the 2019 app it should have automatically updated to the 2023 version by now. (mine has)

Additionally, the serious student of the rules can purchase the 'Official Guide to the Rules of Golf' from the usual online book stores but all the content can be found in the app.

Just to confirm, the Rules are part of the Official Guide, so if you want a printed version of the Rules, you can get one of those. It contains Rules+Clarifications (nee Interpretations nee Decisions)+Definitions+Model Local Rules+Committee Procedures.

 

[rulefan]

Just read an email received this morning from the R&A with the 2023 rule changes and nothing is mentioned about the subject of matchplay and disclosure of rule transgressions

https://www.randa.org/rog/interpretations/rule-3#3_2d_4_1

 

[rulefan]

No. The R&A will no longer be printing rule books. You need to use the rules app. If you had previously downloaded the 2019 app it should have automatically updated to the 2023 version by now. (mine has)

Additionally, the serious student of the rules can purchase the 'Official Guide to the Rules of Golf' from the usual online book stores but all the content can be found in the app.

And the website

 

[chrisd]

https://www.randa.org/rog/interpretations/rule-3#3_2d_4_1

Thanks for that

I was referring to an email I received today telling us that there were changes of rules and outlining them. The rule being discussed wasn't mentioned as far as I could see

 

[rulefan]

Thanks for that

I was referring to an email I received today telling us that there were changes of rules and outlining them. The rule being discussed wasn't mentioned as far as I could see

As it was only an 'adjustment' to a Clarification, it was hardly headline news