Match Play dispute

[freddielong]

We dont, the committee hasn't met yet, I'm looking to get as much info and opinion as i can prior to it happening. The rule about making a claim in a dispute is rule 2-5 which i agree they have breached, but in both the rules and the decisions there is no clear penalty for breach of this rule. I my view you disqualify people when you have to not when you can, usually the rules are very clear and you have to but it seems unusually foggy in this instance, i am sure we can but it seems to stop short of we must, certainly under 2-5 it doesn't. It could be argued that a disqualification penalty because of unauthorised discontinuance of play doesn't apply as they were seeking a rules clarification in line with 6-8 (iii) however they were wrong to walk in as 2-5 clearly states they MUST play on without delay but it doesn't say clearly that the penalty for not playing on is disqualification.

The reason it is unusually foggy is there are no rules to cover spitting the dummy and walking off, unless both teams were is agreement that they would stop the match and await a ruling you are not disqualifying team B they conceded the game by walking off.

You could set a precedent here for this to happen everytime a player gets upset during a match.

 

[doublebogey7]

We dont, the committee hasn't met yet, I'm looking to get as much info and opinion as i can prior to it happening. The rule about making a claim in a dispute is rule 2-5 which i agree they have breached, but in both the rules and the decisions there is no clear penalty for breach of this rule. I my view you disqualify people when you have to not when you can, usually the rules are very clear and you have to but it seems unusually foggy in this instance, i am sure we can but it seems to stop short of we must, certainly under 2-5 it doesn't. It could be argued that a disqualification penalty because of unauthorised discontinuance of play doesn't apply as they were seeking a rules clarification in line with 6-8 (iii) however they were wrong to walk in as 2-5 clearly states they MUST play on without delay but it doesn't say clearly that the penalty for not playing on is disqualification.

As there are some differing opionons on here you really ought to be seeking the advice of the R&A on this one, though I am sure their reply will be pretty much identical to Duncan's in post 40.

 

[chrisd]

You could set a precedent here for this to happen everytime a player gets upset during a match.

Absolutely the right answer.

 

[fundy]

Wow just wow.

And people wonder why golf suffers with an image problem lol

 

[Three]

Wow just wow.

And people wonder why golf suffers with an image problem lol

Enlighten us please....

 

[guest100718]

Wow just wow.

And people wonder why golf suffers with an image problem lol

Lol coming from you that's hilarious

 

[Colin L]

Thinking a bit more about this, I've gone off the idea that their walking off should simply be construed as a concession of the match. It lacks the clarity of a decision that is firmly rules-based and is hence liable to create a debate. By discounting 6-8(iii) on the basis that walking off and refusing to continue is a clear discontinuation of play as opposed to being allowed time to get a ruling from a Committee member or referee who is "available within a reasonable time" as permitted by Rule 2-5. 2-5 is unequivocal: in the absence of an available person, the players must continue. The DQ is under Rule 6-8.

All of which is a wordy way of saying I agree with Duncan.

 

[backwoodsman]

We dont, the committee hasn't met yet, I'm looking to get as much info and opinion as i can prior to it happening. The rule about making a claim in a dispute is rule 2-5 which i agree they have breached, but in both the rules and the decisions there is no clear penalty for breach of this rule. I my view you disqualify people when you have to not when you can, usually the rules are very clear and you have to but it seems unusually foggy in this instance, i am sure we can but it seems to stop short of we must, certainly under 2-5 it doesn't. It could be argued that a disqualification penalty because of unauthorised discontinuance of play doesn't apply as they were seeking a rules clarification in line with 6-8 (iii) however they were wrong to walk in as 2-5 clearly states they MUST play on without delay but it doesn't say clearly that the penalty for not playing on is disqualification.

As some others have said, you could try rationalising Team B's actions using 6-8(iii) to say disqualification not appropriate. But then also look further down under rule 6-8 where it says

If the player discontinues play without specific permission from the Committee, he must report to the Committee as soon as practicable. If he does so and the Committee considers his reason satisfactory, there is no penalty. Otherwise, the player is disqualified.

None of the foregoing bits - ie 6-8(i)-(iv) are expressly excluded from this - so and so the committee should readily find their action as not satisfactory and disqualify them. After all, there was no satisfactory reason for them to walk off the course to "seek a ruling" as there is a perfectly satisfactory solution under 2-5 which involves continuing play - which they patently ignored. Not that they were seeking a ruling anyway - the original post says they walked off seeking to claim the match.