Matchplay Foursmes Query

[Spud1892]

Hi please could someone advise on the following. Two pairs were drawn to play a Foursomes Matchplay Competition. On the day of the actual match the partner of one pair was unable to play. This was discussed with the opposition pair and they agreed to play the matchin order to fulfil the fixture and get / record a result. The player who was on his own just played his own ball as normal and the other pair played alternate shots as is normal for foursomes. In addition, all three palyers played off the wrong tee as well. They didn't play off the competiton tees but instead played off the casual play tees. The player playing on his own went on and won the match. What should happen here then? Shouldn't both tams get DQ'd and withdrawn from the compettion as in effect the other team agreed and accepted to play the match on the day as per the circumstances described above. I would be happy to hear what the consensus of opinion on this should be please. Thank you.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

My guess is that as you can’t play foursomes in any shape or form that I can think of when there is only one player, then the team of one is DQd. Unlike fourball when one of a pair can play by himself (if the other can’t) with the absent player’s handicap still being taken into account for shots received/given purposes. The key thing about foursomes is alternate shots and that just can’t be replicated if only one of a pair playing.

 

[Spud1892]

Yes I do accept that but if the opposition still agteed to play the match irrespective of that then surely the result of the match is then conclusive as in essence they have agreed to and accerpted that. The ideal and actual situationis that the opposition should have just claimed the match beforea ball was struck but they didn't and therefore have accepted their fate? In my opinion both teams shoudl be DQ'd

 

[louise_a]

the rules of the competition say it is a foursomes match, any difference and they are are going against the rules and arguably both should be disqualified. Thee team with both players should have just claimed the match if it couldn't be rearranged

 

[Spud1892]

My guess is that as you can’t play foursomes in any shape or form that I can think of when there is only one player, then the team of one is DQd. Unlike fourball when one of a pair can play by himself (if the other can’t) with the absent player’s handicap still being taken into account for shots received/given purposes. The key thing about foursomes is alternate shots and that just can’t be replicated if only one of a pair playing.

Yes I do accept that but if the opposition still agteed to play the match irrespective of that then surely the result of the match is then conclusive as in essence they have agreed to and accerpted that. The ideal and actual situationis that the opposition should have just claimed the match beforea ball was struck but they didn't and therefore have accepted their fate? In my opinion both teams shoudl be DQ'd

 

[Spud1892]

the rules of the competition say it is a foursomes match, any difference and they are are going against the rules and arguably both should be disqualified. Thee team with both players should have just claimed the match if it couldn't be rearranged

Yes I completely agree with this point and welcome your opinion on that. If bott teams played contrary to the rules etc then they should be both DQ'd. Thank you .

 

[Spud1892]

Does anybody else have any views on this please? It would be good and useful to hear from others on this situation please. Thank you.

 

[doublebogey7]

Would agree both pairs should be disqualified for agreeing to waive a rule(s).

 

[rulefan]

1.3b(1)/2 – In Order to Agree to Ignore a Rule or Penalty, Players Must Be Aware the Rule Exists
Rule 1.3b(1) does not apply and there is no penalty if players agree to waive a Rule that they are not aware of or fail to apply a penalty that they do not know exists.

 

[SammmeBee]

It’s alternate shot format…..geezer on his own loses 10/8 as he didn’t hit alternate shots….

 

[wjemather]

I'd suggest consulting the terms of competition.

 

[Colin L]

Step by step:

1. At the point at which the pair informed their opponents that one of them could not play, they effectively conceded the match. If you don't buy that, then....

2. Even though they agreed to play with one side represented by a single player, it was nonetheless foursomes. One side did not have both players ready at the start time as required by Rule 22.4b and so Rule 5.3a is breached and that side is disqualified. If you don't buy that, then....

3. The single player side loses 10 & 8. At each hole at which it is his missing partner's turn to start, he plays out of turn with his tee shot
and loses the hole. At each hole at which is his turn to start, he plays out of turn with his second shot and loses the hole. (There's one possible way of avoiding the total wipe-out but not the loss which I'll leave you to work out.)

Step 3 is getting a bit fanciful and so let's just go back to 1. To my mind, the match result was settled at the time it was made known that one side could not field two players. Call it a concession or just a withdrawal as you wish. Whatever nonsense went on after that has no relevance. The complete side goes through to the next round.

 

[jim8flog]

To me it is simple - report the facts to the committee to make a decision about whether or not both sides are disqualified.

The side with only one player certainly would be.

As to playing off the wrong tees it is irrelevant in match play (unless done deliberately) but a DQ in stroke play.

 

[doublebogey7]

1.3b(1)/2 – In Order to Agree to Ignore a Rule or Penalty, Players Must Be Aware the Rule Exists
Rule 1.3b(1) does not apply and there is no penalty if players agree to waive a Rule that they are not aware of or fail to apply a penalty that they do not know exists.

They must have known that they were not playing the correct format.

 

[jim8flog]

Things to bare in mind in even agreeing to start in that format and not to claim the match.

In most pairings there is a good player and a not so good player. If it is the good player that turns up it puts them at an advantage as they may well not expect to make the mistakes that the not so good player will make and there is always more pressure to not let your partner down in a four ball game.

 

[Swango1980]

I agree that the single player team should absolutely not be given the victory. It was a foursomes match, and they didn't play foursomes. Colin's assessment seems to be quite a measured, detailed response.

The final, and I guess main part of your question was, what about the other team that fielded 2 players. Should they be disqualified for agreeing to play the match, or be given the victory as they fielded the team. My feeling is they should be given the victory. They didn't breach the rule of foursomes. Yes, they agreed to play the match, but I assume they would not have known this was against the rules, otherwise surely they'd have not agreed to play? They'd need to clarify of course, but maybe they thought it was similar to fourball, in which one player can represent the team, and so they went along with that just to get the game played. If they agreed to waive the rule because they felt that the one opponent who could play was the worse player, thus giving themselves a better chance of victory, then that would be a different matter.

I'd be interested to know what handicap the single player played off?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I agree that the single player team should absolutely not be given the victory. It was a foursomes match, and they didn't play foursomes. Colin's assessment seems to be quite a measured, detailed response.

The final, and I guess main part of your question was, what about the other team that fielded 2 players. Should they be disqualified for agreeing to play the match, or be given the victory as they fielded the team. My feeling is they should be given the victory. They didn't breach the rule of foursomes. Yes, they agreed to play the match, but I assume they would not have known this was against the rules, otherwise surely they'd have not agreed to play? They'd need to clarify of course, but maybe they thought it was similar to fourball, in which one player can represent the team, and so they went along with that just to get the game played. If they agreed to waive the rule because they felt that the one opponent who could play was the worse player, thus giving themselves a better chance of victory, then that would be a different matter.

I'd be interested to know what handicap the single player played off?

Problem with not DQing the other pair is that a precedence is set that could be cited in future instances where there could be manipulation involved that undermines the integrity of the competition.

 

[Colin L]

Problem with not DQing the other pair is that a precedence is set that could be cited in future instances where there could be manipulation involved that undermines the integrity of the competition.

I don't get this. What sort of "manipulative" action are you imagining this could be a precedent for?

The situation should be managed without hitting anyone over the head with the rule book. The single player is informed he's out because you cannot play in a foursomes match with only one player as there is a minor problem in alternating strokes when there is no-one to play the in between ones. Make something of a laugh out of it! The other two are told that their generous gesture in trying to accommodate the other pair's difficulty is appreciated but was misguided and indeed unnecessary as they were already through to the next round because the other pair couldn't field a side. Low key and good humoured resolution of a daft muddle that came about because people do daft things with the best of intention. To my mind there is really no basis on which to disqualify the pair and it would be a real injustice to do so.