Matchplay question

[Swango1980]

I'd just like to add the other rule matters that occurred during the match, but which were dealt with (I hope) correctly

As we walked to the tee we were asked , " if the predicted lightening comes can we agree that the pair winning at that time are declared the winners"

Hole 17 first player carves his ball right, he then walks on the tee after we've all tee'd off and hits another. He then plays 2nd ball and starts to walk to where his 1st ball may be, I point out that he didn't indicate he was playing a provisional so he can't play the 1st ball. "I said I'm hitting another" he says to me "so it's obvious it's a provisional"

18th, my ball is laying next to an inspection cover and I would have to stand on it to play to the green (par 3) I call him over " you only get a drop if your ball is on it" says he!

These are guys who are winning club stroke play comps !

It does make you wonder !!

Years ago I was playing with one of the lowest handicappers in the club, who also happened to be a senior (so plenty of experience). His ball went into the middle of a thick hedge. He took 2 club lengths relief, and insisted the 2 club lengths starts from the edge of the outer part of the hedge, so that he could get fully away from it. He was not having it that it was from the ball, as that would mean he'd still be hampered by the hedge. How many club golfers would innocently let him do as he pleases, as they are not confident enough in questioning it (despite being one of the most basic rules)?

 

[salfordlad]

I'd just like to add the other rule matters that occurred during the match, but which were dealt with (I hope) correctly

As we walked to the tee we were asked , " if the predicted lightening comes can we agree that the pair winning at that time are declared the winners"

This one is a bit interesting. Can't agree to deliberately shorten a match, but conceding a match can be done any time before the result is decided - so a concession by one side when lightning arrives is legitimate.

 

[Colin L]

This one is a bit interesting. Can't agree to deliberately shorten a match, but conceding a match can be done any time before the result is decided - so a concession by one side when lightning arrives is legitimate.

An 'agreement" that the side that is winning at the time will be declared the winner has, in my view, no standing in terms of the Rules: it could be reneged on without any rules-based consequence. Assuming, however, the integrity of the players concerned, it would , as said ,have to be effected by a concession of the match by the side that is down at the time.to be meaningful in terms of the rules.

Personally, I would prefer the concession to be made before the lighting arrives.

 

[salfordlad]

An 'agreement" that the side that is winning at the time will be declared the winner has, in my view, no standing in terms of the Rules: it could be reneged on without any rules-based consequence. Assuming, however, the integrity of the players concerned, it would , as said ,have to be effected by a concession of the match by the side that is down at the time.to be meaningful in terms of the rules.

Personally, I would prefer the concession to be made before the lighting arrives.

As I said, it's a bit interesting. Chrisd is loaded with interesting questions at the moment. I think we should commission him to play more match play, he is his own lightning rod in terms of generating rules questions that are less than absolutely clearly covered in the book.

 

[chrisd]

An 'agreement" that the side that is winning at the time will be declared the winner has, in my view, no standing in terms of the Rules: it could be reneged on without any rules-based consequence. Assuming, however, the integrity of the players concerned, it would , as said ,have to be effected by a concession of the match by the side that is down at the time.to be meaningful in terms of the rules.

Personally, I would prefer the concession to be made before the lighting arrives.

We didn't answer the question directly. I knew that a shot, hole or match could be conceded at any time but took the view that agreeing to do it in advance was potentially against the rules and in any case didn't cover being all square or close enough to walk in and resume the match when it cleared.

Also,. We had 8 weeks to play the round and they messed us around to the point where they only agreed to play at lunch time on the last day, so I wasn't overly keen to be out of the comp on, say, the 2nd tee because of the weather!

 

[chrisd]

This one is a bit interesting. Can't agree to deliberately shorten a match, but conceding a match can be done any time before the result is decided - so a concession by one side when lightning arrives is legitimate.

I took it, and the way it was put, that the match is over at the point lightening arrived and the team going through would be the pair leading at the time. I believed that an agreement was contrary to the rules as I felt it was ,"agreeing to change the rules," and just said that we'll see at the time what to do.

 

[Colin L]

I took it, and the way it was put, that the match is over at the point lightening arrived and the team going through would be the pair leading at the time. I believed that an agreement was contrary to the rules as I felt it was ,"agreeing to change the rules," and just said that we'll see at the time what to do.

A wise reply! I now understand that this curious proposal may have been made because it was the last day for the tie to be completed. The normal "what to do at the time" would, of course, be to suspend play and either return to the course once the storm had passed or arrange another day on which to resume the match. Your Terms of the Competition would, I hope, have a provision for you to be allowed a short extension to allow resumption on another day.

 

[Swango1980]

We didn't answer the question directly. I knew that a shot, hole or match could be conceded at any time but took the view that agreeing to do it in advance was potentially against the rules and in any case didn't cover being all square or close enough to walk in and resume the match when it cleared.

Also,. We had 8 weeks to play the round and they messed us around to the point where they only agreed to play at lunch time on the last day, so I wasn't overly keen to be out of the comp on, say, the 2nd tee because of the weather!

Not as bad as what we faced earlier this year. 3 up after 5 in the doubles, and half way up the 6th looked like we'd definitely be going 4 up. It had started raining (no lightning, no water issues on course). Suddenly, one of our opponents demanded we abandon the match and restart it again another day when the weather was nicer (i.e. from the first at all square). He said he hates rain, and he could get a cold which was not fair as he had to go to work the next day (like the rest of us). Needless to say, after a 15/20 minute discussion where we politely refused his request, he conceded the match and walked in (much to his partners bemusement).

 

[chrisd]

A wise reply! I now understand that this curious proposal may have been made because it was the last day for the tie to be completed. The normal "what to do at the time" would, of course, be to suspend play and either return to the course once the storm had passed or arrange another day on which to resume the match. Your Terms of the Competition would, I hope, have a provision for you to be allowed a short extension to allow resumption on another day.

I agree with your thoughts about being the last day

My pp and I took the view that we'd suspend play initially if necessary. I don't think we would have had the option of a short extension given that knowledge of rules is not one of the major qualifications for sitting on the Golf Committee and the "terms and conditions" probably wouldn't cover the possibility.

 

[salfordlad]

I took it, and the way it was put, that the match is over at the point lightening arrived and the team going through would be the pair leading at the time. I believed that an agreement was contrary to the rules as I felt it was ,"agreeing to change the rules," and just said that we'll see at the time what to do.

I agree. An agreement before the match starts that the competitors will end it at an arbitrary time linked to something unrelated to what the rules require - that the match is played to a conclusion - is outside the rules in my opinion. Of course, you didn't agree to the process, so this discussion is academic but IMO, had you done so, both teams would have been in breach of the Rule 1.3b. Another interesting issue to sound out RBs on.

 

[salfordlad]

The RB ruling is in, affirming that players making such an agreement before a match are DQed as soon as any stroke is made commencing the match, unless the players are unaware the rules/term of the competition do not permit such agreement. One of the examples in 1.3b(1)/2 deals with a very similar issue.

 

[rulefan]

The RB ruling is in, affirming that players making such an agreement before a match are DQed as soon as any stroke is made commencing the match, unless the players are unaware the rules/term of the competition do not permit such agreement. One of the examples in 1.3b(1)/2 deals with a very similar issue.

What if the TOC does not specifically forbid early termination? Is the fact that the TOC simply says it is an 18 (or 9) hole comp enough do you think?

 

[salfordlad]

What if the TOC does not specifically forbid early termination? Is the fact that the TOC simply says it is an 18 (or 9) hole comp enough do you think?

Q1. Not relevant. Q2. Yes. If it is an 18 hole comp, it is 18 holes of match play until a result occurs according to the rules.
Have you ever seen match play TOC that offer players free choice for how long they take to decide a result?

 

[rulefan]

Q1. Not relevant. Q2. Yes. If it is an 18 hole comp, it is 18 holes of match play until a result occurs according to the rules.
Have you ever seen match play TOC that offer players free choice for how long they take to decide a result?

"....... unless the players are unaware the rules/term of the competition do not permit such agreement."

Have you ever seen TOC that do not permit such agreement?

 

[salfordlad]

"....... unless the players are unaware the rules/term of the competition do not permit such agreement."

Have you ever seen TOC that do not permit such agreement?

I have no idea what you are trying to say and what you are asking. Your questions were answered.

 

[rulefan]

I have no idea what you are trying to say and what you are asking. Your questions were answered.

I wasn't arguing but I wondered why the RBs would say "....unless the players are unaware the rules/term of the competition do not permit such agreement " if the TOC already say it is an 18 (or 9) hole competition. I thought it was a simple question "Have you ever seen TOC that do not permit such agreement? "

 

[salfordlad]

I wasn't arguing but I wondered why the RBs would say "....unless the players are unaware the rules/term of the competition do not permit such agreement " if the TOC already say it is an 18 (or 9) hole competition. I thought it was a simple question "Have you ever seen TOC that do not permit such agreement? "

Those italicised words appear to me fully consistent with 1.3b and its interpretatons.

 

[tobybarker]

I was just seeking confirmation,. The thread was getting confusing.

They often do