Matchplay ruling

[Deleted member 16999]

Rather than start another thread, watching a matchplay game last night at our place one team, team A, had both balls on the green, marked, lifted, both there for 4, Team B had one ball, marked, lifted etc for 3 and his partner was about 40ft away on the green taking a putt for a 6, so, he took his putt and left it about 9-12 inches short and as he walks to mark it, his partner walks to the ball and knocks it back to him with his putter and tells him to pick it up as he’s out the hole.

Team A did not concede the putt and wondered whether there was any penalty against Team B for the guy playing his partner’s ball although accepting he wasn’t taking a shot, but it was a deliberate action.

 

[2blue]

Rather than start another thread, watching a matchplay game last night at our place one team, team A, had both balls on the green, marked, lifted, both there for 4, Team B had one ball, marked, lifted etc for 3 and his partner was about 40ft away on the green taking a putt for a 6, so, he took his putt and left it about 9-12 inches short and as he walks to mark it, his partner walks to the ball and knocks it back to him with his putter and tells him to pick it up as he’s out the hole.

Team A did not concede the putt and wondered whether there was any penalty against Team B for the guy playing his partner’s ball although accepting he wasn’t taking a shot, but it was a deliberate action.

I think by knocking the ball across the green he could be in danger of being accused of 'testing the green' - the speed of... loss of hole! But I stand to be corrected

 

[Colin L]

Rather than start another thread, watching a matchplay game last night at our place one team, team A, had both balls on the green, marked, lifted, both there for 4, Team B had one ball, marked, lifted etc for 3 and his partner was about 40ft away on the green taking a putt for a 6, so, he took his putt and left it about 9-12 inches short and as he walks to mark it, his partner walks to the ball and knocks it back to him with his putter and tells him to pick it up as he’s out the hole.

Team A did not concede the putt and wondered whether there was any penalty against Team B for the guy playing his partner’s ball although accepting he wasn’t taking a shot, but it was a deliberate action.

Nothing at all wrong in picking up your partner's ball or knocking it away like that.

As to testing the green, the casual action of knocking a ball away from the hole for the purpose of passsing it to your partner who is out of the hole would not be considered testing the surface of the green. See Decision 16-1d/1
http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-16,d16-1d-1

 

[rulefan]

I think by knocking the ball across the green he could be in danger of being accused of 'testing the green' - the speed of... loss of hole! But I stand to be corrected

Unless the action could be clearly seen as other than casually knocking it away, I see no issue about 'testing'.

 

[rulefan]

Team A did not concede the putt and wondered whether there was any penalty against Team B for the guy playing his partner’s ball although accepting he wasn’t taking a shot, but it was a deliberate action.

If there was a penalty it would be to the player whose ball it is - but he is out of it anyway.

 

[2blue]

Thanks. Good to have that clarified as its an action I'd always avoided doing.... probs still will anyway, to avoid any issues.

Another query under this thread title came up just yesterday....
A & B in an Individual MatchPlay, are all-square going down the 18th.
A hits a drive down the right that crosses the path running down the length of the fairway, the right edge of which defines the OB (Local-Rule is on back of card) but the white posts (Indicating there's OB) are on a strip of grass approx. 2ft beyond the path edge.
A's ball finishes on that strip of grass so is OB but he thinks that because it's inside the line of the posts its ok & goes ahead & plays it whilst standing on the path... no probs with that!
Meanwhile B has driven down the left of the fairway so is unaware of where A's ball finished & was not consulted about the OB scenario & in any case may have made little difference since after finishing, & losing the hole & match he enquires where his opponents ball had finished.
A, his opponent, explains that it was over the path but inside the posts & B (in ignorance) neither thinks nor says any more about it until chatting with someone the following day when it's explained that "It was OB" so A should have gone back to the Tee.
Question...
Does the result stand? 'A' wins even though he played a ball that was OB & didn't consult his opponent for a ruling so they can't be accused of wavering the Rules.... just not knowing them.
What should B have done if he'd only realized that there was doubt about the OB situation.... yes, consult the back of the card... anything else?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Thanks. Good to have that clarified as its an action I'd always avoided doing.... probs still will anyway, to avoid any issues.

Another query under this thread title came up just yesterday....
A & B in an Individual MatchPlay, are all-square going down the 18th.
A hits a drive down the right that crosses the path running down the length of the fairway, the right edge of which defines the OB (Local-Rule is on back of card) but the white posts (Indicating there's OB) are on a strip of grass approx. 2ft beyond the path edge.
A's ball finishes on that strip of grass so is OB but he thinks that because it's inside the line of the posts its ok & goes ahead & plays it whilst standing on the path... no probs with that!
Meanwhile B has driven down the left of the fairway so is unaware of where A's ball finished & was not consulted about the OB scenario & in any case may have made little difference since after finishing, & losing the hole & match he enquires where his opponents ball had finished.
A, his opponent, explains that it was over the path but inside the posts & B (in ignorance) neither thinks nor says any more about it until chatting with someone the following day when it's explained that "It was OB" so A should have gone back to the Tee.
Question...
Does the result stand? 'A' wins even though he played a ball that was OB & didn't consult his opponent for a ruling so they can't be accused of wavering the Rules.... just not knowing them.
What should B have done if he'd only realized that there was doubt about the OB situation.... yes, consult the back of the card... anything else?

Don’t know the answer but seems daft to have the white posts so far oob’s, pointless having them really if they don’t actually mean anything.

 

[2blue]

Don’t know the answer but seems daft to have the white posts so far oob’s, pointless having them really if they don’t actually mean anything.

Aye.. their only purpose is to indicate that there's an OB there (so look at the back of your card for further clarification!!) but it's confused a few folk as 'the edge of the path' is not absolutely clear in places where grass has over-grown. A line is the only clear solution but I've only seen that when the Senior Masters are here.... same as lines defining the limits of hazards. Would involve a lot of paint & someones time, so I guess that's the reason... not good though.

On the main question, Paul, if that had occurred 'mid-round' then, as I understand it, after teeing-off on the next hole, the hole result would stand .... but I'll stand to be corrected

 

[rulefan]

The result stands as B did not make a timely claim.

If B was aware of the problem at the time and knew the correct answer, he should have discussed it with A.
If A continued with the 'wrong' action, they should continue playing but B should register that he was making a claim.

If neither knew the correct answer, they could reach an agreement and no claim could be made.

However, the words of the Local Rule and the marking should be examined by the committee. If the stakes are intended to indicate the presence of the OOB only, it would be better to colour them with a black top to indicate their significance and the words of the LR altered to match.

 

[rulefan]

Don’t know the answer but seems daft to have the white posts so far oob’s, pointless having them really if they don’t actually mean anything.

Stakes indicating the presence of a problem (OOB, WH or LWH say) are commonly used if the actual problem cannot clearly be seen by the player. eg a WH hidden over the top of a bank. They would normally be black topped to show the difference.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Stakes indicating the presence of a problem (OOB, WH or LWH say) are commonly used if the actual problem cannot clearly be seen by the player. eg a WH hidden over the top of a bank. They would normally be black topped to show the difference.

Cheers, I was aware of the black topped option, but with the description of these ones, they appear to add confusion more than anything else.

 

[2blue]

Stakes indicating the presence of a problem (OOB, WH or LWH say) are commonly used if the actual problem cannot clearly be seen by the player. eg a WH hidden over the top of a bank. They would normally be black topped to show the difference.

Many thanks for your responses :thup:
Yes, we'll have to look at clarifying the situation & LR wording.