Matchplay Shots Given

[Jason.H]

Imagine if a younger player was easily influenced and you changed were shots were given . You beat him but then he tells others in the clubhouse about it. It wouldn’t look good. The index is set and should be adhered to.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Imagine if a younger player was easily influenced and you changed were shots were given . You beat him but then he tells others in the clubhouse about it. It wouldn’t look good. The index is set and should be adhered to.

I get that…and I’d deserve all the condemnation I’d get as well as possible censure by my club.

The thought has come about as a result of discussions between members about the fairness of giving a shot in a match on our SI5 17th hole which is temporarily only 60yd long and playing to the proper green. It’s a simple pitch on and not many fail to hit the green from the temp tee.

 

[Jason.H]

Most clubs all over the uk have the odd shorter than normal hole due to ground conditions , temporary greens, winter tees etc. Imagine if every course had to rewrite there indexes for every change..some change daily.
You have a short hole it’s still a challenge and it’s the same for both players. What’s not fair about it?

 

[Slab]

I’m not trying to be sneaky or tricky…I’m just wondering what the rules say. And this from 3.2c(2) indicates to me that what I am asking about is a failure to apply a stroke on a hole, no mention of deliberate, result of hole would stand, and so in respect of the rules we’d be OK.

And on integrity, I fail to see how doing something in a knockout matchplay context that is agreed by both parties and does not break any rule can in any way be outside the spirit of the game. Indeed it might be fully in accordance with the spirit of the game.

Steven's quote clearly states that if the failure or mistake to apply the stroke on the correct hole is not corrected then the result stands

That means that whether its a failure or a mistake both are incorrect

Incorrect means not correct or wrong

It would be wrong and incorrect to not apply the strokes on the stated holes

 

[jim8flog]

If the higher handicapped player decides not to accept the shot (i.e play off a handicap lower than he actually is) that is his choice* but it does not mean the stroke can be given on another hole by way of compensation

*this is something that actually happened in an interclub match where I play and there was quite a row over it because he lost by one hole and would have halved had he not chosen to do it but the result stood.

 

[bobmac]

Of course I understand giving shots on holes according to SI, but that’s not my question.

Yes it is...

In a club matchplay competition can the players ignore stroke indexing

 

[Colin L]

But in truth if I am giving one shot in a match who is to tell me that I can’t give my opponent in the match a shot on a hole if I so choose…so if he gets a 4 on the hole I say that it’s a 3 as far as I am concerned, and on the SI 1 hole he declines to take the shot he’s due.

In either case, if it were done in order graciously to allow the other player to win the hole, it would be too late. Rule 3.2b requires the concession of a hole to be made before the hole is completed.

Anyway, your question has been answered with the references to Rule 3.2c(2) and the Terms of the Competition. To my mind, even the fact of a Stroke Index on the scorecard fixes it.

I don't actually get the point of the question. Who would allow their opponent to determine where he was going to give strokes? Who in their right mind would want to decline a stroke to which they were entitled?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Most clubs all over the uk have the odd shorter than normal hole due to ground conditions , temporary greens, winter tees etc. Imagine if every course had to rewrite there indexes for every change..some change daily.
You have a short hole it’s still a challenge and it’s the same for both players. What’s not fair about it?

Honestly @jason my view in fairness or not - that was the discussion that I heard - it’s the principle under the rules determining and mandating holes shots are given that I’m asking for clarification on.

As it happens, if my opponent said to me on the 1st tee…’it seems daft and unfair that you are giving me a shot on the 17th (as it is) and so if you want you can give me the shot on another hole - up to you’…to which my reply would be ’thankyou but no thanks, I am looking to get the match over and done with before the 17th’.

My question is around that scenario (@Colin)

Rule 3.2c(2) indicates that a failure to apply a shot that is not corrected simply means the result of the hole stands. And we’ve already established in previous replies that a player can decline to use a shot on a hole when one is due him - it’s his prerogative; likewise it might well then appear that it is the prerogative of one player to grant his opponent a shot on a hole when he is not due one.

 

[Colin L]

....... And we’ve already established in previous replies that a player can decline to use a shot on a hole when one is due him - it’s his prerogative;

Already established? Where?
And if it were the case that the player could so decline, how would the Committee resolve a situation where the opponent declined to accept the declining?

I don't think you can take 3.2c(2) as allowing a player deliberately not to apply a stroke. It is about a failure to do so.

 

[D-S]

What is the point of having the rules if players are going to ‘grant’ their opponents shots or decline them?
This is, of course, fine if you’re just having a fun game against your mate. However, in a Club competition, you must play by the rules and terms of competition and no matter how you try and twist and wriggle, shots have to be taken and received at the correct holes otherwise you are not playing the competition. Seems straightforward to me.

 

[Jason.H]

The fact that any player could rock up on the 1st tee and suggest/ ask his opponent if he would mind dropping his 1 shot advantage is absurd.

 

[Neilds]

Surely if the shortened hole is a regular occurrence in winter, then the committee should look at getting a winter course set up and rated?

 

[rulefan]

Breaching the Terms of the Comp I get…but what rule would we be breaching given what @SR has posted in respect of Rule 3.2c(2).

Post #5 tells you what Rule it is. Rule 5I (4))

 

[doublebogey7]

I’m not thinking of doing it, but the circumstances made me wonder if I could.

TBH I’m still not sure that in a match a match pair couldn’t actually just decide to ignore the formal giving/receiving of shots and just agree between themselves holes where shots are given/received. There have been plenty of discussions on here where things can be different in matchplay. So for instance is there any rule that says that in a match the shots that can be given/received according to handicaps MUST be given and received.

If the conditions were utterly rubbish we might just say on the 1st…let’s just play it off scratch. It‘s an agreement made between the competitors that impacts no other player - unless there is a rule that tells us that such an agreement is not allowed in matchplay.

I know it's already been said, but it would appear to need repeating. The terms of the condition should say from which set of indices strokes must be taken, see rule 3.2c. If both players agree to deviate from this then they have agreed to waive a rule, so both are disqualified. See Rule 1.3b(1).

 

[doublebogey7]

Honestly @jason my view in fairness or not - that was the discussion that I heard - it’s the principle under the rules determining and mandating holes shots are given that I’m asking for clarification on.

As it happens, if my opponent said to me on the 1st tee…’it seems daft and unfair that you are giving me a shot on the 17th (as it is) and so if you want you can give me the shot on another hole - up to you’…to which my reply would be ’thankyou but no thanks, I am looking to get the match over and done with before the 17th’.

My question is around that scenario (@Colin)

Rule 3.2c(2) indicates that a failure to apply a shot that is not corrected simply means the result of the hole stands. And we’ve already established in previous replies that a player can decline to use a shot on a hole when one is due him - it’s his prerogative; likewise it might well then appear that it is the prerogative of one player to grant his opponent a shot on a hole when he is not due one.

In each case, they could, but any agreement to do this before or during the round is a clear breach of the rules.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Been reading the Competitions Handbook. Terms of Competition set out for every competition and format, and no mention of how shots are to be given/taken for any matchplay comp.

However in the section headed Knock-Out Competitions the following is stated…and we are currently in a period of course work and hole closure. Nothing specific has been advised to competitors at this time by the competitions committee

During periods of course work and hole closures, the format and configuration of play will be set out by the competitions committee. The layout and stroke index application must be agreed by both sides prior to play.

(my bold highlighting)

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Already established? Where?
And if it were the case that the player could so decline, how would the Committee resolve a situation where the opponent declined to accept the declining?

I don't think you can take 3.2c(2) as allowing a player deliberately not to apply a stroke. It is about a failure to do so.

Far be it for me to question the knowledge and understanding of the expert rules folk on here (and I hesitate to do so), I am surprised that there is quite so much ‘reading between the lines‘ and interpretation and implication of specific words, plus application of what seems to be common sense and standard practice, as opposed to what the rules actually say.

If in a singles match I wish to not take a stroke I am due on a hole, or if wish to give my opponent a shot on a hole he is not due one…I do not think that I seen anything that tells me that I can’t. Just forget for the purposes of this question why I might want to do either of these things. In much the same way as that in matchplay I am allowed to ignore or waive a rules breach by an opponent if I so choose to do.

I’ll add that in the conversation I overheard on this matter the opinion being expressed was that what I suggest above is OK. If I am going to contradict them and correct their understating then I need to know the rule that tells me they are wrong, and also explain what I have quoted from our Comp Handbook.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

In each case, they could, but any agreement to do this before or during the round is a clear breach of the rules.

I’m sorry…but what rule on the application of strokes in matchplay in accordance with the SI would be breached. What is being quoted to me here does not seem to mandate that strokes can only be given and taken in accordance with the SI and they must all be given and taken. Of course I know how it works and I have never until now considered doing anything differently, and even now I’m not.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Surely if the shortened hole is a regular occurrence in winter, then the committee should look at getting a winter course set up and rated?

It’s not. It’s temporary until probably end March as a significant stretch of fairway is being relaid after remodelling of the fairway for drainage work.

 

[doublebogey7]

I’m sorry…but what rule on the application of strokes in matchplay in accordance with the SI would be breached. What is being quoted to me here does not seem to mandate that strokes can only be given and taken in accordance with the SI and they must all be given and taken. Of course I know how it works and I have never until now considered doing anything differently, and even now I’m not.

Now we know that your club has incorrectly not stipulated where strokes must be taken, it puts a new complexion on it. However, had they done their work correctly the rules I quoted in #34 would be applicable.