BTatHome
Tour Winner
If your out of the hole, why would you putt? Your only reason for putting (as stated in the OP) was help your partner ... hence you shouldn't be putting out as that would be a breach as stated by Duncan.
Out of hole - can't putt?
- Thread starter SwingsitlikeHogan
- Start date
North Mimms
Tour Winner
I've conceded a putt in the same circumstances as the OP to ensure that they didn't aid their partner but didn't realise that it would have been a breach if they had putted in the absence of a concession
Region3
Ryder Cup Winner
I've not totally followed all the responses here and have one question.
I have played 5, our opponents are in for 5.
Am I "officially" out of the hole, ie. Prohibited from carrying on, or just unable to influence the outcome of the hole but entitled to play out?
I have played 5, our opponents are in for 5.
Am I "officially" out of the hole, ie. Prohibited from carrying on, or just unable to influence the outcome of the hole but entitled to play out?
rulefan
Tour Winner
No. Unless your opponents concede the stroke AND your putt would have been of assistance to your partner there is no penalty.
2-4/6 Putting Out After Concession of Stroke
Rule 2-4 does not cover the question of whether a player may putt out after his next stroke has been conceded. A player incurs no penalty for holing out in such circumstances. However, if the act would be of assistance to a partner in a four-ball or best-ball match, the partner is, in equity (Rule 1-4), disqualified for the hole.
Last edited:
Region3
Ryder Cup Winner
If the putt isn't conceded, is it breaking a rule to putt (if it assists your partner) if you can't influence the outcome of the hole?
rulefan
Tour Winner
North Mimms
Tour Winner
Mmm.
We seem to have a disagrement here...
We seem to have a disagrement here...
rulefan
Tour Winner
Where?
Colin L
Tour Winner
No pressure then. :mmm:
It's a new one to me. There isn't an applicable rule to prevent the player putting and so it comes down to whether the action should be considered so unsporting that it merits a 1-4 ruling against him - as Duncan does. Decision 30-3f/6 doesn't quite cover the same circumstances, the difference being that deliberately putting away from the hole is a completely abnormal action whereas putting out is not. It does, however, support the validity of a ruling that an action that is considered contrary to the spirit of the game can be dealt with under R1-4. We could say that he is entitled to putt and that it is up to his opponents to be aware and stop him by conceding the stroke but if I'm forced off the fence, I'd come down in favour of a 1-4 ruling against both the player and his partner on the grounds that it is the golfing equivalent of "conduct unbecoming". A fairly subjective opinion, therefore but I agree with Duncan that the principles are laid down to support it.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Colin
How do you account for the statement in 7-2?
Remember, if it doesn't say you can't then you can. I can't find anything that says a player cannot continue when he cannot score.
How do you account for the statement in 7-2?
Remember, if it doesn't say you can't then you can. I can't find anything that says a player cannot continue when he cannot score.
BTatHome
Tour Winner
Would the same courtesy be extended when chipping not onto the green too?
I had a situation when i was effectively out of the hole (having just put one OOB and layed up short), my partners ball was only a few feet away and we were both just short of a very slopping green. I would of had to have holed out and then hoped the opponents three putted from about 10ft. In this case if the opponents had already holed out would people still be happy for me to chip onto the green to give my partner a view of the slope of the chip they needed to follow?
For me, if I'm out of the hole then I would pick up, firstly to ensure the pace of play is kept and secondly because I don't think it's entirely within the spirit of the game to be playing shots like that when your out of the hole.
But it would appear that there isn't a rule specifically preventing this! I guess the Matchplay rules for conceding come into play ... differenct for a medal 4BBB comp, as no concession could be given.
I had a situation when i was effectively out of the hole (having just put one OOB and layed up short), my partners ball was only a few feet away and we were both just short of a very slopping green. I would of had to have holed out and then hoped the opponents three putted from about 10ft. In this case if the opponents had already holed out would people still be happy for me to chip onto the green to give my partner a view of the slope of the chip they needed to follow?
For me, if I'm out of the hole then I would pick up, firstly to ensure the pace of play is kept and secondly because I don't think it's entirely within the spirit of the game to be playing shots like that when your out of the hole.
But it would appear that there isn't a rule specifically preventing this! I guess the Matchplay rules for conceding come into play ... differenct for a medal 4BBB comp, as no concession could be given.
rulefan
Tour Winner
The Game of Golf consists of playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules.
7-2 makes it clear that is the players right to continue a hole until he holes out.
It is courteous to pick up in stableford singles match play if you can't win or halve the hole. But there is no obligation to
It is courteous to pick up in singles stroke play if you can't score. Again there is no obligation to.
(Remembering of course there are order of play rules).
It is courteous to pick up in stableford pairs match play if you can't score. But there is no obligation to unless the player's putt will assist his partner and the opponents have conceded the stroke.
It is courteous to pick up in stableford pairs stroke play if you can't score. But there is no obligation to unless the requirement above is, in equity, applicable. As concessions cannot be given in this situation, the committee could not make this equity ruling without the authority of the R&A (IMO).
7-2 makes it clear that is the players right to continue a hole until he holes out.
It is courteous to pick up in stableford singles match play if you can't win or halve the hole. But there is no obligation to
It is courteous to pick up in singles stroke play if you can't score. Again there is no obligation to.
(Remembering of course there are order of play rules).
It is courteous to pick up in stableford pairs match play if you can't score. But there is no obligation to unless the player's putt will assist his partner and the opponents have conceded the stroke.
It is courteous to pick up in stableford pairs stroke play if you can't score. But there is no obligation to unless the requirement above is, in equity, applicable. As concessions cannot be given in this situation, the committee could not make this equity ruling without the authority of the R&A (IMO).
Foxholer
Blackballed
It's not 'pressure' as such. Just my perception of a greater likelihood to have encountered the (what seems a common enough/likely) situation in 'real' (official) environment with other experts to refer to.
The fact that there hasn't been a Decision published about indicates, to me, that the Rules cover it sufficiently and the onus is on the opponents to prevent any assistance by conceding the putt. The Decision about putting away from the hole is actually about that stroke not the subsequent putt as assistance to partner - which also disqualifies the Partner if it happens. Decision 2-4/6 would surely have covered the 'out of hole' situation too.
To me, the need for a concession, to prevent possible assistance of a Partner's stroke in such a situation, is 'part of the game'.
Colin L
Tour Winner
The trouble with climbing down from fences instead of sitting on them is that you are liable later to want to climb back up and drop down the other side. I woke this morning to serious doubts about the opinion voiced yesterday - mainly because of the nagging question of what rule is there to stop the player putting out in those circumstances. If his partner gains information from that it could be said that it's just as much part of the game as the opponents being alert enough to stop it. I see Rulefan has put me on the spot over the player's right to putt out. It's not the first time I've had difficulty in feeling that something should not be allowed but had difficulty in finding a rules-supported basis for disallowing it. I suspect this is another of the same. I'll need to think a bit more!
doublebogey7
Head Pro
Feel this one won't be decided until someone has requested a ruling from the R&A.
The above was my initial thought. Though having re-read 30-3f/6, where it is clear that there is no penalty until the put that assists the partner has been taken, I am now not so sure.
North Mimms
Tour Winner
What is interesting is that the opponent could have conceded the putt, but he didn't.
A concession would have made the whole thing moot (or moo as Joey from Friends would say)
A concession would have made the whole thing moot (or moo as Joey from Friends would say)
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
That's exactly it. He didn't concede my putt just said I couldn't putt as I couldn't half the hole and my putt would assist my partner. But where in the rules does it say that my partner and I have to tell each other how many shorts we have played on a hole. We might decide that our strategy is to play our own games and both hole out. Then agree with opponents result of hole - of course opponents could and clearly would ask either of us at any time how many shots we have taken. But in terms of our strategy that to me is irrelevant. Besides my putt wasnt bang on the line - I was my be 3ft off his line - probably I would give him more idea of pace of last 10 ft to hole.
Foxholer
Blackballed
I disagree. Though there is no Penalty for the Partner until then. I'm certain that that sequence of events simply took place to the shock and perhaps objection of the opponents, who simply reported the sequence of events. The want of a little expansion of the answer is something that I often see in Decisions, but I guess that's 'policy'.
chrisd
Major Champion
I think it's just down to lack of rules knowledge, in my case which was identical to SILH, our opponents only argued the he couldn't putt out and when I pointed out afterwards that they could have prevented any problem by conceding his putt they seemed unaware that he couldn't refuse the concession.
North Mimms
Tour Winner
When I conceded the putt in identical circumtances (to prevent her giving the line to her opponent who *could* score) I was accused of being "unsporting" !
Similar threads
