No, this does not prevent further strokes in a partner event where the side's result is not yet decided, but any continuing strokes that assist the player's partner are a breach of Rule 5.5a and the partner also gets the general penalty. This is stated in the final bullet point of 23.8a(2)/1.
The hole had not be decided as his partner was still playing.
Thanks I think that is the answer , so I was sort of correct but sort of wrong
I found the words in the Interpretation a little confusing.
What could be conceived as "assisting partner"? There are obvious ones, like putting on the same line. But, what if the player hit a ball from 100+ yards out, and his partner was able to see what impact the wind had on his ball, making him consider hitting a different club. Or, the player had a putt on a completely different line, but his partner might be able to gauge the general speed of the green. I'm sure there could be many circumstances in which the opponents might feel that the guy that is out of the hole, but playing on, might give some assistance to his partner still in the hole. Scenarios where it would be borderline and somewhat subjective.
My view would be he can keep playing. Under the rules he can keep playing the hole even if he is going to have a 20 on the hole. "I'm out of it" is unlikely to amount to a concession - especially not in a four ball format.
The further strokes are in breach, but the player is already out of the hole so has no score there anyway. If the further strokes assist the partner, partner gets the general penalty.
Then you need clarity from the player that is not currently evident. He is either completing play of the hole, or he has no intention of doing so - it is one or the other and has rules consequences. If the latter, then any further play needs to be screened for whether it assists the partner and gets the partner any general penalties.
You are not going to get a detailed menu of responses from the RBs (and when they provide examples they are mostly stark black or white), you are on your own with the "did it help". IMO strokes from the fairway are much less likely to provide demonstrable help but that will change as you get closer to the green. On and close to the green I wouldn't want the out of the hole player hitting before the still playing partner.
Given that rules often try and remove subjectivity, would it have been simpler for the rules to just state that once the player ended play of the hole before result decided, they must play no more shots? It would then remove any doubt in opponents mind if any continued play was assisting or not? If an opponent accused the player of assisting his partner by playing a shot from 150 yards, claiming it would help club selection or impact of wind, and a referee had to get involved, I'd wonder whether they'd back the opponent making the accusation, or the player who played on?
Q1 and 2: Prescriptive regulations are generally simpler to apply than ones requiring judgement. But it would seem RBs think there is more to it than that. Q3: I would reject the claim on that information, no smoking gun there.
It has for him.
I guess it depends on circumstances? If the players ball dropped 20 yards short of the green, and then his partner went back to his bag to change his club, now deciding it is a 2 club wind rather than a 1 club wind, then there would be evidence there was assistance? Whereas, if the player hit the green, and his partner just kept the same club (because the players shot confirmed to him his club selection was OK), you would reject the claim because, unless he openly admits the players shot helped this confirmation, there is no evidence either way that it helped or not?
