Practice after losing ball in matchplay

[RRidges]

Somebody (?) earlier suggested that posters here were getting very defensive in their posts. This a a Rules forum, and Rules decisions are based on the facts of the situation. Let's stick to examining the facts and applying the Rules.
Who is right is not important, the Committee's goal is that the outcome is right.

So how would rule in the situation? I don't believe the result of the hole has actually been decided.
BTW. It seems to me that the player supposedly out of the hole would not have any influence on the result of the hole if he was required to play after those still in the hole had played. But I appreciate that the rules might not allow that to happen.

 

[salfordlad]

Indeed. That was simply because you suggested your mind would be unchanged, regardless of what could happen thereafter. I initially thought that would be an arrogant attitude from a referee, given new information could always come to light. I then gave you the benefit of the doubt, and said the words were careless rather than arrogant.

Anyway. It has been a long winded, discussion on concluding it is purely subjective. Would have probably been a friendly casual chat if it was face to face, but when it is in black and white in a forum, I guess it can be easy for people to take comments as challenges and get defensive.

Whether aware or not (I suspect not), you have pitched a new angle here in stating that the discussion concludes on this issue being purely subjective. It does not. That was not my or anyone else's input here.

The potential Committee/referee task is to consider whether a player's stroke that is no longer relevant to the hole result assisted a partner. And, like many other issues/questions that arise in observing and applying the Rules, subjectivity may have an unavoidable role in the process. But the process is to gather all relevant facts to minimize any subjective elements to the decision. Issues like: why did the player make the stroke (intent); were the distance or line of play or any other significant features comparable or likely to yield relevant intelligence for the partner's play; and did the stroke actually yield help - need to be considered as part of that process. And it is the totality of the process that makes it work - knowing or hearing a claim based on just one or another of these answers may not be sufficient. It all needs to be worked through.

 

[salfordlad]

So how would rule in the situation? I don't believe the result of the hole has actually been decided.
BTW. It seems to me that the player supposedly out of the hole would not have any influence on the result of the hole if he was required to play after those still in the hole had played. But I appreciate that the rules might not allow that to happen.

We are discussing a situation of player out of the hole making a stroke before the partner, if order of play is the other way around, this particular potential problem does not arise. But there can be no robust answer to "the situation" without being clear on all the facts - see post #42.

 

[RRidges]

We are discussing a situation of player out of the hole making a stroke before the partner, if order of play is the other way around, this particular potential problem does not arise. But there can be no robust answer to "the situation" without being clear on all the facts - see post #42.

Well, that makes a change from those who are being defensive in this thread!
Post #2 actually produced what I believe to be the correct ruling, if not an actual decision! Another thread that has 20 times as many posts as really needed, just because folk think of possible variations!
I still believe my suggestion in the post you quoted holds for the player who is out of the hole.

 

[theoneandonly]

Well, that makes a change from those who are being defensive in this thread!
Post #2 actually produced what I believe to be the correct ruling, if not an actual decision! Another thread that has 20 times as many posts as really needed, just because folk think of possible variations!
I still believe my suggestion in the post you quoted holds for the player who is out of the hole.

Usually the way with these threads, correct answer is given but then the whatiffery starts up and it goes on and on
This one is a classic example..
https://forums.golfmonthly.com/threads/practice-during-round.102803/

 

[Colin L]

Usually the way with these threads, correct answer is given but then the whatiffery starts up and it goes on and on
This one is a classic example..
https://forums.golfmonthly.com/threads/practice-during-round.102803/

And the people involved have a good conversation, enjoy participating and maybe learn something out from it. Is it a problem?

 

[salfordlad]

Usually the way with these threads, correct answer is given but then the whatiffery starts up and it goes on and on
This one is a classic example..
https://forums.golfmonthly.com/threads/practice-during-round.102803/

"Whatiffery" is in excellent ROG word. You don't learn the ROG well by simply reading them, it requires practice applying them in the grey zones. And the Rule book doesn't often do the grey zones well, we generally get examples that only cover the black and the white.

 

[rulefan]

"Whatiffery" is in excellent ROG word. You don't learn the ROG well by simply reading them, it requires practice applying them in the grey zones. And the Rule book doesn't often do the grey zones well, we generally get examples that only cover the black and the white.

Probably because there are so many shades of grey (as opposed to green) on a golf course.
You name it, it'll happen. And even if you can't think of it, it'll still happen.

 

[Steven Rules]

Post #2 actually produced what I believe to be the correct ruling, if not an actual decision! Another thread that has 20 times as many posts as really needed....

The irony of me further prolonging this thread is not lost on me but I beg to differ with your assessment.

Post #2 did not produce "the correct ruling, if not an actual decision!"

Post #2 did not cover the substantive implications arising from the format being four ball match play - specifically whether the result of the hole had been decided, whether the player's continued play of the hole after he was 'out of it' constituted practice, and whether the player’s practice might have helped the player’s partner. To my naked eye, none of that was apparent in post #2.

The thread needed to go well beyond that before we got to "the correct ruling, if not an actual decision!"

 

[rulefan]

As the person responsible for post #2, I agree. I missed the significance of it being 4 ball match play.

 

[RRidges]

The irony of me further prolonging this thread is not lost on me but I beg to differ with your assessment.

Post #2 did not produce "the correct ruling, if not an actual decision!"

Post #2 did not cover the substantive implications arising from the format being four ball match play - specifically whether the result of the hole had been decided, whether the player's continued play of the hole after he was 'out of it' constituted practice, and whether the player’s practice might have helped the player’s partner. To my naked eye, none of that was apparent in post #2.

The thread needed to go well beyond that before we got to "the correct ruling, if not an actual decision!"

As the person responsible for post #2, I agree. I missed the significance of it being 4 ball match play.

Fair enough then. I'll bear that in mind for other posts from folk with Rule... handles!