Practice after losing ball in matchplay

[Swango1980]

It has for him.

No it hasn't. He might be out of the hole from a playing point of view, but he could still win, draw or lose the hole depending on what the other players do.

 

[theoneandonly]

No it hasn't. He might be out of the hole from a playing point of view, but he could still win, draw or lose the hole depending on what the other players do.

??

You making sure you back the right horse this time ??

 

[Swango1980]

??

You making sure you back the right horse this time ??

?

 

[salfordlad]

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?

I've already given you the call I would make before the stroke. I'm not going to change that call in light of anything that happens afterwards. And, LOL, when the average player drops a ball short of the green from 150 yards out the cause is not usually the wind.

 

[Swango1980]

I've already given you the call I would make before the stroke. I'm not going to change that call in light of anything that happens afterwards. And, LOL, when the average player drops a ball short of the green from 150 yards out the cause is not usually the wind.

I guess the accuser would find that an arrogant stance. Especially if the partner nailed his approach shot and then said "good job I changed my club, after seeing the wind kill your ball"

 

[salfordlad]

I guess the accuser would find that an arrogant stance. Especially if the partner nailed his approach shot and then said "good job I changed my club, after seeing the wind kill your ball"

Methinks you are trying too hard to find a problem which is not there or to complicate the process of a Committee/referee applying the rules as they are written. But this is all good, keep firing the shots as you perceive them.

 

[Swango1980]

Methinks you are trying too hard to find a problem which is not there or to complicate the process of a Committee/referee applying the rules as they are written. But this is all good, keep firing the shots as you perceive them.

Not at all. I was just taking part in the thread, and adding to other questions and wonderments asked by others.

What I took from it was that, if a player lost their ball and deemed themselves out of it, they would be permitted to drop a ball and just play another shot, as there would be no issue about them or their side getting penalised for practice strokes.

However, what I also took from it was that if any of their shots assisted their partner playing the hole, then their side would be penalised.

So, I just felt it unusual that the rules could potentially leave something like that as being quite subjective, and difficult to rule on in certain situations. The referee obviously needs to decide whether the shot by the player assisted their partner or not. As I said, there are many ways in which a shot played by one can assist another in playing theirs. It is not just restricted to putting or chipping along the same line, unless that is defined within the rules? So, if an opponent claimed a breach of the rule because one guy was able to determine the impact of wind, for example, who decides if this is assistance or not? Well, it is the referee, but then surely that is purely subjective? You have said you'd dismiss the claim, but would all referees. Also, even if the player admitted after the shot that he changed his decision based on what is partner out of the hole did, you suggested you would not change your mind, based on your thoughts before the shot was played. Would all referees? Even if some referees would have dismissed the claim if it had been made before the shot, would other referees change their mind when this new information came to light?

Maybe the answer is simply that different referees may make different decisions. Fair enough, happens in football all the time. I'm sure it is impossible to remove all subjectivity.

 

[salfordlad]

Not at all. I was just taking part in the thread, and adding to other questions and wonderments asked by others.

What I took from it was that, if a player lost their ball and deemed themselves out of it, they would be permitted to drop a ball and just play another shot, as there would be no issue about them or their side getting penalised for practice strokes.

However, what I also took from it was that if any of their shots assisted their partner playing the hole, then their side would be penalised.

So, I just felt it unusual that the rules could potentially leave something like that as being quite subjective, and difficult to rule on in certain situations. The referee obviously needs to decide whether the shot by the player assisted their partner or not. As I said, there are many ways in which a shot played by one can assist another in playing theirs. It is not just restricted to putting or chipping along the same line, unless that is defined within the rules? So, if an opponent claimed a breach of the rule because one guy was able to determine the impact of wind, for example, who decides if this is assistance or not? Well, it is the referee, but then surely that is purely subjective? You have said you'd dismiss the claim, but would all referees. Also, even if the player admitted after the shot that he changed his decision based on what is partner out of the hole did, you suggested you would not change your mind, based on your thoughts before the shot was played. Would all referees? Even if some referees would have dismissed the claim if it had been made before the shot, would other referees change their mind when this new information came to light?

Maybe the answer is simply that different referees may make different decisions. Fair enough, happens in football all the time. I'm sure it is impossible to remove all subjectivity.

Is it really news to you that there are multiple rules where subjectivity can arise? And rules that are likely to arise more frequently than the specific example you have focussed on here. Here's some quick examples. Rule 8: were the conditions affecting the stroke improved? Rule 9: windy day, ball in unstable conditions in light rough, player approaches to take stance and ball moves - gravity, wind or the actions of the player? Rule 10: player makes a comment about the club he has just hit on a par 3 or the wind when hitting off before others - was that advice? Was there intent to influence anyone else's play? Here's another prominent clue to the scope for subjectivity: the words "reasonable" and "unreasonable" in the Rules themselves (not counting the Interpretations) appear 75 times. So not just officials but all players are constantly required to exercise judgements that have degrees of subjectivity.

 

[Swango1980]

Is it really news to you that there are multiple rules where subjectivity can arise? And rules that are likely to arise more frequently than the specific example you have focussed on here. Here's some quick examples. Rule 8: were the conditions affecting the stroke improved? Rule 9: windy day, ball in unstable conditions in light rough, player approaches to take stance and ball moves - gravity, wind or the actions of the player? Rule 10: player makes a comment about the club he has just hit on a par 3 or the wind when hitting off before others - was that advice? Was there intent to influence anyone else's play? Here's another prominent clue to the scope for subjectivity: the words "reasonable" and "unreasonable" in the Rules themselves (not counting the Interpretations) appear 75 times. So not just officials but all players are constantly required to exercise judgements that have degrees of subjectivity.

Not at all. It is just interesting when they are discussed, and how they are interpreted. As you are aware, many rules queries are actually very much black and white. It seems that for almost any given scenario, once the facts are known, a black and white decision can usually be given. The rules are written, and I guess have evolved well, to ensure that is the case for the majority of situations.

So, when a situation comes along where there is subjectivity, I'm interested as to how this could be interpreted by different people. I also wonder if the rule could be changed to remove this subjectivity, or would it have unintended consequences. In this case, we are obviously discussing 2 differing opinions on whether a shot by one player assisted another. Opinions on this could potentially be quite varied, rather than subtle like in other subjective decisions. I do realise there are others, like a player knocking a leaf / leaves off in their back swing and discontinuing. At some point there will be a grey area as to whether one person thinks the area of the swing was improved or not.

 

[theoneandonly]

Methinks you are trying too hard to find a problem which is not there or to complicate the process of a Committee/referee applying the rules as they are written. But this is all good, keep firing the shots as you perceive them.

He has form for it.... There was a similar thread where he argued for ages depsite the correct answer being given in the first few posts.

 

[Swango1980]

He has form for it.... There was a similar thread where he argued for ages depsite the correct answer being given in the first few posts.

Yawn. Just report me for asking questions on a forum

 

[salfordlad]

So, when a situation comes along where there is subjectivity, I'm interested as to how this could be interpreted by different people. I also wonder if the rule could be changed to remove this subjectivity, or would it have unintended consequences. In this case, we are obviously discussing 2 differing opinions on whether a shot by one player assisted another. Opinions on this could potentially be quite varied, rather than subtle like in other subjective decisions. I do realise there are others, like a player knocking a leaf / leaves off in their back swing and discontinuing. At some point there will be a grey area as to whether one person thinks the area of the swing was improved or not.

Those bolded words are nonsense. We are not discussing 2 different opinions at all. The situation you raised was straightforward, no subjectivity. You had a 4BBB partner that was out of the hole play a stroke from 150 yards and the opponent make a claim. But there was no factual information presented that supported a case for any help being provided to a partner (who didn't appear in the narrative in any shape or form) - you just had an opponent making a claim without any supporting facts (post #17 - you clearly need to revisit it). So no facts were present to support a penalty, someone out of the hole has simply made a practice stroke. And then you started moving the goal posts - injecting different facts in post #20 and further different information in subsequent posts and seem to have convinced yourself that it was subjective all along.

 

[Swango1980]

Those bolded words are nonsense. We are not discussing 2 different opinions at all. The situation you raised was straightforward, no subjectivity. You had a 4BBB partner that was out of the hole play a stroke from 150 yards and the opponent make a claim. But there was no factual information presented that supported a case for any help being provided to a partner (who didn't appear in the narrative in any shape or form) - you just had an opponent making a claim without any supporting facts (post #17 - you clearly need to revisit it). So no facts were present to support a penalty, someone out of the hole has simply made a practice stroke. And then you started moving the goal posts - injecting different facts in post #20 and further different information in subsequent posts and seem to have convinced yourself that it was subjective all along.

Post 24 you said: "I've already given you the call I would make before the stroke. I'm not going to change that call in light of anything that happens afterwards." Was that untrue then? I am absolutely happy with the call you made if there was no other supporting evidence. However, when you said you would not change that call afterwards, when other information became available, that threw me. I was wondering was it because the rules definitively tell us no penalty is applicable, or just because you decided the shot offered no assistance, even if the partner said it gave him assistance? Clearly, if the player said nothing about whether a shot helped them or not, and the opponent claimed assistance was given, then if a ref had to be involved they would just have to make the call either way. In which case, you've made that call, and I'm sure most would agree with you without any additional information.

 

[salfordlad]

Post 24 you said: "I've already given you the call I would make before the stroke. I'm not going to change that call in light of anything that happens afterwards." Was that untrue then? I am absolutely happy with the call you made if there was no other supporting evidence. However, when you said you would not change that call afterwards, when other information became available, that threw me. I was wondering was it because the rules definitively tell us no penalty is applicable, or just because you decided the shot offered no assistance, even if the partner said it gave him assistance? Clearly, if the player said nothing about whether a shot helped them or not, and the opponent claimed assistance was given, then if a ref had to be involved they would just have to make the call either way. In which case, you've made that call, and I'm sure most would agree with you without any additional information.

My answer in #24 was that the call on #17 remains the correct call on the facts that applied. I was not playing your game of creeping, continuous alterations to the facts.

 

[Swango1980]

My answer in #24 was that the call on #17 remains the correct call on the facts that applied. I was not playing your game of creeping, continuous alterations to the facts.

Fair enough, but I guess your words "in light of anything that happens afterwards" were simply careless, as that directly implied you would not change your mind if the facts changed, whether they crept up on you or slapped you in the face

And to confirm, I've not tried to say that any decisions expressed before my opinions were incorrect, based on the information that was being responded to. I was simply trying to gauge how one judges whether a shot was of any assistance or not, hence expressing alternative scenarios and how these might be viewed by others (opponents, players, and referees).

 

[salfordlad]

Fair enough, but I guess your words "in light of anything that happens afterwards" were simply careless, as that directly implied you would not change your mind if the facts changed, whether they crept up on you or slapped you in the face

And to confirm, I've not tried to say that any decisions expressed before my opinions were incorrect, based on the information that was being responded to. I was simply trying to gauge how one judges whether a shot was of any assistance or not, hence expressing alternative scenarios and how these might be viewed by others (opponents, players, and referees).

At no point after #17 have you put a single, coherent set of facts together that can be considered as one. Instead, you continued to move the goal posts to attempt to make the earlier answer no longer fit. I can only suggest you reread #34 until you understand it, at no point was I responding to your incremental and not very logical changes to #17. Those words "I'm not going to change that call in light of anything that happens afterwards" mean that your reinvention of some of the facts (what happened later) does not alter that the call on #17 was the correct call on the facts of #17.

 

[Swango1980]

At no point after #17 have you put a single, coherent set of facts together that can be considered as one. Instead, you continued to move the goal posts to attempt to make the earlier answer no longer fit. I can only suggest you reread #34 until you understand it, at no point was I responding to your incremental and not very logical changes to #17. Those words "I'm not going to change that call in light of anything that happens afterwards" mean that your reinvention of some of the facts (what happened later) does not alter that the call on #17 was the correct call on the facts of #17.

My main question was post 9, which you thankfully answered post 16. Simply that, how does one judge whether a shot assists another or not?

Following that, my mind simply thought of situations in which it could be difficult to determine if it was assistance or not, where one person thinks one thing, and another something else. Thus, could this put a referee in a difficult position if an opponent is saying it helped, which could technically be true, albeit extremely unlikely.

As I said, I wasn't questioning your earlier answers, and that they were the incorrect decision based on the facts presented.

 

[salfordlad]

My main question was post 9, which you thankfully answered post 16. Simply that, how does one judge whether a shot assists another or not?

Following that, my mind simply thought of situations in which it could be difficult to determine if it was assistance or not, where one person thinks one thing, and another something else. Thus, could this put a referee in a difficult position if an opponent is saying it helped, which could technically be true, albeit extremely unlikely.

As I said, I wasn't questioning your earlier answers, and that they were the incorrect decision based on the facts presented.

Wow, you are into some serious revisionism. In #25, using cute language implying it could be someone else's view, you labelled my words as "arrogant", then in #35 you called them "simply careless", so those bolded words do not hold water. But as I have repeatedly sought to explain, you were misunderstanding my words. Anyway, we are a long way past achieving anything useful here so time to move on.

 

[Swango1980]

Wow, you are into some serious revisionism. In #25, using cute language implying it could be someone else's view, you labelled my words as "arrogant", then in #35 you called them "simply careless", so those bolded words do not hold water. But as I have repeatedly sought to explain, you were misunderstanding my words. Anyway, we are a long way past achieving anything useful here so time to move on.

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.

 

[rulie]

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.