Practice during round

[robinthehood]

But just in a practical sense, a new golfer playing in comps early in his golf days may end up walking half the course without playing any golf if the OP is correct - that surely us not the point of a Stableford?

Its covered in the old decisions.
Not a penalty. At least not on the next hole .

7-2/1.7 Explanation of “Strokes Played in Continuing the Play of a Hole” Q. Rule 7-2 states that strokes played in continuing the play of a hole, the result of which has been decided, are not practice strokes.

What is meant by “continuing the play of a hole”?
A. This phrase covers situations in which a player plays the remainder of the hole with one ball in play. Its interpretation is not restricted to continuing the play of the hole in accordance with the Rules and includes, for example, situations where a player plays a ball from a spot close to where his original ball went out of bounds or in the area where it was lost.

That's the old descision....
And you can find the Mapping Chart to check what happened to the Decision 7-2/1.7 in 2019 here, which tells us it didn't change and is now covered by Rule 5.5a (pasted above):

http://www.walkercup.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2019/rules/Mapping Summary Chart - FINAL - revised 8.16.2019.pdf

 

[chrisd]

Its covered in the old decisions.
Not a penalty.

I know and agree, but I'm just offering reasons why I think the op is additionality wrong to push the point

 

[rulefan]

But just in a practical sense, a new golfer playing in comps early in his golf days may end up walking half the course without playing any golf if the OP is correct - that surely us not the point of a Stableford?

I think that in practice his more experience fellow players would suggest he picks up if he is slowing things down. There is an 'undisputed' rule about that

 

[doublebogey7]

The questions posed to the R&A included the words "he put a ball down & played a practise shot". The R&A could therefore only have gave the answer they did, as it appeared to be a matter of fact that it was a practise shot. Similarly had the writer had substituted the words for " he put another ball down and continued play of the hole, then the R&A would have given a completely different answer as rule 5.5a tells use. It seems to me that you would only ask the intentions of the player in such cases if you were trying to trip them up, unless of course they were clearly not continuing play of the hole i.e. they played towards a wrong green.

 

[rulefan]

The questions posed to the R&A included the words "he put a ball down & played a practise shot". The R&A could therefore only have gave the answer they did, as it appeared to be a matter of fact that it was a practise shot. Similarly had the writer had substituted the words for " he put another ball down and continued play of the hole, then the R&A would have given a completely different answer as rule 5.5a tells use. It seems to me that you would only ask the intentions of the player in such cases if you were trying to trip them up, unless of course they were clearly not continuing play of the hole i.e. they played towards a wrong green.

Which question and response do you mean? There are two.

 

[chrisd]

I think that in practice his more experience fellow players would suggest he picks up if he is slowing things down. There is an 'undisputed' rule about that

He may play a shot or two and pick up and not slow play up st all 😁

 

[doublebogey7]

Which question and response do you mean? There are two.

Swango's

 

[rulefan]

Swango's

That is what we are debating/speculating. I am waiting to hear if that is the R&A's reasoning

 

[berniethebolt]

It was, I think, at the time of the Lady Chatterley's Lover trial that someone was asked to define pornography. He replied that he could not give a watertight definition but he knew it when he saw it. It seems just as difficult to define practice on the course but I reckon I know it when I see it and playing down with your fellow competitors is not it!

 

[Backache]

As you say, the new Rule only mentions "out of courtesy" but I would continue to have a problem with a full-blooded shot because of the potential gain to be derived from it. However. I need to take advice on that to be sure.

Personally I think you can potentially gain benefit from any form of shot it improves hand eye co-ordination etc. When I return a ball to the practice range which I frequently do on the final hole I always take a degree of car including aiming and positioning for a couple of reasons a) I want to make sure I return the ball to the area and not duff it into the rough where it will be lost or hit a bystander etc.
and b) because I try to align myslef always on the course and I don't want to get into bad habits. This does not preclude the fact that I do it as a courtesy . There is nothing in the rules that prevents you lining up against anything though.

 

[Swango1980]

Following my last correspondence with the R&A, I asked for further clarification. They have now acknowledged that the shot should not be considered as a practice shot due to 5.5a. However, they appreciate where the confusion stems from, and clearly it also caused some confusion within the R&A. It simply seems to be a quirk in Stableford.

Thankfully, I believe we've finally got to the bottom of it. It's been an interesting debate with the the likes of rulefan, duncan, etc. It will be interesting if there will be any further update to the rule in the future just to make things more clear. If so, I feel like the debate in this forum will have been worthwhile. Even the idiots will have contributed, as idiots are allowed to play golf as well

Next comment is the correspondence

 

[patricks148]

Following my last correspondence with the R&A, I asked for further clarification. They have now acknowledged that the shot should not be considered as a practice shot due to 5.5a. However, they appreciate where the confusion stems from, and clearly it also caused some confusion within the R&A. It simply seems to be a quirk in Stableford.

Thankfully, I believe we've finally got to the bottom of it. It's been an interesting debate with the the likes of rulefan, duncan, etc. It will be interesting if there will be any further update to the rule in the future just to make things more clear. If so, I feel like the debate in this forum will have been worthwhile. Even the idiots will have contributed, as idiots are allowed to play golf as well

Next comment is the correspondence

so let me get this straight, you have been proved wrong and the those who said you were wrong are idiots... nice apology

 

[Swango1980]

Question (for clarification) to the R&A:

"Just one further point of clarification. Does the player have to openly admit to playing a practice stroke. In other words, had Player A, after giving up on the hole, just said words to the effect "I just played another ball up", still be guilty of playing a practice stroke between 2 holes. The reason being, some have told me Rule 5.5a applies as the result has already been decided (These are not practice strokes: strokes made by a player in playing out a hole whose result has been decided).

Apologies for the follow up. I feel it is clear that a hole is over in Stableford when a player gives up, and Rule 5.5a only ensures players are not penalised if they play on like they would in medal play. However, others tell me that Rule 5.5a means that a ball can be dropped anywhere after giving up on the hole, and you are only guilty from playing from the wrong place. So, a player can only be penalised if they admit to playing a practice stroke, but not otherwise.

For some, I think the wording in 5.5a makes it unclear as to when a hole is complete in Stableford.

Furthermore, Player B (the one we wrongly DQ'ed) never said he was playing a practice stroke, he just said he dropped another ball down after giving up. "

Answer

"Apologies for the delay in coming back to you.

We have been discussing the situation further and the consensus is that the last bullet of 5.5a actually applies. Apologies for the confusion.

We appreciate that 5.5b/1 could be misleading to some, but that Interpretation is explaining when practice between holes is permitted (i.e. chipping and putting is permitted). It is not determining whether or not a player is continuing the play of a hole.

There is nothing to say that continuing play of a hole must be done in accordance with the Rules, and very often it is not. This is the quirk of the Stableford format."


Just to give you context, this was the original reply:

"With regards to Player A he would be deemed to be between the play of two holes as he couldn’t score, therefore as per Rule 5.5b, between two holes, a player must not make a practice stroke. So the general penalty applying to the next hole was correct.



With regards to the ruling for Player B, as the competition will be closed the disqualification will stand, however please see the exception to Rule 3.3b(3) here: https://www.randa.org/en/rog/2019/rules/the-rules-of-golf/rule-3#3-3b



The specific wording that is relevant is as follows:

Exception – Failure to Include Unknown Penalty: If one or more of the player’s hole scores are lower than the actual scores because he or she excluded one or more penalty strokes that the player did not know about before returning the scorecard:

• The player is not disqualified.
• Instead, if the mistake is found before the close of the competition, the Committee will revise the player’s score for that hole or holes by adding the penalty stroke(s) that should have been included in the score for that hole or holes under the Rules.

Therefore Player B should have received the general penalty on the following hole just as Michael did, rather than being disqualified."

My Summary

The R&A originally came to the same conclusion as myself and the OP, where a penalty applied. However, when questioned further (essentially highlighting the intent to practice or not), they've concluded no penalty. Interestingly, I suspect they are also saying that Player A should not get a penalty whether he said it was a practice shot or not (after all, he did say it was a practice, but no penalty regardless given their last reply).

 

[robinthehood]

so let me get this straight, you have been proved wrong, a few people who said you were wrong are idiots... nice apology

I know and he still can't admit he was wrong and would rather pretend that some how we were all confused.
Will the OP be offering an apology to the player he wronged?

 

[chrisd]

Following my last correspondence with the R&A, I asked for further clarification. They have now acknowledged that the shot should not be considered as a practice shot due to 5.5a. However, they appreciate where the confusion stems from, and clearly it also caused some confusion within the R&A. It simply seems to be a quirk in Stableford.

Thankfully, I believe we've finally got to the bottom of it. It's been an interesting debate with the the likes of rulefan, duncan, etc. It will be interesting if there will be any further update to the rule in the future just to make things more clear. If so, I feel like the debate in this forum will have been worthwhile. Even the idiots will have contributed, as idiots are allowed to play golf as well

Next comment is the correspondence

Are you sure that the reference to "idiots" were entirely necessary?

 

[Swango1980]

so let me get this straight, you have been proved wrong and the those who said you were wrong are idiots... nice apology

You are wrong. I was correct in my interpretation, as the R&A have acknowledged and even been guilty of confusion themselves. For those that said no penalty, I always had the courtesy of appreciating where you were coming from, but simply said how other words in the rules contradicted it (I appreciate some of you may not be able to get that far into the rulebook). I've also had the courtesy of being honest about my own correspondance with the R&A, I could have just not bothered sharing it if I was really bothered about the simpletons that are just interested in point scoring if they happen to be lucky enough to get something right. I was still 100% right that you are an idiot

 

[Swango1980]

Are you sure that the reference to "idiots" were entirely necessary?

Yes, given I expected the immediate comments that followed.

 

[patricks148]

You are wrong. I was correct in my interpretation, as the R&A have acknowledged and even been guilty of confusion themselves. For those that said no penalty, I always had the courtesy of appreciating where you were coming from, but simply said how other words in the rules contradicted it (I appreciate some of you may not be able to get that far into the rulebook). I've also had the courtesy of being honest about my own correspondance with the R&A, I could have just not bothered sharing it if I was really bothered about the simpletons that are just interested in point scoring if they happen to be lucky enough to get something right. I was still 100% right that you are an idiot

TBH i'm only seeing one of those and it's you, there was no confusion except from you when you loaded the question to the R&A... all you have done is shown yourself as what you call others.

i wasn't the one who spent 18 pages aguing against most other posters, was proved wrong and still making insults...

 

[berniethebolt]

Hear hear!

 

[chrisd]

Yes, given I expected the immediate comments that followed.

You have to understand that pretty well everyone said that you were wrong, some put it less succinctly than others, but, in being found to be correct they are definitely NOT idiots. However, despite many many posts where you contradicted everyone, I think most posters will concur that the idiot, if there is one, is you!