Rule 3-2 in Stableford

[Fyldewhite]

Isn't this a case of agreement to waive the rules and therefore an overall DQ (32-2a)?

 

[cliveb]

Isn't this a case of agreement to waive the rules and therefore an overall DQ (32-2a)?

For sure, everyone does know they shouldn't tee off out of order in a comp and doesn't do it if they remember, but this is a case of a senior moment rather than consciously breaking the rule.

Surely agreeing to waive a rule only applies when they deliberately choose to do so?

 

[Twire]

I'd start by looking at the definition of a 'Stipulated Round'


The "stipulated round" consists of playing the holes of the course in their correct sequence unless otherwise authorised by the Committee. The number of holes in a stipulated round is 18 unless a smaller number is authorised by the Committee. As to extension of stipulated round in match play, see Rule 2-3.

 

[IanM]

Can your club not set up a local rule to cover this? I think I have seen this type of thing before, just playing socially, in order to keep the flow of the course going. Seems eminently practical to me, just need to sort the paperwork out.

Was what I was going to ask. I seem to remember something similar at Ilfracombe (16 or 17th?) Saves lots of time... how that might impinge of a Rule is beyond my level of understanding.. but that certainly is the local practice!

 

[Fyldewhite]

For sure, everyone does know they shouldn't tee off out of order in a comp and doesn't do it if they remember, but this is a case of a senior moment rather than consciously breaking the rule.

Surely agreeing to waive a rule only applies when they deliberately choose to do so?

What I mean is that it's not so much about not playing the course in order (which may also be an issue as pointed out by Twire), but ignoring the fact that penalty shots etc should have been applied (on hole 5) in the original submission of the card. I'm assuming that they counted the score on the 5th with no penalties applied and not correcting their error etc. So haven't they basically agreed to ignore that because of what they did on the 4th?? I'm not at all sure on this btw, just throwing it into the mix. I do think the minimum would be a blob on both holes as others have said.

Another example, I remember playing (I think) Dumfries and Galloway many years ago and there were two par 3's on the back 9 with tees next to each other and the two greens 200 yards over a valley about 100 yards apart. The protocol was to play to both then hole out on each green in turn. Always wondered how that would sit in comps. Presumably the committee could make a ruling to define the stipulated round that way?

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Sounds like a lot of hassle to save a little bit of walking, which if you dont like walking why are you playing golf anyway?

How much time does this actually save anyway, I'd imagine it only really works if you hit the fairway as you would lose your point of reference for any wayward shot?

Never mind which/how many rules have been broken and how many penalty shots incurred, this is the correct answer!! :thup:

 

[Colin L]

What I mean is that it's not so much about not playing the course in order (which may also be an issue as pointed out by Twire), but ignoring the fact that penalty shots etc should have been applied (on hole 5) in the original submission of the card. I'm assuming that they counted the score on the 5th with no penalties applied and not correcting their error etc. So haven't they basically agreed to ignore that because of what they did on the 4th?? I'm not at all sure on this btw, just throwing it into the mix. I do think the minimum would be a blob on both holes as others have said.

Another example, I remember playing (I think) Dumfries and Galloway many years ago and there were two par 3's on the back 9 with tees next to each other and the two greens 200 yards over a valley about 100 yards apart. The protocol was to play to both then hole out on each green in turn. Always wondered how that would sit in comps. Presumably the committee could make a ruling to define the stipulated round that way?

Remember Rule 1-1

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.

 

[duncan mackie]

Yes, you have the sequence right. And to avoid any possible doubt, I will just clarify by saying that in step (4) he holes out with ball A in the 4th hole, and in step (6) he holes out with ball B in the 5th hole.


Ah, right. That's another way of looking at it that hadn't occured to me.


Sounds reasonable to me, except that rule 15-3 is not listed in rule 32-2a, so my reading is that under rule 32-2b he is DQ'd from holes 4 and 5 rather than the whole comp.


I didn't witness the actual incident, but as a general rule people just leave their balls where they are on the 4th as they tee off on the 5th, so it's almost certain that it wasn't lifted.

And finally, because they eventually hand in a card where they've signed for a lower score than they should on holes 4 and 5, they are DQ'd under rule 6-6d, but because that isn't listed in 32-2a, once again they are only DQ'd on holes 4 and 5. Also, according to Note 3 of 32-1b, breach of 6-6d in Stableford incurs a further two point deduction from the total score for each breach.

So in summary it looks as if the offenders should not have been DQ'd from the comp, but instead have been blobbed on holes 4 and 5 and had a further 4 points deducted for the breach of 6-6d on those two holes. I doubt they would have been in with a chance of any prizes under those circumstances, so no harm done
But good to know the correct procedure for future reference.

Latest to the party having gone out and played a comp today!

I agree with Rulefan, and I think you have rightly concluded that they blobbed both 4 and 5, and got an additional 2 Points deducted for either hole where they had recorded points scored.

Just to clear up one one aspect where I think you missed the significance of Rulefan's point - if a player had played to the 4th green, then wrongly substituted another ball from a wrong place by making their next shot from the 5th tee with a different ball....if they then putted without marking they are playing a wrong ball and would be required to correct, but if they marked it and picked it up before replacing and playing they are now playing a wrongly substituted ball played from a wrong place (again). In the examples in this thread the difference is mute, but it can be an important distinction. The difference is most commonly relevant when winter rules are in place and a player takes a preferred lie with a wrong ball, then plays it.

 

[rulefan]

Yes, you have the sequence right. And to avoid any possible doubt, I will just clarify by saying that in step (4) he holes out with ball A in the 4th hole, and in step (6) he holes out with ball B in the 5th hole.


Sounds reasonable to me, except that rule 15-3 is not listed in rule 32-2a, so my reading is that under rule 32-2b he is DQ'd from holes 4 and 5 rather than the whole comp.

I had ignored the stableford aspect for the moment but you are correct.

Re hole 5

5) Moves to 5th fairway and plays Ball B
6) Holes out with ball B.

When he plays ball B he has put the ball into play from in front of the tee markers. 2sp. He must correct this or face DQ from the hole. 11-4 is not listed.

So, as you say, no score for holes 4 & 5.

 

[bladeplayer]

This might complicate things or could just be mad / when he teed of the 5th , is that not automatically opting out of finishing the 4th ..

If he is finished the 4th (by default) isnt it ok to practice on a hole thats completed without penalty so long as you dont delay people ?

therefore no penalties can apply & just a scratch for the 4th hole ?

 

[louise_a]

This might complicate things or could just be mad / when he teed of the 5th , is that not automatically opting out of finishing the 4th ..

If he is finished the 4th (by default) isnt it ok to practice on a hole thats completed without penalty so long as you dont delay people ?

therefore no penalties can apply & just a scratch for the 4th hole ?

Very similar to my comments in post 6, with the exception that practice is only allowed on or around the green of the hole just played, so a shot from the fairway would be unauthorised practise.

 

[rulefan]

This might complicate things or could just be mad / when he teed of the 5th , is that not automatically opting out of finishing the 4th ..

If he is finished the 4th (by default) isnt it ok to practice on a hole thats completed without penalty so long as you dont delay people ?

therefore no penalties can apply & just a scratch for the 4th hole ?

Playing a ball from another teeing ground cannot automatically be considered to have discontinue the hole he was playing. Particularly if he goes back to complete it.

 

[bladeplayer]

Very similar to my comments in post 6, with the exception that practice is only allowed on or around the green of the hole just played, so a shot from the fairway would be unauthorised practise.

Playing a ball from another teeing ground cannot automatically be considered to have discontinue the hole he was playing. Particularly if he goes back to complete it.

Thanks to Both :thup:

 

[rulie]

Playing a ball from another teeing ground cannot automatically be considered to have discontinue the hole he was playing. Particularly if he goes back to complete it.

What about Decision 1-1/1? If the other teeing ground is the next teeing ground, the Decision says the player has failed to hole out on the previous hole, ie, the previous hole is done.

 

[rulefan]

What about Decision 1-1/1? If the other teeing ground is the next teeing ground, the Decision says the player has failed to hole out on the previous hole, ie, the previous hole is done.

Missed that completely but that seems to settle it.

 

[rulefan]

What about Decision 1-1/1? If the other teeing ground is the next teeing ground, the Decision says the player has failed to hole out on the previous hole, ie, the previous hole is done.

However, does that mean a player must always complete a hole in stableford?

 

[Foxholer]

However, does that mean a player must always complete a hole in stableford?

No. Refer 32-2 (b)

Not on the list of 'Full Disqualification' penalty, so only applies to the particular hole. No different to the 'normal' 'Failure to Hole Out/Pickup' action & resultant penalty.

 

[duncan mackie]

However, does that mean a player must always complete a hole in stableford?

I don't think so.

1-1 references 3-2 and 32 doesn't include 3-2 as an overall DQ.

1-1/1 doesn't change the practicalities of a stableford here ie if the players continue with their shots to 4 after teeing off on 5 they are going to have the penalties already discussed. What it does seem to do is give them an out in the sense that if they teed of on 5 and then picked up the ball they had played on 4 they would be deemed to have teed of on 5 rather than those shots being wrongly substituted balls on 4 and not valid tee shots.
Whilst that isn't indicated here it might be relevant at some point!

 

[Old Skier]

Was what I was going to ask. I seem to remember something similar at Ilfracombe (16 or 17th?) Saves lots of time... how that might impinge of a Rule is beyond my level of understanding.. but that certainly is the local practice!

Only used in friendlie games and knock abouts. Not during recognised comps or qualifiers

 

[srixon 1]

Can your club not set up a local rule to cover this? I think I have seen this type of thing before, just playing socially, in order to keep the flow of the course going. Seems eminently practical to me, just need to sort the paperwork out.

What happens if you only have one ball (golf)? :rofl: