Serious breach of etiquette.

[clubchamp98]

Can you be disqualified for a serious breach of etiquette?

Had a discussion on here about it.
Also under the new rules is “ refusing point blank to attend the flag” a serious enough breach.?

If I walked in after two holes in a singles match because my op told me he had “no intention to attend the flag all day.”
What do you think the committees decision would be if I asked them to decide the match.?
Thank you.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I would suggest you would lose the game for walking in and that whilst not tending the flag is indeed poor etiquette as you are entitled to have it tended it’s not a serious enough issue to suggest any sort of DQ

 

[rulie]

You'd lose the match.

 

[Wolf]

As per our discussion on the other thread I'm in the you'd forfeit the match camp for waking in as don't se eit as serious enough a breach to warrant DQ, but will follow closely to see what the answers are by those with better knowledge of the rules

 

[clubchamp98]

I would suggest you would lose the game for walking in and that whilst not tending the flag is indeed poor etiquette as you are entitled to have it tended it’s not a serious enough issue to suggest any sort of DQ

So we just stand there until someone gives in .
If you are entitled then you are entitled.

 

[clubchamp98]

As per our discussion on the other thread I'm in the you'd forfeit the match camp for waking in as don't se eit as serious enough a breach to warrant DQ, but will follow closely to see what the answers are by those with better knowledge of the rules

Yes it looks like I was wrong at the moment.
But it’s early days yet.
All the best.

 

[ger147]

You walked in, you lose.

 

[clubchamp98]

You'd lose the match.

What about my first question?
What is a serious breach.
If my op refused on every green that is 18 breaches is that serious enough.

Seems contradictory as you are ENTITLED to have flag attended, but your OP can refuse.

 

[Kraxx68]

I'd seriously worry why they would not tend the flag... if you continue the match, good on you, but I can see that this would cause a mind set issue knowing the other person is being a muppet about something that is at heart something you need to have to aid you with your putting. I'd have carried on, then marked cards, shook hands and hoped I never seen the guy again... very un-sportsman like, certainly not in keeping with the way the game should be played. 2019 rules are there to speed up the game, but does not imply that the flag can't be attended or not... Hope I never get into a group where this becomes an issue, you have my sympathy. Breech, not sure, that's one maybe you could ask your golf committee.

 

[duncan mackie]

What about my first question?
What is a serious breach.
If my op refused on every green that is 18 breaches is that serious enough.

Seems contradictory as you are ENTITLED to have flag attended, but your OP can refuse.

This is the problem with multiple questions tied up in the last one 're what would happen if?'

Dealing with your various questions -

1. Yes 1.2 a/1 says so, and covers examples.
2. The committee would have to decide but as the above interpretation specifically states that deliberately interfering with another player's rights is a serious breach worthy of DQ it will come down to circumstances...
3. As others have said, you would be disqualified. What he has said would have to be followed through in practice for the matter to be considered, and that would include you making a timely claim - you can't claim for something that hasn't happened in this context.

So no, there's no contradiction per se in rulie's response - but due process would need to be followed, and I would be wary about walking off claiming the match for a breach of 1.2 by refusing to honour your rights under 13.2 after the first time he did it too! I would start by claiming the hole each time, and escalate from there.

 

[rulie]

What about my first question?
What is a serious breach.
If my op refused on every green that is 18 breaches is that serious enough.

Seems contradictory as you are ENTITLED to have flag attended, but your OP can refuse.

Just for the record, the 2019 Rules don't include a serious breach of "etiquette". Interpretation 1.2a/1 discusses "serious misconduct", including "dishonesty, deliberately interfering with another player's rights, or endangering the safety of others."
Imo, not tending the flagstick doesn't meet the standard for disqualification. You are now permitted to putt with the flagstick in the hole and you also have the option of removing it yourself.

 

[duncan mackie]

For the same record...13.2 purpose of rule statement indicates that it is a right (to have the flagstick attended).

As posted above I don't think the issue is cut and dried in itself, and would need context. I also strongly believe it really shouldn't be an issue in practice - but clearly, from some statements on here, it's likely to for some!

 

[rulie]

For the same record...13.2 purpose of rule statement indicates that it is a right (to have the flagstick attended).

As posted above I don't think the issue is cut and dried in itself, and would need context. I also strongly believe it really shouldn't be an issue in practice - but clearly, from some statements on here, it's likely to for some!

The player can also have his caddie tend the flagstick. I don't see that the Purpose of Rule for 13.2 decrees that the player has a "right" to have it attended; It says "may".

 

[clubchamp98]

For the same record...13.2 purpose of rule statement indicates that it is a right (to have the flagstick attended).

As posted above I don't think the issue is cut and dried in itself, and would need context. I also strongly believe it really shouldn't be an issue in practice - but clearly, from some statements on here, it's likely to for some!

In my original post I did say after two holes,
I might of made it clearer that he had refused twice.

Some will think I’m right some will think I am wrong!
But is there a definitive answer, or up to individual committees.
This means at one club it’s dq but at another it’s not.

I think it will be an issue I have flag out for all putts if I can see the hole , attended if I can’t.

 

[rulie]

In my original post I did say after two holes,
I might of made it clearer that he had refused twice.

Some will think I’m right some will think I am wrong!
But is there a definitive answer, or up to individual committees.
This means at one club it’s dq but at another it’s not.

I think it will be an issue I have flag out for all putts if I can see the hole , attended if I can’t.

While your opponent was discourteous, I don't see it as serious misconduct. You can leave the flagstick in the hole for those putts where you can't see the hole; if you want certainty that it will be attended, bring your caddie.

 

[Wolf]

Having just read the rule again, it clearly says "may" have the flag stick tended.

It doesn't say entitled to have it tended and doesn't say a player that's been asked has to do so if asked to do so.

Therefore I cannot see how any club using the rules of golf even through etiquette can be DQ for refusal. Nobody has a right to have it tended in the rules just they may ask for it.

Therefore whether he refuses once or 18 times according to the new rules though it may seem discourteous its not against the rules or a breach of etiquette, just a difference of opinion which I think any committee would be hard pressed to issue a DQ on and if they do sets a very bad precedence.

 

[duncan mackie]

In my original post I did say after two holes,
I might of made it clearer that he had refused twice.

Some will think I’m right some will think I am wrong!
But is there a definitive answer, or up to individual committees.
This means at one club it’s dq but at another it’s not.

I think it will be an issue I have flag out for all putts if I can see the hole , attended if I can’t.

As you will have seen the general interpretation put on your post, and certainly the one I picked up on, was that you acted on what he told you in relation to future events.

Anyhow, that's behind us.

General recommendation is for the committee to ask questions and establish the facts before making a ruling - applied here there is obviously significant scope for differences which, IMO, could easily lead to different rulings. It's easy to establish that one player was pushing a point to far rather than actually being disadvantaged in any way - and vice versa that a player deliberately and knowingly chose to disadvantage him (for example he had putted up to 2ft and was expecting to have his putt conceded - it wasn't and being below a steep slope you asked him to tend the stick for you while he was there. He walked to the edge of the green and stood there telling younthat as you didn't concede his putt he wasn't going contend the flagstick for you, even though he knew you were entitled to have it attended.After a moment to calm down you putted with the stick in, hit the stick gently and your ball came to rest on the edge of the hole (and wasn't conceded!).

Personally I don't think the ruling bodies have helped with the wording of the interpretation. My natural reaction mirrors the words rulie has posted, but I can't ignore the wording of the interpretation.

 

[rulie]

As you will have seen the general interpretation put on your post, and certainly the one I picked up on, was that you acted on what he told you in relation to future events.

Anyhow, that's behind us.

General recommendation is for the committee to ask questions and establish the facts before making a ruling - applied here there is obviously significant scope for differences which, IMO, could easily lead to different rulings. It's easy to establish that one player was pushing a point to far rather than actually being disadvantaged in any way - and vice versa that a player deliberately and knowingly chose to disadvantage him (for example he had putted up to 2ft and was expecting to have his putt conceded - it wasn't and being below a steep slope you asked him to tend the stick for you while he was there. He walked to the edge of the green and stood there telling younthat as you didn't concede his putt he wasn't going contend the flagstick for you, even though he knew you were entitled to have it attended.After a moment to calm down you putted with the stick in, hit the stick gently and your ball came to rest on the edge of the hole (and wasn't conceded!).

Personally I don't think the ruling bodies have helped with the wording of the interpretation. My natural reaction mirrors the words rulie has posted, but I can't ignore the wording of the interpretation.

Which Interpretation are you referring to? I don't see any Interpretations in Rule 13.2 which gives the player a "right" to have the flagstick attended or entitles him to demand that someone attend the flagstick for him.

 

[clubchamp98]

I think when they added the option of leaving the flag in they didn’t foresee that people who belive that flag out is best may have a problem with it.
They havnt been thorough imo as to potential problems.
They should have amended to,
1 a player has the right to have the flag attended for a putt on the green.!

2 a player does not have a right to have the flag attended at any time.

This would solve the problem.
As it is it’s open to interpretation.

 

[rulie]

I think when they added the option of leaving the flag in they didn’t foresee that people who belive that flag out is best may have a problem with it.
They havnt been thorough imo as to potential problems.
They should have amended to,
1 a player has the right to have the flag attended for a putt on the green.!

2 a player does not have a right to have the flag attended at any time.

This would solve the problem.
As it is it’s open to interpretation.

Imo, the Rules do not decree that the player has the "right" to have the flagstick attended. They say that he "may" have it attended, but do not decree that another player or opponent "must" attend the flagstick. In other words, your position 2.