Unknown ruling -- play 2 balls ??

[mikejohnchapman]

If you can't get an immediate ruling and you can't agree surely you must suspend the match?

This begs an interesting question at our club when the most likely person available would be one of the professionals. I wonder if under our competition conditions they are allowed to give a ruling or just advice?

 

[nyckuk]

I would suggest that the person who might want to play 2 balls instead has to be certain of his knoweldge of the rules and then they will be fine. It's their opinion and their loss if they are wrong.

That makes no sense , if you were certain on the rule you wouldn't be considering playing a second ball

 

[chrisd]

If you can't get an immediate ruling and you can't agree surely you must suspend the match?

This begs an interesting question at our club when the most likely person available would be one of the professionals. I wonder if under our competition conditions they are allowed to give a ruling or just advice?

My experience over several club pros is that they haven't got a scooby doo of the rules

 

[wjemather]

My experience over several club pros is that they haven't got a scooby doo of the rules

Most club pros are pretty good, and should at least have a rule book to hand. Your average PGA Tour pro however...

 

[Foxholer]

Well if you are playing 2 balls and one might be 2 shots different to the other (let's take the case of of a wobbly out of bounds line ;-) ) then I might well play differently for those 2 situations. So, maybe we then say the opposition can also play 2 balls, what then happens in fourball match play? 8 balls in play, it would be a nightmare rememberng which set is against the other!

I would suggest that the person who might want to play 2 balls instead has to be certain of his knoweldge of the rules and then they will be fine. It's their opinion and their loss if they are wrong.

Well, 'what-if-ery apart', while I accept that there might be a different strategy involved with a '2 balls' play, that doesn't, imo, justifiy preventing their use - though it does force a decision by the player/team in doubt. The other player/team still has the possible dilemna of tactical choice too.
The 2nd para is self-contradictory, as it's the lack of certainty that playing 2 balls overcomes. The 2nd sentence rather clashes with the 'essentially fair' element of Golf, even when some situations seem 'unfair'.
FWIW, it's not something I'm particularly concerned about, but would be interested to know why. The subsequent tactical side might be part of the reasoning.

 

[chrisd]

Most club pros are pretty good, and should at least have a rule book to hand. Your average PGA Tour pro however...

I stand by my earlier comment ??

 

[Foxholer]

Most club pros are pretty good, and should at least have a rule book to hand. Your average PGA Tour pro however...

They'll have a Rules Official nearby, so don't need to 'clutter their mind' with such things.

 

[chrisd]

Well, 'what-if-ery apart', while I accept that there might be a different strategy involved with a '2 balls' play, that doesn't, imo, justifiy preventing their use - though it does force a decision by the player/team in doubt. The other player/team still has the possible dilemna of tactical choice too.
The 2nd para is self-contradictory, as it's the lack of certainty that playing 2 balls overcomes. The 2nd sentence rather clashes with the 'essentially fair' element of Golf, even when some situations seem 'unfair'.

If most clubs are like mine, and I suspect they are, it would be almost impossible to find someone with adequate rules knowledge to give a view. I've never understood why the rules of matchplay make so many rule breaks as loss of hole instead of just the same penalty as strokeplay - for examples playing a wrong ball.

I also am of the view that playing to the rules is one of the least important things at most clubs, if someone dies at my place we receive an email before they've hit the floor, but we almost never get an email with, say, a local rule change.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

DQs don't come into to it. If the ruling changes the result of the hole on which the incident occurred, the state of the match is changed accordingly. That could lead to the match result being unchanged, the match being tied or your winning.

I get what you say but that just doesn't seem fair. If I lose a hole due to a player claiming something that I disagree with, but on which I cannot get an external ruling on at that point in time, then my loss of the hole can completely change the dynamics of the match. There are myriad scenarios where a loss of a hole can do this and have a significant impact on how the player suffering the loss plays the subsequent holes. So what does he do? Is he honestly expected to refuse to continue? Because I just don't see that happening. I lose my match and discover that I was in the right with the disputed ruling, but as I continued then tough - even although the hole that I lost proved to be a very significant factor towards me losing the match.

Nah - it may be the rule but that's just not right. Surely as the onus is on the player claiming the ruling to be subsequently proved right as it is his and only his decision about what he does. And if he got it wrong then that was his mistake and in matchplay that should be the end of it. He forfeits his victory. It was his choice, He knew the alternative view being put by his opponent and he dismissed it and went with his own understanding. Too much room for manipulation, chicanery and bullying.

 

[wjemather]

Well, 'what-if-ery apart', while I accept that there might be a different strategy involved with a '2 balls' play, that doesn't, imo, justifiy preventing their use - though it does force a decision by the player/team in doubt. The other player/team still has the possible dilemna of tactical choice too.
The 2nd para is self-contradictory, as it's the lack of certainty that playing 2 balls overcomes. The 2nd sentence rather clashes with the 'essentially fair' element of Golf, even when some situations seem 'unfair'.
FWIW, it's not something I'm particularly concerned about, but would be interested to know why. The subsequent tactical side might be part of the reasoning.

Your opponent having two balls in play would directly affect how you are going to play the hole. Not so in stroke play.

 

[Colin L]

I saw, and understood, that. It's just that his/her range of actions are different - and less/limited, because the option of playing a 2nd ball doesn't exist - when compared to strokeplay. I'm puzzled as to why that is.

In stroke play the end result of the committee's decision has to be a score for the round. If the player played only one ball, taking relief for example relief when there is doubt if relief is available, you can't know what the score would be if the ruling went against him. He has to have played a ball as it lies. In match play, if the player is right in what he does, the result of the hole stands; but if he is wrong, he loses the hole. Either way, the result of the match can be calclulated on the basis of playing one ball.

 

[Swango1980]

I get what you say but that just doesn't seem fair. If I lose a hole due to a player claiming something that I disagree with, but on which I cannot get an external ruling on at that point in time, then my loss of the hole can completely change the dynamics of the match. There are myriad scenarios where a loss of a hole can do this and have a significant impact on how the player suffering the loss plays the subsequent holes. So what does he do? Is he honestly expected to refuse to continue? Because I just don't see that happening. I lose my match and discover that I was in the right with the disputed ruling, but as I continued then tough - even although the hole that I lost proved to be a very significant factor towards me losing the match.

Nah - it may be the rule but that's just not right. Surely as the onus is on the player claiming the ruling to be subsequently proved right as it is his and only his decision about what he does. And if he got it wrong then that was his mistake and in matchplay that should be the end of it. He forfeits his victory. It was his choice, He knew the alternative view being put by his opponent and he dismissed it and went with his own understanding. Too much room for manipulation, chicanery and bullying.

There are two ways to deal with this concern:

1. Learn the rules of golf as well as you can, so that you are aware of all the common situations that could happen, and even many of the less common ones. Even if you don't know them off by heart, have a rule book with you, and learn how to use it so you can find most rules fairly quickly. On the rare occasion an opponent calls you on anything, and you don't agree, ask them to point out the rule in the book.
2. Don't learn the rules, "play for fun". However, don't panic any time someone more knowledgeable (or think they are) highlights a rule infringement. By all means play as you feel the rule should apply in match play, seek confirmation with Committee afterwards, and accept the outcome. Before you get that result, continue to "play for fun"

However, there are no excuses in losing a match because your head went down, even though were right all along. You should have played assuming you were right. If you knew the rules well, you'd have fully known you were right. If you didn't know the rules well, then you should have planned for the worst, hoped for the best. But, you shouldn't then blame the procedure for potentially losing the match. You should blame your lack of knowledge and/or poor mentality.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

There are two ways to deal with this concern:

1. Learn the rules of golf as well as you can, so that you are aware of all the common situations that could happen, and even many of the less common ones. Even if you don't know them off by heart, have a rule book with you, and learn how to use it so you can find most rules fairly quickly. On the rare occasion an opponent calls you on anything, and you don't agree, ask them to point out the rule in the book.
2. Don't learn the rules, "play for fun". However, don't panic any time someone more knowledgeable (or think they are) highlights a rule infringement. By all means play as you feel the rule should apply in match play, seek confirmation with Committee afterwards, and accept the outcome. Before you get that result, continue to "play for fun"

However, there are no excuses in losing a match because your head went down, even though were right all along. You should have played assuming you were right. If you knew the rules well, you'd have fully known you were right. If you didn't know the rules well, then you should have planned for the worst, hoped for the best. But, you shouldn't then blame the procedure for potentially losing the match. You should blame your lack of knowledge and/or poor mentality.

That's all fair, well and good. But if go one down in a match after the 16th on the basis of a ruling claimed by my opponent that no matter what evidence I provide he rejects, I know that I will have to play the 17th hole differently than if we were all square. That is especially the case as in many, if not most, singles matches I will be giving my opponent a shot on the 17th. I will have to take a more risky approach to my tee shot and if that comes out OK most likely have to take greater risk on my second shot.

If I lose the match and I can point to an incorrectly claimed ruling as having a significant impact on the outcome of the match, I am not sure I will just shrug and accept that as rub of the green. But it seems that acceptance is all I have - there being no other recourse to 'justice'. And even if that is indeed the case - it does not seem right,

 

[Colin L]

What would you suggest as a workable alternative? Whatever the procedure, the situation would remain the same - the result of the hole and maybe the match is in doubt and that won't be resolved till after the match.

 

[phillarrow]

That's all fair, well and good. But if go one down in a match after the 16th on the basis of a ruling claimed by my opponent that no matter what evidence I provide he rejects, I know that I will have to play the 17th hole differently than if we were all square. That is especially the case as in many, if not most, singles matches I will be giving my opponent a shot on the 17th. I will have to take a more risky approach to my tee shot and if that comes out OK most likely have to take greater risk on my second shot.

If I lose the match and I can point to an incorrectly claimed ruling as having a significant impact on the outcome of the match, I am not sure I will just shrug and accept that as rub of the green. But it seems that acceptance is all I have - there being no other recourse to 'justice'. And even if that is indeed the case - it does not seem right,

But surely if you believe you are correct, you just carry on and play as if you didn't lose the hole? He might be playing the rest of the match thinking he is one up after the 16th, but you play it believing you are all square. At the end of the match, you shake on it still not knowing for certain who has won and then await the decision of the committee?

How does it affect you if you believe you are correct?

 

[Colin L]

And besides, does the situation not have the potential to have exactly the same effect on the opponent? He can't be sure of the state of the match either. That sounds fair.

 

[Backache]

I also am of the view that playing to the rules is one of the least important things at most clubs, if someone dies at my place we receive an email before they've hit the floor, but we almost never get an email with, say, a local rule change.

Death before disqualification.

 

[Colin L]

Isn't death the ultimate DQ?

 

[Foxholer]

In stroke play the end result of the committee's decision has to be a score for the round. If the player played only one ball, taking relief for example relief when there is doubt if relief is available, you can't know what the score would be if the ruling went against him. He has to have played a ball as it lies. In match play, if the player is right in what he does, the result of the hole stands; but if he is wrong, he loses the hole. Either way, the result of the match can be calclulated on the basis of playing one ball.

I agree. But so what! It doesn't change the 'logic' for playing a 2nd ball, nor the possible effect on the opponent's play. The result of the hole would likely still have to wait until a 'committee decision' was made. However, the certainty of action/result does swing my view, somewhat grudgingly, towards it being ok.

 

[rulefan]

I would suggest that the person who might want to play 2 balls instead has to be certain of his knoweldge of the rules and then they will be fine. It's their opinion and their loss if they are wrong.

Exactly