doublebogey7
Head Pro
But you won't be one down, if the claim is incorrect, you should carry on playing with confidence that you know the rules. If that prices to be wrong it is down on you not the rules themselves.
Unknown ruling -- play 2 balls ??
- Thread starter nyckuk
- Start date
Swango1980
Well-known member
The logic, I guess, that in stroke play you do not need certainty in what your playing partners score is. You are against the entire field. In stroke play, of course, the player needs a score on each hole, hence the 2 ball solution.
In match play, you DO need to know your opponents score. It is why it is clear that the opponent cannot give you a false score. It impacts the way you play the hole. If your opponent was suddenly playing 2 balls, it can put you in a dilemma. For example, do you hit an aggressive putt in case your opponents "4" counted, or do you just play safe because they scored a "6+" with their second? If your opponent gets to play 2 balls, would it only be fair that you get to play 2 balls from that point? The 2 ball rule in match play just seems to create one big mess (and additional playing time). It seems so much easier for the person to declare what he thinks the rule is based around his own ball. If he is correct, no problem. If he is wrong, he loses the hole and he will know better for next time.
Colin L
Tour Winner
I suspect the simple reason for not allowing a second ball in match play is that it isn't necessary.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Or that rules have been 'manufactured' to be that way!
Swango1980
Well-known member
What do you mean manufactured? In a sense, all rules are manufactured anyway, in that they are manmade. Are you implying they have been set to something less than perfect for some dodgy reason?
rulefan
Tour Winner
Are you suggesting that the R&A contrived to create a rule that made it 'unfair' to one party to a dispute even though the other may well have got the rule wrong?
Does the rule favour a player who has breached a rule over one that hasn't? Or is it the other way round?
Colin L
Tour Winner
I doubt if the RBs are much concerned with the psychological impact on one player or his opponent of not knowing the rules when they have already written into the rules that it is the player's responsibility to know them. If you know the rules, get on with what you know you are allowed to do and if your opponent wants a ruling so be it. You have the confidence that you know the correct match score.
Foxholer
Blackballed
No! But perhaps not entirely 'fair' (compared to Strokeplay) either.
No. But that's nothing to do with the 'may play 2 balls' situation that this mini-discussion is about.
Foxholer
Blackballed
No!
Foxholer
Blackballed
Fine if it 'Rule' based. But there are plenty of incidents, perhaps along the lines of the 'missing OOB posts' mentioned much earlier in the trhread, that are 'situation' based rather than (purely) Rules based - and where neither player is sure of what a ruling would be.
Swango1980
Well-known member
They are purely Rules based. The fact the player(s) are aware of the rule or not is irrelevant. Whatever the outcome (score stands, or hole lost) is a purely rules based decision.
Should we ban gimmes on match play? Automatic 2 shot penalty for playing outside teeing area. What about playing out of turn? Should it be allowed in match play, or penalised in stroke play?
They are different formats, and very different games.
From a historical point of view - Did match play come before stroke play, and if so how did the rules evolve? I can imagine the rules were written for match play, and needed to be altered when stroke play became a thing. There would have been no choice.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Agreed. But so what - at least in relation to this mini-discussion.
If the same approach was taken for Strokeplay, then playing 2 balls might not be allowed - with more serious consequences!
The rest of that post is irrelevant whatiffery!
Last edited:
Swango1980
Well-known member
Not really. You are trying to imply the rules and uncertainty on how to proceed is somehow inadequate in match play. At a minimum, some have not seen an issue with it at all. Some have gone further to demonstrate issues causes be hitting 2 balls anyway.
Clearly the rule makers have not seen a reason to change the rules in many decades. I doubt it is because they are slack, and that if they saw your comments they'd suddenly see the error in their ways . If they did change the rule, I reckon more people would criticise them than praise them.
The last part of my post was simply to ask about the evolution of the rules, and the differences between both formats. If match play came before stroke play, it is clear why the rule would need to be changed in stroke play. If stroke play came first, you could imagine the same 2 ball rule could be used in match play initially, but then might have been changed due to opponents not really knowing where they stand once the second ball is played.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Twaddle!
And again, the rest of you post was irrelevant - with some of it more twaddle!
doublebogey7
Head Pro
Which is precisely why it isn't is my guess.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Is that how you try and end a discussion you are struggling in? Just say the word twaddle, and assume THAT is relevant.
What should I say? You are right in what you say. Everyone else is wrong, including the R&A. We'll all write them an email tomorrow to complain about their manufactured rules, and the world will be a better place. P S This paragraph IS twaddle
Foxholer
Blackballed
I agree.
Colin L
Tour Winner
I'm still hoping to hear what alternative would be seen to be better for matchplay than the simple process of needing a ruling, doing what you think is right and getting on with your game, with both players equally aware the result of that hole is in question. There seems to an awful lot of noise about nothing much.
Foxholer
Blackballed
No. But when a statement is utter twaddle, I'll say so.
Swango1980
Well-known member
So, if it is twaddle, are you saying the rule in match play (on proceeding when there is doubt as to a rule) IS adequate?
