Use of Slope during Match

[Colin L]

It isn't automatic. When no referee is assigned to the specific match, a ruling must be requested (claim made) because an opponent's breach can be ignored. So if I learn opponent has just used the Slope function and request a ruling, the ruling at that point is opponent has lost the hole. If I subsequently ask about earlier holes and learn it occurred then too, that is new information that I can ignore or request a further ruling - which would be DQ. But if the sequencing is I learn of the 8th hole breach and ask about earlier holes then seek the ruling, it is DQ as the ruling is based on all the facts at that time. A referee unassigned is only responding to the ruling sought. An assigned referee, however, responds to all the facts they become aware of and would seek all the facts. The capacity to ignore an opponent's breach is not available if there is an assigned referee.

Are you saying that a ruling can be made on the earlier holes on the basis that the player had breached 3.2d(2) by failing to tell his opponent of a penalty? Otherwise I don't see how a ruling could be made.

 

[salfordlad]

Are you saying that a ruling can be made on the earlier holes on the basis that the player had breached 3.2d(2) by failing to tell his opponent of a penalty? Otherwise I don't see how a ruling could be made.

Yes, that is precisely how 20.1b(2) applies to earlier holes, along with it being new information to the player (may or may not be to the breach perpetrator/opponent) and the player then requests a ruling in a timely manner (before the next hole starts).

Thanks - That is very clear.

So (with no assigned rules official) the players could opt to ignore the breech with a "cease and desist" warning. If they choose not to what is the result of the match? Is it recorded as 10&8? - I ask because holes won is occasionally used as a tie breaker.

The Rules don't go there, the Terms of the Competition are where that answer needs to be supplied. The simple 10/8 approach is common. Personally, I would distinguish by nature of the DQ: deliberate bad behaviour - 10/8; otherwise I would prefer to respect whatever golf had been played - so state of match before the DQ then every hole lost and result determined that way. The event Committee needs to guide.

 

[Colin L]

Yes, that is precisely how 20.1b(2) applies to earlier holes, along with it being new information to the player (may or may not be to the breach perpetrator/opponent) and the player then requests a ruling in a timely manner (before the next hole starts).

Thanks. I've never had to make a ruling on an earlier hole situation and appreciate the confirmation. In general, is it not the case that the only test of that criterion is whether a breach of a rule incurring a penalty actually occurred because if there were a such a breach, the criterion is inevitably met?

 

[salfordlad]

Thanks. I've never had to make a ruling on an earlier hole situation and appreciate the confirmation. In general, is it not the case that the only test of that criterion is whether a breach of a rule incurring a penalty actually occurred because if there were a such a breach, the criterion is inevitably met?

For this kind of retrospective adjustment to be made, there has to have been a 3.2d breach incurred. That could be a penalty breach incurred and not advised but it could also be a simple mis-counted score advised at the time - that was realised and advised at a later hole.

 

[Colin L]

Thanks again. All clear, and as I had thought, but getting confirmation usefully increases confidence!