Use of Slope during Match

[mikejohnchapman]

Had a situation during a team match recently and having looked at Rule 4 I wasn't sure of the sanction.

Situation was a 4BBB inter-club match. During the match (hole 8) it was noted that one of the players had the slope setting on his rangefinder on and was telling his partner a specific yardage plus the distance it was "playing". When challenged they pleaded ignorance of the rule and apologised.

However, what was the sanction?

Should the other team claim the match?

 

[Colin L]

4.3 Use of Equipment. if you scroll down to the end of Rule 4.3 you'll find the penalty statement:
General penalty for the breach - in this instance loss of the 8th hole. DQ if they used the slope function again.

In four-ball, you should check Rule 23.9 to find out whether a penalty applies to the one player or both.

 

[3 jabber]

4.3 Use of Equipment. if you scroll down to the end of Rule 4.3 you'll find the penalty statement:
General penalty for the breach - in this instance loss of the 8th hole. DQ if they used the slope function again.

In four-ball, you should check Rule 23.9 to find out whether a penalty applies to the one player or both.

Out of curiosity does Rule 4.3 (or any other rule) refer you to Rule 23.9 to check regarding format? If not, how are you meant to know other than having a good understanding of all the rules in the first place?

Edit: Just read 23.9, need to try to commit to memory the scenarios it covers.

 

[Swango1980]

Out of curiosity does Rule 4.3 (or any other rule) refer you to Rule 23.9 to check regarding format? If not, how are you meant to know other than having a good understanding of all the rules in the first place?

Edit: Just read 23.9, need to try to commit to memory the scenarios it covers.

I guess Rule 4.3 simply lays out the rule and what the penalty is. Whereas Rule 23.9 clarifies who the penalty is given to in a pair making up a side, which could be a logical question to ask once the penalty has been established.

I guess that if 23.9 was mentioned in Rule 4.3, then there would also be many many other rules that 23.9 would have to be mentioned? And perhaps other rules references would also need to be referenced, for other format types? You'd then just get rules with many links to other rules, that the Rules may become even more cumbersome to use?

 

[Troymcclure]

If the conversation had not been heard but the slope setting switch position had been observed, breach or no breach i.e. is the Rule to use the info or have the info available?

 

[Colin L]

Out of curiosity does Rule 4.3 (or any other rule) refer you to Rule 23.9 to check regarding format? If not, how are you meant to know other than having a good understanding of all the rules in the first place?

Edit: Just read 23.9, need to try to commit to memory the scenarios it covers.

Yes and no.

At the end of Rule 3, there is a reference to the Rules pertaining to recognised forms of stroke play other than regular medal play. I'm not sure if there are any others.

In any case, you don't need a good understanding of all the rules; you just need to know there could be differences and look up the table of contents at the start of the Rules. https://www.randa.org/rog/the-rules-of-golf. Scroll down till you find a Rule that fits your situation.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

4.3 Use of Equipment. if you scroll down to the end of Rule 4.3 you'll find the penalty statement:
General penalty for the breach - in this instance loss of the 8th hole. DQ if they used the slope function again.

In four-ball, you should check Rule 23.9 to find out whether a penalty applies to the one player or both.

...and so I just have - and as read it, it does. 23.9(b) identifies breach of 4.3 by one player in a pair as a matter of disqualification of both players...

Logically makes sense as the use of slope function has potential, at the very least, to help both players and the outcome of any hole and match.

 

[rulie]

Out of curiosity does Rule 4.3 (or any other rule) refer you to Rule 23.9 to check regarding format? If not, how are you meant to know other than having a good understanding of all the rules in the first place?

Edit: Just read 23.9, need to try to commit to memory the scenarios it covers.

I usually advise referees who are refereeing four-ball matches to photocopy 23.9 and keep it in their pocket in case a situation arises.

 

[Colin L]

...and so I just have - and as read it, it does. 23.9(b) identifies breach of 4.3 by one player in a pair as a matter of disqualification of both players...

Logically makes sense as the use of slope function has potential, at the very least, to help both players and the outcome of any hole and match.

Both players get the general penalty for the first breach and so the side loses the hole. A DQ is the result of a second breach by either of them.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Both players get the general penalty for the first breach and so the side loses the hole. A DQ is the result of a second breach by either of them.

If the first observed breech was on hole 8 and you then asked whether they had it set since the start and they said it had been, would this be grounds for disqualification?

 

[clubchamp98]

If the first observed breech was on hole 8 and you then asked whether they had it set since the start and they said it had been, would this be grounds for disqualification?

It should be!
Ignorance is usually no defence.

 

[rulefan]

If the first observed breech was on hole 8 and you then asked whether they had it set since the start and they said it had been, would this be grounds for disqualification?

4.3a simply says "Using equipment ...."

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Both players get the general penalty for the first breach and so the side loses the hole. A DQ is the result of a second breach by either of them.

Missed the bit that said second breach. Will go and re-read.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If the first observed breech was on hole 8 and you then asked whether they had it set since the start and they said it had been, would this be grounds for disqualification?

Quite. Slope switched on from the start means first breach is on the 1st hole, second breach is on the 2nd.

 

[Colin L]

If the first observed breech was on hole 8 and you then asked whether they had it set since the start and they said it had been, would this be grounds for disqualification?

Think matchplay.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Think matchplay.

Yes - I wondered if they forfeit the match having used it since the start of the match for several holes.

 

[salfordlad]

Yes - I wondered if they forfeit the match having used it since the start of the match for several holes.

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.

 

[cliveb]

Isn't there a rule in matchplay that once the outcome of a hole is agreed and you start the next hole, that's it? Can a rule breach which comes to light later on be retrospectively applied?

 

[salfordlad]

Isn't there a rule in matchplay that once the outcome of a hole is agreed and you start the next hole, that's it? Can a rule breach which comes to light later on be retrospectively applied?

Isn't there a rule in matchplay that once the outcome of a hole is agreed and you start the next hole, that's it? Can a rule breach which comes to light later on be retrospectively applied?

If the player is fully aware of all the facts, they only have until a stroke from the next tee to seek a ruling. But in defined circumstances, a player can seek a ruling for earlier holes if new information comes to light, and the previously agreed match score may need to be adjusted. See Rule 20.1b(2) for details.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

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.

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.