Various Rulings - Intersectional Matches

[BC MIST]

During yesterday’s Intersectional matches a number of situations arose that caused grief for some of the players, mainly because of lack of a basic understanding of the rules of golf.

1. Player A hits a ball and it comes to rest between the flag and the hole liner and is visible above the top edge of the hole. Player B’s caddie walks over and pulls out the flag moving A’s ball several feet from the hole. As I understand it, B claimed that A had to play the ball from where it came to rest after the flag was pulled(I’m serious).
Question: Presumably A gets to replace his ball between the flag and the liner, above the hole, and then has the opportunity to pull the flag out and if the ball falls into the hole, he has holed out. Is B penalized because of his caddie pulling out the flag?

2. Player A hits his ball in the bush and the group begins looking for it. After 8 minutes, B says, “Time is up, the ball is lost.” A gets angry and berates B for not telling him that he was being timed. Opponents C and D (Remember-Intersectional matches) do not support B in his claim that they had looked for the ball over 5 minutes. The OVGA official had explained before all matches that disputes had to be settled by the group before teeing off on the next hole. What should happen next?

3. This exact same scenario happened in my group where A found his ball well after 5 minutes was up, said he was going to play the ball and B then said that that was OK, because he had not declared the ball lost. Frankly, I said nothing as my matches with these two were over, and the “dispute” was between A and B, and not me. Should I have gotten into the middle of this said something when time was up? And I was timing this? B did win the hole anyway and I told him on the next hole what was wrong with what they did.

4. A hit his tee shot that landed on a bridge, bounced high and disappeared. A claimed that his ball was lost in the hazard(lateral) and he could drop according to that procedure. B, C and D claimed that there was no proof that the ball was in the hazard and told A that he has to treat the ball as lost and had to back to the tee and play his third shot. Correct procedure?

The most significant issue that came up was that if B breaks a rule, and A “calls” him, how can A have the correct procedure applied if B and C do not support A, either because they don’t know the rules, or they don’t have the guts to stand up to B. Remember: “All disputes must be settled before teeing off on the next hole.” Does it not make sense that A should have some right to make a claim in situations like these? There was no official on the course to make any decisions.

[jvincent]

There was no official on the course to make any decisions.

That strikes me as the most bizarre part.

[GarthM]

I had one interesting event yesterday as well regarding the giving of advice. While it is nice to have the local guy in your group there to say " there is a hazard 200 yards away" or "it's 250 to carry the dogleg", the local in my group yesterday said something to the effect of "you can hit it anywhere on this hole". Now I did not hear this 100% and asked the guy he said it to as we left the tee and that is what he said. It is pretty ambiguous "advice" and could be construed as the same as "there are no hazards in play on this tee shot" which is not advice but rather information as to the course layout. Would anyone construe that as advice or not? I let it go since it was pretty grey but it could have had an impact on our match.

On another note, ya gotta love match play. I was forced to make a 12 inch putt on 18 to halve the hole and win the match. Lots of fun all round!

Cheers

[AAA]

I would say he was passing on information about lack of problems
but
But which is advice and which information of the following 'Keep to the left', 'Keep to the left there is a bunker on the right' and 'There is a bunker on the right' ?

[kewarken]

I had one interesting event yesterday as well regarding the giving of advice. While it is nice to have the local guy in your group there to say " there is a hazard 200 yards away" or "it's 250 to carry the dogleg", the local in my group yesterday said something to the effect of "you can hit it anywhere on this hole". Now I did not hear this 100% and asked the guy he said it to as we left the tee and that is what he said. It is pretty ambiguous "advice" and could be construed as the same as "there are no hazards in play on this tee shot" which is not advice but rather information as to the course layout. Would anyone construe that as advice or not? I let it go since it was pretty grey but it could have had an impact on our match.

On another note, ya gotta love match play. I was forced to make a 12 inch putt on 18 to halve the hole and win the match. Lots of fun all round!

Cheers

Publicly available information is not advice. If you're on the tee box and he says '200 to that bunker', that's not advice. If you're on the fairway and he says 'your ball is 200 from that bunker', that's advice.

cheers,

Kris

[AAA]

Question: Presumably A gets to replace his ball between the flag and the liner, above the hole, and then has the opportunity to pull the flag out and if the ball falls into the hole, he has holed out. Is B penalized because of his caddie pulling out the flag?

In matchplay 18-3b.Yes, Ball must be replaced and opponent gets 1 stroke penalty.

In stroke play 18-4, the ball must be replaced, no penalty.

[AAA]

4. A hit his tee shot that landed on a bridge, bounced high and disappeared. A claimed that his ball was lost in the hazard(lateral) and he could drop according to that procedure. B, C and D claimed that there was no proof that the ball was in the hazard and told A that he has to treat the ball as lost and had to back to the tee and play his third shot. Correct procedure?

B,C & D were correct. 26-1 There was no reasonable evidence the ball was lost in the hazard.
Rule 27-1 Lost ball 3 off the tee.

(Assuming the LH was a ditch or stream running alongside the hole - if it was the Atlantic Ocean there may be grounds for 'Reasonable evidence'

[AAA]

Publicly available information is not advice. If you're on the tee box and he says '200 to that bunker', that's not advice. If you're on the fairway and he says 'your ball is 200 from that bunker', that's advice.

cheers,

Kris

The significant difference is that case 1 related to distance between two permanent objects, in case two the ball is not a permanent object.

[The Shtick]

There was no official on the course to make any decisions.

I too am surprised that there was no official on the course. Was the Host Pro at least out there?

I have acted as course official during Intersectional play and you're right, all disputes are to be resolved before playing off the next tee and if a dispute is on the last hole it has to be resolved before leaving the green.

Your disputes are interesting and it doesn't help when one of the players is being an ass.

Seeing that there was no official you (well your group) could have sat down with the OVGA official AFTER the matches and explain what happened (this has been done before in such cases). He (or she) would make the final ruling and adjust the points made if applicable.

If the dispute can't be resolved properly (no official on course) just be sure that ALL MATCHES INVOLVED CONTINUE RIGHT UP TO THE LAST HOLE. This way, if a change is to be made, it can still be done.

[spidey]

Question: Is B penalized because of his caddie pulling out the flag?

18-3. By Opponent, Caddie or Equipment in Match Play

b. Other Than During Search
If, other than during search for a player’s ball, an opponent, his caddie or his equipment moves the ball, touches it purposely or causes it to move, except as otherwise provided in the Rules, the opponent incurs a penalty of one stroke. If the ball is moved, it must be replaced.

2. Player A hits his ball in the bush and the group begins looking for it. After 8 minutes, B says, “Time is up, the ball is lost.” A gets angry and berates B for not telling him that he was being timed. Opponents C and D (Remember-Intersectional matches) do not support B in his claim that they had looked for the ball over 5 minutes. The OVGA official had explained before all matches that disputes had to be settled by the group before teeing off on the next hole. What should happen next?

Well, the ball is lost whether they agree or not. Perhaps they need to be read rule 1-3. It sounds like they think that if they agree to disregard a rule, then they're OK. Not!

3. This exact same scenario happened in my group where A found his ball well after 5 minutes was up, said he was going to play the ball and B then said that that was OK, because he had not declared the ball lost. Frankly, I said nothing as my matches with these two were over, and the “dispute” was between A and B, and not me. Should I have gotten into the middle of this said something when time was up? And I was timing this? B did win the hole anyway and I told him on the next hole what was wrong with what they did.

A ball cannot be declared lost. I don't know what you should have done, but A had lost the hole as soon as he lost the ball, even if you had already won the match with him.

4. A hit his tee shot that landed on a bridge, bounced high and disappeared. A claimed that his ball was lost in the hazard(lateral) and he could drop according to that procedure. B, C and D claimed that there was no proof that the ball was in the hazard and told A that he has to treat the ball as lost and had to back to the tee and play his third shot. Correct procedure?

Precisely.
26-1. Relief for Ball in Water Hazard
It is a question of fact whether a ball lost after having been struck toward a water hazard is lost inside or outside the hazard. In order to treat the ball as lost in the hazard, there must be reasonable evidence that the ball lodged in it. In the absence of such evidence, the ball must be treated as a lost ball and Rule 27 applies.

The most significant issue that came up was that if B breaks a rule, and A “calls” him, how can A have the correct procedure applied if B and C do not support A, either because they don’t know the rules, or they don’t have the guts to stand up to B.

I'm not sure, but carrying a rule book, and showing them the rule should be enough. It would be even better if all participants would know how to play golf prior to entering the Intersectional qualifying. Seems that cheating is a real option when it comes to making the team these days. Unfortunate, that.

[BC MIST]

I too am surprised that there was no official on the course. Was the Host Pro at least out there? The course where we played does not have a professional, and because of past experience with "professional's" rulings, I don't trust that the ruling would be the proper one. The OVGA official on duty was never on the course.

I have acted as course official during Intersectional play and you're right, all disputes are to be resolved before playing off the next tee and if a dispute is on the last hole it has to be resolved before leaving the green.

If the dispute can't be resolved properly (no official on course) just be sure that ALL MATCHES INVOLVED CONTINUE RIGHT UP TO THE LAST HOLE. This way, if a change is to be made, it can still be done.

Your first paragraph indicates that all disputes must be settled before teeing off on the next tee. The second paragraph suggests that if there is a dispute that cannot be settled, play on, and maybe changes will be made later.

Similarly, the rule book states: In match play, if a doubt or dispute arises between the players, a player may make a claim. If no duly authorized representative of the Committee is available within a reasonable time, the players must continue the match without delay. So, if you cannot settle the dispute, PLAY ON.

But then it says: The Committee may consider a claim only if the player making the claim notifies his opponent (i) that he is making a claim, (ii) of the facts of the situation and (iii) that he wants a ruling. The claim must be made before any player in the match plays from the next teeing ground or, in the case of the last hole of the match, before all players in the match leave the putting green.

Do these two paragraphs not contradict each other? One says PLAY ON, while the other says SETTLE IT NOW.

[spidey]

Wait. That's not what I read. The second instance says that you must inform the player that you are making a claim, the facts that you see, and that you want a ruling. It doesn't say that you must get a ruling prior to moving on.

[Kilroy]

It says you must make a claim bedore teeing off.
It does not say the claim must be settled before teeing off.

At least that's how I would read that.

[The Shtick]

I think that it means that if a claim is to be made (ie. no official out there) all players involved have to be aware of this at that specific point in the round. Therefore, the dispute has been "resolved" before moving on to the next tee.

So, the dispute has been settled and they play on knowing that they will consult the official after the round.

[1dash1]

1. No penalty. Rule 17-4 is explicit as to the procedure.
http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo...le17.html#17-4

Note: Some people get confused by Dec. 17-4/1. However, in that decision, the flagstick isn't removed, the ball is removed. And while lifting the ball under Rule 16-1 is permissible, the player must mark the ball first. The penalty is for failing to mark the ball, not for touching and moving the ball in play.

2. It sounds like the Tournament Committee delegated its powers for settling disputes to the playing group. If so, the answer depends on whether the delegated authority was final. And if it was final, then there's nothing further to discuss. The group may make its decision any way it chooses.

Note: If, in fact, the Committee told each group to settle such matters, I find the Committee's delegation of authority to be highly irregular. What would have been closer to the norm would be the Committee telling the players involved in the match to settle such matters between themselves and, if they could not agree, to make a claim per Rule 2-5 for the Committee to settle later.

Ordinarily, the Committee itself oversees the conduct of match play. It does so actively, through Referees or Rules Officials. Or it does so passively, through the procedure of claims (Rule 2-5).

Under the procedure of claims, the player whose ball was found allegedly late must make a decision: play the original ball or take the stroke & distance penalty for the lost ball. If he plays the original ball, then his opponent must make a decision: make a claim or back down. If no claim is made, the hole stands as played. If a timely claim is made, then the Committee must rule on the matter.

Note: If one player timed the search with his watch and the other three players merely express that they "think" that time has not expired, I would probably rule that the player who timed the search as being the more credible witness. The ball is lost. Claim upheld.

3. Technically, the answer depends on the previous question about delegation of the Committee's authority to the group. And that has to do with differentiating the roles of Referees, Rules Officials, and Committee members.

For simplicity, let us assume that you have NOT been delegated any such responsibilities by the Committee. If so, then your questions are less a question of the rules and more a matter of etiquette.

- Personally, I think you acted correctly by not volunteering that over 5 minutes had elapsed.

- But, I suggest that if you choose silence, to remain silent until after the completion of the competition. For some players, the "what if" may bother them for holes to come. For other players, they may be very upset when the next situation arises and they are not afforded the same advantage because of your (after-the-fact) comments. Still others may react to your presence as the prying eyes of a rules eagle.

4. I believe your question has already been answered.

[BC MIST]

I think that it means that if a claim is to be made (ie. no official out there) all players involved have to be aware of this at that specific point in the round. Therefore, the dispute has been "resolved" before moving on to the next tee.

So, the dispute has been settled and they play on knowing that they will consult the official after the round.

After I wrote the above and then reread the rulebook, the light, albeit a dim one, finally went on. As long as the claim is made very specific, a ruling may be made later by the committee or the OVGA rep, in this case. The problem with the incident explained initially was that the other two members of the group chose to say nothing about what happened so if the claim had have gone to the committee, then resolution would have been impossible because it would have come down to one player's word against another. What I did not know at the outset was that in addition to the breach of the playing rule, this player also physically threatened the opponent who called him which should have resulted in immediate disqualification. Even with this, the other two chose to say nothing. As Bobby Clarke would have said, They are "gutless pukes."

What a shame that friendly competitions that the Intersectional are, have to come down to this kind of boorish behaviour. Had the player acquired some basic knowledge of the rules of golf, to me a prerequisite for being a participant, then perhaps the incidents would not have occurred.

BTW: There is a decision (2-5/1) that a player may disregard a breach of the rules by an opponent, as long as there was no agreement between them. So then by not clocking him, allowing an opponent to look longer than 5 minutes for a ball would be "acceptable" if the player so chooses? Holy Smokes!!!

[BC MIST]

- But, I suggest that if you choose silence, to remain silent until after the completion of the competition. For some players, the "what if" may bother them for holes to come. For other players, they may be very upset when the next situation arises and they are not afforded the same advantage because of your (after-the-fact) comments. Still others may react to your presence as the prying eyes of a rules eagle.

I do agree with your assessment and if such an incident were to occur again, I will definitely say something. I was caught up in my own selfish position of, "My matches are all won, so I'll let then duke it out." However, because this is a multi team match play competition where a player is playing 3 matches against the other clubs, the result of an incorrect ruling between two of my opponents, could have affected the outcome of their match and subsequently could have affected the total points that each team received, and altered the overall team point totals. Fortunately, it did not, as we won our section, and had their match outcome been different, the final standings would have remained the same.

[1dash1]

Generally speaking, the best policy for outsiders is to refrain from acting/volunteering information unless asked. (I.e., speak when spoken to.)

The point of match play is the pitting of skills and wills of two opposing sides against each another. Interference from the outside, no matter how well-intentioned, affects this balance.

There is one universal exception to this guidance, and that is when one side is cheating and the other side isn't in a position to catch the cheater. Cheating should not be tolerated. (Of course, the problem with catching the cheater is catching him in the act and being certain that he is, in fact, cheating.)

[1dash1]

After I wrote the above and then reread the rulebook, the light, albeit a dim one, finally went on. As long as the claim is made very specific, a ruling may be made later by the committee or the OVGA rep, in this case. The problem with the incident explained initially was that the other two members of the group chose to say nothing about what happened so if the claim had have gone to the committee, then resolution would have been impossible because it would have come down to one player's word against another.

BC MIST:

Most players operate under the misunderstanding that the Committee will rule in favor of the player whenever a situation pits one player's word versus another's.

I suggest a more accurate generalization is that, all other factors being equal, the Committee will give the benefit of the doubt to the player on a question of fact.

In this case, the question of fact is whether 5 minutes elapsed or not. And the ruling will hinge on the basis of the timing. If Player B's assertion is based on looking at his watch and he is certain of the time Player A reached the area and that his watch showed more than 5 minutes had elapsed, then that would be considered much more credible testimony than Player A's subjective estimate that 5 minutes had not yet elapsed. Hence, "all other factors" are not equal. And the Committee would be justified in upholding Player B's claim.

[Gary Hill]

This exact same scenario happened in my group where A found his ball well after 5 minutes was up, said he was going to play the ball and B then said that that was OK, because he had not declared the ball lost. Frankly, I said nothing as my matches with these two were over, and the “dispute” was between A and B, and not me. Should I have gotten into the middle of this said something when time was up? And I was timing this? B did win the hole anyway and I told him on the next hole what was wrong with what they did.

You should NOT have said anything.
You have NOTHING to do with that match.
You are only a silent spectator to their match.

No one in this thread has seemed to grasp the concept of 3 SEPARATE single matches being played concurrently.
Disputes between other opponents have NOTHING to do with you.

The most significant issue that came up was that if B breaks a rule, and A “calls” him, how can A have the correct procedure applied if B and C do not support A, either because they don’t know the rules, or they don’t have the guts to stand up to B. Remember: “All disputes must be settled before teeing off on the next hole.” Does it not make sense that A should have some right to make a claim in situations like these? There was no official on the course to make any decisions.

If player B breaks a Rule and player A makes a claim, then Player's C and D have NOTHING to do with it and should stay out of it. If player C or player D have a problem with player B breaching a Rule,then they must make their own separate claims.

If player C and player D wish to let player B break a Rule, that is their right.
There is nothing in the Rules that says an opponent must call a breach of a Rule.
In fact, even a referee may NOT call a breach of a Rule in match play.

BTW- Valid claims must be made before teeing off from the next hole, but disputes do not have to "settled" before teeing off on the next hole.

Also, there is no such thing as "the group being authorized" to settle a claim.

[BC MIST]

You should NOT have said anything.
You have NOTHING to do with that match.
You are only a silent spectator to their match.
No one in this thread has seemed to grasp the concept of 3 SEPARATE single matches being played concurrently.
Disputes between other opponents have NOTHING to do with you.

I understand what you are saying, agree with it, and this is what I did, BUT.
While my matches were finished at this point, the overall outcome, including the other 27 matches being played was not. If player A from one team and player B from another end their match all square, that result might have benefited our team. If player A breaks a rule and wins his match earning 2 points, it is possible that that 2 points may be enough to beat our team, so I do have an interest in what A and B are doing and whether or not they are playing by the rules. Because of this circumstance, do I not have the right to point out rules enfractions to one or both of these players?

[1dash1]

BC Mist:

I'd characterize the problem as being more an etiquette or moral imperative issue, than a rules issue. You're not part of their game, so you should stay out of their game. If you were still playing, wouldn't you wish the same consideration? But the Rules are ordinarily silent on this matter.

And attempting to influence the outcome of a remaining match is a very poor reason for interfering with the conduct of play. In an extreme case, I would suggest that the Committee consider a disqualification penalty as an exceptional case under Rule 33-7.

[1dash1]

Gary:

You mentioned that a referee may not call a breach of rule in match play. I find that comment puzzling. Does the RCGA provide different guidelines for its referees than the USGA and R&A?

Both the R&A and the USGA provide guidelines stipulating that referees act on any breach of rule that they observe.

Or perhaps you were referring to the rover (roving referee). However, even the rover may intervene in certain situations.

*

You also mentioned that there is no such thing as the group being authorized to make rulings.

REALISTICALLY, for what I assume is a reasonably high level competition (the intersectionals), they would follow the normal procedure of claims, as you described.

However, THEORETICALLY, the Committee may do so under its general powers of Rule 33-1. And you might see this happen at a club tournament where the usual Committee members might comprise half the competitors in the first place.


EDIT: These theoretical comments are withdrawn. The Committee that delegates its authority to each group is still proceeding incorrectly, so the final result is still wrong.

[BC MIST]

BC Mist:

I'd characterize the problem as being more an etiquette or moral imperative issue, than a rules issue. You're not part of their game, so you should stay out of their game. If you were still playing, wouldn't you wish the same consideration? But the Rules are ordinarily silent on this matter.

I did stay out of their game but the question that I asked in my immediate post above has not been addressed.

The out come of my matches was determined, however, if something my opponents do wrong, may cause my team to lose the competition, because of team point totals being affected, how can I justify to my teammates sitting back and saying nothing and as a consequence lose the competition?

[1dash1]

...how can I justify to my teammates sitting back and saying nothing and as a consequence lose the competition?

BC MIST:

Because it is not a match for you, as a bystander, to win or lose.

It is a match for the players to win or lose.

.
.

Let's say the situation was reversed. You see a rules breach, but if you call it then your team would end up losing the overall competition. Would you call it?

If you would stand by and ignore one situation, I suggest that you should stand by and ignore the other situation as well.

[Kilroy]

Yah, but teammates won't see it that way!

[1dash1]

Dan:

It's a matter of taking the higher road. If you ordinarily won't interfere, don't interfere. If you ordinarily would butt in, butt in. Don't let selfish motivation be the difference between the two.

That's only one step away from looking for situations to get players into trouble, waiting like a vulture when a potential situation seems to be coming together, then jumping on the hapless player when he falls into the trap. I humbly suggest that such behavior by match play opponents is not the way the game was intended to be played. And it is flat out wrong for spectators to try to so influence the outcome of the contest.

[Kilroy]

I can't disagree with that.

[BC MIST]

Let's say the situation was reversed. You see a rules breach, but if you call it then your team would end up losing the overall competition. Would you call it?
If you would stand by and ignore one situation, I suggest that you should stand by and ignore the other situation as well.

My eyes are not good enough anyway to see a teammate breach the rules from 280 or 420 yards away, however, if I was playing a 4 ball or a foursomes game and my teammate broke a rule, I would NOT ignore it, regardless of the outcome as I find winning by cheating disgusting, a view that is shared by seemingly fewer golfers these days.

[Kilroy]

Let's say the situation was reversed. You see a rules breach, but if you call it then your team would end up losing the overall competition. Would you call it?

If you would stand by and ignore one situation, I suggest that you should stand by and ignore the other situation as well.

Hmm. I missed that the first time i read it and I agree 100% with BC mist

I would NOT ignore it, regardless of the outcome