Various Rulings - Intersectional Matches

[1dash1]

Dan, BC:

In that case, if you're going to interfere against your teammates, then you ought to interfere against your teammate's opponents as well. Fair is fair.

But wouldn't it be simpler, in the long run, to just let them play their own match without inteference?

[Kilroy]

Cheating is cheating.

Quite different when someone is ignorant of a proceedure, but I'd try my best to help them prevent a costly error regardless of what side they play for or which way the ruling went.

This is golf not baseball / hockey / football / soccer etc, where you cheat all you can and hope not to get a penalty for cheating. I get a penalty when I put the ball in a hazzard. If I cheat, I'll be playing alone in the future.

[Gary Hill]

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?

You may have an interest in the outcome, but you have no right to interfer in THEIR match.

[Gary Hill]

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

Yes, but their actions in match play differ from their actions in stroke play.

Decision 2-5/1 Player’s Obligation Re: Lodging Claim
In match play, a player may disregard a breach of the Rules by his opponent, provided there is no agreement between the players. There is a difference between overlooking an opponent’s breach and agreement with the opponent to waive a penalty. Rule 1-3 prohibits the latter.

Decision 2-5/1 allows an opponent in match play to overlook a breach of a Rule by his opponent.

Are you suggesting that the referee and the player argue over whether a penalty should be called on the opponent?

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.

There is nothing theoretical about the Rules.
34-3. Committee’s Decision
In the absence of a referee, any dispute or doubtful point on the Rules must be referred to the Committee, whose decision is final.


Show me the Rule that says a Committee may delegate rulings to the players themselves.

[Gary Hill]

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.

You have absolutely no right to butt in if you are not part of the match.

I am ALWAYS waiting like a vulture for situations where players may get into trouble with the rules when I play match play. I dont usually have to wait long.

I humbly suggest you have no idea how the game was intended to be played.
Formerly in the Rules, "stymies" were a perfectly acceptable way to play the game.
(Putt your ball into the line of another player so hit could not make his putt instead of trying to hole your putt).

It is absolutely correct for spectators to offer their testimony on the events they witness.

Are you suggesting that a WRONG ruling without spectator testimony is better than the CORRECT ruling without spectator testimony?

[Gary Hill]

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.

You have NO TEAMATES in Intersectional play. You are playing INDIVIDUAL MATCHES.

[Gary Hill]

Cheating is cheating.

Quite different when someone is ignorant of a proceedure, but I'd try my best to help them prevent a costly error regardless of what side they play for or which way the ruling went.

This is golf not baseball / hockey / football / soccer etc, where you cheat all you can and hope not to get a penalty for cheating. I get a penalty when I put the ball in a hazzard. If I cheat, I'll be playing alone in the future.

You have to make a big distinction here when you are playing match play.

It is just YOU and your OPPONENT.

If your opponent breaches a Rule:
1. You may make a claim; or
2. You may disregard the breach.

Neither of these is "cheating."

[1dash1]

You have absolutely no right to butt in if you are not part of the match.

...

It is absolutely correct for spectators to offer their testimony on the events they witness.

Gary:

The above statements are contradictory.

I'd say that if you are not not part of the match, you are an outside agency, same as the spectator. And the rules are equally silent on outside agencies butting in or volunteering testimony.

Wisely so, in my opinion. The rules govern the play of the game, not the conduct of non-participants.

[1dash1]

I humbly suggest you have no idea how the game was intended to be played. Formerly in the Rules, "stymies" were a perfectly acceptable way to play the game. (Putt your ball into the line of another player so hit could not make his putt instead of trying to hole your putt).

You're entitled to your opinion of how the game was intended to be played. However, I don't understand what stymies have to do with the issue of influencing the conduct of play.


.
.

Are you suggesting that a WRONG ruling without spectator testimony is better than the CORRECT ruling without spectator testimony?

Okay, I get it. It's a trick question.

A wrong ruling without spectator testimony versus
A correct ruling without spectator testimony.

[spidey]

If your opponent breaches a Rule:
1. You may make a claim; or
2. You may disregard the breach.

Neither of these is "cheating."

I think the moral issue that is being expressed is that rather than disregarding the breach, the opponent doesn't know there is a breach, so doesn't know that he may have a claim. Is he entitled to solicited or unsolicited counsel so that he may fairly decide whether or not to disregard the alleged breach?

[1dash1]

Originally Posted by 1dash1

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.

There is nothing theoretical about the Rules.
34-3. Committee’s Decision
In the absence of a referee, any dispute or doubtful point on the Rules must be referred to the Committee, whose decision is final.


Show me the Rule that says a Committee may delegate rulings to the players themselves.

Gary:

I was alluding to what happens when Committees stipulate wrong things in their Conditions of Competition.

However, you are correct. While the Committee's incorrect procedure may still stand (with no one to overturn it because it was the Committee itself that stipulated so), it is nevertheless still wrong as far as the Rules of Golf are concerned.

So, for the purposes of this discussion, my answer was unacceptable. I respectfully withdraw that response. (I've edited it accordingly.)

[putterking]

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.

At our intersectionals, player A hits his ball into the rough. Player B and C start helping A look for the ball. Player D not being of a friendly nature, does not help in locating the ball. When Player A finds his ball, player D informs him that he was timing him and that he was over the 5 minutes allowed. He told him he had taken 5:20 and therefore he was out of the hole. Player A was visibly angry and said he didn't even know he was on the clock. Player D asked players B and C to back him up. As neither player knew someone was timing the search or in fact when he started the clock, they said no and player A finished the hole. Player D was still trying to get player A to pick up his ball before he putted out. While the rule clearly states you have 5 minutes to locate a lost ball, Player D should have informed the other players that he was timing the search. When talked to after the round, player D was still adamant that he was right and that he informed his caddy when he was starting to time. Last time I checked, none of these players are going to make the tour. Lighten up a little out there guys. There's still such a thing as good sportsmanship.

[spidey]

Player A was visibly angry and said he didn't even know he was on the clock.

So, how was Player A going to know when he broke a rule if he wasn't timing himself? This sounds like Player A was always planning on breaking the rule, doesn't it?

Everybody is on the clock once they start looking for their ball. If Player A failed to begin timing himself, then he has no evidence to dispute the fact that he has taken longer than allowed.

Lost Ball
A ball is deemed “lost’’ if:

a. It is not found or identified as his by the player within five minutes after the player’s side or his or their caddies have begun to search for it; or


Getting visibly angry shows a lack of etiquette and sportsmanship, not to mention self control. Maybe if Player A gets angry enough, everybody should just concede to him...?

[Gary Hill]

Player D not being of a friendly nature, does not help in locating the ball.

It is very poor etiquette to help a player search for his ball without ASKING if he would like you to search.

[Golfbum]

Hello Gary.
You do a wonderful job of explaining some of the Rules Of Golf on here. Keep up the good work.
Maybe this will help others, it is all right here. Start reading people!

http://rcga.org/english/Rules/rules.asp

[Sphere Hunter]

Last time I checked, none of these players are going to make the tour. Lighten up a little out there guys. There's still such a thing as good sportsmanship.

I have heard this kind of comment many times. This is not one of those rules that really metters so let's just let it slide. Right?

NO. A rule is a rule. Why not just pick your ball up and drop it on the green? Either play by the rules or don't bother. From the beginning of a search, you have 5 minutes. After that, the ball is lost.

The Facts:
Player D thought the ball was lost in DEEP forest. That's why he didn't look for the ball. Player C and D also did not help with the search (for the same reason I assume). Player A looked for about 5 minutes then decided that since he couldn't find the ball, it "must" have gone in a hazard that was 50 yards further than the ball could have possible gone. When Played D explained that there is no way the ball went into the hazard and that it was back in the forest 80 yards back the battle was on and Player A started cursing and swearing. When player A walked back 30 or 40 yards he did find his ball. Player D was a little shocked since he was sure the ball was in the deep woods. When player A went to play the ball, Player D told him it had taken too long to find it. That's when all H@ll broke loose. Player A took around 9 minutes to find the ball. Player D only started timing after the search had been going for a few minutes as he thought the ball would never be found and didn't want to hold up play. Player D showed his caddie the time when the clock came out, just to be fair. Had player D known, he would have made a "claim" and just moved on. Instead, the group was stuck trying to decide something that was impossible to decide since Players B and C just wanted to have a "Nice Day" and player A was acting like he belonged in the criminal institution.

The funny part:
Player B and C don't say anything because they aren't sure how long it took to find the ball.
Player D is forced by the rules the call a rules violation since he knows, for a fact, that it took longer than five minutes because he was timing the search.
Player A just went ahead and played his ball anyway and threatened the "kill" player D several times because he didn't like what player D was saying even thought player D did not have a choice.

You cannot waive a rule of golf even if you just want to have a "nice day". Yes there is sportmanship in the Intersectionals but sportmanship and rules are two different things.

Saying "they're not on tour" is just condesending and irrelavent. This kind of attitude is definitely part of the "problem" in my opinion. If you want to waive rules or pick some of the rules to follow, please don't play tournament golf. As for the intersectionals, this IS tournament golf, make no mistake.

SH

[putterking]

I completely agree that all rules of golf must be adhered to. Threatening an opponent is totally unacceptable and he should have been disqualified from his matches. Unfortunately the OVGA rep was not driving around during the matches. He could have talked to the other players and if indeed he found out that a player had been threatened, he could have dq'd the offender. The only point that I was trying to make about the timing situation is that it would have solved all the problems if all players would have been informed that someone was going to use a timer when doing a search. That would have at least taken the guess work out of trying to decide how long a search was taking. Even the pros are told beforehand when they are on the clock for slow play. Can you imagine if a PGA official suddenly produced a watch and told a player that he was being penalized for slow play without giving him advance warning? I realize they are two different rules but IMO it would have the same effect.

[putterking]

It is very poor etiquette to help a player search for his ball without ASKING if he would like you to search.

C'mon Gary, give me a break. You're trying to tell me that if you are playing with someone, you would not help him/her look for the ball in the rough or trees without asking their permission? It's not only common, speeds up play but is also good etiquette. I understand if you are playing in a tournament, you should ask your opponent if he wants you to help him search for a ball that may be in a hazard or deep woods. Chances are if he is only in the rough or along a tree line, he wants the ball to be found.

[Gary Hill]

Chances are if he is only in the rough or along a tree line, he wants the ball to be found.

Why take a chance?
It is a very simple matter to say: "OK if I help look?"

BTW - I never look "deeper" in the woods than the player himself.

[Sphere Hunter]

The only point that I was trying to make about the timing situation is that it would have solved all the problems if all players would have been informed that someone was going to use a timer when doing a search.

Yep, you're right. I definitely could have done it differently and avoided a nightmare. I just started carrying the timer and so far, the only player who has been penalized is ME. Anyway, after the incident at the intersectionals, I no longer carry it. Every time I saw it on my bag it reminded me of that day so I tossed it.

When I started timing that day, I showed my caddie the time thinking this would be fair since I was sure he wasn't going to find the ball. I never thought someone would accuse me of starting it early. Looking back, I can see how that may have seemed nasty even though it was never meant that way.

Just trying to forget about it now since my team won the day anyway. The previous poster just touched a nerve.

SH

[Sphere Hunter]

Unfortunately the OVGA rep was not driving around during the matches. He could have talked to the other players and if indeed he found out that a player had been threatened, he could have dq'd the offender.

As for the OVGA rep. He is a person of the highest character. He is a friend of mine so I never even brought it up with him since it might have been seen as a bias move and I just didn't think it was fair to do so. The OVGA rep probably doesn't even know it happeneed to this day. I just let it go, even thought Player A beat me by one hole in the match and should have actually lost the match.
Later that day someone complained about MY sportsmanship in this situation. I may not have done everthing right when timing the search but that does not erase the fact that a rule HAD been broken and the terrible behavior that followed.

"The day the messenger got shot, stepped on, rolled over"

SH

[putterking]

Yep, you're right. I definitely could have done it differently and avoided a nightmare. I just started carrying the timer and so far, the only player who has been penalized is ME. Anyway, after the incident at the intersectionals, I no longer carry it. Every time I saw it on my bag it reminded me of that day so I tossed it.

When I started timing that day, I showed my caddie the time thinking this would be fair since I was sure he wasn't going to find the ball. I never thought someone would accuse me of starting it early. Looking back, I can see how that may have seemed nasty even though it was never meant that way.

Just trying to forget about it now since my team won the day anyway. The previous poster just touched a nerve.

SH

It seems that a well intentioned use of the rules went terribly wrong. I certainly hope you don't let that be the only memory of the day. Your team played very well and deserved the victory. The course was in great shape and unfortunately for us, second place means we get to host it again next year. Hopefully the other player involved, thinks twice about his actions and threatening behaviour. There's no place in the game for that.