[Chris Cupit]

I've re-read the original post several times and I am glad we all seem to agree that the match stands as played.  As to Player A being disqualified here is my last shot at it.

After the match has been completed and officially announced I do not think any DQ penalty can apply to a player in match play except in two instances:  1.  unless there was a 1-3 issue which I absolutely do not see or 2.  (from the book) "a later claim  may not be considered by the Committee ...unless is satisfied that the opponent knew he was giving wrong information."  In my notes I wrote the word "Cheater"!  This is a judgement call but based on what I have read I would not describe Player A as a cheater. 

As a pesonal matter I am not looking for a way to ever DQ a player under any rule (1-3, 4-4c, 6-1, 33-7 or 34) unless I am convinced they were in fact cheating, knew it and were trying to get away with it..

JC I just don't think a strong enough case was made for Player A being a cheater.  I will agree that if that was the case AND only if a later claim is made after the match was officially announced then you could DQ Player A.  My question to you is this:  If a later claim is never brought and given that 34-1a allows a no time limit DQ except for a 1-3 issuue which we seem to agree is not applicable here, what rule (to use your phrase ) DQs Player A?  I do not think 33-7 can be imposed after the results of the match are offically announced, do you?

Ugh, my head is spinning.

[John_Cullum]

Chris, Tom, JVB- Let me give a thorough explanation of why I am so adamant about my conclusions re this question. First, let me say that I respect each of you and your individual and collective knowledge of the Rules of Golf. Chris is in the golf business, a family business in which he proudly participates. Chris is also president of the Georgia State Golf Association and takes matters such as this seriously. Tom Paul is a lifelong gentleman golfer, the son of a champion golfer and quite accomplished in his own right. Like Chris, Tom has also served as president of a regional golf association and has a keen interest in the rules. John V loves the Rules of golf so much that he has made it his livelihood, traversing this country in a quest to be a part of it all. All of this I know and appreciate. Nevertheless, I find all of you learned gentlemen are mistaken in your conclusions.

A fundamental of the game is that it must be played with no more than 14 clubs; stroke play or match play, this is a core precept of how golf is played. As Tufts states in The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf, “the purpose of the Rules is to insure that as far as possible, everyone plays the same game. The penalties serve to police the chance that by taking advantage of an inadequately protected Rule, players will play a game wholly different from golf.” Tufts also writes “the penalties must always be of sufficient magnitude to discourage the player from seeking or receiving advantage under the Rules.” The penalty of disqualification is indeed a harsh penalty to meet upon A. She likely was innocent in her error of beginning her round with more than 14 clubs; however, the Rules offered her an out, if she informed her opponent immediately upon discovering her error, and declared the excess clubs out of play, she would at worst be sanctioned two holes lost. (Rule 4-4a Penalty Statement) If a player fails to comply with the notification/declaration, the penalty is clearly stated as disqualification.

It is a mistake to believe that a penalty of disqualification implies dishonorable conduct. Most dq penalties are the result of mistake. I can accept that A mistakenly started with more than 14 clubs, but she was not mistaken when she consciously chose to not inform her opponent of her offense. She knew she could only play with 14 clubs. Her statement that she didn’t know what to do, and she did not want to create an advantage or disadvantage for someone clearly establish she knew she was wrong while playing the fourth hole. Nevertheless, she did not inform her opponent until after teeing off on the 9th hole. Given this knowing violation of the Rules, should A be penalized? How can you say no penalty at all should be handed down. A player cannot play with more than 14 clubs, that is fundamental to the game. Unlike many rule infractions, the penalty for violating 4-4c is disqualification regardless of whether the game is match play or stroke play. Disqualification is the harshest penalty, and it is reserved for those infractions in which a one or two stroke, or loss of hole penalty (the match play equivalent of the two stroke penalty) is inadequate.  The governing bodies of the game could have differentiated the penalties for stroke play versus match play violations, but did not. It is dq either way. A already had the two lost hole sanction available, but she chose to stay mum, so she must be further penalized for the continued 4-4 infraction. No other penalty short of DQ is available. Tufts writes that ‘when it comes to penalties, the golfer can be confident of one fact: the pressure for their mitigation has been terrific. If the governing bodies have not reduced them, it has most assuredly been due to an inability to devise ways and means of doing so without creating a violation of the principle under discussion.” So the penalty for violating Rule 4-4c is disqualification. It is clearly stated in the penalty statement.

To waive or otherwise not apply the disqualification penalty for 4-4c, you have to conclude that the facts of the situation are not addressed by the rule. According to Tufts, “the penalty for a rule of golf is not adjusted to fit the attendant circumstances. The answer lies rather in defining analogous situations and according them all the same treatment.” Players who play with more than 14 clubs are all treated the same. They are disqualified if they don’t immediately speak up to rectify the situation.

[TEPaul]

JohnC:

That is a really good post---really good. You outline the principles behind some of these Rules really well. That frankly has always been my greatest interest---eg the principles behind Rules and the way evolutionary interpretations sort of devolve from them somehow---probably generally in some attempt to create too much "equity" in any and every situation.

I tend to agree with your interpretation of the way the resolution should go with this situation but the problem at the moment seems to be how to track through the various Rules that influence this overall situation to justify it within overall Rules wording.

I think I might've found it and at the moment it looks to me like it flows through Rule 2-5 and what it says in that Rule about Rule 9!! At the moment it looks to me like most of the direction a committee should ultimately look to here can be found in Rule 9-2b and then to flow it backward to Rule 4-4 it looks like a committee could use it to DQ Player A perhaps even after the close of competition and if that can't be done for some reason at least offer the opinion that the correct ruling was that it should've been done that way.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Principles behind the rules? Well, then what is the idea behind this one:

I was in a match on Sunday and hit my drive into the left semi, very playable. The ball rests about 3 yards behind the distance marker post. I pull the post, because etiquette requires me to do that (safety on the course, if I top the ball, it might ricochet off the post). Then I hit a good shot into the green. My opponent now informs me that I have lost the hole, because the post is an immovable obstruction according to a local rule. I could have gotten relief, if I had been close enough to the post for it to obstruct my swing. As it was, I should have either chipped the ball sideways onto the fairway or taken the risk of hitting the post.

Now I am asking what is the principle behind a rule that requires me to choose between safety on the course and fair competition? I can obviously accept it if I hit my ball next to a tree. But come on, a friggin' distance post, which stands next to the fairway isn't supposed to be influencing the outcome of the hole!

Sorry for the thread-capture and the rant, but I needed that

Ulrich

[John_Cullum]

Principles behind the rules? Well, then what is the idea behind this one:

I was in a match on Sunday and hit my drive into the left semi, very playable. The ball rests about 3 yards behind the distance marker post. I pull the post, because etiquette requires me to do that (safety on the course, if I top the ball, it might ricochet off the post). Then I hit a good shot into the green. My opponent now informs me that I have lost the hole, because the post is an immovable obstruction according to a local rule. I could have gotten relief, if I had been close enough to the post for it to obstruct my swing. As it was, I should have either chipped the ball sideways onto the fairway or taken the risk of hitting the post.

Now I am asking what is the principle behind a rule that requires me to choose between safety on the course and fair competition? I can obviously accept it if I hit my ball next to a tree. But come on, a friggin' distance post, which stands next to the fairway isn't supposed to be influencing the outcome of the hole!

Sorry for the thread-capture and the rant, but I needed that

Ulrich

Ulrich

Is this local rule actually posted somewhere. Ordinarily, immovable obstructions should not be erected so close to the playable area of a hole. Sprinklers, cart paths, drains and the like are on the ground so they don't interfere with the flight of the ball. Tufts actually addresses this issue in his book. I would say that it was an movable obstruction unless it was written and posted that it is otherwise. I expect your opponent screwed you on that one.

[Ulrich Mayring]

He showed me the local rule on the scorecard. The reasoning of the club is, apparently: golfers never put the posts back after pulling them, so we declared them immovable!

Ulrich

[Richard Choi]

"A for "cheating", and B for not making any claim of the match."

John, JOHN, wait a minute. Don't use the word cheating here because you don't know that regarding Player A and either do I or anyone else on here. Read Richard Tufts' explanation of the DQ penalty. Whether a player actually knowingly cheated or simply unknowingly violated a Rule of golf it's all just the very same treatment with DQ----and so obviously DQ is not and was never intended to be completely synonymous with knowingly cheating.

Hmmm... I am confused.

She KNEW that she had more clubs in the bag than allowed. Yet, she continued to play on without telling anyone.

If knowingly breaking the rule to your advantage is not cheating, than what is?

[TEPaul]

This situation looks like it may begin to make the rounds with the Rulesmakers (USGA and R&A). I'm going to write it up and send it on to one of the top guys up there since we've been talking it over quite a bit in the last week or so. If it seems appropriate to them it may turn into a decision or perhaps even some language adjustment within the Rules Book if that might seem necessary. I think it will basically get down to a clearer explanation of what-all "Player Responsiblity" means in situations like this as well as a player's and the "committee's" latitude in Rule 2-5 (Doubt as to Procedure: Disputes and Claims). I think this situation may have touched a couple of pretty interesting philosophical and practical questions amongst even the best Rules minds in the world.

[JohnV]

Ulrich,  I've always hated declaring something immovable that is movable.  Nick Price got penalized for that once at a tournament in South Africa.  On the Futures Tour, we had one instance of it also.  It sucks, but Rule 6-1 says that it is your responsibility to know the rules.

Principles behind the rules? Well, then what is the idea behind this one:

I was in a match on Sunday and hit my drive into the left semi, very playable. The ball rests about 3 yards behind the distance marker post. I pull the post, because etiquette requires me to do that (safety on the course, if I top the ball, it might ricochet off the post). Then I hit a good shot into the green. My opponent now informs me that I have lost the hole, because the post is an immovable obstruction according to a local rule. I could have gotten relief, if I had been close enough to the post for it to obstruct my swing. As it was, I should have either chipped the ball sideways onto the fairway or taken the risk of hitting the post.

Now I am asking what is the principle behind a rule that requires me to choose between safety on the course and fair competition? I can obviously accept it if I hit my ball next to a tree. But come on, a friggin' distance post, which stands next to the fairway isn't supposed to be influencing the outcome of the hole!

Sorry for the thread-capture and the rant, but I needed that

Ulrich

[Forrest Richardson]

Picture a player with about 30 clubs in his bag being questioned at the ANNUAL DYSLEXIC BENEFIT TOURNAMENT....

"Absolutely not...I am clearly not in violation of the 41-club rule..."

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

I just know I will be laughing about that post of yours in another week or month. You're the best Richardson Forrest Mr.!

[Kevin_Reilly]

Listen to DQ'd Michael Hoey assign the blame for carrying 15 clubs in the Irish Open:

audio:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/golf/8051997.stm

story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/golf/8051886.stm

[JohnV]

Listen to DQ'd Michael Hoey assign the blame for carrying 15 clubs in the Irish Open:

audio:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/golf/8051997.stm

story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/golf/8051886.stm

He wins the jerk award for putting the blame on the caddie.  It his responsibility to make sure that all is ok.

[JohnV]

To waive or otherwise not apply the disqualification penalty for 4-4c, you have to conclude that the facts of the situation are not addressed by the rule. According to Tufts, “the penalty for a rule of golf is not adjusted to fit the attendant circumstances. The answer lies rather in defining analogous situations and according them all the same treatment.” Players who play with more than 14 clubs are all treated the same. They are disqualified if they don’t immediately speak up to rectify the situation.

Players who pick up their ball on the putting green without marking the location are treated the same also.  They are penalized one stroke.  The rules penalize him, not a referee.  Just as the rules DQ the player who doesn't declare his club out of play.  But, in match play, without a referee, there is no penalty without a claim being made.  Again, John, I refer to Decision 2-5/1 "In match play, a player may disregard a breach of the Rules by his opponent..."  If my opponent tees off with a tee that is 6 inches long, I can choose to ignore it.

Here is the best example of why she should not be DQ'ed.

Rule 6-2a - Handicap - Match Play says

If a player begins a match having declared a handicap higher that to which he is entitled and this affects the number of stroke given or received, he is disqualified

then we find this decision

Decision 6-2a/5 - Wrong Handicap Used in Match Play by Mistake; Error Discovered After Result of Match Officially Announced
Q. In a handicap match between A and B, A stated by mistake before the match began that his handicap was ten strokes, whereas in fact his handicap was nine strokes. The match was played on the basis that A’s handicap was ten strokes. A won the match. The error was discovered after the result had been officially announced. What is the ruling?

A. The match stands as played. No claim by B could be considered unless A had known he was giving wrong information about his handicap — See Rules 2-5, 6-2a and 34-1a.

Note that A is not disqualified even though he violated a Rule that requires disqualification, unless he knew he was lieing about his handicap.  Also notice the wording "No claim by B could be considered..." which implies, to me, that B would have had to make a claim if he discovered it during the match also (ie the Committee couldn't just DQ A).

[JohnV]

One other interesting point about this entire situation is that a claim was never made.  The players spoke with the pro, who was not on the Rules Committee and reached an agreement between themselves (See Decision 2-5/8).  Had B made a claim at the 9th hole instead of resolving it with A, one can hope that a good Committee person, making a ruling at some point, would have asked when A discovered she had 15 clubs and upon her statement that it was a few holes earlier, would have disqualified her on the spot.  But, all that is contingent upon B making a valid claim which she never did.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

Thanks for your post #38, and particularly for your analogy to Dec. 6-2/5. It is not that often I see a Decision that just seems blatantly contradictory to the very Rule it supplements but that one sure is one. To me it almost contradicts the wording and seeming meaning of both 6-2b AND 6-1. Plus it just seems so illogical regarding what 6-2b and 6-1 actually say (which brings up another point about golfers using just the Rules of Golf book and not the Decsions on The Rules of Golf Book!

Dec. 6-2/5 just seems so illogical because how in the world could Player B be expected to make any claim if he had no idea what Player A's handicap was when Player A gave him a wrong one?

I hope John Cullum gets back on this thread. I had a good talk on the phone over these things with him the other day. I think our basic shared philosophy on these kinds of things is that Rule 2-5 should never be interpreted in such a way as to completely exonerate some player who has certainly violated a Rule (even without knowing it) simply because his opponent is not completely conversant with Rule 2-5. In the case of Dec. 6-2/5 anyone can see it's impossible for Player B to make a claim if he doesn't even know Player A violated a Rule in the first place.

I think this kind of thing looks to us like the Committee Rule (33) through Rule 33-7 flowing through some of these situations and their Rules needs to take a bit more of an equitable or at least commonsensical hand in these kinds of things rather than trying to hide behind this kind of Rule 2-5 interpretation and application.

[Chris Cupit]

All,

For whatever it's worth I had the chance to speak with our state's director of rules and competitions about this situation--Layne Williams.  I summarized the situation to him thusly:

1.  Match play
2.  Player A discloses to Player B they have too many clubs and neither player knows what the penalty is so it is referred to a non committee member who rules correctly that the state of the match is adjusted and Player A deducts 2 holes.
3.  Later in the match on the back side, Player A further discloses to Player B that they had known they had too many clubs at the fourth hole (several holes before revealing that info).
4.  Player A goes on to win the match.

Layne felt that the match stands as played with A the winner and he would not DQ Player A under any rule.  Among the things he said were "you can't have it both ways and have Player A win the match and then DQ them" and he saw no way a committee can involve itself in a match if a player is not making a claim.  Player B had all the info they needed to make a timely claim and "claim" the match.

Also if both players did not know the penalty for breach of 4-4 how could any official expect Player A to somehow know that 4-4c calls for a DQ when a player does not immediately declare an excess club out of play?  Obviously player B did not know this either or they could have claimed the match OR if they did know the rule, and, as long as there was no agreement between the players, player B could overlook A's breach of 4-4c.

Anyway, as JVB knows, Layne is about as good as they come with the rules and while no one gets them all correct, Layne and JVB have tons of "real world" experience that any committee considering this case would wisely heed

Lastly the rules can never answer or solve all situations to our liking or to our sense of "fairness".  I know I read somewhere in Mr. Tuft's book that no rules for a game should be written for the extreme or exceptional cases. 

[John_Cullum]

Decision 2-5/1 is interesting in that it has never been explained or expanded upon elsewhere in the decisions. In any event, I do not find it necessarily controlling.

Over the weekend I had occasion to discuss this situation with a former director of the PGA Rules Committee. He says there is no real answer as of yet on this one. He can see where certain violations in Match Play will require DQ, and this may or may not be one of them.

I spoke with  a couple of other guys who are quite knowledgeable. One had an interesting idea of Disqualifying A and reinstating B as winner in equity.

An interesting fact in this case is that B has still not made any claim to my knowledge, even though I think most agree it would be too late.

I understand where John V is coming from. I look at the 14 club rule as one of the rules that is of such fundamental importance, it is not subject to being disregarded by an opponent in match play. The USGA could well decide that in match play it is no one else's affair, and it is a matter that can be settled between the opponents. I hope one day we find out.

[Ulrich Mayring]

It has been explained to me that, while in Matchplay I could disregard a rules breach of my opponent, it is not possible to mutually agree on that. That would be grounds for DQ of both players from the competition.

For instance, if my opponent and I agree that, no matter who has the honor, it is always I who tees off first, that would be a DQ. Even though it might be sensible etiquette-wise if, for instance, I was playing the back tees and my female opponent the forward tees. That involves a lot of walking to and fro, but the only way to avoid that would be for my opponent to silently disregard me taking the honor away from her.

So I guess at the point, where the 14 club violation becomes apparent, the players cannot agree to disregard the application of this rule. Not a rules expert, though.

Ulrich

[TEPaul]

“Decision 2-5/1 is interesting in that it has never been explained or expanded upon elsewhere in the decisions. In any event, I do not find it necessarily controlling.”


JohnC:


It seems to me Dec. 2-5/1 is not controlling in this situation because it’s really not particularly pertinent to what Player B was thinking or doing or not doing throughout this entire situation. Player B essentially did not know what to do via the Rules of Golf. She certainly did not understand Rule 2-5 well or at all and she had no idea about her procedure options and requirements under Rule 2-5. Therefore all she did is ask for advice later apparently outside the the "committee" and the “competition closure” requirements of Rule 2-5 and 34-1a.

For that reason, it seems to me some of the best Rules minds extant interpret the resolution to this situation that Player B has completely given up the only vehicle that can be used by Player B within the Rules in this particular situation. In that sense Rule 2-5 and 34-1a seem to be the controlling idea here, not exactly Dec. 2-5/1.

I don’t see the Rulesmakers, who I’ve heard may consider this particular situation, changing much as a result of this (somewhat for other reasons), but I do believe because it was suggested to me that they nevertheless are a bit uncomfortable that Player A seems to have gotten away with something here that they wish she had not, and that not even considering what her intentions may’ve been. If they consider this that may have at least something to do with it.

I think what their interpretation on this seems to show us is that other than the participation of a referee in a "match" (match play golf) and the exceptions of Rule 1-3 and 6-7, the principle here is that a player in match play really does or should control his own fate in his match and if he thinks he can’t or doesn’t control it somehow because of a dispute or doubt as to procedure then the only thing available to him is to use Rule 2-5 in a timely manner to do something about it.

I believe that the wording of Rule 6-1 and some of the wording of Rule 9-2b (the latter through some wording in Rule 2-5 itself) does leave the door open to the “committee” to be able to involve themselves in a situation like this if Player B decides to come to them to make a “later” claim but apparently the best Rules minds see Player B’s failure to make a claim in Rule 2-5’s “timely manner” provision as controlling the resolution to this----eg match stands as played (Player A wins) with no further committee involvement (Rule 33 and 33-7 and/or Rule 34 and 34-1a) available to Player B.

I believe that Rule 6-1 and also Rule 9-2b should be interpreted more literally regarding what Player A did in this situation (Rule 4-4 violation) but in a sense a really good Rule’s mind could even argue that Rule 6-1 should be used to confirm why Rule 2-5 is being used WITH EVEN PLAYER B the way it is (match stands as played) in this situation.

As Roger Matlbie says: “If you’re going to play this game you’ve GOT TO KNOW the Rules of Golf” and essentially THAT is what Rule 6-1 is all about.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()