What if players waived Rule 1.3?

[Michael Moore]

On another thread Mr. King raised the prospect of players waiving Rule 1.3, in which players are asked to not "exclude the operation of any Rule".

What would that look like?

Would it be possible for an official to detect this breach?

Has any rules official out there encountered this?

My theory is that this would create infinite regress, and therefore the players in question would not be able to turn in their scorecards in a timely fashion.

[A.G._Crockett]

Michael,
If I take your meaning correctly, you are saying that if players waived 1.3, then any further rules violations would be moot.  But by waiving 1.3, they would have violated 1.3, which would be impossible, wouldn't it?

Supposedly, the only unamendable portion of the US Constitution is the provision that there shall be two senators per state.  Could the Constitution be amended so that this section could be removed by amendment?  

[Jeff Fortson]

Michael,

I have had this happen in many tournaments at the clubs I have worked at.  I was officiating a match in a club's annual Governor's Cup when I witnessed two opponents agree to waive a rule.  

In an effort to speed up play, Competitor A asked Competitor B if he could use his towel to move loose impediments on the green as there was a lot of sand in his putting line.  I watched Competitor B tell him it was fine so that they could avoid falling further behind.  I then watched Competitor A sweep sand off the green with his towel due to Competitor B agreeing to waive the rule.

This is just one of the many times I have seen this.  As someone that officiates many club events I can tell you that this happens REGULARLY.  I am amazed that so many people want there to be a set of rules to play under, then break them at their earliest convenience.  The same people are usually the first ones to call rules violations on others as well.

I understand that the two competitors were trying to speed up play and attempting to do what they felt was the right thing but unfortunately, they were both wrong.  

Ironicly, if this had happened this year there would not have been a problem as the rule has changed on loose impediments on the green.  You are now allowed to move loose impediments on the green with a towel or hat as long as you are not pushing down on the surface in an attempt to smooth out spike marks and the like.


Jeff F.

[Dennis_Harwood]

There are frequent misunderstanding on why this should apply in match play--(stroke play is pretty obvious since there is a field to protect and everyone must play by the same rules to have a competition)

 Obviously if you and I go to the first tee, and no one else is involved and agree to play a game by use of something other than the USGA(or R&A) rules, no one is going to arrest us-- We are just playing something other than golf under the Rules of Golf(just be sure you know what ALL the rules are before you start, otherwise you have no one to settle any disputes)--

However, if you are competing in a match, then the Committee(usually the club) has an interest in the Rules you play by-- It is in their interest to insure that their champion has been crowned in accordance with the Rules of Golf(not a champion of some other game which may or may not bear a resemblance to Golf--

If you waive Rule 1-3 then, in effect, you have agreed to change the Rules, and that is a waiver or change in the provisions meaning you are playing a different game.

Agreeing to overlook a breach, when both players are aware that a breach has, or is about to be incurred, results in the DQ of both players -- Dec. 1-3/4.

In match play the requirement to impose a breach and prevent any  agreement to overlook a breach removes the onus of "being a bad guy" (Gee, I'd overlook that breach if it was me").  With the nonwaiver provision a player is required to enforce the Rules because the penalty to not do so is he is out of the competition (this is different than a breach in match play only, not known to the player, but known to the opponent, which the opponent can overlook and never raise--Dec 2-5/1)

[Dan King]

I think it is much more common than you might think.

My friends and I often play by the Rules of Golf. However, we modify it slightly because we play on busy muni courses. There is no way you can go back to the tee when you have a lost ball. So we drop the ball somewhere around where you think it should be with a two-stroke penalty.

We’ve all agreed that is how we will deal with it, therefore it is a clear violation of Rule 1-3. The penalty is reasonably close to what would happen in a tournament. Since most of the time adding a two-stroke penalty will result in ESC, so therefore nobody has ever felt bad about posting a score after taking such a drop.

The quote below is about a singles match between Nick Price and Greg Norman many years ago at the Alfred Dunhill Challenge (It was rest-of-the-world answer to not being involved in the Ryder Cup.) They were conceding many long putts and many people assumed they had arraigned in ahead of time and were therefore violating 1-3.

Dan King

We don't want to get into a Ryder Cup situation where there is animosity between the guys, like the situation that occurred between Paul Azinger and Seve Ballesteros. That is not the etiquette or the spirit of the game. I don't think it is necessary in golf and it has been to the detriment of the game.
 --Nick Price (after he and Greg Norman conceded numerous long putts during the Alfred Dunhill Challenge)

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Crockett is onto the real question.

Commitee - "We hereby disqualify you both for agreeing to waive Rule 1.3, which prohibits the waiving of rules."

Players - "But that rule no longer applies since we agreed to waive it".

Has any golfer ever tried this version of the Epimenides paradox?

[Doug Siebert]

Dan,

That's an excellent example.  While I will play a provisional if I think my ball may be lost or OB, sometimes you don't realize its lost until you've looked for it and not found it.  I can probably count the number of times I've gone back to the tee on one hand.  If I was playing a game that's strictly by the rules or having a career round I'd go back.  Otherwise its drop, add two, and like you say it generally doesn't matter with ESC for single digit players.  I'm probably as likely to beat double bogey hitting four from the general area of my lost ball as I am to do so if I went back to the tee -- I might put it in the fairway and leave a better fourth, but I could hit ANOTHER ball gone as well and not get to play on until I'm laying 5.  And I can think of few things potentially more frustrating than making a double eagle shot on a par 5 for a bogey  

[TEPaul]

Dennis:

Regarding Dec. 2-5/1 a player can have knowledge of a rules breach by an opponent and disregard it. There's obviously a difference between a player 'overlooking' a breach by an opponent and a player not being aware of it. And there's obviously a difference between a player overlooking a breach by an opponent and agreement between the players to waive a rule of golf.

The prohibition in Rule 1-3 is there cannot be agreement between the players to waive a rule. I'm sure, however, there're some lawyers out there who will say that when a player 'overlooks' a breach of a rule by his opponent (Dec. 2-5/1) that constitutes agreement somehow but obviously that's not the way Dec. 2-5/1 is intended.

Rule 2-5 (Match Play) involves claims in match play, and obviously Rule 1-3 (The Game) involves agreement between players to disregard the operation of a rule or agreement to waive penalties. What a player is technically doing in a Dec. 2-5/1 situation is choosing on his own not to make a claim--he's not considered to be actually agreeing with his opponent to waive a rule of golf (Rule 1-3). Again, I'm certain there will be some who won't understand this or agree with the interpretation or the logic of it.

It's interesting that occasionally rules officials step into matches without being asked in something like a Dec 2-5/1 situation. So it's important for officials to also understand the distinctions above as the only situations an official should enter into a match without being asked is a violation of either Rule 6-7 or 1-3! (And again, the type of situation outlined in Dec. 2-5/1 is not a Rule 1-3 violation--although some might assume it to be!).

[JohnV]

Some examples of breachs of 1-3 include:

One player notices that he has 15 clubs and his opponent says, "Don't worry about that, I'm not going to call it on you."

The players agree to skip a hole or two in their match and call them halved.

The players agree ahead of time to concede all putts under a certain length.

In stroke play if one player didn't hole out and his fellow competitors saw it and ignored it.


What Price and Norman did was ok because they conceded putts on a case-by-case basis.  I refereed a match in the US Mid-AM between Jeff Wilson and Tim Hogarth where they regularly conceded putts in the 3 to 4 foot range early in the match.  I was somewhat surprised, but they both laughed said that they were notorius in California for doing that.  There was no pre-agreement and every once in a while one would make the other guy putt one.

As for doing it in everyday play, who cares.  For posting purposes, you should record the score that you probably would have made if you played it correctly.  If I lose my tee ball and don't want to walk back, I'd record a triple or a double depending on if it was a stroke hole or not.

[Michael Moore]

I am struggling to have this question understood. I wish that people would read more carefully.

I don't want to be misunderstood as the guy who does not understand Rule 1.3, which is as clear as day except for the situation I am trying to describe.

A and B are about to tee off. A says to B "Would you like to exclude Rule 1.3 today?" B says "OK". Rules official V says "You are both disqualified for violating Rule 1.3." Player A says, "Rule 1.3 does not apply to this match."

This is a real inquiry, and paradox/infinite regress is a real philosophy problem. Epimenides said "This statement is false". Bill Clinton said "It depends on what your definition of is is".

Is this a loophole in the rules?

[John_Cullum]

No,there is no loophole. The players can proceed to hit balls with clubs and make whatever rules they want. If there is any dispute about any point on the golf course that affects their play, they will have to resolve it themselves because they are not playing the game of golf and they have been disqualified from the competition whether they like it or not.

Keep in mind the committee has the trophy and the prizes. A and B are not going to get any prize from the committee. Their only resort to contest this decision would be through a court, not the USGA or R&A.

[Doug Siebert]

The players agree to skip a hole or two in their match and call them halved.

If its two holes, is it a violation?  If #13 and #14 are playing temporary greens, and we feel very Matt Wardish about the randomness factor that entails and decide that I'll concede #13 to you and you concede #14 to me, would that be a violation?  The "winner" might need to put a ball in play by teeing it and tapping it with a club to give the other an opportunity to concede, I suppose.

[TEPaul]

Michael Moore:

Regarding your posts #5 & #9 I'm not sure I understand what exactly you're asking but when you ask if two players agreeing on the first tee to waive Rule 1-3 is a loophole, I'd ask a loophole to do what exactly?

If you're asking if the committee would disqualify both players on the first tee if the players mentioned to the committee they were going to waive Rule 1-3--I'd say I doubt it.

I view the meaning and effect of Rule 1-3 to be the players are agreeing to waive some other Rule that would be a breach of another rule as, for instance, agreeng to concede putts in advance. I'd say the committee would probably wait to see if they actually did breach Rule 2-4 by agreement before disqualifying them.

I guess it's a bit like if two players announced on the first tee they were going to agree to cheat together on some rule somehow would the committee DQ them simply for making that statement? I wouldn't, I think I'd watch them and DQ them for actually violating some rule together.

However, there is a new Rule application that came in Jan1, 2004 that gives the committee more latitude to penalize and DQ under poor etiquette. I can see a committee thinking about using that rule in a situation such as you cite.

If you only agree to waive 1-3 and then never actually violate some rule of golf could you be penalized? I doubt it.

[A.G._Crockett]

There is no loophole, because 1.3 includes itself in the rule!  Waiving 1.3 violates 1.3 because the whole discussion assumes that the Rules are already in place.  They can't waive 1.3 because 1.3 prohibits that as much as it prohibits waiving any of the other rules.

Right?

[THuckaby2]

I find this depressing and sad and an indication that I really do need to get a life, but I think AGC got this exactly correct and I understand exactly what he is saying as much as I actually do understand what Michael is asking.

Just don't ask me to explain any of it another way - the question was actually a good one, and AGC answered it perfectly.

 

[JohnV]

The players agree to skip a hole or two in their match and call them halved.

If its two holes, is it a violation?  If #13 and #14 are playing temporary greens, and we feel very Matt Wardish about the randomness factor that entails and decide that I'll concede #13 to you and you concede #14 to me, would that be a violation?  The "winner" might need to put a ball in play by teeing it and tapping it with a club to give the other an opportunity to concede, I suppose.

If you agreed before either of you hit a tee shot it would be an agreement to waive the rules.  If one of you walked up and hit the drive and then someone said, why don't we just call this hole a half, it would be no problem.

As for waiving 1-3, the Committee can still DQ you under Rule 33-7.  There is no escape.

[TEPaul]

Whether or not simply standing on the first tee and verbally agreeing with your opponent to waive the operation of Rule 1-3 and actually doing nothing else during the round in breach of the rules constitutes grounds for DQ is probably a small point perhaps even a ridiculously philosophical point. But what the committee could or would do about such a thing is sort of interesting. I, as a committeeman, might just see if they actually do violate some rule other than the verbal waiving of 1-3 (which indicates to me an agreement to waive some other rule). However, JohnV has a good point about Rule 33-7. I mentioned the new and improved 2004 etiquette provision that could be used to DQ those players on the first tee and that new and improved etiquette provision is now found within the wording of Rule 33-7. So the committee certainly has grounds to DQ those players under Rule 33-7 for some breach of etiquette. DQing the players under Rule 1-3 specifically for waiving Rule 1-3 itself only verbally seems a little too illogical to me. I'd prefer to simply label both players "super-weissenheimers" right on the first tee and DQ them under the new and improved etiquette language under Rule 33-7! The committee person on the first tee should simply say;

"I don't have time for this kind of BS, you two are out of here under the new and improved etiquette language of Rule 33-7!!"

[TEPaul]

Matter of fact, if any player on the course gives me any guff at all while I'm officiating this year I'm going to holler at him;

"You no good "super weissenheimer", nobody can talk to me like that---you're outta here under the new and improved etiquette language of Rule 33-7".

I've been feeling a bit lowly lately and I have no doubt this is bound to make me feel better!



I even have a few players in mind right now. Do any of you think there's some rule in the USGA's Rule book whereby I could get DQed as an official for mentally making a ruling in advance? How about if I actually said it out loud right now? Do you think that could be considered a violation of some rule?