It will not have any impact whatever, either directly, residually or psychologically.

SPDB & TEPaul,

Don't you think it's a departure from tradition ?   AND,

Don't you think it sets a bad precendent ?

If one of the USGA's missions is to preserve the traditions of the game, does this departure from tradition send the wrong signal to golf/country clubs across the nation ?

Where do you find anything in the Rules or "traditions of the game" that state or indicate extensions of the stipulated round to establish a winner (Rule 2-3) start on the first hole, or any hole?

I've conducted many playoffs for USGA events and there is no standard or tradition as to where to start or the sequence, so long as the first hole is announced to all participatants before the extra holes commence--

Decsion 33-1/3 makes clear the Committee, in its discretion, can set any order they wish (at many courses , late in the day, to prepare the opening holes for the next days play, the first few holes are very often not available-- Many times the sequence for playoff of matches all square at 18 will follow the Tour policy of starting on 18, then perhaps a rotation of 16, 17 & 18).

I watched my friend Brian Gillespie exit on the 19th hole this year at Winged Foot in the second round.   They played the 1st hole.  Should have been on ESPN there were plenty of cameras there and it was during broadcast hours and in a match with a USGA favorite.

TEP

I know of two fairly recent instances, at two different courses, where an extra-hole match came to a point in the course where the players had the possibility of "cutting in" so as to start heading back towards the clubhouse rather than continue marching outwards.

In the first case, in a game being played off scratch, the players chose to cut in, and the game finished on the 28th hole, fairly near the clubhouse.

In the other case, a game being played with handicaps, the higher handicap chose not to cut in as it would have delayed his receiving of strokes.

My question--did the first game violate the rule that you can't agree to violate the rules in match play?

Wouldn't starting the extra holes of a match on the 17th hole instead of the 1st create a logistical problem. Say match #1 in the round of 32 went to extra holes, would they force players in match #4 who were about to tee off at 17 wait. If numerous matches went into extra holes, the problem would be further compounded, and that could really throw off a players game by disturbing the rythym of the match.

I'm sure if it were going to cause a problem for other matches, the committee wouldn't use the 17th as the first extra hole.

What am I missing here? I can't quite see the problem that Pat is alluding to. Continuing a squared match on the first hole isn't a Rule of Golf and nobody is suggesting that continuing a squared match on the 17th hole be made a Rule, either. As long as the continuation order was set before the match started it's a non-issue which particular holes are used or in what order. If handicaps were being used I'm sure the committee would take that into account in choosing the order of continuation.

Sorry Pat, it looks like I misunderstood you and confused a play-off with extra hole matches. As far as I've ever seen extra hole matches whether at scratch or handicap always return to the the hole on which the match began and proceed through the course normally from there. Play-offs are a different matter altogether. But for extra hole matches at scratch I guess there's nothing logically wrong with playing another progression of holes since the competitors are always on an equal footing (not having to worry about where handicap strokes fall). I've just never seen extra hole matches go to another hole other than that which the match started on.

Pat:

I said:

"But for extra hole matches at scratch I guess there's nothing logically wrong with playing another progression of holes since the competitors are always on an equal footing (not having to worry about where handicap strokes fall)."

I must say I've never heard of extra hole matches starting anywhere other than where the match started but, then again, what problem do you find with what I said above other than the fact that such a practice will be copied in handicap tournaments where it really probably won't be equitable or representative in a handicapping context?

Dennis Harwood,

Read Rule/Decisions 33-6/1
 

Pat--?

There is no decision 33-6/1

Rule 33-6 simply says its up to the Committee to decide where, when and at what time a halved match is to be played to determine a winner--

The only limitation is that a match toed must use match play to determine a winner--

 (In fact an extra hole match does not even need to be completed on the same course-- sometimes when matches are contested over two courses the Conditions of Competition will provide all extra hole playoffs will be contested on one course, which may not be the one one which the 18 match was contested)

Pat:

I like tradition too and I don't like breaking from it either but generally there're very good reasons to do so, certainly if it involves the USGA and it's own tournaments. They write the rules of golf and they certainly mean to stick to them.

It's probably certain that there was some very good reason to use a hole other than the hole the match started on for an extra-hole playoff in the US Amateur. Again, the USGA would never do anything that does not conform to their Rules of Golf and their procedures. Sometimes they need to do things to get the tournament format in during a single day rather than getting everyone left in the tournament up at 5:30am to get back on schedule the next day. The most common problem is working around rain delays where valuable time is lost.

It seems this match in the US Amateur you may be referring to may've involved Brian Gillespie. He's from St David's G.C. in Philadelphia and he's a friend of mine---I'll ask him what the circumstances were when I see him again. My recollection is he lost in the second round in an extra hole match.

There have been some ultra traditionalist as administrators in the game such as PJ Boatright. Some say if a cup needed to be moved even during match play his recommendation was to cancel play and come back the next day or another day because that was the tradition. Luckily that changed. People have other lives other than the golf tournament and they need to be accomodated if it can be done within the Rules of Golf. The 128 player US Amateur match play draw (that's seven rounds!!) used to be traditional too when my Dad began playing US Amateurs but they gave that tradition up decades ago. Some players just weren't able to spend a week or more at the tournament.

Obviously you really are a traditionalist and you may not even be joking when you suggest golf should bring back the stymie. The reason for the stymie in golf in the first place is a most interesting evolution. No one back in the distant old days just dreamed up the stymie because they thought it was a neat thing to do---it simply evolved due to one of the "Two Great Principles of Golf"---"You put your ball in play at the start of the hole, play only your own ball and do not TOUCH IT until you lift it from the hole."

The controversy over the stymie took decades to resolve--it was a decades long debate of the traditionalists against those who thought it to be an unnecessary and really bothersome byproduct of adherence to a rule of golf and they created a rule or rules (exceptions really) to work around that ultra-adherence. That may have been the greatest debate of all of the traditionalists of golf against those who felt the game needed to be more progressive. During my six year long "Honor" proposal (Rule 10-1a) I had support from some interesting people one being Ward Foshay--a past president of the USGA and a true traditionalist. Initially, Ward said he'd support my "Honor" proposal if I agreed to attach it to a proposal to return to the stymie. Luckily, he changed his mind and agreed to support my proposal without that.

"In earnest, I think the "Stymie" should be brought back in match play as an alternative form of play, almost like the declaration of "winter" rules.  This wouldn't alter the current match play rules, but would insert the use of the "stymie" as an alternate form of play."

Pat:

There's nothing I'm aware of in the Rules of Golf that does not allow the stymie to be used as an alternate form of play. The only thing about the present Rules of Golf regarding the stymie is the present Rules do not require that the stymie must be used as the Rules of Golf used to require.

Dennis Harwood,

33-6/1 was from an old decisions book, read the decisions and see if you don't see a decision that states that playoffs should start on the same hole that the match started on.
It's pretty clear, and has been a tradtion for decades upon decades.

It was not a decision prior to the !940s, was withdrawn at least 12 years ago (a withdrawn decision meaning that the Ruling Bodies no longer believe it is valid), and its inclusion and deletion is a joint decision of the USGA and R & A-- You must put "equal" blame on the R&A for breaking with "tradition"(if any existed) with the withdrawal of the decision--