An interesting Rules situation

[TEPaul]

In match play, Player A told player B on the 9th hole she had too many clubs in her bag (Rules Rule 4-4). At that point the players, unsure of what the penalty was and therefore what the state of the match should be sought advice from the local pro who told them he was not part of the tournament committee but that he would offer his advice if they wanted it. He told them Player A was penalized a maximum of two holes and the match should be adjusted thusly. The Players teed off on #10 under that Rule 4-4 penalty understanding and state of the match adjustment but somewhere on the back nine Player A told Player B that she had known she violated Rule 4-4 on the 4th hole. Player B did not know to make a claim at that point (Rule 2-5) (she did not understand that player A should've been DQed under Rule 4-4), the match was played out, player A won and her score was recorded and they departed the course. (at some point Player B asked Player A why she didn't say anything on the 4th hole and Player A said something to the affect that she didn't want to create an advantage or disadvantage for anyone by mentioning it).

What do you think the overall resolution should be including the score recorded in the match?

Personally, given all the ramifications of this entire thing I think that the last paragraph of Rule 2-5 is where the committee of the tournament should find their resolution, perhaps with some consideration to Rule 1-4.

[Dave_Miller]

In match play, Player A told player B on the 9th hole she had too many clubs in her bag (Rules Rule 4-4). At that point the players, unsure of what the penalty was and therefore what the state of the match should be sought advice from the local pro who told them he was not part of the tournament committee but that he would offer his advice if they wanted it. He told them Player A was penalized a maximum of two holes and the match should be adjusted thusly. The Players teed off on #10 under that Rule 4-4 penalty understanding and state of the match adjustment but somewhere on the back nine Player A told Player B that she had known she violated Rule 4-4 on the 4th hole. Player B did not know to make a claim at that point (Rule 2-5) (she did not understand that player A should've been DQed under Rule 4-4), the match was played out, player A won and her score was recorded and they departed the course. (at some point Player B asked Player A why she didn't say anything on the 4th hole and Player A said something to the affect that she didn't want to create an advantage or disadvantage for anyone by mentioning it).

What do you think the overall resolution should be including the score recorded in the match?

Personally, given all the ramifications of this entire thing I think that the last paragraph of Rule 2-5 is where the committee of the tournament should find their resolution, perhaps with some consideration to Rule 1-4.

Tommy
Not near a rule book at the moment but I believe the rule reads that the player must declare the extra clubs immediately when the player realizes this and if not is DQ'd.  Will have to check if this is one of the situations where the player can be DQ'd after the close of the competition. I'm pretty sure as the player knew of the breach and did not report it then the player is DQ'd.
Will comeback after I have a chance to checkmy rule book.
Best
Dave

[Matt_Cohn]

A player who broke a rule knowingly and continued to play on without reporting it should be DQ'ed. No?

[TEPaul]

Dave:

Rule 4-4 does say immediately, and so if the player mentioned it five holes later sure she should've been DQed but the problem here seems to be she was not aware of that (of course Rule 6-1 does stipulate that all players are responsible for knowing the Rules so even if she didn't know the Rule that doesn't negate it's application) and when both players sought help were given a ruling and agreed to that ruling of a two hole penalty and proceeded, and then including the failure of Player B to make a claim when she learned during the match that Player A had known about the 4-4 violation on the 4th hole and not the 9th it seems to make this all a bit more complicated as to it's ultimate resolution. As I said it could go to through Rule 6-1,  2-5 or perhaps even 9-1 and 33-7.

[Chris Cupit]

"Fairness" aside I believe the match stands as played with Player A the winner.  Both players were ignorant of the rules and this really cost Player B.

The last paragraph of 2-5 is pretty clear:

"Once the results of the match have been officially announced, a later claim may not be considered by the Committee, unless it (the Committee) is satisfied that the opponent KNEW that he was giving wrong information".

Based on what you described I don't think either player knew what they were supposed to do and Player B had all the facts he needed to make a timely claim but did not.  So it does not appear Player B has even made a claim.

Also 2-5 starts out by saying that IF a doubt or dispute arises a player MAY make a claim.  It does not appear that Player B ever made a claim (even a later one) depsite having all the information so to speak. 

I think the only way the Committee can DQ player A under Rule 34 (since Player B never made a claim) is if they are convinced Player A KNEW that their breach of 4-4  was a DQ penalty.  In the absence of knowing that Player A knew that, the match is over.

[John_Cullum]

What do you think the overall resolution should be including the score recorded in the match?

The result of the match stands, B loses. (Rule 2-5, last 2 paragraphs)

Player A is disqualified (Rule 4-4(c))

[TEPaul]

ChrisC:

I believe you have it all exactly right and so did one of the best guys I know on Rules at the USGA. The trick in a situation like that seems to be collecting enough information and pertinent info to the Rules as well as the timing of it from the players to be able to resolve the entire situation properly and as it played out over the course of the match. These two gals are pretty good players and they love that kind of competition (the ladies GAP team matches) and are really into it but when faced with a situation and ruling like that one, they tend to freak out and fill the air with a constant stream of irrelevent information with the people who are trying to figure the whole thing out and resolve it for them. It is true to say that neither one of them apparently understood Rule 2-5 or was even aware of the use and timing of it. Matter of fact, the gal who called me was absolutely delighted when I told her it was always possible to call the USGA Rules desk on the spot to get a Rules resolution. She took the number and put it right into her cell phone and said because of that something like this would never happen again. I even told her to call the Rules Desk at the USGA right after she talked to me just to get used to it. And so she did. I called the Rules Desk about ten minutes later and got Travis, the same guy she just talked to. Unfortunately, Travis said it was a total one-way converstaion and he wasn't able to ask a single question so he wasn't able to offer her a ruling. So, I called her back and said: "Carolyn, you have to just outline the basic facts and then let him ask you some questions if need be", and then she said: "WELL, Travis was the rudest man and tried to stop me from speaking!"

Don't you just love women, Chris?

[John_Cullum]

I think the only way the Committee can DQ player A under Rule 34 (since Player B never made a claim) is if they are convinced Player A KNEW that their breach of 4-4  was a DQ penalty.  In the absence of knowing that Player A knew that, the match is over.

How does Rule 34 play into this, and where in the rules do you find support for that position?

[TEPaul]

JohnC:

I can't see anything in this situation that could be considered in Rule 34 but perhaps might be considered in Rule 33-7. Maybe that's what ChrisC meant. If something in this situation was considered by the committee after the fact (even without a claim from Player B), I would think the committee would want to run one fact of Player A's statements through Rule 6-1 because that stipulates a player is responsible for knowing the Rules and in this case Player A certainly did violate Rule 4-4c by failing to tell her opponent for five holes that she had violated Rule 4-4.

[John_Cullum]

I do not see a reason for the committee to waive a disqualification penalty here under 33-7. There is nothing exceptional in the circumstances

[Chris Cupit]

Rule 34.  Disputes and Decisions  specifically 34-1 deals with situations when The Committee is compelled to invoke a disqualification penalty even AFTER the competition has closed (trophy handed out and the whole nine yards).

I certainly could be wrong but I am also referencing some notes in my text.  The first question that must be asked under 34-1 is "Was a claim made?"  If not, case closed EXCEPT in a case of a violation of Rule 1-3.  Now here is were I could very well be wrong.  There is also no time limit in four other exceptions but they are listed under 34-1b.  After numerous readings they may only apply in Stroke Play but I will do some more research.

The reason I am a bit unsure is that decision 34-1a/1 refers the committee to 34-1b/8 for guidelines in some circumstances which muddies the water for me as to whether or not the four exceptions mentioned above are only relevant to stroke play.

Ultimately though, NO CLAIM was made by Player B so I still think the match stands as played.  I will say I clearly think if Player B had brought a claim even after the match was over the committee could DQ Player A if they were convinced Player A had knowledge of their breach and said nothing.  Now after re-reading 34-1 I am not so sure the committee could act under one of he exceptions unilaterally without a claim being made.

Whew!  And yes, TEPaul I do love women!

Back to the book

[Dan Herrmann]

Best rule here - just count your clubs before you start!

[TEPaul]

"I do not see a reason for the committee to waive a disqualification penalty here under 33-7. There is nothing exceptional in the circumstances."


JohnC:

Apparently you don't undertand ALL the facts in this situation. No claim was ever made and the match and score stands as reported with Player A winning. The situation was never reported to the "committee". Had it been the Rules outcome might be different than it is.

[Chris Cupit]

OK.  I  think I went too far originally and gave the Committee too much authority to DQ the player assuming no claim was made.  I now think the only way the Committee can DQ a player in match play after the match is over and officially announced and without a claim being made is if the committee becomes aware of a 1-3 violation which was not the case here.  There was no agreement to waive any rules in this case--the players really didn't know what to do.

I do not read enough "deceit" or knowledge in this situation to consider this a 33-7 issue either.

Bottom line is in match play if a player thinks they have been wronged they must speak up and make a claim.

So, match STILL stands as played

[John_Cullum]

The committee doesn't disqualify the player. She was disqualified under the rule

[Chris Cupit]

JC

In match play the committee does not get involved unless

1. A claim is made.

Aside from that unless a committee member thinks there is a breach of 1-3 or 6-7 they stay out of it.  A match in which there is a referee is another thing but that is not the case here.

In this case a claim was not made and there was no 1-3 or 6-7 issue so the match stands as played.  But IF (and this is where I got into a little trouble last time ) the Committee in charge of the event have felt that there was a 1-3 issue it is the committee that must intervene to enforce the Rules----the rule isn't going to enforce itself and in fact 1-3 is the situation where players by agreement do not want the Rules to apply so the committee MUST act.

Finally I did come to the conclusion that the four exceptions under 34-1b can only apply in Stroke Play as the term "competitor" is referenced and a competitor is someone defined as playing in stroke play.  In my original response I thought they may have applied in this case but now I do not think so.

[John_Cullum]

JC

In match play the committee does not get involved unless

1. A claim is made.

Aside from that unless a committee member thinks there is a breach of 1-3 or 6-7 they stay out of it.  A match in which there is a referee is another thing but that is not the case here.

In this case a claim was not made and there was no 1-3 or 6-7 issue so the match stands as played.  But IF (and this is where I got into a little trouble last time ) the Committee in charge of the event have felt that there was a 1-3 issue it is the committee that must intervene to enforce the Rules----the rule isn't going to enforce itself and in fact 1-3 is the situation where players by agreement do not want the Rules to apply so the committee MUST act.

Finally I did come to the conclusion that the four exceptions under 34-1b can only apply in Stroke Play as the term "competitor" is referenced and a competitor is someone defined as playing in stroke play.  In my original response I thought they may have applied in this case but now I do not think so.

I don't see any evidence of an agreement to waive the rules. Agreements are affirmative acts that are undertaken knowingly. There is thus no 1-3 issue.

You are correct that the exceptions under 34-1b only apply in stroke play.

I say the same as I conclude previously.

The result of the match stands, B loses per R. 2-5. She failed to make a timely claim.

A is disqualified under R. 4-4(c) Her innocent intentions matter not. She is disqualified under the rules because she did not immediately act upon discovering the extra club.

A's next opponent wins by default

[JohnV]

The match stands as played, B loses.  The players agreed to the penalty at the time that A told B she had too many clubs.  When she revealed that she had known that 5 holes earlier, it was up to B to make the claim that A should have been disqualified.  Since she did not, she lost her right to make a later claim.

As for disqualifying A, I would only do it if she KNEW that failure to immediately declare the club out of play was a DQ and then I would do it under Rule 33-7.  I somehow doubt she did as they had to ask the pro what the penalty was for having too many clubs.

[John_Cullum]

As for disqualifying A, I would only do it if she KNEW that failure to immediately declare the club out of play was a DQ and then I would do it under Rule 33-7.  I somehow doubt she did as they had to ask the pro what the penalty was for having too many clubs.

Suppose a player in stroke play competition did the same thing? Would you still not inform him he was disqualified under rule 4-4(c)? Roberto DiVicenzo did not intend to sign an incorrect score card.

[Chris Cupit]

As for disqualifying A, I would only do it if she KNEW that failure to immediately declare the club out of play was a DQ and then I would do it under Rule 33-7.  I somehow doubt she did as they had to ask the pro what the penalty was for having too many clubs.

Suppose a player in stroke play competition did the same thing? Would you still not inform him he was disqualified under rule 4-4(c)? Roberto DiVicenzo did not intend to sign an incorrect score card.

In your stroke play example involving DiVicenzo.  Assuming DiVicenzo KNEW before the competition had closed (before he put the jacket on) that failure to declare the excess club out of play was a DQ penalty and he signed his card anyway, yes under 34-1b (iv) he is DQ no matter how long after the competition has been over this information comes out.

Score card issue is completely different.  He signed his name to a scorecard with a score on a hole lower than he actually achieved and turned it in to the committee.  DQ all day long--intent or knowledge matters not.

Main difference in your example is of course this is stroke play not match play.  Back to the original example, I'm with JVB though and based on the facts presented I do not see how one can use 33-7 to DQ player A.  From my understanding of 33-7 it was never meant to be a "catch-all" provision allowing a DQ for actions a committee thinks should not have occured.  I think it has to be a deliberate and serious breach and I really do think there was a lot of confusion in this instance.  Lastly, as disappointed or angry as one may be about Player As conduct the Rules provided relief for Player B to make a claim and that player failed to do so.

Match stands, Playuer A proceeds (with maybe some bad karma to follow her around ) and hopefully players learn how to protect their "rights" under Rule 2-5.

[JohnV]

As for disqualifying A, I would only do it if she KNEW that failure to immediately declare the club out of play was a DQ and then I would do it under Rule 33-7.  I somehow doubt she did as they had to ask the pro what the penalty was for having too many clubs.

Suppose a player in stroke play competition did the same thing? Would you still not inform him he was disqualified under rule 4-4(c)? Roberto DiVicenzo did not intend to sign an incorrect score card.

John,

Stroke play requires the player be DQ'ed.  In match play with no referee, a timely claim must be made before any penalty can be enforced except 1-3 or 6-7.  If there was a referee, the player would have been DQ'ed when the referee became aware that she had had not declared the club out of play immediately upon discovery.

Decision 2-5/1 states "In match play, a player may disregard a breach of the Rules by his opponent, provided that there is no agreement between the players."  It doesn't say "any penalty of less than disqualification" or the like.  B didn't make a claim and assuming that A didn't say that she should have been DQ'ed and B said she wouldn't enforce it which would be a breach of 1-3, she can't be DQ'ed for simply not knowing that she should have been DQ'ed.

[John_Cullum]

Sorry JVB, she's disqualified under the rules.

Committee's don't disqualify players (except in rare circumstances). A player is disqualified by his action, under the rules. A committee has the power to waive the dq penalty in exceptional circumstances that do not exist here. Rule 4-4(c) is crystal clear, and the committee has no power to waive a rule of golf (R. 33-1) Someone once said "In other sports, referees run the game, in golf the rules run the game." Do you agree?

[Chris Cupit]

Sorry JVB, she's disqualified under the rules.

Committee's don't disqualify players (except in rare circumstances). A player is disqualified by his action, under the rules. A committee has the power to waive the dq penalty in exceptional circumstances that do not exist here. Rule 4-4(c) is crystal clear, and the committee has no power to waive a rule of golf (R. 33-1) Someone once said "In other sports, referees run the game, in golf the rules run the game." Do you agree?

JC

I think we may be lsoing sight of the issues in this case.  It is a claim and then a timing issue--nothing more.  A claim wasn't made in time.  There are very rare circumstances when a Committee must act even after the competition is over but at some point, IT'S OVER. 

I am really confused about your committee notions though.  I hear what you are saying about the player's actions are what DQs them and I understand what you are trying to say but in cases where the players do not know or are confused as to what the rules are that Rule Book isn't going to hop up, begin speaking and tell anyone anything.  That is why you have a Committee--to help explain and in some circumstances enforce the Rules.  I can assure you there are plenty of times golfers do not want to play by the rules because or their opinions about what is fair, etc...  Think of mulligans, conceded putts in stroke play, "winter rules".  We run a season long Match Play tournament and we play by the "Rules" but I assure you many guys want to waive the rules and roll the ball even though that is a DQ for both of them.  Several matches would result with a "winner" under winter rules and many on the mens committee may even agree with the players and not want to "impose" any penalty.

Hopefully you have a Committee committed to the rules who will enforce them even if the popular decision is not to.  Also, there is wisdom in having a Committee not be a single person.  In very tricky cases (like trying to decide whether a player's actions warrant a DQ) several heads is better than one.  Right now I think this "Cyber Committee" is voting 3-1 to let the match stand and PLayer A to continue

[John_Cullum]

I can't help it if the cyber committee wants to waive the rules.

I think you are misunderstanding a point. I agree B loses because she did not make a claim. That is a separate question from the sanction of disqualification of A. I say both are out. A for "cheating", and B for not making any claim of the match. B does not have the power to disqualify A. The rules disqualify A. I wish the committee would enforce the rules.

[TEPaul]

"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.

But I am interested in getting to the bottom of some of the heretofore unagreed upon resolutions to this overall situation amongst a number of very good rules minds and officials such as yourself, Chris Cupit and JVB. In my mind Rule 6-1 is still on the table that a player is still responsible for Rules violations even if she doesn't know the Rules or that she violated one. However, in this case it seems it was not egregious which seemingly could open up a committee's ability to use Rule 33-7 even after the competition is closed and perhaps despite the fact Player B never made a claim.

But in this case it seems like Rule 2-5 controls and the match stands as played and recorded because Player A and B agreed to proceed under the Rules advice they sought and got before teeing off and Player B did not make a timely claim when she later in the round found out Player A knew she had more than 14 clubs five holes before she told Player B about it on #9. That's the resolution one of the best Rules officials I know of at the USGA came to anyway----ie the match stands as played and recorded.