New thread title: The PGA Tour Collusion Thread

[Mark Bourgeois]

2-1/1.5
Players Agree to Consider Hole Halved During Play of Hole

Q.In a match, a player and his opponent play their second shots on a par 5 hole. Unexpectedly, neither ball can be found. Rather than proceeding under Rule 27-1, both players agree to a half. Is this permitted?

A.Yes. An agreement to halve a hole being played is permissible.

However, if the players agree to consider a hole halved without either player making a stroke, they should be disqualified under Rule 1-3 for agreeing to exclude the operation of Rule 2-1 by failing to play the stipulated round, provided the players knew that this was a breach of the Rules. (Revised)



2-4. Concession of Match, Hole or Next Stroke

A player may concede a match at any time prior to the start or conclusion of that match.

A player may concede a hole at any time prior to the start or conclusion of that hole.

A player may concede his opponent’s next stroke at any time, provided the opponent’s ball is at rest. The opponent is considered to have holed out with his next stroke, and the ball may be removed by either side.

A concession may not be declined or withdrawn.


2-4/22
Players Agree to Concede Holes to Each Other

Q.Before or during a match, A and B agree to concede one or more holes to each other, thereby enabling them, in effect, to play a shorter match. If A and B know that such an arrangement is not permissible, are they subject to disqualification under Rule 1-3?

A.Yes. Although Rule 2-4 allows a player to concede a hole before playing it, an agreement between players to concede holes to each other exceeds this authority as it undermines the principle in Rule 2-1 of playing a stipulated round. Therefore, such an agreement constitutes an agreement to waive the Rules.

[Ed Brzezowski]

I think giving a putt is not a violation of the rules. You can do that and, I believe, you can do it conditionally. Let's say you're on the first tee and tell your opponent: "If your ball is closer than 3 feet on any hole today, you can consider it given". No foul.

While there certainly was an agreement between Sergio and Ricky, it was not one to break the rules. They couldn't agree to "let's play with two mulligans each today", but I believe they can agree to give certain putts.

Ulrich

Not on the first tee they can't . It can be hole by hole but not a blanket statement. Let me go find the decision.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ed, maybe look up Decision 1.5 under Rule 2-1 and Decision 22 under Rule 2-4.

[Pete_Pittock]

I think giving a putt is not a violation of the rules. You can do that and, I believe, you can do it conditionally. Let's say you're on the first tee and tell your opponent: "If your ball is closer than 3 feet on any hole today, you can consider it given". No foul.

While there certainly was an agreement between Sergio and Ricky, it was not one to break the rules. They couldn't agree to "let's play with two mulligans each today", but I believe they can agree to give certain putts.

Ulrich

Ulrich.
They cannot make a blanket agreement. period. that is knowingly waiving a rule, and the penalty is disqualification.
An agreement to halve a hole may be made after the hole has been started (Decisiion 2-1/1.5)
A specific putt may be conceded, but not while it is in motion. (Rule 2-4)

[Pete_Pittock]

What was the advantage gained?

I am not sure you have to gain an advantage!

I once played a match, where my opponent and I agreed to use a forward tee for one hole, because we simply couldn't put the ball in play from the designated tee. After losing two balls each from the back tee, we agreed to move forward and play the hole from there. It turns out we agreed to waive a rule, namely that of teeing it up in the correct place. There was no advantage gained by any of us and, since it was matchplay, no "field" involved, but apparently even then you still cannot agree to waive a rule. DQ for both players is the call.

Ulrich

There is one word is the rule/decision that you overlooked. The word is knowingly. You (as well as your opponent in this case) are not disqualified unless you knowingly violated the rules by moving to a forward tee. 

[Ulrich Mayring]

The decision at that time was that we had to know it was a rules violation, since we teed off on the back tee and then moved to the forward tee, after we couldn't put our balls in play from the back tee. However, I actually thought in match play I can agree to whatever I like with my opponent.

But I still cannot see how agreeing to give putts is a violation of the rules. It is not forbidden to forge an agreement with your opponent, just not an agreement to break the rules. But giving putts is not breaking the rules (while teeing off from the wrong tee is).

Ulrich

[Pete_Pittock]

The decision at that time was that we had to know it was a rules violation, since we teed off on the back tee and then moved to the forward tee, after we couldn't put our balls in play from the back tee. However, I actually thought in match play I can agree to whatever I like with my opponent.

But I still cannot see how agreeing to give putts is a violation of the rules. It is not forbidden to forge an agreement with your opponent, just not an agreement to break the rules. But giving putts is not breaking the rules (while teeing off from the wrong tee is).

Ulrich

Ulrich,
Maybe this decision will clear your mind

1-3/2
Agreement to Concede Short Putts
Q. In a match, the two players agree in advance to concede all putts within a specified length. Is this agreement contrary to Rule 1-3?
A. In order to be in breach of Rule 1-3 for agreeing to waive a Rule, players must be aware that they are doing so. Therefore, the answer depends on whether the players knew that Rule 2-4 only allows the concession of the "next stroke" and does not permit them to agree in advance to concede putts within a specified length.
If the players were unaware that the Rules prevented them from agreeing to concede putts in this manner, there is no penalty under Rule 1-3.
If the players were aware that they were excluding the operation of a Rule then they are disqualified under Rule 1-3.

[Ricardo Ramirez Calvo]

The decision at that time was that we had to know it was a rules violation, since we teed off on the back tee and then moved to the forward tee, after we couldn't put our balls in play from the back tee. However, I actually thought in match play I can agree to whatever I like with my opponent.

But I still cannot see how agreeing to give putts is a violation of the rules. It is not forbidden to forge an agreement with your opponent, just not an agreement to break the rules. But giving putts is not breaking the rules (while teeing off from the wrong tee is).

Ulrich

Ulrich,

Regarding concession of a stroke, rule 2-4 only allows you to concede the opponent's next stroke. You may not concede a stoke other than the next stroke. You can concede a hole or a match, but not any stroke in advance, but just the next stroke.

Concerning the disqualification you suffered for playing from a wrong teeing ground, I disagree with the decision of the Committee. Rule 11-5 covers the case in which a player in match play plays from a wrong teeing ground. This rule states that in such a case, the provisions of rule 11-4 apply and the latter states that in match play there is no penalty for playing from outside (or in this case a wrong) teeing ground, but the opponent may immediately require the player who played from outside the teeing ground to cancel the stroke and play a ball from within the teeing ground. As none of you asked the opponent to cancel the stroke, in my opinion the strokes should have counted. Perhaps the Committee applied rule 1-3 and disqualified you for agreeing to waive a rule. However, if that was the case, the Committee erred, because rule 1-3 states that the players must not agree to exclude the operation of any rule or to waive any penalty incurred. In this case, no rule was waived, since rule 11-5 allows you to play from a wrong teeing ground in match play, unless your opponent requires you to cancel the stroke, which he did not. In addition, there is no penalty for playing from a wrong teeing ground in match play, thus the second part of rule 1-3 is not applicable.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Are you sure that it is allowed to play from the wrong teeing ground after having already played (and lost) two balls each from the correct teeing ground?

I said to my opponent: "Come one, before we lose any more balls, let's move up a tee and play the hole from there." And he said: "Good idea, let's do that." The committee stated we knew it was the wrong teeing ground, but had we not talked, but just moved up and played, then no harm done. They did DQ us both, but waived the DQ on some committee discretionary clause. That was shortly after Tiger's DQ at the Masters was waived, so I guess they took it from there

Ulrich

[Ricardo Ramirez Calvo]

Ulrich,

I missed the part where you described that you had already played from the correct teeing ground. However, that doesn't change the conclusion that the Committee made a mistake.

First, there is no penalty for playing from a wrong tee in match play. Knowledge or ignorance of the fact that you are playing from a wrong tee is irrelevant. The consequence is the same: your opponent is entitled to ask you to cancel the stroke and replay from the correct tee. If he fails to do that, the stroke counts.

In this case, you didn't play from a wrong tee, because you had already played from the correct one. After you had lost your balls, you were required to play under the stroke and distance penalty, by playing from the same place where you had played your previous stroke, in this case the back tee. When you played from the forward tee, you played from a wrong place and rule 20-7 applies. The penalty in match play for playing from a wrong place is loss of hole. Thus, the first of you who played lost the hole, being irrelevant from where the other player played, because the first to play had already lost the hole.

Since both of you were ignorant of the mistake you made, you didn't apply the loss of hole penalty. The second player could have claimed the hole, but since he didn't, the result of the hole stands as played (rule 2-5).

[Ulrich Mayring]

So you're saying all good, no DQs? Obviously none of us claimed the hole, because we agreed to play from the forward tee.

Ulrich

[Ricardo Ramirez Calvo]

That is the way I would have ruled if acting as a referee. But you know, there are two kinds of referees: those who have made mistakes and those who will make mistakes. I belong to both categories.