Common Rules Violations (That Are Hard to Call)

[reidsou]

7 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

It is in the Rules.

However, in such situations, the player may not, in a single procedure, concurrently take relief from two conditions by dropping a ball in a single relief area determined by a combined nearest point of complete relief from both conditions, except in the situation where the player has successively taken relief for interference from each condition and is essentially back where the player started.

I'm aware, but the post described choosing to forego two drops and immediately drop more than two club lengths from a penalty area. That is not in the rules.

And, in the cited example of a penalty area and a cart path, "back where you started" would never occur. Because relief from a cart path must be in the general area, not back in the penalty area. 

[Big C]

4 hours ago, reidsou said:

The examples are of seemingly "trivial" (or "unfair") rules that players break and may not politely accept penalties for breaking. Asking, "how to protect the field without losing serenity?" 

Probably not possible. Calling someone on a rules violation is going to disrupt "serenity" within the group but sometimes that is the cost you have to pay for doing the right thing. 

I'm sure I've looked the other way on minor rules infractions that had no material impact on the outcome because the cost wasn't worth the benefit. I can't think of any offhand, but to borrow an example from your first post, if someone rotated their ball on the green without marking it, I would probably be more likely to pull them aside on the next hole and tell them they need to mark it next time vs. call a penalty on them. 

But like with many things in life - you can't have your cake and eat it to. If you decide that something needs to be called out for a penalty, you have to accept the likely possibility of temporary discord in the group. Don't be a jerk about it - be polite, but direct - and you give yourself the best chance of a positive outcome.

Edited July 27, 2021 by Big C

[reidsou]

Finally found a video explaining how to take relief when a penalty area is next to a cart path. 

 

[reidsou]

On 7/27/2021 at 9:42 AM, DaveP043 said:

 

The Relief Area must be in the General Area, but that doesn't apply to the area of stance and swing.  As an example, consider a cart path down the left side, with 2 feet of grass between the path and the Penalty Area.  A ball is on the left edge of the path, the NPCR is a few inches off the path towards the PA (for a right-handed player), and his resulting stance might be in the PA.  His area of stance and swing is free of interference by the cart path, even though he'd be standing in the Penalty Area to hit the shot.

Regarding this scenario, just realized that after dropping near the penalty area as described, the player could decide that swinging left-handed is now his best option.

That would have him standing on the cart path and entitled to relief. The NPCR for the left-handed swing, that is in the general area, would be to just to the right of the cart path. 

After taking that relief, the player could decide to swing right-handed, which would again have him standing on the cart path. The NPCR for that swing would now be further to the right of the cart path. 

3 drops! 

Do you agree? 

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, reidsou said:

Regarding this scenario, just realized that after dropping near the penalty area as described, the player could decide that swinging left-handed is now his best option.

That would have him standing on the cart path and entitled to relief. The NPCR for the left-handed swing, that is in the general area, would be to just to the right of the cart path. 

After taking that relief, the player could decide to swing right-handed, which would again have him standing on the cart path. The NPCR for that swing would now be further to the right of the cart path. 

3 drops! 

Do you agree? 

It is definitely possible, depending on the distance from the PA to the path, and the terrain inside the Penalty Area.  But if the player has a reasonable stance and swing, right-handed, while standing in the Penalty Area, to choose to swing left-handed solely in order to get relief from the path would be unreasonable.  See Interpretation 16.1a(3)/2.

[reidsou]

Happened again yesterday. Fellow competitor was on the fringe, one inch off the green. Looked at me, then marked his ball, picked it up and cleaned it!  

[iacas]

4 hours ago, reidsou said:

Happened again yesterday. Fellow competitor was on the fringe, one inch off the green. Looked at me, then marked his ball, picked it up and cleaned it!  

That’s easy to call then.

[DaveP043]

6 hours ago, reidsou said:

Happened again yesterday. Fellow competitor was on the fringe, one inch off the green. Looked at me, then marked his ball, picked it up and cleaned it!  

And that's "difficult to call"?  

[reidsou]

9 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

And that's "difficult to call"?  

What can I say? Total wimp!

What makes it "hard to call" for me is inviting conflict over a rule violation that gave the player no significant advantage. 

[reidsou]

On 5/22/2022 at 11:20 PM, reidsou said:

Finally found a video explaining how to take relief when a penalty area is next to a cart path. 

 

Our tournament director just watched this video. His reaction was that he and everyone he plays with have been illegally dropping across the cart path.

He requested a local rule to allow this. (After discussion of the possible 4 drop scenario mentioned above.)

Can't find a model local rule that fits. Emailed the USGA for help. 

[dennyjones]

13 minutes ago, reidsou said:

What makes it "hard to call" for me is inviting conflict over a rule violation that gave the player no significant advantage. 

If there was mud on his ball, it would be a huge advantage.

[reidsou]

13 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

If there was mud on his ball, it would be a huge advantage.

Good point. In this case there wasn't. 

The original question was about possible conflict over "insignificant" infractions. I found this one difficult as the player knew he was breaking the rule and that I was watching. 

[Shindig]

2 minutes ago, reidsou said:

Good point. In this case there wasn't. 

The original question was about possible conflict over "insignificant" infractions. I found this one difficult as the player knew he was breaking the rule and that I was watching. 

The problem with these is that we then get into an argument about whether or not the player got an advantage from it, not whether or not the rule was violated.

I realize golf and school aren't the same thing, but I'll give an example from my profession.  I'm a teacher and there was recently a period of remote instruction.  One of the hazards of this is giving an exam.  It was common for me, during this, to catch students during an exam soliciting answers from "tutoring" websites.  The first time I caught a student, he had posted a question from the exam asking for help "on his homework."  The website had "expert helpers," one of whom responded to the student during the test.  As it happened, I was able to identify who the student was and get a copy of the "expert answer."  It was hilariously wrong.  Imagine asking someone to help read the break and they recite leave policy from their employee handbook.

Did this help the student on the exam?  No.  If I hadn't noticed that they solicited it from elsewhere, I would have wondered what they were thinking, given their response a zero for that question, and moved on.  If anything, it hurt them on the exam, because they not only didn't get points, but spent time soliciting and copying the answer.  

I still reported it to the university's academic integrity office and failed the student for the class (the penalty for academic dishonesty in the level of course where this took place).  

[reidsou]

1 hour ago, Shindig said:

The problem with these is that we then get into an argument about whether or not the player got an advantage from it, not whether or not the rule was violated.

I realize golf and school aren't the same thing, but I'll give an example from my profession.  I'm a teacher and there was recently a period of remote instruction.  One of the hazards of this is giving an exam.  It was common for me, during this, to catch students during an exam soliciting answers from "tutoring" websites.  The first time I caught a student, he had posted a question from the exam asking for help "on his homework."  The website had "expert helpers," one of whom responded to the student during the test.  As it happened, I was able to identify who the student was and get a copy of the "expert answer."  It was hilariously wrong.  Imagine asking someone to help read the break and they recite leave policy from their employee handbook.

Did this help the student on the exam?  No.  If I hadn't noticed that they solicited it from elsewhere, I would have wondered what they were thinking, given their response a zero for that question, and moved on.  If anything, it hurt them on the exam, because they not only didn't get points, but spent time soliciting and copying the answer.  

I still reported it to the university's academic integrity office and failed the student for the class (the penalty for academic dishonesty in the level of course where this took place).  

This is a great example. Differentiating breaking the rule from whether there was an advantage. 

It may be easier to alert someone who does not know a rule, than a player who knows the rule and breaks it anyway - already a confrontational attitude. Ironically though, the latter is worse.

Whether they gained an advantage or not, their action implies they thought they would. (Lexi Thompson comes to mind, for some reason.) 

[Shindig]

15 minutes ago, reidsou said:

This is a great example. Differentiating breaking the rule from whether there was an advantage. 

It may be easier to alert someone who does not know a rule, than a player who knows the rule and breaks it anyway - already a confrontational attitude. Ironically though, the latter is worse.

Whether they gained an advantage or not, their action implies they thought they would. (Lexi Thompson comes to mind, for some reason.) 

Yes, and in golf, there's the general principle that the penalty for an infraction should be such that you can't gain an advantage by violating a rule.  You probably aren't going to gain even a full stroke advantage by marking and cleaning your ball from just off the green, so that's a reasonable penalty.  For the same one stroke "penalty," you could hit it hard enough to get it onto the putting surface in the general direction of the pin, without regard for break or speed, beyond keeping it on the green (and, I suppose, closer to the hole -- I was imagining the player far from the pin here) then mark it and clean the mud off of it.  Similar with grounding your club to test the sand in a bunker. 

Nearly a decade ago, during my first tournament back with my club after a year away (I moved away and back, I wasn't suspended or anything), on the fifth hole, I picked up my ball on the green without marking it.  I wasn't thinking, I put it right back down, I turned to my friend in the group (who was also the club's rules chair) and asked him to remind me the penalty and how to ensure I'm playing right from there.  How embarrassing. 

By contrast, think of some other sports where violating the rules can be an advantage, without needing to "get away with it."  A decade or so ago, we had two consecutive Super Bowls where a rules violation gave the eventual winners an advantage towards the end:  the Giants purposefully had more than eleven men on the field, taking a small yardage penalty at the end of the game but burning clock.  The Ravens had their line purposefully commit holding in the waning seconds of the game before taking a deliberate safety.  I'm not saying football needs to reform so you can't gain by a penalty -- these were smart moves by their coaches, to use the rules to their advantage.  I wouldn't even call what they did cheating that "rules violation" implies -- the rules prescribe a penalty for certain behaviors, and the coaches decided to perform that behavior and pay the cost of doing so.  I don't think we see that in golf.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Shindig

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, reidsou said:

What makes it "hard to call" for me is inviting conflict over a rule violation that gave the player no significant advantage. 

2 hours ago, reidsou said:

Good point. In this case there wasn't. 

The original question was about possible conflict over "insignificant" infractions. I found this one difficult as the player knew he was breaking the rule and that I was watching. 

This is the easy part, to me.  If you do certain things, you are penalized, whether you get an advantage or not.  This particular player knowingly broke the rule, I'd find it pretty easy to tell him he has to add a penalty stroke to his score.  I don't go around looking for infractions to call, like a referee in basketball or football, but to see someone blatantly break the rules makes my choice simple.

 

[iacas]

7 hours ago, reidsou said:

What can I say? Total wimp!

What makes it "hard to call" for me is inviting conflict over a rule violation that gave the player no significant advantage. 

Sac up.

6 hours ago, reidsou said:

He requested a local rule to allow this. (After discussion of the possible 4 drop scenario mentioned above.)

They could also mark the course better.

This doesn't feel like it belongs in this topic, either.

6 hours ago, dennyjones said:

If there was mud on his ball, it would be a huge advantage.

Yep. Or maybe he wanted to align the logo or a line on his ball.

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

This is the easy part, to me.  If you do certain things, you are penalized, whether you get an advantage or not.  This particular player knowingly broke the rule, I'd find it pretty easy to tell him he has to add a penalty stroke to his score.  I don't go around looking for infractions to call, like a referee in basketball or football, but to see someone blatantly break the rules makes my choice simple.

Yep. Dave has a pair.

[billchao]

11 hours ago, reidsou said:

What can I say? Total wimp!

What makes it "hard to call" for me is inviting conflict over a rule violation that gave the player no significant advantage. 

In a competition? You absolutely have to call it out.

Even in casual play, I would have said something to that player. If you give them the benefit of doubt and approach the situation with the attitude that they might not have known they were breaking the rules, it gives them the opportunity to save a little face.