Decisions in The Rules of Golf

[pjsnyc]

I was bored yesterday so I decided to read

The Rules of Golf ...again Anyone ever notice how many decisions were made/altered so as to protect golfers that have never read the Rules of Golf? Here's an example:

2-1/6 Replaying Match When Play Discontinued Instead of Resuming from Where Play Stopped Q. A match which was all square after 16 holes was discontinued by agreement due to darkness. The match should have been resumed at the 17th hole. However, the players, thinking it was in accordance with the Rules, replayed the match starting at the 1st tee. The result was posted. At that point the Committee became aware of the improper procedure. What is the ruling? A. The result of the match as replayed should stand. The players were not subject to disqualification under Rule 1-3 because they were unaware that their procedure was contrary to the Rules.

I'm surprised these decisions don't drive Roger Maltbie up the wall. Just my $0.02. What are your thoughts?

[DavidFehertysBike]

Seems like a victimless crime. If anything, they should be smacked on the head for playing another 18 holes when they didnt have to, lol.

[pjsnyc]

The one I quoted above is an example.

I'm merely pointing out the irony of this all - those that took the time to read the rules and decisions are subject to more penalties (since they know the rules!) but those that didn't take time to read them are given some slack. It just seems backwards to me is all.

[right handed phil mickelson]

Well, if you know the rules, then you shouldn't break them. Alternatively, if you don't know the rules, then you are unaware that your breaking them, and should be dealt with less harshly. I myself don't know jack about rules but hey, who needs em?!

obviously I'm just kidding ;)

~RHPM

[TN94z]

I was bored yesterday so I decided to read

It's funny that you brought this up. I found a rules book lying on my counter last weekend and started reading it.

[pjsnyc]

It's funny that you brought this up. I found a rules book lying on my counter last weekend and started reading it.

Definitely good to read through once in a while. It just never dawned on me the sheer quantity of decisions designed to protect naive golfers.

I'll admit that there are plenty of instances where I don't know an exact ruling and just kinda interpret them myself and refer back afterwards... but damn!

[ApocG10]

Well, I admit I didnt know a lot of the rules. But I have been reading them lately (Iacas posted a link in a thread I started. But I can honestly say I haven't made too many mistakes, because when I was unsure, i'd ask someone who knew.

[zeg]

I don't think that's a great example of "protecting" naive golfers. It is in complete accordance with the equity principle -- it was a match, after all, so both parties agreed to play on even terms. It was contrary to the rules, but there was no intent (or even possibility of intent) to gain an unfair advantage by the action. If the rules allowed something like this to stand in a stroke play event, then it'd be "protection," but that'd be so ridiculous that it's not even a plausible example.

[pjsnyc]

I don't think that's a great example of "protecting" naive golfers. It is in complete accordance with the equity principle -- it was a match, after all, so both parties agreed to play on even terms. It was contrary to the rules, but there was no intent (or even possibility of intent) to gain an unfair advantage by the action. If the rules allowed something like this to stand in a stroke play event, then it'd be "protection," but that'd be so ridiculous that it's not even a plausible example.

I'll say it one more time: the example in my original post is just that -

an example . Read through the plethora of other decisions in the rule book and you'll see where I'm getting at.

[Fourputt]

I'll say it one more time: the example in my original post is just that -

Show me a similar example that applies to stroke play. I doubt that you can find one. That is simply because the rules have

always applied differently to match play. It doesn't even require a decision. In a match, if both players agree that a procedure is right, then it is, regardless of what the rules say as long as they don't breach 1-3. A player who does know the rules may even choose to ignore a breach by his opponent. The reason is because it only affects the players who are directly involved. In stroke play all of the rules must be applied equally and correctly to protect the entire field. In such case, no breach can go unchallenged or unpunished. A player who sees and ignores a breach by his fellow competitor can in some cases be disqualified by the committee for not calling the penalty and protecting the rest of the field.

[tulefog]

Does the course charge a prorated fee if you play only two holes - 17 and 18 - or does it charge a full green fee?

[pjsnyc]

Show me a similar example that applies to stroke play. I doubt that you can find one. That is simply because the rules have

Never wanted to compare stroke play to match play in the first place. I'm just calling it as it is. As Roger Maltbie would put it - '...if you wanna play this game, you gotta know the rules...'

[iacas]

Never wanted to compare stroke play to match play in the first place. I'm just calling it as it is. As Roger Maltbie would put it - '...if you wanna play this game, you gotta know the rules...'

And given that this discussion is about the rules, I fail to see how Roger Maltbie would really have any room to complain.

At one point someone asked for other examples where ignorance let you off the hook, and I've yet to see anyone post any. And again, the rule cited was for match play. Just as I can concede any hole I want, even before we play it, the players in that situation can decide to play the match over again.

[pjsnyc]

And given that this discussion is about the rules, I fail to see how Roger Maltbie would really have any room to complain.

I'll agree that the decision I originally provided only concerns match play. And this one too:

2-1/1 Players Unable to Resolve Rules Problem Agree to Consider Hole Halved Q. In a match, A putted to within three inches of the hole and then knocked his ball away. B, the opponent, objected. He stated that he wanted A's ball left by the hole. A and B were uncertain how to resolve the matter, so they agreed to consider the hole halved. Should A and B be disqualified under Rule 1-3? A. No. There was no agreement to waive the Rules. Rather, the players were ignorant of the Rules.

Its not like stroke play is the be all end all form of golf. Heck, the PGA championship used to be match play right? (And no - I'm not saying that there were instances of naive pros claiming they didn't know the rules). I guess it was a little bit of a let down in that ignorance to the rules of golf actually reside VERBATIM in the rules and decisions of golf.

[iacas]

I guess it was a little bit of a let down in that ignorance to the rules of golf actually reside VERBATIM in the rules and decisions of golf.

And I guess I still don't see the point (I don't mean that rudely). They're playing against each other, not the field, and not you. If they were playing against you, you would know the rules and this "ignorance" stuff wouldn't matter.

This is like people who cheat and write down par when they probably had a triple. They're only cheating themselves. In this case, the guy who would stand to benefit from the proper rule being enforced is only harming himself. Nobody else.

[pjsnyc]

And I guess I still don't see the point (I don't mean that rudely). They're playing against each other, not the field, and not you. If they were playing against you, you would know the rules and this "ignorance" stuff wouldn't matter.

Hmmm...true

And really - I'm not trying to be nitpicky (though I'm sure it came off as that). It was just a eureka kinda moment as I was sifting through the decisions and figured I'd see what people here had to say. I did get some good feedback from you guys though Anyone else care to chime in?