Is "ready" golf against the rules?

[rogolf]

It's apparent that you will choose to do what you want to do.  Just don't suggest that we agree, before we begin, to play out of turn unilaterally.  I believe that such an agreement is a breach of 1-3.  If we choose to do it on occasion for some odd and justified reason, other than giving anyone an advantage, that could be fine.  However, if I have the honour and you try to play before me, don't get offended when I object.  "Ready golf" is not the salvation for slow play and shouldn't be presented as such.

I don't think this needs to be debated any further as we all understand and appreciate each others' position with respect to the Rules.

[Golfingdad]

That Decision applies to a single stroke on a single hole. An explicit agreement to disregard a Rule, for let's say an entire round, isn't permitted. (See Wendy's posts. She has, in hand, a ruling from the USGA forbidding such.)

What rule?  From what I've been reading here the only Rule is that you can't play out of turn if either player is to gain an advantage. A vague "lets plat ready golf today" prior to the round holds no implication that:

A) They even would necessarily play out of turn.  And

B) That they would ever do so in order to give either player an advantage.

To me, it's more of a polite way of saying "please don't play like molasses today everybody"

---

The tournaments I play in around here, the director always tells us to play ready golf when he hands us our scorecards and he also always makes a point to say that we should putt out once it's our turn (as long as, obviously, we aren't standing in others lines).  The other example that he always gives is that if one guy is in the bushes, the rest of us should try and hit our approaches first before helping him search.

[Rulesman]

There's a sign over the desk that says "Play 'ready golf.'"

But if you're playing in a tournament, I would think tournament rules override that.

If there is a conflict, they do.

[iacas]

That Decision applies to a single stroke on a single hole.

No, it applies to an entire hole. It doesn't say that it applies to a stroke. It also specifically, explicitly states that "competitors agree to play out of turn".

Let's re-word the rule a little bit and I think you'll see what I'm saying:

Q. In stroke play, A and B agree that the 10th hole is stupidly designed. They do not like OB on both sides and agree to play it as a lateral hazard. Neither ends up actually hitting the ball OB, but the agreement was made. Are they liable to disqualification under Rule 1-3 for agreeing to exclude the Rules of Golf?

A. Nah.

Of course that would be garbage. And in fact Decision 1-3/0.5 specifically states that they were in breach as soon as the agreement was reached, even if they did not strike any golf balls or record any scores that didn't perfectly align with the Rules of Golf. The simple agreement was enough to result in the DQ penalty.

In other words, "that applies to a single stroke on a single hole" doesn't hold water - Decision 1-3/0.5 applies to ZERO STROKES on ANY hole.

10-2c/2 the USGA explicitly allows not only the agreement but the actual play of strokes, out of order, to save time so long as no advantage is gained.

An explicit agreement to disregard a Rule, for let's say an entire round, isn't permitted. (See Wendy's posts. She has, in hand, a ruling from the USGA forbidding such.)

Wendy's ruling is from 2000. I don't know when 10-2c/2 was added, nor do we know the specifics of how she worded the question, etc. The USGA (for whatever bizarre reason) prohibits the posting of their rulings verbatim (though she could publish the question).

Furthermore, "for let's say an entire round" is 100% irrelevant. The Rules of Golf do not allow you to break the rules "for let's say one or two holes" - particularly Rule 1. Otherwise, well, those breakfast balls some guys like to take off the first tee may as well be legal, because "it's just a single hole."

Hogwash.

I have an email in to the USGA as well. My question says simply:

Part 1: Player A says "We playing ready golf today fellas?" before anyone in his foursome tees off to start a round of stroke play. The other three players (B, C, and D) agree. Are they DQed under 1-3 simply for agreement to play out of turn?

Part 2: Are they DQed if it's well known by the committee that these players understand "ready golf" to mean "occasionally playing out of turn solely in order to speed up play?" Perhaps C was unsure what "ready golf" meant so A provided that definition prior to their agreement, after which they all agreed.

So I'm clear, I'm looking for two answers, to parts 1 and 2. They may be the same, but if reasoning could be provided for both I would very much appreciate it.

I'm aware that I will not be able to post the specific answer given to me. Thank you.

The Subject: Agreement to Play "Ready Golf"

They are still "agreeing to disregard a rule".

Right. Nowhere in the relevant Rule or Decisions (Rule 1) is it allowed "for just one hole." As cited above, it's not even legal just to make the agreement, even if the agreement never comes into play.

If it's okay in that decision then by extrapolation it should be okay anytime it isn't done to give an advantage, regardless of the location or intent.

Yes.

It's apparent that you will choose to do what you want to do.

What does that even mean?

It's apparent to me that 10-2c/2 makes this allowable so long as no advantage is gained. Both criteria must be met for the DQ penalty (golf's stiffest, you'll note) to be issued.

That bears some thought, too: this isn't a one-stroke penalty, or even two strokes, for the agreement or actually playing out of turn . No, it's a flat out DQ.

Yet players are DQed in 1-3/0.5 for simply agreeing but not even actually playing a stroke outside of the Rules. The simple agreement is all it takes in that case.

Just don't suggest that we agree, before we begin, to play out of turn unilaterally.

"We playing ready golf today fellas?" is not an agreement to play out of turn unilaterally. That doesn't even make sense. "Unilaterally" means I command the group to play out of turn or something.

Definition: (of an action or decision) performed by or affecting only one person , group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others: unilateral nuclear disarmament .

Your statement literally doesn't make sense in the context of the current discussion.

I believe that such an agreement is a breach of 1-3.

Decision 10-2c/2 seems very clearly to disagree with you. Here, I've changed the wording:

Q. In stroke play, A and B agree to play out of turn to save time. There is no penalty under Rule 10-2c because they did not do so in order to give one of them an advantage. However, are they liable to disqualification under Rule 1-3 for agreeing to exclude the operation of Rule 10-2a or 10-2b as the case may be?

A. No. Rule 10-2c specifically governs and permits the procedure in stroke play. Accordingly, Rule 1-3 does not apply. As to match play, see Decision 10-1c/3 .

If we choose to do it on occasion for some odd and justified reason, other than giving anyone an advantage, that could be fine.

No, not "could be fine." Very clearly is fine.

And please find in the Rules of Golf any such instance where things "could be fine" if done "on occasion for some odd and justified reason."

Those instances don't exist. If you're allowed to do something in one situation, you're allowed to do it in another. That's almost the definition of "equity" - Tufts says:

Like situations shall be treated alike is a principle so obvious that it seems rather ridiculous to even bring up for discussion. Unfortunately it is one of the most difficult principles for the average golfer to accept.

The principle is established in the Rules by what is termed the equity rule [Rule 1-4], which, since it stipulates that those matters not covered by the Rules be decided in equity, implies that matters covered by the Rules have been disposed of on an equitable basis.

The difficulty is to fix a proper definition for equity as used in the Rules. Does it mean justice, in the sense that the penalty should be adjusted to fit the crime? Does it mean impartiality, which implies a lack of prejudice in reaching decisions? Both these definitions suggest an examination of the circumstances connected with each separate violation and the administration of a suitable penalty. Any such process is obviously impossible in golf simply because it is impractical to provide the necessary authority. Judges are not available on each tee and a code of graduated penalties would fill more than five feet on anyone' book shelf.

The only practical answer, therefore, is to disregard the attendant circumstances and deal with similar situations in the same way. The Rules cannot assure justice but they can establish principles which are, as far as possible, based on justice.

The approach is not whether " particular situation is unfair to me," but rather whether " in a similar situation and I in mine are treated alike under the Rules."

However, if I have the honour and you try to play before me, don't get offended when I object.

That is not what is being discussed.

"Ready golf" is not the salvation for slow play and shouldn't be presented as such.

Nobody has said that it is. What conversation are you having, exactly?

I don't think this needs to be debated any further as we all understand and appreciate each others' position with respect to the Rules.

Yeah… you are interpreting the Rules and Decisions incorrectly.

If you're done, cool. I'm done too so long as you stop making weird assertions that it "could be" okay to violate the Rules of Golf "on occasion for some odd and justified reason."

[rogolf]

If we choose to do it on occasion for some odd and justified reason, other than giving anyone an advantage, that could be fine.

This has been taken out of context.  The context intended was pertaining to the specific incident of playing out of turn for some odd and justified reason (saving time, retrieving a club, washroom break) could be fine, ie, might not be a breach of the specific Rule.  The wording was purposely chosen since "circumstances alter cases" and the above statement is not be true in all situations, and definitely not intended or true for all Rules.

The Decisions tell us when a specific action may or may not be within the Rules (some odd and justified reason could be fine).

Now I'm finished.

[Patch]

I always thought "ready golf" meant being ready to hit your ball when it was "your turn" to hit. I don't think ready golf, and hitting out of turn collide very well with each other. Two different things going on there. Now in casual rounds all bets are off who hits first since nothing is planned or expected. You are out there for fun. Hit the ball, go find it, and hit it again

[David in FL]

I always thought "ready golf" meant being ready to hit your ball when it was "your turn" to hit.

Not really. Ready golf generally means that the first person ready to play their shot should do so, without regard to the normal honor or position on the hole.

[Lihu]

I always thought "ready golf" meant being ready to hit your ball when it was "your turn" to hit. I don't think ready golf, and hitting out of turn collide very well with each other. Two different things going on there. Now in casual rounds all bets are off who hits first since nothing is planned or expected. You are out there for fun. Hit the ball, go find it, and hit it again

Not really. Ready golf generally means that the first person ready to play their shot should do so, without regard to the normal honor or position on the hole.

In my experience, it is relatively rare to need to play out of order on the way to the green, and by the time we are on the green it's not really a big time saver to not follow the ROG.

Has this been your experience as well?

[David in FL]

In my experience, it is relatively rare to need to play out of order on the way to the green, and by the time we are on the green it's not really a big time saver to not follow the ROG. Has this been your experience as well?

Not really. It's not really about "need". It's simply a mindset. Move directly to your ball, and play as soon as you safely can. Except to ensure that you're not in the way of someone behind you, play without regard to their location. Often a player further up will play while someone else is looking for a ball or otherwise genuinely delayed for a few minutes. They'll catch up....or in a cart, you can circle back and get them. Unless they're waiting on the group ahead of them, someone in the group should always be swinging a golf club. And that mindset can be the difference between a 3:15 round and a 4:30 round....

[Lihu]

Not really.

It's not really about "need". It's simply a mindset. Move directly to your ball, and play as soon as you safely can. Except to ensure that you're not in the way of someone behind you, play without regard to their location. Often a player further up will play while someone else is looking for a ball or otherwise genuinely delayed for a few minutes. They'll catch up....or in a cart, you can circle back and get them. Unless they're waiting on the group ahead of them, someone in the group should always be swinging a golf club.

And that mindset can be the difference between a 3:15 round and a 4:30 round....

This is exactly what I do, unless I am directly in line of someone's shot.

[David in FL]

This is exactly what I do, unless I am directly in line of someone's shot.

Nothing drives me crazier than 2 carts and 4 guys clustered around one knucklehead to watch him play his shot!

[Ernest Jones]

Nothing drives me crazier than 2 carts and 4 guys clustered around one knucklehead to watch him play his shot!

I have yet to play a round in carts that was as fast as a round walked. I understand that some course designs make carts a necessity but I haven't played any of them.

[Fourputt]

It's apparent that you will choose to do what you want to do.  Just don't suggest that we agree, before we begin, to play out of turn unilaterally.  I believe that such an agreement is a breach of 1-3.  If we choose to do it on occasion for some odd and justified reason, other than giving anyone an advantage, that could be fine.  However, if I have the honour and you try to play before me, don't get offended when I object.  "Ready golf" is not the salvation for slow play and shouldn't be presented as such.

I don't think this needs to be debated any further as we all understand and appreciate each others' position with respect to the Rules.

So, if we arrive at our balls simultaneously, you on the left side of the fairway and me well into the right rough some 50 yards away, and I immediately start my routine, step up and play my stroke without really paying any attention to what you are doing, you are going to gripe at me for doing so because you were a couple of yards farther away that I was?  I find that entire scenario to be a bit ridiculous.  Some 20 or more years ago I read an article with a quote from a Scotsman who couldn't understand what he called the "American" obsession with order of play.  All he saw was that it slowed the round down without accomplishing anything else.

In my experience, it is relatively rare to need to play out of order on the way to the green, and by the time we are on the green it's not really a big time saver to not follow the ROG.

Has this been your experience as well?

No, it hasn't.  In fact that is more likely to be convenient.  A short knocker who has briefly misplaced his ball - why would I wait for even an extra 30 seconds if I'm at my ball and ready to play?  Or a player who has to rake a fairway bunker having only hitting his shot from it about 15 feet.  I'll play while he tends to his bunker grooming.  Or I just happen to be at my ball and ready a few seconds sooner.  Why should I wait while he dawdles?  When there is no blockage in front of my group, I see no reason at all for standing around waiting for a specific order of play if making my shot does not bother or interfere with another.

[rogolf]

So, if we arrive at our balls simultaneously, you on the left side of the fairway and me well into the right rough some 50 yards away, and I immediately start my routine, step up and play my stroke without really paying any attention to what you are doing, you are going to gripe at me for doing so because you were a couple of yards farther away that I was?  I find that entire scenario to be a bit ridiculous.  Some 20 or more years ago I read an article with a quote from a Scotsman who couldn't understand what he called the "American" obsession with order of play.  All he saw was that it slowed the round down without accomplishing anything else.

No, it hasn't.  In fact that is more likely to be convenient.  A short knocker who has briefly misplaced his ball - why would I wait for even an extra 30 seconds if I'm at my ball and ready to play?  Or a player who has to rake a fairway bunker having only hitting his shot from it about 15 feet.  I'll play while he tends to his bunker grooming.  Or I just happen to be at my ball and ready a few seconds sooner.  Why should I wait while he dawdles?  When there is no blockage in front of my group, I see no reason at all for standing around waiting for a specific order of play if making my shot does not bother or interfere with another.

Guess I'm not quite finished, need to correct one thing - I would have no gripe at you in the situation you've described.  My point was regarding the "honour", which only exists on the teeing ground.

[iacas]

If we choose to do it on occasion for some odd and justified reason, other than giving anyone an advantage, that could be fine.

This has been taken out of context. The context intended was pertaining to the specific incident of playing out of turn for some odd and justified reason (saving time, retrieving a club, washroom break) could be fine, ie, might not be a breach of the specific Rule. The wording was purposely chosen since "circumstances alter cases" and the above statement is not be true in all situations, and definitely not intended or true for all Rules.

Let's ignore the fact that you haven't really said anything here. It's a bunch of wishy-washy mumbo jumbo, when the situation is fairly clear, and the Rules and Decisions are as well.

I also don't think anyone took that out of context.

The Rules of Golf explicitly state that playing out of turn for some odd and justified reason (to save time) is allowable. There's no "could be fine" about it. Unless a player gains an advantage , the Rules of Golf don't particularly care about the order of play in stroke play.

The Rules of Golf also explicitly state that players can explicitly agree to play out of turn for that reason and that is allowable as well, so long as a player is not given an advantage in doing so.

The Rules of Golf are not at all permissive about "agreeing to waive the Rules." If you wish to claim that agreeing to play ready golf is actually a violation of 1-3, then there would be no "could be" about it - the folks in 1-3/0.5 are DQed before they even ACT on their agreement, let alone play the entire 10th hole on that action (D10-2c/2).

---

Let me put it a different way.

Rule 10 says that a player can be DQed if he plays out of turn and the committee determines that they agreed to play out of turn in order to give one of them an advantage. That means there are two criteria to waiving the Rule:

• A player has to play out of turn
• The group has to have agreed to it in order to give someone an advantage .

In other words, if Player A says before his group tees off "Hey guys, I'm the only one here who can win today, so how about I go last so I can see how the wind is affecting your shots, and I'll give each of you 10% of my winnings." then absolutely, they could all be DQed, because in that case they would be agreeing to waive the full Rule of Golf, including the important part about giving someone an advantage.

After all… playing out of turn to speed up play is not only ignored by the Rules of Golf, it's flat out condoned in Decision 10-2c/2.

The Decisions tell us when a specific action may or may not be within the Rules (some odd and justified reason could be fine).

More vague mumbo jumbo, when the topic being discussed is quite clear.

---

In other words, I think it's pretty clear that you cannot be DQed for playing "ready golf" or agreeing to play ready golf under 10-2 if it's done for the purpose of speeding up play, and not done to give someone an advantage.

So that leaves you with trying to cite that Rule 1-3 is what results in the DQ, yet… Decision 10-2c/2 trumps that. Why? How does a Decision trump a Rule? Because that's the wrong way to think about it. The Decision isn't "trumping" the Rule, it's pointing out that players who agree to play ready golf to speed up play have NOT agreed to "waive a Rule of Golf." The Rule includes "to give one of them an advantage."

The world of golf would be a fine mess indeed if we got to ignore relevant parts of Rules and just base things on portions of them.

Guess I'm not quite finished, need to correct one thing - I would have no gripe at you in the situation you've described.  My point was regarding the "honour", which only exists on the teeing ground.

What?

Again, I think that if someone specifically made others go first so that he could gain an advantage teeing off, but he was otherwise ready to play (or he habitually made himself unready to play and others agreed with his behavior), and the next player to have the honors teed off, a case could be made for DQing them.* I suspect we agree on that.

But this thread is clearly about "playing ready golf," the purpose of which is to speed up pace of play, not to give "one of them an advantage."

By "them" I mean anyone who explicitly agreed with the play.

You may not have to DQ the entire foursome, of course. Imagine that players have the honor in A, B, C, D fashion. A is ready to play but asks B to play first to gain an advantage. C and D object, but can't physically make A play or stop B from playing. I imagine the committee would DQ only A and B in that case, of course, as C and D did not "agree."

Or imagine that C and D weren't paying attention, and B and A concocted this thing on their own - C and D likely would not be DQed in that case either because they didn't "agree" specifically.

[David in FL]

I have yet to play a round in carts that was as fast as a round walked. I understand that some course designs make carts a necessity but I haven't played any of them.

Fast players in carts are faster than the same players walking....period. Simple time and distance. Slow players are slower than fast players, regardless of how they each get from point A to point B.

[iacas]

Fast players in carts are faster than the same players walking....period. Simple time and distance.

Slow players are slower than fast players, regardless of how they each get from point A to point B.

Carts used improperly can be slower than walking.

And… this is a Rules thread, so let's keep conversation to that.

[rogolf]

Incredible!  Such censoring!