Is "ready" golf against the rules?

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogolf

Incredible! Such censoring!

Censorship? Removal of off-topic, non-content posts is called moderation. Your posts had no apparent on-topic content. They added nothing to the conversation. Having deleted the third such content-free post, I was in the middle of writing you a PM, but since you insist, I'll post it here.

---

Quote:

This is the third time I've posted this, apparently the administrator doesn't like contrary opinions?

rip (the next poster)

Please don't assume. You know what they say about assuming.

The first two times you posted (just the last line in the quote just above), a moderator deleted your post with the code "NT" which means "no text" or "no content." In this case, no relevant text or content. I'm inclined to agree: "rip (the next poster)" doesn't have any real content.

The third time, I deleted your post (quoted in full above) and am sending you this PM.

---

You said you were done posting in the thread earlier. Why return just to say something as devoid of value as "rip (the next poster)"?

Your comment is also clearly at odds with the history of the thread: we have been discussing contrary opinions the entire time. The posts in which you actually post content have remained as you've posted them. They've been quoted, debated, and discussed, but not deleted. Not a one.

A big reason the forum exists is to discuss and debate. The forum would be a boring place if there was no "contrary opinion" to discuss.

That all said, IMO you've yet to provide a compelling argument why you are interpreting the Rules properly, or why myself, @Fourputt , @Golfingdad , and others are interpreting them incorrectly.

You're welcome to keep trying, just as you're welcome to not post anymore as you claimed you would (not) be doing earlier.

You're not welcome to continue to post nonsense like "rip (the next poster)".

Post about the topic being discussed.

[rogolf]

It's unfortunate that you're not willing to accept an opinion that differs from your own.  Instead you choose to rip those posts that offer different views.  Such behaviour will obviously inhibit others from posting.

Back to the topic at hand with an update - Decision 10-2c/2 was in effect prior to the ruling that Wendy obtained in 2000.  Are you suggesting that the USGA was unaware of this Decision when Wendy obtained the ruling, or are you just going to be contrary?

While I said that I was "finished", I cannot let what I consider wrong opinions to persist, and the last post be perceived as correct.

[iacas]

It's unfortunate that you're not willing to accept an opinion that differs from your own.  Instead you choose to rip those posts that offer different views.  Such behaviour will obviously inhibit others from posting.

Why would I accept an agreement with which I disagree, and which I feel has not been supported? I could say the same to you: it's "unfortunate" that you are not willing to accept an opinion that differs from your own. See how that works?

Convince me (and others). You don't just get to say "you're not agreeing with me" as if that's bad behavior on my part.

I also disagree with your classification of my posts as "ripping" anyone. I disagree, and explained why.

Back to the topic at hand with an update - Decision 10-2c/2 was in effect prior to the ruling that Wendy obtained in 2000.  Are you suggesting that the USGA was unaware of this Decision when Wendy obtained the ruling, or are you just going to be contrary?

We don't know what ruling Wendy received in 2000, nor the wording of the question she posed to them.

I feel I've laid out my reasoning for why I believe that asking and agreeing to play "ready golf" for the purpose of speeding up play is perfectly legitimate. You've failed to offer a counter-argument, IMO.

Again, basically: if the Rules of Golf permit an agreement for one hole, they permit an agreement for two holes, three holes, or 18 holes. Rule 1-3 does not apply, because the Rule is not waived as nobody is gaining an advantage.

I'm awaiting my own answer from the USGA (question is above). I expect it to arrive shortly.

I'm siding with Wendy on this issue - there is a difference between agreeing (beforehand) to waive the operation of a Rule of golf and doing so incidentally, even purposefully, during a round.

I believe that's incorrect. Whether you agree to waive a rule prior to the start of play or on the 18th tee, it's irrelevant: it's an agreement to waive a Rule. Despite what you say, it matters not when it occurs.

1-3 . Agreement To Waive Rules

Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred.

Nowhere in there does it say that there's a different ruling if players agree before or during play. There is no difference.

[rogolf]

I rest my case.  Good night.

[iacas]

I rest my case.  Good night.

What case? AFAICT you haven't made a case.

I disagree with you. I don't know how many different ways I can say that, and point out WHY I disagree with you. Others do as well.

Heres another way: please find me another case where the Rules of Golf say "you're free to waive the rules on the 10th hole of the course, but nowhere else" on the course as 10-2c/2 says.

Sleep well. Maybe tomorrow you'll re-read this with fresh eyes or something and see why you've failed to change any minds here. I'm sure you're likely as frustrated as I am - I am frustrated because I've yet to see any Rules-based reasons why my interpretation is incorrect.

This mostly goes back to this post, and the next few that follow: http://thesandtrap.com/t/78133/is-ready-golf-against-the-rules/36#post_1077599 .

And I'll share a brief summary of the response I get from the USGA when it arrives.

[Golfingdad]

It's unfortunate that you're not willing to accept an opinion that differs from your own.  Instead you choose to rip those posts that offer different views.  Such behaviour will obviously inhibit others from posting.

I'm sorry, but this is a bunch of bologna.  If I had a nickel for overtime somebody has played this victim card in a thread where they debate Erik, I'd have at least a couple of bucks. ;)  And they're (you're) never right.

On what planet is a differing viewpoint considered "ripping?"  He's done nothing but explain his position to you in detail and with references.  The idea of debate is that you counter with your opinion and your references.  I've heard your opinion, but your references (Wendy's ruling and 1-3) don't seem to help any.

Back to the topic at hand with an update - Decision 10-2c/2 was in effect prior to the ruling that Wendy obtained in 2000.  Are you suggesting that the USGA was unaware of this Decision when Wendy obtained the ruling, or are you just going to be contrary?

We have no idea what Wendy's ruling is, and your other argument is that they are in violation of 1-3.  I've yet to be shown where in the rules it says that its against the rules in stroke play to play out of turn when it's not providing an advantage.  Are you suggesting that saying "let's play ready golf today" before the round is some secret code for "let's all play out of turn whenever possible to give each other an advantage?"  Because if not, then I cannot see the basis for your conclusion.

To be in violation of 1-3, you have to agree to waive a RULE.  Playing honors 100% of the time isn't a requirement, and playing out of turn occasionally is permitted, therefore a ready golf agreement is not an agreement to waive a RULE.

I see no way in this scenario where 1-3 applies.  Feel free to explain why you think it does.

[mvmac]

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.

That's my take as well, it's pretty clear.

It's unfortunate that you're not willing to accept an opinion that differs from your own.  Instead you choose to rip those posts that offer different views.  Such behaviour will obviously inhibit others from posting.

I think you need to re-read the thread. Erik hasn't "ripped" anyone, he's supported his opinion with substance in a respectful manner. He's provided examples, been clear with his explanation and is even getting feedback from the USGA. Sometimes when people disagree online, there is a negative "tone" people can apply to the opposing party.

To be in violation of 1-3, you have to agree to waive a RULE.  Playing honors 100% of the time isn't a requirement, and playing out of turn occasionally is permitted, therefore a ready golf agreement is not an agreement to waive a RULE.

Correct.

[acerimusdux]

To be in violation of 1-3, you have to agree to waive a RULE.  Playing honors 100% of the time isn't a requirement, and playing out of turn occasionally is permitted, therefore a ready golf agreement is not an agreement to waive a RULE.

I see no way in this scenario where 1-3 applies.  Feel free to explain why you think it does.

I think this probably comes down to disagreement over the meaning of "ready golf".  Most of us seem to think it means allowing players to agree to play out of turn when doing so will save time. I think the 10-2c/2 decision makes clear that would be allowed. If an agreement is allowed in a certain situation, it must also be allowed to agree to do this in advance should that situation arise .

Most of Wendy's objections though seem to involve players agreeing to disregard order of play entirely, or situaitons where one player may not agree to disregard order of play.  It's possible that her ruling involved one of those situaitons.

I also think there are one or two ambiguities in the rule which haven't yet been adressed by published decisions:

1. Under 10c, it really doesn't matter whether there was any agreement, there is no penalty there for playing out of turn, even if a player does this unilaterally, without consulting the other players, so long as there is no advantage.

2. An interesting rules question might be whether it is permitted to play out of turn if this gives a player a disadvantage . I tend to think this should also be prohibited, but the rule doesn't say "advantage or disadvantage".  I'm not sure if there is any ruling anywhere which addresses this.

As such, an interesting case question might be something like "player A knows that player B tends to get the yips when he has too much time to think about a put, and so deliberately plays out of turn so that he is in the way of B, forcing him to wait."

That may seem slightly off-topic from "ready golf" (which is supposed to be about saving time), but I think the way Wendy is interpreting it is somewhat analagous. If a player can play out of turn unilaterally (meaning without agreement) without penalty, and a player may do so causing a disadvantage to another player (so long as it causes no advantage), then what is there to prevent the above?

[acerimusdux]

I should add, 1-3 explicitly excludes penalty for agreement to play out of order in stroke play, by directly referencing 10-2c:

Quote:

1-3 . Agreement to Waive Rules

Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE 1-3 :

Match play – Disqualification of both sides ;

Stroke play – Disqualification of competitors concerned.

(Agreeing to play out of turn in stroke play – see Rule 10-2c )

So I wasn't aware until I looked, but not only do the rules explicitly have no penalty for playing out of order, they also explicitly have no penalty under 1-3 for an agreement to play out of order in strole play.

[Ernest Jones]

Let me start by saying I do not keep a handicap but I am considering doing so next year.

My friends and I play ready golf. By ready golf I mean whoever is ready to hit their ball first does so with no regard to who is farthest from the hole or who has honors.

Am I right that this is against the rules and I will need to change if I am keeping an official handicap?

Ready golf is perfectly legitimate and even encouraged by the powers that be. You may keep an official handicap while playing ready golf. All good.

You're welcome.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acerimusdux

I should add, 1-3 explicitly excludes penalty for agreement to play out of order in stroke play, by directly referencing 10-2c:

Quote:

1-3 . Agreement to Waive Rules

Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE 1-3 :

Match play – Disqualification of both sides ;

Stroke play – Disqualification of competitors concerned.

(Agreeing to play out of turn in stroke play – see Rule 10-2c )

So I wasn't aware until I looked, but not only do the rules explicitly have no penalty for playing out of order, they also explicitly have no penalty under 1-3 for an agreement to play out of order in strole play.

Nice catch!  I would say that this should end the argument.  The rules do go out of their way to point out this one exception, as I inferred a few pages back.  I didn't have this particular quote referenced, but I drew the same conclusion.

[iacas]

I think this probably comes down to disagreement over the meaning of "ready golf".  Most of us seem to think it means allowing players to agree to play out of turn when doing so will save time. I think the 10-2c/2 decision makes clear that would be allowed. If an agreement is allowed in a certain situation, it must also be allowed to agree to do this in advance should that situation arise.

I agree. That's largely been my point. It's allowed once, and there are no situations where the Rules of Golf let you violate the Rules "on the 10th hole" only, or "sometimes" or something else. If a specific thing is explicitly allowed once, it's allowed everywhere, any time.

Most of Wendy's objections though seem to involve players agreeing to disregard order of play entirely, or situations where one player may not agree to disregard order of play.  It's possible that her ruling involved one of those situations.

It's possible, but since they won't even share (something that was asked and answered 14+ years ago), we have no way of knowing.

That is NOT the definition of "ready golf" to which I subscribe, but even if it was… I still imagine that the the committee would have to decide that one of them gains an advantage. I'm not sure that they could easily do that even if the players "disregard order of play entirely."

This is off-topic, so I'm posting it here in the spoiler.

I also think there are one or two ambiguities in the rule which haven't yet been adressed by published decisions:

1. Under 10c, it really doesn't matter whether there was any agreement, there is no penalty there for playing out of turn, even if a player does this unilaterally, without consulting the other players, so long as there is no advantage.

2. An interesting rules question might be whether it is permitted to play out of turn if this gives a player a disadvantage. I tend to think this should also be prohibited, but the rule doesn't say "advantage or disadvantage".  I'm not sure if there is any ruling anywhere which addresses this.

I only see one confusing point there, and I think that the Rules of Golf never really stop a golfer from giving himself a disadvantage. You can declare your ball unplayable two inches from the hole if you want; the Rules aren't going to DQ you for it. That's a situation where the thing

Now, if the situation arises where a player is giving himself a disadvantage so that someone else in his group can gain an advantage, then it's DQ-worthy again.

In all of these instances, of course, the committee must use their judgment to decide.

As such, an interesting case question might be something like "player A knows that player B tends to get the yips when he has too much time to think about a put, and so deliberately plays out of turn so that he is in the way of B, forcing him to wait."

That may seem slightly off-topic from "ready golf" (which is supposed to be about saving time), but I think the way Wendy is interpreting it is somewhat analagous. If a player can play out of turn unilaterally (meaning without agreement) without penalty, and a player may do so causing a disadvantage to another player (so long as it causes no advantage), then what is there to prevent the above?

In that case, I believe giving another player a disadvantage is equivalent to giving yourself (a fellow competitor) an advantage.

I should add, 1-3 explicitly excludes penalty for agreement to play out of order in stroke play, by directly referencing 10-2c:

So I wasn't aware until I looked, but not only do the rules explicitly have no penalty for playing out of order, they also explicitly have no penalty under 1-3 for an agreement to play out of order in strole play.

Ha, yeah, you're right. I hadn't scrolled down past the red text in the past few days. Probably could have saved us all some time… derrrrrp.

---

Look, guys… the Rules seem awfully clear on this. I see no reason for this thread to continue. The OP's question has been answered… a few times now. The answer is "no, it's not against the rules."

Some brief points of order:

• If you want to discuss the stuff I put in the spoiler tag above, you're welcome to create a separate thread. This thread is about "ready golf."
• If your version of "ready golf" is vastly different than "occasionally playing out of turn for the purpose of saving time, but otherwise honoring order of play" then I feel you're in a fairly small minority.
• Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. Think about it before you run off and allege censorship.
• If this entire thread lasted this long because we didn't define what each of us meant by "ready golf" (and if anyone did, the "other side" missed it), then that's on all of us, and we all goofed. It's important to understand the definitions of the words and phrases being used.
• I'll re-open the thread if anyone PMs me or another moderator with a valid reason. I'll update THIS post with a summary of what I get from the USGA when I get it.

[iacas]

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"

I got my reply. It was thorough.

He started with a blanket denial that you cannot be DQed for agreeing to play ready golf, then responded to each of the two questions (part 1 and part 2) separately:

Part 1: DQ only if the agreement means one player an advantage, not for the purposes of speeding up play.

Part 2: He said they're the same question, essentially, and so: 1-3 does not apply, 10-2c/2 does. No DQ.

I think that formally puts this to bed.