order of play

[turtleback]

A question arose in the general forum that I would like to pose here to get some opinions from the rules gurus.

Here is the scenario.  Player A and Player B are fellow competitors.  Player A notices that Player B has a habit of playing before it is his turn on the the greens.  Player A decides to just let Player B go ahead without saying anything because it gives Player A information about how fast/slow the green is and how the ball will break.  Ruling?

Or here is another similar scenario.  Player A "hangs back" on par 3 holes when he has the honors so Player B will tee off first and, in the process, give Player A the advantage of having information about what club he hit, wind conditions, and green conditions.  Ruling?

And let's just say, in order to keep the discussion focused on what the rule is rather than how do we prove it, that when questioned by the committee both Player As were honest about their motivations.  Player A said, "He always seemed to be in a hurry to putt and so I just Iet him go first so I could get a read on my own putts."  The second Player A said, "I wanted to see what his ball would do in the air so I let him tee off first."

In essence I think the question is whether this constitutes some kind of implicit "agreement" to ignore the rule or would the committee have to address this through some kind of "in equity" action, or should they just say no problem.  I do not like the last choice because it certainly violates the spirit of the game to allow your fellow competitor to violate the rules in order to get an advantage.

[Dave2512]

Probably not the answer you are looking for but in casual play I wouldn't even think about it. I don't play with anyone good enough where there is anything to gain by watching anything they do. May be leery of it in a tournament but probably not at the level of golf I play. The only thing I benefit from is sticking to my routine, tend to be out of touch with what others do out there.

[Rulesman]

Although each has possibly gained an advantage; as described, there would appear to be no agreement between the players. No breach.

However, if a referee had seen the situation during the round (or found out between rounds) they would have been warned to desist or be DQd.

[Fourputt]

The way I see it, it's really B's problem.  A is certainly not taking the gentlemanly route, but it's B's responsibility to know the rules and to use them in such a case to block A from gaining such an advantage.  We all know that there is blatant cheating in competitions, beginning with improper handicap manipulation, and it goes on from there with surreptitious foot wedges and miraculously "found" lost balls, etc.  If B is either so oblivious or uncaring that A can get away with it, then I feel the B is sort of getting what he deserves.

I agree with Rulesman that if I saw it and realized what was happening, I'd counsel them.  However, that comes very close to what a rules official is NOT supposed to do, and that is to involve himself in a match, unsolicited.  I'd have to be very certain of what I was observing before I'd step in.

[Asheville]

The way I see it, Rich, is the agreement must be "explicit" vs "implicit." So, for me, no breach but as Rulesman says, a word of caution is warranted.

[Rulesman]

However, that comes very close to what a rules official is NOT supposed to do, and that is to involve himself in a match, unsolicited.  I'd have to be very certain of what I was observing before I'd step in.

This was not a match. They were fellow competitors. In this case he has an obligation to get involved.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

However, that comes very close to what a rules official is NOT supposed to do, and that is to involve himself in a match, unsolicited.  I'd have to be very certain of what I was observing before I'd step in.

This was not a match. They were fellow competitors. In this case he has an obligation to get involved.

I still believe that you have to be fairly certain before you step in.  I'd have to observe this behavior for two or three holes before I'd say anything.  It's pretty hard to just watch someone playing and state unequivocally that any advantage is being gained by such an act.  On most holes, they are not going to be on similar lines on the green, so saying that A is hanging back to gain some advantage is going to be hard to prove.  Granted, if he readily admits that he's doing so, then you have a different scenario, but it would be hard to identify just by observation.

[Rulesman]

Well you'd need two or three holes to tell if they are playing out of order at all. If I didn't see a reasonable 'ready golf' reason I'd simply ask why at an appropriate time (qv)?

It is not sufficient for a referee merely to give a correct decision when appealed to; he must also at all times be sufficiently alert to observe accurately and to interpret correctly all the events that may occur during a round. Within the scope of these duties he is assigned to a match or game to help ensure that it will be played fairly under sporting conditions. This raises the question of the referee’s ethical position when he sees a player about to break the Rules. The referee is not responsible for a player’s wilful breach of the Rules, but he certainly does have an obligation to advise players about the Rules. It would be contrary to the spirit of fair play if a referee failed to inform a player of his rights and obligations under the Rules and then penalised him for a breach that he could have prevented. The referee who tries to help players to avoid breaches of the Rules cannot be accused of favouring one player against the other, since he would act in the same manner towards any player and is, therefore, performing his duties impartially.

An important general aspect of refereeing is the manner in which a referee performs his duties. When golf is played at a level where referees are present, the players concerned may be under considerable pressure. A heavy handed or unsympathetic approach may be unhelpful and could have a detrimental effect on a player by disturbing his concentration. Therefore, a referee should attempt to perform duties with understanding and tact. It is important to sense when to talk to a player and when to be silent.

[Fourputt]

Well you'd need two or three holes to tell if they are playing out of order at all. If I didn't see a reasonable 'ready golf' reason I'd simply ask why at an appropriate time (qv)?

It is not sufficient for a referee merely to give a correct decision when appealed to; he must also at all times be sufficiently alert to observe accurately and to interpret correctly all the events that may occur during a round. Within the scope of these duties he is assigned to a match or game to help ensure that it will be played fairly under sporting conditions. This raises the question of the referee’s ethical position when he sees a player about to break the Rules. The referee is not responsible for a player’s wilful breach of the Rules, but he certainly does have an obligation to advise players about the Rules. It would be contrary to the spirit of fair play if a referee failed to inform a player of his rights and obligations under the Rules and then penalised him for a breach that he could have prevented. The referee who tries to help players to avoid breaches of the Rules cannot be accused of favouring one player against the other, since he would act in the same manner towards any player and is, therefore, performing his duties impartially.

An important general aspect of refereeing is the manner in which a referee performs his duties. When golf is played at a level where referees are present, the players concerned may be under considerable pressure. A heavy handed or unsympathetic approach may be unhelpful and could have a detrimental effect on a player by disturbing his concentration. Therefore, a referee should attempt to perform duties with understanding and tact. It is important to sense when to talk to a player and when to be silent.

I think we are both on the same page for all practical purposes.

[turtleback]

Thanks to all for their answers.

[Rulesman]

I think we are both on the same page for all practical purposes.

Indeed

[colin007]

i dont know the rules on the matter, but i am all for "whoevers ready, hit".  almost anything is ok with me if it leads to quicker play.