Penalty for Giving Advice After a Round is Complete

[ColinL]

I submitted this matter to the SCGA.  Here is their response:

In this situation a general statement about the green speed would not be considered giving advice because the green speed can be considered general knowledge. Since your sons round was already over he should not have been disqualified nor given any penalty.

I'm a bit puzzled.  That has been explained  several times by several people in the thread.   Was there reason to doubt?

[socalsharky]

I'm a bit puzzled.  That has been explained  several times by several people in the thread.   Was there reason to doubt?

One of the posts above indicated that subjective green speed could not be stated, only a stimp.  Plus, I thought the forum might be interested in an "official" response.

[DrvFrShow]

Originally Posted by socalsharky

I submitted this matter to the SCGA.  Here is their response:

In this situation a general statement about the green speed would not be considered giving advice because the green speed can be considered general knowledge. Since your sons round was already over he should not have been disqualified nor given any penalty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColinL

I'm a bit puzzled.  That has been explained  several times by several people in the thread.   Was there reason to doubt?

Having an official ruling from the SCGA is something to give the coach - Learn the rules and don't knuckle under so easily next time. Depending upon the outcome of the match, i.e. if his son's team lost because of the DQ the coach could now file a protest.

[David in FL]

Having an official ruling from the SCGA is something to give the coach - Learn the rules and don't knuckle under so easily next time. Depending upon the outcome of the match, i.e. if his son's team lost because of the DQ the coach could now file a protest.

In my opinion, that was an incorrect response from the SCGA and actually muddies the water a bit. The comment, as described in the OP was not about green speed in general, but rather, a specific putt. The same as commenting on a subtle, perhaps indiscernible break. That's not "general knowledge". As discussed previously, the reason that the comment isn't a violation is because the active player did not solicit advice, and the person who made the comment was not a player in the midst of a stipulated round, as required by the rule.

[DrvFrShow]

In my opinion, that was an incorrect response from the SCGA and actually muddies the water a bit.

The comment, as described in the OP was not about green speed in general, but rather, a specific putt. The same as commenting on a subtle, perhaps indiscernible break. That's not "general knowledge". As discussed previously, the reason that the comment isn't a violation is because the active player did not solicit advice, and the person who made the comment was not a player in the midst of a stipulated round, as required by the rule.

[Rulesman]

I submitted this matter to the SCGA.  Here is their response:

the green speed can be considered general knowledge.

I don't like this at all. A player just returned from Pinehurst (which stimps at 11+) may think anything under 10 is 'slow'. A player from my local lush parkland course (which stimps at 8.5) would reckon anything over 10 is very fast. That is not general knowledge but just perception.

If one player had seen a notice stating 'Today's stimp is 10', then that would be general knowledge and he could tell any player still on the course.

[ColinL]

One of the posts above indicated that subjective green speed could not be stated, only a stimp.  Plus, I thought the forum might be interested in an "official" response.

Thanks.  I was only thinking of the question of there being no penalty to the player who had finished his round as it had no relevance whether what he said was advice or not.

Regarding the other bit, I too would consider a comment on green speed as advice unless based on a publicly known measurement.  Without such a measurement, you only know how fast a green seems to be by having putted on it.  It is not discernible to a player who hasn't.  Telling that player if it is fast or slow or whatever, is providing that player with subjective  information that could influence his play.

[David in FL]

This is a very general statement. It doesn't give any specific information. Also like we have said earlier, the bold in your post.

Not at all. It's a very specific comment, limited to a single line of putt. The same distance, on the same green, in the opposite direction might very well be accurately described as "very slow". It's not the same type of general knowledge to which the rule refers at all. Correct result from the SCGA, but a wholly incorrect reason. [quote name="Rulesman" url="/t/81066/penalty-for-giving-advice-after-a-round-is-complete/72#post_1123174"]I don't like this at all. A player just returned from Pinehurst (which stimps at 11+) may think anything under 10 is 'slow'. A player from my local lush parkland course (which stimps at 8.5) would reckon anything over 10 is very fast. That is not general knowledge but just perception.  If one player had seen a notice stating 'Today's stimp is 10', then that would be general knowledge and he could tell any player still on the course. [/quote] [quote name="ColinL" url="/t/81066/penalty-for-giving-advice-after-a-round-is-complete/72#post_1123195"] Regarding the other bit, I too would consider a comment on green speed as advice unless based on a publicly known measurement.  Without such a measurement, you only know how fast a green seems to be by having putted on it.  It is not discernible to a player who hasn't.  Telling that player if it is fast or slow or whatever, is providing that player with subjective  information that could influence his play. [/quote] Agree.

[Shorty]

You obviously can't grasp the point of the question, it was asked because it is a very similar scenario to the one described and was supposed to draw a parallel. I knew that he would not be penalized so I was trying to show that it would be "ludicrous" for the player to be penalized. It's called Ike the elenctic method or something. You struggle to think deeper into questions as you've demonstrated in the past and that hurts you

The hole young Nick is digging  just gets deeper and deeper, doesn't it?

[turtleback]

Not at all. It's a very specific comment, limited to a single line of putt. The same distance, on the same green, in the opposite direction might very well be accurately described as "very slow". It's not the same type of general knowledge to which the rule refers at all.

Correct result from the SCGA, but a wholly incorrect reason.

Agree.

I agree with you that the SCGA comment about the speed of the green being a matter of general knowledge seems off.  How could it be general knowledge when greens vary one to another and the player cannot know how fast a given green is without someone telling them or seeing someone hit a putt.  And it is not just the generic speed of the greens, it is the speed of THIS green on THIS line.

"Boy, the greens are fast today" is a very different statement than "But that putt is very fast."

In the SCGA's defense, it is hard to assess the response without seeing the exact question that was put to them.

[neophytea]

1.  To apply rules and penalties in scholastic competition is a serious responsibility.

2.  To incorrectly apply penalties that benefit yourself or your team is a conflict of interest and simply stated wrong.

3.  An independent third party or committee should have that authority and responsibility.

3.  I have been responsible for the enforcement of rules in high school completion at the local, section,

regional, and state championships.

If what I heard is correct, that coach who disqualified the golfer would be in real danger of being banned for his conflict of interest.  And all coaches and reps of the sport present would have been chewed out for their actions.

The honor and integrity of the sport is paramount.