Player Responsibilities to Watch Others Like a Hawk

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Thank you @Asheville

The Decision simply addresses a player withholding information about a penalty he knows another player has incurred. It says nothing about being required to watch your fellow competitors for infractions or even to know that the actions of another player are actually a penalty.

---

I've stopped people from committing infractions, and called them when I've seen them. But I know the rules better than most players.

Even I don't go out of my way to observe everything they do. I, like most players, are worrying about my own game.

[newtogolf]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

The Decision simply addresses a player withholding information about a penalty he knows another player has incurred. It says nothing about being required to watch your fellow competitors for infractions or even to know that the actions of another player are actually a penalty.

---

I've stopped people from committing infractions, and called them when I've seen them. But I know the rules better than most players.

Even I don't go out of my way to observe everything they do. I, like most players, are worrying about my own game.

Erik, you're reading too much into my question, it was really just a question that I couldn't find the answer to myself.  I wasn't using it to make some point or further debate the topic.   

I had always heard the term  "protect the field" used by commentators but never saw a rule reference to it.  I just wanted a definitive answer.  

[CR McDivot]

I don't play tournaments or even leagues, so my input means nothing - except...

An honest gentleman will call a foul on himself if he is aware of the transgression.

If one cannot play an honest round solo, one cannot be expected to do so in competition.

A friendly game with nothing on the line... one is likely to show grace (although a bit of good natured jabbing would not be out of line). In this instance the sinner sins only against himself! 

[iacas]

Just now, newtogolf said:

Erik, you're reading too much into my question, it was really just a question that I couldn't find the answer to myself. I wasn't using it to make some point or further debate the topic.   

I had always heard the term "protect the field" used by commentators but never saw a rule reference to it. 

"Protect the field" is a phrase people say but which doesn't always carry much weight, or which isn't always an "enforceable" type of thing.

[newtogolf]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

"Protect the field" is a phrase people say but which doesn't always carry much weight, or which isn't always an "enforceable" type of thing.

Followup question, Player A uses a foot wedge (doesn't call himself for the penalty) which Player B sees but doesn't instruct Player A that he's violated the rules.  Player C witnesses what Player A did and Player B's failure to notify Player A of the rules violation.  If Player C reports this to the committee can Player A and B be disqualified for agreeing to waive a rule of golf?  

[Rulesman]

See Decision 33-7/9

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-33,d33-7-9

and the last paragraph of Rule 33-7

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-33,33-7

 

 

[Martyn W]

12 hours ago, Patch said:

It's my opinion that if one or more players developed a reputation for calling other players on their infractions, they would be unceremoniously drummed out of the game. 

"Golf is the only game in which a precise knowledge of the rules can earn one a reputation for bad sportsmanship." 
- Patrick Campbell

[saevel25]

8 hours ago, newtogolf said:

Followup question, Player A uses a foot wedge (doesn't call himself for the penalty) which Player B sees but doesn't instruct Player A that he's violated the rules.  Player C witnesses what Player A did and Player B's failure to notify Player A of the rules violation.  If Player C reports this to the committee can Player A and B be disqualified for agreeing to waive a rule of golf?  

I think the committee should at least ask why Player B didn't inform Player A of the penalty breach. 

 

[chilepepper]

Money has a way of corrupting some

[mcanadiens]

8 hours ago, iacas said:

I, like most players, are worrying about my own game.

Mostly this. See something, say something, but expecting me to police my playing partners is nuts. The more time I spend watching my playing partners, the slower my group goes and the worse I play. 

 

 

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

I think the committee should at least ask why Player B didn't inform Player A of the penalty breach. 

 

To determine if Player B actually saw the foot wedge and that Player B knew it was a violation of the ROG?  

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

To determine if Player B actually saw the foot wedge and that Player B knew it was a violation of the ROG?  

If Player C believes Player B deliberately decided to let Player A get away with breaking the rules then I would inform the committee of that. 

Yes, knowingly overlooking a breach of the rules is in violation of rule 1-3. See the decision 1-3/6.

Quote

1-3/6

 

Marker Attests Wrong Score Knowingly and Competitor Aware Score Wrong

Q.In stroke play, B failed to hole out at a hole. A few holes later he realized he had erred. A, B's marker and fellow-competitor, was aware both that B had infringed the Rules and that B knew this, but nevertheless he signed B's card. B was disqualified under Rule 3-2 (Failure to Hole Out). Should A, who knowingly overlooked the breach, be penalized?

A.A should have been disqualified for a breach of Rule 1-3

 

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

If Player C believes Player B deliberately decided to let Player A get away with breaking the rules then I would inform the committee of that. 

Yes, knowingly overlooking a breach of the rules is in violation of rule 1-3. See the decision 1-3/6.

 

A foot wedge is a pretty obvious rules violation so it's not a great example.  

Going back to the US Open, the USGA determined via video replay that Dustin Johnson grounded his club and that caused his ball to move.  DJ claimed to not have grounded his club and Lee Westwood claimed to have observed DJ and attested to the RO that Dustin did not ground his club.  

At what point does the committee decide there is collusion to waive a rule or if both competitors are just ignorant of the rules.

I'm not at all suggesting that DJ and Westwood should be disqualified, I'm just trying to understand the nuances of the rule and how it applies to competitions I'm involved in. 

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I'm not at all suggesting that DJ and Westwood should be disqualified, I'm just trying to understand the nuances of the rule and how it applies to competitions I'm involved in. 

I would say there would need to be compelling evidence.

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I would say there would need to be compelling evidence.

So competitors would be given the benefit of the doubt in not knowing the ROG.  

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

So competitors would be given the benefit of the doubt in not knowing the ROG.  

Yes. 

Quote

1-3/5

 

Players Unaware Penalty Incurred

Q.In a match, A incurred a penalty stroke under Rule 12-2 for lifting his ball for identification without announcing his intention to B, his opponent. A did not penalize himself and B did not make a claim because neither A nor B was aware a penalty had been incurred. Should the Committee disqualify A and B under Rule 1-3 for agreeing to waive a penalty?

A.No. Since the players were not aware a penalty had been incurred, there could have been no agreement between them to waive the penalty

 

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

A foot wedge is a pretty obvious rules violation so it's not a great example.  

Going back to the US Open, the USGA determined via video replay that Dustin Johnson grounded his club and that caused his ball to move.  DJ claimed to not have grounded his club and Lee Westwood claimed to have observed DJ and attested to the RO that Dustin did not ground his club.  

At what point does the committee decide there is collusion to waive a rule or if both competitors are just ignorant of the rules.

I'm not at all suggesting that DJ and Westwood should be disqualified, I'm just trying to understand the nuances of the rule and how it applies to competitions I'm involved in. 

In this case, I'm thinking that neither player understood what the referee was asking.  They both thought of "grounding" as only occurring at address with the club behind the ball, which DJ did not do.  They were apparently not aware that he could, and did, ground the club next to the ball during his practice strokes.  No collusion, just typical ignorance of the rules that they supposedly make a living by.

[newtogolf]

12 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

In this case, I'm thinking that neither player understood what the referee was asking.  They both thought of "grounding" as only occurring at address with the club behind the ball, which DJ did not do.  They were apparently not aware that he could, and did, ground the club next to the ball during his practice strokes.  No collusion, just typical ignorance of the rules that they supposedly make a living by.

Which means the burden of proof of collusion would be even greater for amateurs.  

During a match play tournament, Player A's ball landed near tree roots and he proceeded to roll his ball away from the roots while his competitor watched.  As he did it, Player A said he didn't want to hurt himself or ruin a club, which Player B acknowledged but did not mention that a penalty would be incurred.   Player A didn't assess himself a penalty and won the hole and eventually the match.  

Would that qualify as agreeing to waive a rule?  I was involved in a different match, but rode in the cart with Player B so I was witness to it.  Was I obligated to say something to either player or the committee?