Gaining an Advantage - Order of Play

[iacas]

In one of @NatalieB's season-ending tournaments recently, one of the girls (let's call her Penny) got off to a hot start and would eventually finish second. She birdied the first hole, in fact, and had the honor on at least 10 of the 18 holes played that day.

Yet the number of times Penny played first from the tee? Zero. In fact, she went last nearly every time.

I'm not sure Penny had ever seen the course. It was my sneaking suspicion, after the first few times I noticed, that she was watching the tee shots of her fellow competitors (two of the other three girls were about as long as she was, with @NatalieB being shorter) and judging the line and distance before hitting her own tee shot with a lot more knowledge.

Now, the Rules of Golf say there's no penalty for playing out of order in stroke play (nor is there a true "penalty" in match play; the opponent may simply recall the shot), but, well, here's that part of the Rules:

Quote

c. Playing Out of Turn 

If a competitor plays out of turn, there is no penalty and the ball is played as it lies. If, however, the Committee determines that competitors have agreed to play out of turn to give one of them an advantage, they are disqualified. 

There was never any agreement at all - Penny would simply be at the tee and would not get her driver out, would take sips of water, and would basically just delay while the other girls would look at her and then decide to hit.

There are a few oddities here, though.

1. Is it agreement that the rest of the girls effectively played ready golf not to give someone an advantage, but because they're girls who didn't want to ruffle feathers and say "Hey, it's your tee box. Hit, Penny." I don't think this qualifies as "agreement." Penny was basically slow playing despite being at the tee box… she'd just find other things to "look busy" so she could hit last and watch three tee shots before she had to play.
2. The rule says nothing about a single player being disqualified, and uses the plural "competitors." Does this mean it's impossible for a single competitor to be disqualified for playing out of order in order to gain an advantage (if, like I suspect, Penny was doing)? The way the rule is written, that's accurate. Can a single player ever be DQed for this, if the committee deems there's no "agreement" per se?

So, what's up with that? Yes, in a perfect world, the other girls should have refused to allow Penny to go last nearly every time because they were risking being deemed to be giving Penny an advantage (even though they were all relatively close and competing against her). But it's not a perfect world, and we have a situation where the player gaining the advantage is acting without any real agreement - just some fellow competitors trying to be nice, a little soft, and likely trying to keep up with the threesome in front of them.

What do you think? If you were a Committee member, and someone brought this to your attention, what would you do?

Because aside from lecturing all the girls and telling them that they could ALL be subject to a warning in the future, and that the order of play should be observed except in rare situations (like a player going to the bathroom, forgetting a club and going back to get it, etc.) they should be present and ready to play in the right order or risk them all being DQed.

[David in FL]

What guidance/direction is given to the players with respect to pace of play?  Do they specifically mention/encourage ready golf?

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, David in FL said:

What guidance/direction is given to the players with respect to pace of play?  Do they specifically mention/encourage ready golf?

They aren't really told anything, but they're aware that they don't want to be slow.

But I don't see a ton of relevance there. None of Penny's actions were related to pace of play, and none of the other girls were rushing when they took the tee.

[drmevo]

I don't see any way to apply the penalty in this situation, unless there's a decision that provides additional guidance. The players didn't agree to anything, and certainly couldn't be accused of trying to give Penny an advantage from the sounds of it. It's not like they were all out of contention and could've been trying to get a prize money kickback (I'm guessing that's the intent behind the rule?). 

What if they asked her to play and she refused? I think this closer to a tacit refusal to play in order by one player than a tacit agreement by everyone to play out of order.

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

So, what's up with that? Yes, in a perfect world, the other girls should have refused to allow Penny to go last nearly every time because they were risking being deemed to be giving Penny an advantage (even though they were all relatively close and competing against her). But it's not a perfect world, and we have a situation where the player gaining the advantage is acting without any real agreement - just some fellow competitors trying to be nice, a little soft, and likely trying to keep up with the threesome in front of them.

What do you think? If you were a Committee member, and someone brought this to your attention, what would you do?

I think since all the decisions regarding 1-3 are when the two players literally agree to waive a certain rule, that she can not be penalized for this. Is she gaining an advantage, yes. I don't think I could say the other girl is breaking rule 1-3 for not being cunning enough to realize she is being taken advantage of for it. 

Now, an interesting situation would be if one of the girls did say, "No, it is your honor to hit Penny". If Penny said, "No go ahead, I am still taking a drink". Could you get that girl on rule 3-4? By the rules, it is her honor, and it is the other girls right to hit 2nd. Penny is refusing to comply with a rule that grants girl B the right to hit after Penny. 

It seems to me that the girl is being cunning and found a way to gain and advantage with in the rules. If there isn't a rule for this then I am not sure there is much that can be done. 

[David in FL]

The relevance is that a lot of amateur (stroke play) tournaments actively encourage ready golf.  In that case, I'd be hesitant do anything that might subsequently discourage that.  

Beyond that, if I were on the committee and it were brought to our attention, I would think that we would interview each player and mentioned that it had been noticed that they had played out of order a number of times, and ask what the reasoning was in doing so.  Absent evidence that it had happened specifically to give someone (some players believe it's to their advantage to go first) an advantage, I would simply remind them that the rules dictate an order of play, and that the order should be followed.  I don't know that anything other than that need happen.

[Fourputt]

Ready golf is the new "order of play", but if all players are on the tee, then they should defer to the one with the honor.  If the one with the honor continues to dawdle, then that player should be interviewed by a committeeman as to the reason for not playing first in a timely fashion.  If they are abusing the rule to gain an advantage, then there is fault and it should be addressed.

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Ready golf is the new "order of play", but if all players are on the tee, then they should defer to the one with the honor.  If the one with the honor continues to dawdle, then that player should be interviewed by a committeeman as to the reason for not playing first in a timely fashion.  If they are abusing the rule to gain an advantage, then there is fault and it should be addressed.

Yes this is more the line of discussion I'm after here. But under what rule? Order of play? How if they're all plural? Undue delay perhaps? But how if the group isn't delayed because others play from the tee?

[drmevo]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes this is more the line of discussion I'm after here. But under what rule? Order of play? How if they're all plural? Undue delay perhaps? But how if the group isn't delayed because others play from the tee?

Right, that was my point. If there's no penalty for playing out of order other than one circumstance that isn't applicable, what are you going to nail them on? Without any accompanying penalty for breaching this "rule," it seems like it's more of a suggestion. 

Edited August 5, 2017 by drmevo

[Fourputt]

If, because of her deliberate delaying tactic, the other players cannot play in a timely manner without playing out of turn, then perhaps there is some way to apply 6-7 under the equity rule (1-4)?  It seems to me that there would have to be some evidence to support any contention that she was doing this for an advantage.  

If it was me, I would tell the offending player that they were up and ask them to hit away.  I would simply wait them out.  Then if it continued, I'd register a protest with the committee if the player's actions caused the group to fall off the pace.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Fourputt said:

If it was me, I would tell the offending player that they were up and ask them to hit away.  I would simply wait them out.  Then if it continued, I'd register a protest with the committee if the player's actions caused the group to fall off the pace.

Yes, but you're not a 13-year-old or 14-year-old girl. I acknowledged this in the first post; it's simply not going to happen in that group (until I told Natalie to make her go first on the last few holes).

I think you could get her for undue delay if you told her to go in the proper order.

It seemed clear to me that she was waiting to see what everyone else did before she hit her tee shot.