Failure To Include an Unknown Penalty

[Vinsk]

21 minutes ago, iacas said:

How is golf better off now?

 Because after getting punished for a rule breach some sympathy will be applied so that the player’s feelings won’t be too hurt nor feel victimized. 🤭

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Vinsk said:

Because after getting punished for a rule breach some sympathy will be applied so that the player’s feelings won’t be too hurt nor feel victimized. 🤭

Wiseass. 😄

6 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

It seems very odd to me that you would get a general penalty in matchplay where you didn't know that something was a penalty, but not in strokeplay. That makes me wonder if there is something that I'm missing in the strokeplay bit. I don't know. I emailed the USGA to ask them the question. Will let you know what I hear back.

Technically you won't be allowed to share that answer. 🙂

As you probably know the Rules for Match Play are different because only ONE person has an interest in the outcome - your opponent at the time (I should say one side, not one person). But yeah, I think that's a conflicting or at least curious thing to put in there, because it says that a player must know the Rules and applies a harsher penalty for not knowing them.

Anyway…

4 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

For what it's worth, if I was the committee and someone claimed they didn't know that a water hazard was a penalty stroke when they signed their card, then I would say that they should have known and the rules say that a player has a responsibility to know the rules, so the exception doesn't apply and they would be disqualified.

I don't know what on earth you're talking about, because you're just making up your own rules now. There's no way you get to decide what rule they "should have known" in this case. You have to go by their word.

If the USGA/R&A meant for highly unusual situations… no… I can't even finish that thought. For example, when Camilo Villegas brushed away a divot as the ball was rolling back down to it, was that a penalty he "should have known" about? No, you don't get to do that stuff. That's not what it's about.

4 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I may even put something in the conditions of competition that included a comment like "any time that you have ball in hand during the play of a hole, you should confirm with the committee before signing your card that penalty strokes have been applied correctly". If anyone doesn't do that, then I think the exception to the exception would apply and I would disqualify them for not including a penalty.

You don't get to do that, no.

So, honestly, with this new understanding… it actually sounds like you're in favor of the additional two strokes or an additional penalty (you went right to a DQ for something they should have known about), no @Ty_Webb?

[Ty_Webb]

21 minutes ago, iacas said:

Wiseass. 😄

Technically you won't be allowed to share that answer. 🙂

As you probably know the Rules for Match Play are different because only ONE person has an interest in the outcome - your opponent at the time (I should say one side, not one person). But yeah, I think that's a conflicting or at least curious thing to put in there, because it says that a player must know the Rules and applies a harsher penalty for not knowing them.

Anyway…

I don't know what on earth you're talking about, because you're just making up your own rules now. There's no way you get to decide what rule they "should have known" in this case. You have to go by their word.

If the USGA/R&A meant for highly unusual situations… no… I can't even finish that thought. For example, when Camilo Villegas brushed away a divot as the ball was rolling back down to it, was that a penalty he "should have known" about? No, you don't get to do that stuff. That's not what it's about.

You don't get to do that, no.

So, honestly, with this new understanding… it actually sounds like you're in favor of the additional two strokes or an additional penalty (you went right to a DQ for something they should have known about), no @Ty_Webb?

I thought I had made it clear earlier that I would be in favour if the only intent would be to excuse a penalty that you didn't know about because you didn't see it. Lack of knowledge of a rule should not give you a pass. Not at all. The example I gave earlier was if you addressed the ball, stepped away for some reason and the ball moved and you came back and didn't know the ball had moved, then played on. I would give you a pass for that. Not because you didn't know there was a penalty for moving the ball. (note that this is the hypothetical where I alone get to determine the application of that rule - so how I think it should be - not how it is)

My reasoning for what I said was that the rules say you have a duty to know them, so you should have known all the rules. The exception to the rule says that if you are uncertain then you have to seek guidance before signing and if you don't, then the exception doesn't apply. My addendum would be to make clear that if you don't ask, then you weren't certain that you didn't have to and therefore you can't fall back on the exception.

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I thought I had made it clear earlier that I would be in favour if the only intent would be to excuse a penalty that you didn't know about because you didn't see it.

There's no real way to do that. You can't know what a player "saw" or didn't see, and that's not how the Rule is written: it says simply "the player did not know about." You can't put in a rule, like you suggested above, that says what a player "should have" known about, or "should have" seen, or whatever.

19 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Lack of knowledge of a rule should not give you a pass. Not at all.

Then perhaps you're much more on my side of things than I believed first.

19 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

The example I gave earlier was if you addressed the ball, stepped away for some reason and the ball moved and you came back and didn't know the ball had moved, then played on. I would give you a pass for that. Not because you didn't know there was a penalty for moving the ball. (note that this is the hypothetical where I alone get to determine the application of that rule - so how I think it should be - not how it is)

I'm not sure that's a very good example. There's only ever a penalty there if the player knows the ball moved or caused the ball to move. If the ball moved by natural forces, that's not a penalty. If the player caused it to move, I find it unlikely he'd not know that. And if a ball moves but the player doesn't know… (let's say a squirrel runs out and moves the ball a foot, but he doesn't see it…) there's also no penalty.

19 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

My reasoning for what I said was that the rules say you have a duty to know them, so you should have known all the rules.

The Rules say you have a responsibility to know and play by the Rules in a few places, not just there.

19 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

The exception to the rule says that if you are uncertain then you have to seek guidance before signing and if you don't, then the exception doesn't apply.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The exception to 3.3b(3) does not say anything about being uncertain or that you "have to" do anything. It only says that if you were told a penalty might apply, you need to sort it out before signing your card or you are still going to be DQed for a breach.

So I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

[Ty_Webb]

On 10/16/2018 at 6:52 PM, iacas said:

This exception does not apply:

• When the excluded penalty is disqualification, or
• When the player was told that a penalty might apply or was uncertain whether a penalty applied and did not raise this with the Committee before returning thescorecard.

This is what it says. “Or was uncertain whether a penalty applied”. I was attempting to figure out a way to be sure that uncertainty would always apply in the case of someone who didn’t know the rules. I would argue it does always if you don’t know the rules well. So in the case of someone who didn’t know the rules I would ask them how they could possibly have been certain that no penalty applied and see what they say. 

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

This is what it says. “Or was uncertain whether a penalty applied”.

Yes, sorry, I was being too literal. That's when the exception does not apply.

9 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I was attempting to figure out a way to be sure that uncertainty would always apply in the case of someone who didn’t know the rules.

I don't think you can know either of those things - whether the player knew or was "uncertain." The differences between these are that if you're uncertain, it's your duty to ask and get a ruling, whereas if you don't know that you incurred a penalty at all… you get away with it by saying "Oh, I didn't know."

Which is another way, IMO, in which this rule is stupid. Players are supposed to at least know the Rules well enough to know when they might have incurred a penalty and to ask a referee, the Committee, or at least a fellow player (the latter being the riskiest, as another player can't give a definitive ruling).

9 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I was attempting to figure out a way to be sure that uncertainty would always apply in the case of someone who didn’t know the rules.

You can't. If they claim they didn't know that they'd incurred a penalty, the exception applies unless you can "prove" that they were uncertain, not unknowing.

9 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I would argue it does always if you don’t know the rules well. So in the case of someone who didn’t know the rules I would ask them how they could possibly have been certain that no penalty applied and see what they say. 

That won't work, and if it did, you'd be right back to disqualifying players once again because as soon as you think the exception doesn't apply, they've written a lower score than the one they actually got and are thus disqualified.

---

But yeah, look, I think you're more on my side than not… and this "uncertain" thing is just making it more confusing.

[Ty_Webb]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes, sorry, I was being too literal. That's when the exception does not apply.

I don't think you can know either of those things - whether the player knew or was "uncertain." The differences between these are that if you're uncertain, it's your duty to ask and get a ruling, whereas if That won't work, and if it did, you'd be right back to disqualifying players once again because as soon as you think the exception doesn't apply, they've written a lower score than the one they actually got and are thus disqualified.

That’s what I’m shooting for. What bugs me is that if my interpretation were correct then Lexi would have got away with her infraction (at least the DQ/2 strokes additional bit) because her point was that she didn’t know she’d broken the rule. She claimed to know the rule but not that she moved it. A likely story IMO but I think that would meet the exception even if my preferred interpretation were the case. 

By the way, I do agree with you. I think that the way the rule is worded is a dreadful get out of jail free card for anyone who was willing to lie. It’s so bone-headed that I can’t believe that’s the intent of the ruling bodies so my efforts in this thread have basically been trying to cast the ruling body in a kinder light and figure out that we are misinterpreting their intent. 

[iacas]

37 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

By the way, I do agree with you. I think that the way the rule is worded is a dreadful get out of jail free card for anyone who was willing to lie.

… or someone who is actually ignorant.

37 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

It’s so bone-headed that I can’t believe that’s the intent of the ruling bodies so my efforts in this thread have basically been trying to cast the ruling body in a kinder light and figure out that we are misinterpreting their intent. 

I don't think we are. I think that if you claim to not know you've breached the Rules, the exception applies and there's no additional penalty.

If it were as easy to invalidate the exception with the "uncertainty" thing, then the penalty would effectively be harsher: a DQ over the two strokes they changed it to a few years ago.

@Asheville, @Martyn W, can you scroll back to post #86 or at least #95 to share what you think about the "uncertainty" thing that invalidates the exception? I'm pretty certain I'm reading this all the right way, but would appreciate hearing what you think.

[Ty_Webb]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

… or someone who is actually ignorant.

See - that's someone who I'm not that worried about. I appreciate that you move in different circles from me and see kids out there who really don't know the rules. I just think that if someone is genuinely ignorant of the rules that they are going to run into so many penalty situations that they're not going to be someone to worry too much about in a tournament. 

Don't get me wrong though - I play plenty of golf with people who have no clue what they're doing. They move their ball and they take drops when they lose them, they take all putts "inside the leather" and all sorts. I don't care what they're doing for the most part, although it makes me laugh when they say "I shot 79 today". Yeah, not really. But those people aren't playing in tournaments and if they do, they'll find out fairly quickly that they can't do that. It would be hard to remain ignorant of the rules for very long. Much more concerning to me is the person who says they didn't know the rule when they actually did. And they did know them well enough to know that would give them a pass in this situation. 

That said, the more I think about this, if someone says they didn't know the rule, then I would say by definition they can't have been certain no penalty applied. The only way that you could get away with this (IMO) is to be adamant that it's not a penalty. Then you could claim you were certain no penalty applied and you'd be given the pass on the DQ (like Lexi was and Tiger was one time about a ball that moved when he moved something near it). If you say you didn't know, then I think you should fall foul of the uncertainty clause. That's why I'd ask them how they could have been certain no penalty applied. If they say "I didn't know there was a penalty", then you say "well according to this you have a duty to ask if you're uncertain, so this exception doesn't apply. Go learn the rules and next time you won't be DQ'd". I do think that would be a little harsh with an 8 year old say, but with anyone old enough that they should know, better to learn it the hard way now. If they say "I was certain no penalty applied", you give them the pass and tell them now they know and not to try that shit again. If someone knew the rule well enough to know to say that I would think that they were full of it and were lying about not knowing the rule. 

My opinion of people trying this would vary based on the penalty that had been missed. If it was a penalty for taking a drop for a penalty area, when they had followed the rest of the rule to the letter, then I'd think they were shady as could be. If it was for what Villegas did that time where he moved a divot and then his ball rolled back near where it was, I would be much more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Or Tiger's infamous drop on 15 at the Masters. It's 100% clear to me that he had no idea that was against the rules. If he knew it was against the rules there is zero chance he would have dropped it there. 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

See - that's someone who I'm not that worried about. I appreciate that you move in different circles from me and see kids out there who really don't know the rules. I just think that if someone is genuinely ignorant of the rules that they are going to run into so many penalty situations that they're not going to be someone to worry too much about in a tournament.

I think you'd be surprised. There are kids out there who are pretty good at golf - top five finishes - who don't know very many rules at all. They know the most basic stuff - that you can't just pick up your ball whenever you want, that you can mark and pick up on the green… that you have to tee off from behind the tee markers, etc. But they don't know some of the other procedures and things. The lost ball rule being stroke and distance regularly trips up people, even though it's pretty simple. Clublength differences they don't know often. Taking complete relief is a penalty that's breached by even pretty experienced high school golfers and is thus a penalty they technically incur pretty frequently (they drop away from casual/temporary water only for their ball, but their stance is still in the same area, for example).

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

Don't get me wrong though - I play plenty of golf with people who have no clue what they're doing.

Yes, you play mostly with/against adults. It's a very different situation. Particularly when their parents aren't really golfers.

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

That said, the more I think about this, if someone says they didn't know the rule, then I would say by definition they can't have been certain no penalty applied.

I don't know what weird sort of loopholes you're thinking yourself into, but I don't think they hold any weight.

• If a player says "I'm not sure if that's a penalty" then they've expressed uncertainty and it's their obligation to find out.
• If a player doesn't demonstrate any uncertainty, and they claim they didn't know about a possible penalty, the exception can apply.

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

The only way that you could get away with this (IMO) is to be adamant that it's not a penalty. Then you could claim you were certain no penalty applied and you'd be given the pass on the DQ (like Lexi was and Tiger was one time about a ball that moved when he moved something near it).

No. I don't know what you're saying here again - being adamant is not "unknown."

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

If you say you didn't know, then I think you should fall foul of the uncertainty clause.

I don't know what definitions of words you're using, but you seem to have it almost completely backward.

• If they're unaware that a penalty applied, that's "unknown."
• If they're not sure if a penalty applied and didn't find out from the Committee, that's "uncertainty."

The first instance is going to be no additional penalty. The second is a DQ (assuming they incurred a penalty and thus returned a lower score than what they actually made).

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

It's 100% clear to me that he had no idea that was against the rules. If he knew it was against the rules there is zero chance he would have dropped it there. 

I know for a fact that he knew it was against the rules generally, but that he just brain farted in that moment and until after he'd signed his scorecard. Tiger knows where to drop, but his statement in the post-round press conference told the world that he brain farted because he outright admitted to a breach.

I was not only the guy who called him on that, but I've talked with him about that drop in the past few years.

And that is once again one of my other problems with this Rule: let's imagine that the 2019 Rule had been in effect and that David Eger hadn't called in before I called a friend at Augusta National: whether Tiger was DQed or given only a two-stroke penalty for playing from the wrong place would hinge on whether, in that moment, his penalty was "known" or "unknown"? I think that's crap. He either broke a rule or he didn't (he did). He either honored his responsibility to play by the rules or he didn't (he didn't). Why introduce this grey area where the outcome hinges on not only what someone says, but what someone says he thought at the moment?

---

Think about it, man: you're trying to say that because the player is supposed to know the rules, the exception doesn't apply unless the player certain that there's no penalty… but the player is wrong, because the only time this matters is when there IS a penalty.

That's not at all how the Rule reads or will be applied.

[Ty_Webb]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

I think you'd be surprised. There are kids out there who are pretty good at golf - top five finishes - who don't know very many rules at all. They know the most basic stuff - that you can't just pick up your ball whenever you want, that you can mark and pick up on the green… that you have to tee off from behind the tee markers, etc. But they don't know some of the other procedures and things. The lost ball rule being stroke and distance regularly trips up people, even though it's pretty simple. Clublength differences they don't know often. Taking complete relief is a penalty that's breached by even pretty experienced high school golfers and is thus a penalty they technically incur pretty frequently (they drop away from casual/temporary water only for their ball, but their stance is still in the same area, for example).

Yes, you play mostly with/against adults. It's a very different situation. Particularly when their parents aren't really golfers.

I don't know what weird sort of loopholes you're thinking yourself into, but I don't think they hold any weight.

• If a player says "I'm not sure if that's a penalty" then they've expressed uncertainty and it's their obligation to find out.
• If a player doesn't demonstrate any uncertainty, and they claim they didn't know about a possible penalty, the exception can apply.

No. I don't know what you're saying here again - being adamant is not "unknown."

I don't know what definitions of words you're using, but you seem to have it almost completely backward.

• If they're unaware that a penalty applied, that's "unknown."
• If they're not sure if a penalty applied and didn't find out from the Committee, that's "uncertainty."

The first instance is going to be no additional penalty. The second is a DQ (assuming they incurred a penalty and thus returned a lower score than what they actually made).

I know for a fact that he knew it was against the rules generally, but that he just brain farted in that moment and until after he'd signed his scorecard. Tiger knows where to drop, but his statement in the post-round press conference told the world that he brain farted because he outright admitted to a breach.

I was not only the guy who called him on that, but I've talked with him about that drop in the past few years.

And that is once again one of my other problems with this Rule: let's imagine that the 2019 Rule had been in effect and that David Eger hadn't called in before I called a friend at Augusta National: whether Tiger was DQed or given only a two-stroke penalty for playing from the wrong place would hinge on whether, in that moment, his penalty was "known" or "unknown"? I think that's crap. He either broke a rule or he didn't (he did). He either honored his responsibility to play by the rules or he didn't (he didn't). Why introduce this grey area where the outcome hinges on not only what someone says, but what someone says he thought at the moment?

---

Think about it, man: you're trying to say that because the player is supposed to know the rules, the exception doesn't apply unless the player certain that there's no penalty… but the player is wrong, because the only time this matters is when there IS a penalty.

That's not at all how the Rule reads or will be applied.

Okay. I’ll try this again. 

A player does something. Let’s suppose it’s hit it in a penalty area for sake of argument. It doesn’t matter what it is. They take a drop. The following encompasses all possible states of mind:

- they know it’s a penalty and they are certain it’s a penalty. Hopefully this will be most people

- they think it’s a penalty but they are not certain. These people should check before they sign. The exception requires them to if they want it to apply.

- they “know” it’s not a penalty and they are certain it’s not a penalty. These people would not include the penalty and hand in their card. If called out on it they would say they didn’t know it was a penalty and the exception would apply (I don’t think it should but it certainly appears that it does)

- or they think it’s not a penalty but they are not certain. These people should seek confirmation before handing in their card. By my read of the exception, for them to say they didn’t know would not be enough to apply the exception. They didn’t know but there was uncertainty and they therefore had an obligation to confirm with the committee. They didn’t do the exception doesn’t apply.

asking the person if they knew it was a penalty before they handed in their card pins down whether they are in buckets 1&2 or 3&4. If they are in 1 or 2 and didn’t include the penalty then they are disqualified. Once they are in 3 or 4, asking them if they were certain would determine whether they are in 3 or 4. If they’re in 4 then I would think they should get disqualified. If they’re in 3 then the exception applies. 

But here is the thing. If a player doesn’t know the rules they are quite likely to say they were not certain because they didn’t know the rules. I’m assuming they have some level of self awareness. Maybe that’s a stretch. 

Like I also already said I don’t think this is a good thing at all, so I’m trying to figure out an interpretation that doesn’t give people a free pass to exclude penalty strokes and claim ignorance. 

There is a large window of opportunity for people to make mistakes that they may not have known were mistakes. The example you gave earlier of someone failing to take full relief from GUR for example. Or casual water. You may believe that you took full relief or you may not be aware that your stance must be clear of it too. I have more sympathy for people in that situation than I do for forgetting to add a penalty for hitting it in a water hazard. That’s because in the latter example there is only upside to not knowing that rule (under your interpretation). In the former example, you got an additional penalty for not knowing the rule. If you’d dropped in the right place, 9 times out of 10 it would make no difference to your next shot. It costs you a penalty for your mistake if someone sees you do it.

 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

- they think it’s a penalty but they are not certain. These people should check before they sign. The exception requires them to if they want it to apply.

That's not true. If they say "I didn't know I had incurred a penalty" then the exception applies. The Rules of Golf cannot read minds.

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

- or they think it’s not a penalty but they are not certain. These people should seek confirmation before handing in their card. By my read of the exception, for them to say they didn’t know would not be enough to apply the exception. They didn’t know but there was uncertainty and they therefore had an obligation to confirm with the committee. They didn’t do the exception doesn’t apply.

I don't think your read is accurate because, again, the Rules of Golf (the Committee, etc.) cannot read minds.

If the player says to his playing partner something like "I'm not sure if that's a penalty" and they don't check and get an answer, THAT is the "uncertain" part. They've expressed that uncertainty. They've made it known that they were uncertain. It requires no mind-reading.

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

asking the person if they knew it was a penalty before they handed in their card pins down whether they are in buckets 1&2 or 3&4.

It's simpler than that.

If they made it known that they were uncertain, they're on the hook. If they say "I didn't know" (that they had incurred a penalty) then they are off the hook.

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

But here is the thing. If a player doesn’t know the rules they are quite likely to say they were not certain because they didn’t know the rules. I’m assuming they have some level of self awareness. Maybe that’s a stretch.

No, they'll say they didn't know. You said it in the bold - "Oh, I didn't know…".

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

Like I also already said I don’t think this is a good thing at all, so I’m trying to figure out an interpretation that doesn’t give people a free pass to exclude penalty strokes and claim ignorance.

There isn't anything to work out, and this is perhaps the biggest of the reasons why I think this Rule is stupid. Whether accurate or not, it lets people claim ignorance despite other sections of the Rules saying it's your responsibility to know and play by the Rules.

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

I have more sympathy for people in that situation than I do for forgetting to add a penalty for hitting it in a water hazard.

As do I, but I also understand the Principles and that you can't add judgment into situations like this.

[Ty_Webb]

12 hours ago, iacas said:

No, they'll say they didn't know. You said it in the bold - "Oh, I didn't know…".

If you read again what I wrote you’ll note that I suggested asking a further question “were you certain there was no penalty?” The comment you quoted here was referencing the response to that question. No need to read any minds. 

[Phil McGleno]

Maybe by "unknown"-They mean that it is an unknown penalty the same way we have unknown species of animals or unknown stars or galaxies or unknown numbers of people who carry a recessive gene.

In that case if someone commits an unknown penalty I can see how they should not be faulted when the penalty is discovered after they sign their scorecard.-After all if nobody knows about the penalty how could someone apply it to their score!?

 

 

Not being serious.-Obviously.

Quote

Exception – Failure to Include Unknown Penalty: If one or more of the player’s hole scores are lower than the actual scores because he or she excluded one or more penalty strokes that the player did not know about before returning the scorecard:

[iacas]

6 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

If you read again what I wrote you’ll note that I suggested asking a further question “were you certain there was no penalty?” The comment you quoted here was referencing the response to that question. No need to read any minds. 

That's not going to work and that's not what the rule says.

I feel like that's just you trying to "trick" people into saying something that makes the exception invalid so you can DQ them. Consider that if they truly didn't know that they'd incurred a penalty, an honest answer to your question would be "Of course I wasn't certain; I didn't even know that was a penalty!" You can't legitimately claim then that the player was "uncertain whether a penalty applied."

The intentional cheater would also likely know to avoid saying they were "uncertain."

So in this case, the cheater is getting away with it, still, while you're now DQing the ignorant, honest player.

@Ty_Webb, you're totally off base with all this "uncertainty" stuff.

Quote

This exception does not apply:

• When the player was told that a penalty might apply or was uncertain whether a penalty applied and did not raise this with the Committee before returning the scorecard.

IMO this isn't unclear. The exception doesn't apply when:

• Someone says "Hey, I think that's a penalty. You should look into that before you sign your card…".
• The player thinks to himself or herself "I wonder if that was a penalty?"

Both of those situations mean there's doubt, and that the player chooses NOT to resolve that doubt. If there's doubt, they're obligated to do so. If they truly don't know… they can't raise the issue because they don't even know there's an issue. (And if they're playing dumb, they won't raise the issue.)

You can't trick people into admitting doubt or uncertainty. That's not what the exception nullifier is for.

[Ty_Webb]

For the record, I wouldn't be simply springing this on people. I would make certain that everyone knew before they started that they had to ask if they were unsure about any rules situation that came up. Then I would reiterate that while collecting the cards. If it was kids playing, I would have whoever collected cards explicitly ask them if they had any rules situation where they took drops or had to do something other than just hit the ball again. Then if something came up subsequently I would ask them why they didn't bring it up when they handed in their cards. I don't think any of that would be "tricking people". 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

For the record, I wouldn't be simply springing this on people. I would make certain that everyone knew before they started that they had to ask if they were unsure about any rules situation that came up.

By definition an "unknown" rules breach occurs when players don't think they're in breach of anything.

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

Then I would reiterate that while collecting the cards. If it was kids playing, I would have whoever collected cards explicitly ask them if they had any rules situation where they took drops or had to do something other than just hit the ball again. Then if something came up subsequently I would ask them why they didn't bring it up when they handed in their cards. I don't think any of that would be "tricking people". 

Spoken like someone who hasn't been to a junior golf event since you were a kid, maybe?

---

The simple fact is you're again concocting scenarios, this time to try to invalidate the exception. But even that doesn't get at the heart of the matter: that there's no longer a real incentive (an additional two-stroke penalty or a DQ) for not knowing the rules, as simply saying "oh, I didn't know" allows you to use the exception and receive only the original penalty.

I think that's a poor move, as the two stroke penalty served as an appropriate, IMO, punishment for someone who didn't know the Rules, and an incentive for those (particularly if they were stung once by this) to learn the rules, or to at least ask about the Rules in certain situations.

Right now, if you ask, you can't use the exception, so the new rules even discourage asking because that removes your ability to say "Oh, I didn't know."

Your entire speech or line of questioning is attempting to remove that ability, too, but it still can't do that - you can't "put uncertainty into someone" if they were simply unknowing.

Suppose someone drops in a wrong place (not a serious breach), and doesn't think anything of it at all. They breached the rules, unknowingly, and you say "think about every drop you took." They say "Yeah I did, I'm good." That doesn't invalidate the exception. It's still an unknown penalty.

[Lihu]

On 10/17/2018 at 9:35 AM, NM Golf said:

Basically I view this as the Rules haters have won.

Quite possible.

I’m not one to say much on the course to anyone. Two players I got paired with were quite fun to be around, but they did use foot wedges and ground clubs in the bunkers etc. one of them guiltily mentioned breaking rules, and I answered they should play however they wish to enjoy the game, but just not during any competition. 

That’s the key, if you’re ready to compete, you should know all the rules very well.

I think it’s too bad the rules committees felt that they should change the rules just because of public pressure. Too bad.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Lihu