Match play ruling—stroke allocation confusion

Team better ball: A and B versus C and D. B is in for 4. His teammate A is about to putt for 3. A remarks that B gets a stroke on this hole and so already has net 3. In response, C and D concede A’s putt for 3. A and B win the hole.

As they walk to the next hole, it is discovered that A was mistaken (not malicious): in fact, B did not deserve a handicap stroke on that hole. C and D say that they didn’t know the stroke allocation at the time and took A’s word for it. But they did concede A’s putt and weren’t going to fight the loss of hole. What is the ruling?

As it turns out, A called the pro during play of the following hole and was informed that A and B should lose that hole. Assuming that’s right, is the timing okay to make the correction at that point in time?

I don't know what the rule is but if you are going to concede a hole on the word of your competitor, then that's on you. They conceded the putt, that was a bonehead move by all parties involved but stroke allocation is public knowledge and they could have easily looked at the scorecard before deciding to concede.

> @BM5D said:

>**** I don't know what the rule is but if you are going to concede a hole on the word of your competitor, then that's on you.**** They conceded the putt, that was a bonehead move by all parties involved but stroke allocation is public knowledge and they could have easily looked at the scorecard before deciding to concede.

Not actually true - you are responsible for giving true information in match play per rule 3 and you lose the hole if your mis information effects the result of the hole:

_(1) Telling Opponent About Number of Strokes Taken. At any time during play of a hole or after the hole is completed, the opponent may ask the player for the number of strokes (including strokes made and penalty strokes) the player has taken on the hole.

This is to allow the opponent to decide how to play the next stroke and the rest of the hole, or to confirm the result of the hole just completed.

When asked for the number of strokes taken, or when giving that information without being asked:

The player must give the right number of strokes taken.

A player who fails to respond to the opponent’s request is treated as giving the wrong number of strokes taken.

The player gets the general penalty (loss of hole) if he or she gives the opponent the wrong number of strokes taken, unless the player corrects that mistake in time:

Wrong Number of Strokes Given While Playing Hole. The player must give the right number of strokes taken before the opponent makes another stroke or takes a similar action (such as conceding the player’s next stroke or the hole).

Wrong Number of Strokes Given After Hole Completed. The player must give the right number of strokes taken:

Before either player makes a stroke to begin another hole or takes a similar action (such as conceding the next hole or the match) or,

For the final hole of the match, before the result of the match is final (see Rule 3.2a(5))._

**Also declaring a wrong handicap in Match Play = DQ-**

_ Declared Handicap Too High. The player is disqualified if this affects the number of strokes the player gives or gets. If it does not, there is no penalty._

> @BM5D said:

> I don't know what the rule is but if you are going to concede a hole on the word of your competitor, then that's on you. They conceded the putt, that was a bonehead move by all parties involved but stroke allocation is public knowledge and they could have easily looked at the scorecard before deciding to concede.

Conceding a putt based on the word of your competitor is not “on you” and is not “boneheaded” if the question were simply, “what are you lying?” Or “what score did you make on this hole?” An incorrect answer there is definitely loss of hole for the respondent.

The question here is: If I didn’t have my scorecard handy and got a wrong answer from my competitor for “do you get a stroke on this hole?” And to blur the line more, what if the question was “what’s your net score here?” That’s like asking both questions at once, I guess. Would you say it’s boneheaded to accept the answer for the stroke question but not for the net score question?

By stating that B's score for the hole was a net 3, A gave wrong information about his partner's score which caused their opponent's to "concede" and so the side loses the hole. See Rule 3.2b(i) which is the one quoted above.

> @"Colin L" said:

> By stating that B's score for the hole was a net 3, A gave wrong information about his partner's score which caused their opponent's to "concede" and so the side loses the hole. See Rule 3.2b(i) which is the one quoted above.

Of course, Colin means 3.2d(1). It is also worth reiterating that the penalty for the A/B side is not automatic. For example, if side C/D could not match a net 4 on the hole, then the breach of 3.2d(1) would have been over-ridden by the Exception to that rule.

> @antip said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > By stating that B's score for the hole was a net 3, A gave wrong information about his partner's score which caused their opponent's to "concede" and so the side loses the hole. See Rule 3.2b(i) which is the one quoted above.

>

> Of course, Colin means 3.2d(1). It is also worth reiterating that the penalty for the A/B side is not automatic. For example, if side C/D could not match a net 4 on the hole, then the breach of 3.2d(1) would have been over-ridden by the Exception to that rule.

The exception wouldn’t apply in this case because the wrong information was given during play of the hole—not after completion . (This makes sense. C and D had no incentive to even try to make 4 after the wrong info.). So the penalty is automatic in this case, right?

No one has commented yet on C and D not making a claim and the timing of the ruling from the pro, which didn’t happen until the next hole had begun. Does that matter? (Nice that A himself is the one initiated it with the call to the pro shop.)

3.2c (2) says that each player is responsible for knowing the holes where strokes are allocated (this is different from declaring the correct overall handicap) and says that mistakes stand as the agreed result unless players correct in time (before beginning play of subsequent hole -- or that 18th hole stuff).

> @Sawgrass said:

> 3.2c (2) says that each player is responsible for knowing the holes where strokes are allocated (this is different from declaring the correct overall handicap) and says that mistakes stand as the agreed result unless players correct in time (before beginning play of subsequent hole -- or that 18th hole stuff).

Ok. So given this situation, was the correction to who won the hole appropriate in your view? When A said, “My partner is in for 4, net 3”, did he violate 3.2 d (1) or because of what you quoted in 3.2 c (2), C and D are SOL?

And it sounds like no matter what, C and D are stuck because of the timing? (In which case A and B can do something like concede the next hole.)

> @lchang said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > 3.2c (2) says that each player is responsible for knowing the holes where strokes are allocated (this is different from declaring the correct overall handicap) and says that mistakes stand as the agreed result unless players correct in time (before beginning play of subsequent hole -- or that 18th hole stuff).

>

> Ok. So given this situation, was the correction to who won the hole appropriate in your view? When A said, “My partner is in for 4, net 3”, did he violate 3.2 d (1) or because of what you quoted in 3.2 c (2), C and D are SOL?

>

> And it sounds like no matter what, C and D are stuck because of the timing? (In which case A and B can do something like concede the next hole.)

The answer depends on whether the decision to make a claim was announced before anyone teed off on the next hole. Not on when the call was made. It sounds like the claim was made too late, and further that the pro was wrong in any case.

> @lchang said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > By stating that B's score for the hole was a net 3, A gave wrong information about his partner's score which caused their opponent's to "concede" and so the side loses the hole. See Rule 3.2b(i) which is the one quoted above.

> >

> > Of course, Colin means 3.2d(1). It is also worth reiterating that the penalty for the A/B side is not automatic. For example, if side C/D could not match a net 4 on the hole, then the breach of 3.2d(1) would have been over-ridden by the Exception to that rule.

>

> The exception wouldn’t apply in this case because the wrong information was given during play of the hole—not after completion . (This makes sense. C and D had no incentive to even try to make 4 after the wrong info.). So the penalty is automatic in this case, right?

>

> No one has commented yet on C and D not making a claim and the timing of the ruling from the pro, which didn’t happen until the next hole had begun. Does that matter? (Nice that A himself is the one initiated it with the call to the pro shop.)

> @lchang said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > By stating that B's score for the hole was a net 3, A gave wrong information about his partner's score which caused their opponent's to "concede" and so the side loses the hole. See Rule 3.2b(i) which is the one quoted above.

> >

> > Of course, Colin means 3.2d(1). It is also worth reiterating that the penalty for the A/B side is not automatic. For example, if side C/D could not match a net 4 on the hole, then the breach of 3.2d(1) would have been over-ridden by the Exception to that rule.

>

> The exception wouldn’t apply in this case because the wrong information was given during play of the hole—not after completion . (This makes sense. C and D had no incentive to even try to make 4 after the wrong info.). So the penalty is automatic in this case, right?

>

> No one has commented yet on C and D not making a claim and the timing of the ruling from the pro, which didn’t happen until the next hole had begun. Does that matter? (Nice that A himself is the one initiated it with the call to the pro shop.)

This is a sneakily complex situation. The more I think on it, the more I come to the view that 3.2d has no relevance here. On the information provided, we know that B is in for 4 - that is the number of strokes taken (the 3.2d obligation). A's error was to mis-advise C/D about whether B had a handicap stroke on the hole (A did not to give the wrong number of strokes taken), but 3.2c(3) makes clear that each player is responsible for knowing the facts on where handicap strokes apply. So when C/D acted on that mis-advice without verifying, it really was their problem. While I don't believe it is relevant on these facts, A's error (the wrong information on where handicap strokes applied) was fixed before the next hole started anyway. IMO, the pro's advice was simply wrong, A/B won the hole when C/D conceded.

This does look like a nice question to put to the USGA.

Ah, interesting point about the timing. Before the next hole started, they knew the stroke allocation was wrong. C/D didn’t make a claim, but A didn’t like it and decided to check. So timing might be fine. Can A make a claim on a hole he won?!

And can you be precise about why the pro was wrong? You think 3.2c(2) (everyone should know when handicap strokes matter) applies, not 3.2d(1) (you can’t misrepresent your score)?

> @lchang said:

> Ah, interesting point about the timing. Before the next hole started, they knew the stroke allocation was wrong. C/D didn’t make a claim, but A didn’t like it and decided to check. So timing might be fine. Can A make a claim on a hole he won?!

>

> And can you be precise about why the pro was wrong? You think 3.2c(2) (everyone should know when handicap strokes matter) applies, not 3.2d(1) (you can’t misrepresent your score)?

A concession can't be withdrawn. It was made, and while A & B made a mistake in describing the handicap allocation, they did not do so intentionally or illegally. So irrespective of any claim, A & B should have won that hole. Cheers to their opponents who accepted this.

The pro was apparently wrong in not knowing this, and apparently wrong in not checking regarding the timing of the claim, and further checking on how the timing of the claim itself might have reversed his incorrect ruling. I think that covers it!

> @lchang said:

> Ah, interesting point about the timing. Before the next hole started, they knew the stroke allocation was wrong. C/D didn’t make a claim, but A didn’t like it and decided to check. So timing might be fine. Can A make a claim on a hole he won?!

>

> And can you be precise about why the pro was wrong? You think 3.2c(2) (everyone should know when handicap strokes matter) applies, not 3.2d(1) (you can’t misrepresent your score)?

EDIT, I WROTE THIS LAST NIGHT AND FAILED TO HIT POST. I'M ON THE SAME WAVELENGTH AS SAW.

You raise a few issues here. Point 1: any player can seek a ruling, it is irrelevant whether the claimant won the hole or not (many people don't want to be credited with a hole win that they did not deserve). Point 2: the pro's call was wrong, first and foremost, because it was simply too late, after everyone hit off the next tee, for anyone to submit a claim on the facts we were provided. Pro/referee/Committee (whomever the decision maker is) is not allowed to consider the issue, because the requirements in the last part of R20.1b(2) have not been met. Second, IMO there is no breach of 3.2d anyway because A did not tell an opponent a wrong number of strokes taken - but this would be an interesting question to get an official view on.

> @lchang said:

> Team better ball: A and B versus C and D. B is in for 4. His teammate A is about to putt for 3. A remarks that B gets a stroke on this hole and so already has net 3. In response, C and D concede A’s putt for 3. A and B win the hole.

>

> As they walk to the next hole, it is discovered that A was mistaken (not malicious): in fact, B did not deserve a handicap stroke on that hole. C and D say that they didn’t know the stroke allocation at the time and took A’s word for it. But they did concede A’s putt and weren’t going to fight the loss of hole. What is the ruling?

>

> As it turns out, A called the pro during play of the following hole and was informed that A and B should lose that hole. Assuming that’s right, is the timing okay to make the correction at that point in time?

Last sentence first. Since this is all the info given about the "Pro" "A and B should lose that hole" doesn't tell me the whole story as I don't know if the Pro knew the whole story,,,,,,, so i'd take it easy on the pro until I headr more.

As for the kerfluffle itself, A said his partner made a net 3. Strokes or not, team/side should know where strokes fall or not, A gave wrong information and didn't correct it before the other side made their "play" and A/B should lose the hole.

But since no claim was made in time the hole stands as won by A&B. Just my 2 cents reviewing the Rules.

Then again, I'm not a "rulie". LOL

In what way is stating that your score at a hole is a net 3 when in fact it was a net 4 not giving wrong information and a breach of 3.2d(1)? (Apologies for the earlier typo). That the player's mistake in saying so was because he wrongly applied a handicap stroke does not exonerate him nor does it place the onus on his opponent to correct him. A(B should have lost the hole.

The "sorting out" of the error took place before the next hole was begun and that was C&D's moment to claim the hole. Had they done so, the ruling should have been in their favour, the concession of the putt being irrelevant since the hole was lost to A&B the moment C&D conceded the putt , that being a further action based on the wrong information given. But I agree that C&D's acquiescence means that they did not in fact make a timeous claim and the result stands.

I’m with Sawgrass. All of the loss of hole penalties are specifically attributed to telling the wrong number of “strokes taken”. It also says “including strokes made and penalty strokes”. What it does NOT say is “including strokes taken and penalty strokes and minus any handicap strokes on that hole”. It doesn’t say that.

In fact, it says this:

“Each player is responsible for knowing the holes where he or she gives or gets handicap strokes, based on the stroke index allocation set by the Committee (which is usually found on the scorecard).

If the players mistakenly apply handicap strokes on a hole, the agreed result of the hole stands, unless the players correct that mistake in time (see Rule 3.2d(3)).”

There isn’t a loss of hole penalty hidden in there. The opponents say, “What are you putting for?” He says, “4”. They say “pick it up”. He says, “That’s 4 for 3. We win the hole. Thanks.”

Each player is responsible for knowing the holes he gives or gets handicap strokes.

IF they had asked him, “What’s that for?” And he said 4, and then they asked “Do you get a stroke here?” And he said “No”, THEN you’d have a case for misinformation. They did not ask that.

A couple of contributors (eg NSX, Colin) have referred to "wrong information" and suggested that is relevant. But "wrong information" does not appear in the Rule book nor in the Interpretations.

> @Augster said:

> If the players mistakenly apply handicap strokes on a hole, the agreed result of the hole stands, ......”

**A remarks that B** gets a stroke on this hole and so already **has net 3**.

**A remarks that B gets a stroke on this hole** and so already has net 3.

>

Which is it ?

> @"Colin L" said:

> In what way is stating that your score at a hole is a net 3 when in fact it was a net 4 not giving wrong information and a breach of 3.2d(1)? (Apologies for the earlier typo). That the player's mistake in saying so was because he wrongly applied a handicap stroke does not exonerate him nor does it place the onus on his opponent to correct him. A(B should have lost the hole.

> The "sorting out" of the error took place before the next hole was begun and that was C&D's moment to claim the hole. Had they done so, the ruling should have been in their favour, the concession of the putt being irrelevant since the hole was lost to A&B the moment C&D conceded the putt , that being a further action based on the wrong information given. But I agree that C&D's acquiescence means that they did not in fact make a timeous claim and the result stands.

You seem to be saying that "B gets a stroke on this hole and so already has net 3" is providing an inaccurate number of strokes taken. IMO it is a statement that B scored a gross 4, which is correct.

This is starting to feel like the parsing of words necessary to determine if a particular sentence is advice or not!

If I have just holed out for gross 4 and ....

1) I don’t get a stroke and I say, “that’s Net 3 for me!” Is this ok? I wasn’t mistaken about my score, I was mistaken about the stroke allocation! It’s the opponent’s responsibility to say, Hey you don’t get a stroke here. You made a 4! (Doesn’t feel good, but maybe that what the rules say.)

2) I do get a stroke and I say, “that’s a net 4”. Opponent thinks I made a gross 5. My defense: I meant that I made gross 4, net 4 because I thought I didn’t stroke there. I didn’t lie about my score! (God, that’s weak. Please don’t tell me that’s a valid defense!)

> @antip said:

> A couple of contributors (eg NSX, Colin) have referred to "wrong information" and suggested that is relevant. But "wrong information" does not appear in the Rule book nor in the Interpretations.

>

You know exactly what the reference is to. Frankly I would expect such an observation from someone like "Mr. 5 eagles", not you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

> @nsxguy said:

> > @antip said:

> > A couple of contributors (eg NSX, Colin) have referred to "wrong information" and suggested that is relevant. But "wrong information" does not appear in the Rule book nor in the Interpretations.

> >

>

> You know exactly what the reference is to. Frankly I would expect such an observation from someone like "Mr. 5 eagles", not you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

You seem to be on some kind of mission. Good luck!

The facts of the case are clear in the initial post. A player took 4 strokes on the hole. That is known fact stated clearly up front. A partner then mistakenly said the player had a net 3. The only data provided about **strokes taken** (the precise relevant wording of R3.2d) is 4.

If RBs intend that wrong information (your words, that do not appear in the rule book) about the **net score** (rather than actual **strokes taken**) involves a penalty then I take the view that they need to tell us that. R3.2c(2), on my reading, actually tells us the opposite.

I think the issues are laid out fully in the posts to date. We are now just going around in circles. As I said earlier, I think this is a nice issue to put to the RBs to remove any doubts about how they want it treated.

> @antip said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @antip said:

> > > A couple of contributors (eg NSX, Colin) have referred to "wrong information" and suggested that is relevant. But "wrong information" does not appear in the Rule book nor in the Interpretations.

> > >

> >

> > You know exactly what the reference is to. Frankly I would expect such an observation from someone like "Mr. 5 eagles", not you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

>

> You seem to be on some kind of mission. Good luck!

>

> The facts of the case are clear in the initial post. A player took 4 strokes on the hole. That is known fact stated clearly up front. A partner then mistakenly said the player had a net 3. The only data provided about **strokes taken** (the precise relevant wording of R3.2d) is 4.

>

> If RBs intend that wrong information (your words, that do not appear in the rule book) about the **net score** (rather than actual **strokes taken**) involves a penalty then I take the view that they need to tell us that. R3.2c(2), on my reading, actually tells us the opposite.

>

> I think the issues are laid out fully in the posts to date. **We are now just going around in circles.** As I said earlier, I think this is a nice issue to put to the RBs to remove any doubts about how they want it treated.

Not any more.

That said, the very fact that you suggest it would be "a nice issue to put to the RBs to remove any doubts", indicates there IS doubt.

> @nsxguy said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @antip said:

> > > > A couple of contributors (eg NSX, Colin) have referred to "wrong information" and suggested that is relevant. But "wrong information" does not appear in the Rule book nor in the Interpretations.

> > > >

> > >

> > > You know exactly what the reference is to. Frankly I would expect such an observation from someone like "Mr. 5 eagles", not you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

> >

> > You seem to be on some kind of mission. Good luck!

> >

> > The facts of the case are clear in the initial post. A player took 4 strokes on the hole. That is known fact stated clearly up front. A partner then mistakenly said the player had a net 3. The only data provided about **strokes taken** (the precise relevant wording of R3.2d) is 4.

> >

> > If RBs intend that wrong information (your words, that do not appear in the rule book) about the **net score** (rather than actual **strokes taken**) involves a penalty then I take the view that they need to tell us that. R3.2c(2), on my reading, actually tells us the opposite.

> >

> > I think the issues are laid out fully in the posts to date. **We are now just going around in circles.** As I said earlier, I think this is a nice issue to put to the RBs to remove any doubts about how they want it treated.

>

> Not any more.

>

> That said, the very fact that you suggest it would be "a nice issue to put to the RBs to remove any doubts", indicates there IS doubt.

>

>

My personal interest/mission in the Rules right now (apart from the perennial challenge of learning/knowing them as well as possible) is to find those more challenging questions that we do not have an unambiguous answer to in the published Rules/Interpretation and any Rulings I am aware of. And then try to discover an official answer. Ichang's OP raises such an issue. For me personally, I put a 90 per cent confidence level on the view I (and others) have expressed. Others may choose anywhere between zero and 100. But unless RBs speak to the issue explicitly I absolutely see some doubt.

My difficulty with this is that I understand fully the predominant view but think there is something quite wrong in a player "getting away" with misinforming his opponent about his score. That's it really. I see what the words say but I don't want them to say what they say. So yes, it needs clarification of what the RBs want them to say.

[Anent "wrong information", I think that's the first time I've allowed old-time terminology to cross my keyboard!]

> @"Colin L" said:

> My difficulty with this is that I understand fully the predominant view but think there is something quite wrong in a player "getting away" with misinforming his opponent about his score. That's it really. I see what the words say but I don't want them to say what they say. So yes, it needs clarification of what the RBs want them to say.

>

> [Anent "wrong information", I think that's the first time I've allowed old-time terminology to cross my keyboard!]

Colin

Here with a bit of ancient history, so advance apologies for dragging out the old stuff.

This has been an extremely rare issue for me in that I was inspired to revisit the pre-2019 rules and I am convinced (but it would take a new pre-2019 ruling to prove it) that absolutely no change has occurred in this space in 2019 in respect of 'wrong information', even though the 2019 published wording has been simplified to remove that phrase. That is, the old Rule 9, Information as to strokes taken, is only about "strokes taken". There is, though, a truly dodgy old ruling, 9-2/5, titled "Incorrect information causes opponent to lift his ball marker" that fails to qualify the term "incorrect information" by adding "as to strokes taken". IMO, that omission was a clear oversight, but the rule allows no other interpretation than that wrong or incorrect information was only ever about strokes taken or failure to identify penalties.

That is the way I look at it.

Thanks for all the retrsopective info - I hope revisiting the pre-2019 rules wasn't too painful!

For me it's a case of seeing it, not liking it, but having to lump it.