Stopping play due to darkness??

[J_Tizzle]

So just got off the phone with the golf director, more drama...

 

Come to find out, he did not realize that my partner and I had found our balls, he was under the impression that ALL balls were lost, and made the ruling of just starting over on 18 (either hitting 1 or 3, whatever makes you feel better).  So that was the rationale behind the ruling.

 

So my question now is what would be the appropriate response to that ruling?  As our balls were in play and we have the approximate yardarges (168 and 177).  He has said "I stand by the ruling based on the information I had at hand".  Which I think is kind of a cop out.

[Sawgrass]

J, note Halebopp’s preceding contribution.  “Standing by an incorrect ruling” in this particular situation is inappropriate:

 

•  

 

(10)

Handling Wrong Rulings in Match Play

Under Rule 20.2a, a player has no right to appeal a referee's ruling. But, if a ruling by a referee or the Committee is later found to be wrong, the ruling should be corrected if possible under the Rules (see Rule 20.2d). This section clarifies when an incorrect ruling should be corrected in match play.

Correction of Incorrect Ruling by a Referee During Match

• A referee should not correct an incorrect ruling after either player makes another stroke on a hole. 
• If no more strokes are made on a hole after a ruling has been made, a referee should not correct an incorrect ruling once either player makes a stroke from the next teeing area.
• Otherwise, an incorrect ruling by a referee should be corrected.
• In a situation where an incorrect ruling can be corrected, if the incorrect ruling has resulted in one or more players lifting his or her ball, the referee is responsible for directing the players to replace their balls and complete the hole, with the correct ruling applied. 
• The principles above also apply where a referee fails to penalize a player for a breach of a Rule due to misunderstanding the result of a hole.
  • For example, a referee fails to advise a player of a loss of hole penalty for a breach of the pace of play policy as he or she believed the player had already lost the hole. On the next hole, the referee learns that the player had not lost the hole. If the player or the opponent has made a stroke from the teeing area of that next hole, the referee can no longer correct the error.

[Sawgrass]

May I add that in addition to your supplying the above to the golf director, encourage him to contact the USGA or R&A for a correct ruling.  It doesn’t sound to me that you are likely to prevail with this guy without some authority behind you.

[2bGood]

Great comment Sawgrass and the way to go about this for sure.

[antip]

3 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

I might be wrong, but I thought the 2019 rules even removed spelling differences, such as the USGA’s rules site spelling “honor” as “honour” in rule 6.4a(1).

Yes, the spelling is now all uniform.

[antip]

2 hours ago, J_Tizzle said:

So just got off the phone with the golf director, more drama...

 

Come to find out, he did not realize that my partner and I had found our balls, he was under the impression that ALL balls were lost, and made the ruling of just starting over on 18 (either hitting 1 or 3, whatever makes you feel better).  So that was the rationale behind the ruling.

 

So my question now is what would be the appropriate response to that ruling?  As our balls were in play and we have the approximate yardarges (168 and 177).  He has said "I stand by the ruling based on the information I had at hand".  Which I think is kind of a cop out.

This person cannot 'stick to the earlier ruling' (based on a misunderstanding that all balls were lost) because there is no authority for the Committee to cancel strokes that were correctly played under the rules. All four strokes off that 18th tee were made in accordance with the rules. So any later resumption cannot erase what was done.

[rogolf]

43 minutes ago, antip said:

This person cannot 'stick to the earlier ruling' (based on a misunderstanding that all balls were lost) because there is no authority for the Committee to cancel strokes that were correctly played under the rules. All four strokes off that 18th tee were made in accordance with the rules. So any later resumption cannot erase what was done.

Agree.  The OP has received very good advice on the Rules and procedures, and "we" all know what the outcome should be - resume play in the 18th fairway.  We will have to wait and see what is decided.  In actual fact, the "committee" in this situation has no authority other than to apply the Rules as they are written.  Anything else will be just wrong!

[clinkinfo]

So I get what the posts and feedback are saying with the rules, and common sense points that way too, so this probably has no relevance  BUT, does it matter that the OP is saying they strategically changed clubs because it was too dark to see?  Could it imply that if you’re changing clubs because you can’t see, maybe it’s not playable anymore, and the director is just saying go back to the tee at 18 because you all should not have tee’d off at all?  Essentially, based on that knowledge (the info you shared), he’s “calling play suspended” at the 18th tee box?

 

I don’t know, never had this issue, and I’m not saying it should change the outcome.  it’s just a weird comment in the original post. 

[2bGood]

On 8/28/2020 at 8:44 PM, clinkinfo said:

So I get what the posts and feedback are saying with the rules, and common sense points that way too, so this probably has no relevance  BUT, does it matter that the OP is saying they strategically changed clubs because it was too dark to see?  Could it imply that if you’re changing clubs because you can’t see, maybe it’s not playable anymore, and the director is just saying go back to the tee at 18 because you all should not have tee’d off at all?  Essentially, based on that knowledge (the info you shared), he’s “calling play suspended” at the 18th tee box?

 

I don’t know, never had this issue, and I’m not saying it should change the outcome.  it’s just a weird comment in the original post. 

No, nothing in the rules about needing to stop play due to darkness. The rules actually are very well written in this regard as it does not try to contemplate all the reasons why a group would stop playing (other than lightening) and simply allows the group to unanimously agree to stop. The rational for stopping is not relevant. 

 

The OP should look at rule 5.7 D (2) as part off the process as it gives guidance on how to replace their balls when the ball or ball mark has been moved while play is stopped.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2020 by 2bGood

[James the Hogan Fan]

On 8/28/2020 at 11:59 PM, Newby said:

Except for a couple of spelling differences, they are exactly the same and have been since 1952.

Off topic, but with the notable exception of the size of the ball until 1990.

[LeoLeo99]

On 8/28/2020 at 11:44 PM, clinkinfo said:

So I get what the posts and feedback are saying with the rules, and common sense points that way too, so this probably has no relevance  BUT, does it matter that the OP is saying they strategically changed clubs because it was too dark to see?  Could it imply that if you’re changing clubs because you can’t see, maybe it’s not playable anymore, and the director is just saying go back to the tee at 18 because you all should not have tee’d off at all?  Essentially, based on that knowledge (the info you shared), he’s “calling play suspended” at the 18th tee box?

 

I don’t know, never had this issue, and I’m not saying it should change the outcome.  it’s just a weird comment in the original post. 

 

Guess you never played in a match at twilight.  It was always an interesting strategy decision on the last hole to hit driver and hope to find it or hit 7 iron and guarantee finding the ball but giving up the distance.  Fun stuff. Especially with a couple dollars riding. 

Edited August 30, 2020 by LeoLeo99

[Mr. Bean]

What was the nonsense about sunset and starting from 17, 16 or 15 ? What has time of sunset got to do with anything??

[clinkinfo]

2 hours ago, LeoLeo99 said:

 

Guess you never played in a match at twilight.  It was always an interesting strategy decision on the last hole to hit driver and hope to find it or hit 7 iron and guarantee finding the ball but giving up the distance.  Fun stuff. Especially with a couple dollars riding. 

 

it was more trying to reconcile the pro’s decision/instruction to replay 18.  I missed the post where he said the pro thought all balls were lost, which makes much more sense. 

 

 

[Colin L]

On 8/28/2020 at 10:20 PM, Sawgrass said:

I might be wrong, but I thought the 2019 rules even removed spelling differences, such as the USGA’s rules site spelling “honor” as “honour” in rule 6.4a(1).

 

I see also that the USGA version uses practice (noun) and practise (verb) which I think is not normal in US spelling.

[antip]

8 hours ago, Colin L said:

 

I see also that the USGA version uses practice (noun) and practise (verb) which I think is not normal in US spelling.

This from "A Revised Approach to Writing and Presenting the New Rules of Golf for 2019":

Written Using International English: The new Rules have been written using a version of International English known that is used by many international organizations, including the United Nations and NATO. This will allow the same spelling to be used across all English Rules of Golf publications going forward.

[sui generis]

8 hours ago, Colin L said:

 

I see also that the USGA version uses practice (noun) and practise (verb) which I think is not normal in US spelling.

 

Ack! More colonial imperialism if you ask me. ?

[Sawgrass]

32 minutes ago, antip said:

This from "A Revised Approach to Writing and Presenting the New Rules of Golf for 2019":

Written Using International English: The new Rules have been written using a version of International English known that is used by many international organizations, including the United Nations and NATO. This will allow the same spelling to be used across all English Rules of Golf publications going forward.

Now someone needs to explain to me how they could come together on a whole dictionary of language, but still not agree internationally on what scores should or should not be posted . . .

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

Now someone needs to explain to me how they could come together on a whole dictionary of language, but still not agree internationally on what scores should or should not be posted . . .

 

To me it is a much greater mystery why English dictionary does not apply equally in England and in USA.

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

Now someone needs to explain to me how they could come together on a whole dictionary of language, but still not agree internationally on what scores should or should not be posted . . .

 

Because different people were involved..?

[LeoLeo99]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

To me it is a much greater mystery why English dictionary does not apply equally in England and in USA.

 

We've tried to improve things here in the States and cut down on the number of superfluous letters that Brits seem to savor.    

[2bGood]

11 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

 

We've tried to improve things here in the States and cut down on the number of superfluous letters that Brits seem to savor.    

 

Those that use British English do not savor the extra letters, we savour them.  

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

46 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

 

We've tried to improve things here in the States and cut down on the number of superfluous letters that Brits seem to savor.    

 

You mean like 'tonite' instead of tonight..?

[nsxguy]

31 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

You mean like 'tonite' instead of tonight..?

 

"tonite" is not an acceptable word in "American English" either.

 

It is however acceptable in what I'll just refer to as the Twitter-verse (Twitter, FB, texting, etc),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, kinda sorta like " 'sup ?"

[J_Tizzle]

Thanks for the feedback all, sorry to start a discussion about spellings, lol.

 

We decided we were going to let things simmer for a bit before we decide what to do since my partner and I are still VERY hot about the situation.  I'm going to reach out with the rules referenced above 20.2a and 5.7 about how to pursue.  See if the director will change the ruling, and if he does we still might forfeit the match under protest :).  I'll keep ya update when we decide what to do.

[LeoLeo99]

9 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

You mean like 'tonite' instead of tonight..?

 

I work in the sciences for a drug company.  We had a huge comical argument about spelling a few years ago.  A new VP was English and we needed to file a document with the European authorities.  He insisted, with a slight air of arrogance, that we use British spellings in our European filings.  During proof reading, he asked me to remove a comma are replace it with a full stop.  "Full stop?"  Turns out that British for a period.  Then we had a very long argument about how to spell "sulfate".  He insisted on "sulphate".  Turned out that "sulfate" was the accepted spelling in the scientific world.  That was a running joke for months.  Sulfate with an f.  That's how real scientists spell it.  

Edited September 1, 2020 by LeoLeo99

[LeoLeo99]

36 minutes ago, J_Tizzle said:

Thanks for the feedback all, sorry to start a discussion about spellings, lol.

 

We decided we were going to let things simmer for a bit before we decide what to do since my partner and I are still VERY hot about the situation.  I'm going to reach out with the rules referenced above 20.2a and 5.7 about how to pursue.  See if the director will change the ruling, and if he does we still might forfeit the match under protest :).  I'll keep ya update when we decide what to do.

 

I've been studying some philosophy in my spare time.  Amor fati.  Don't get upset.  Appreciate this situation and what you've learned about yourself and your fellow humans.

[sui generis]

26 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

 

I work in the sciences for a drug company.  We have a huge comical argument about spelling a few years ago.  A new VP was English and we needed to file a document with the European authorities.  He insisted, with a slight air of arrogance, that we use British spellings in our European filings.  During proof reading, he asked me to remove a comma are replace it with a full stop.  "Full stop?"  Turns out that British for a period.  Then we had a very long argument about how to spell "sulfate".  He insisted on "sulphate".  Turned out that "sulfate" was the accepted spelling in the scientific world.  That was a running joke for months.  Sulfate with an f.  That's how real scientists spell it.  

 

In the UK a "period" is something else entirely.

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, LeoLeo99 said:

 

I work in the sciences for a drug company.  We have a huge comical argument about spelling a few years ago.  A new VP was English and we needed to file a document with the European authorities.  He insisted, with a slight air of arrogance, that we use British spellings in our European filings.  During proof reading, he asked me to remove a comma are replace it with a full stop.  "Full stop?"  Turns out that British for a period.  Then we had a very long argument about how to spell "sulfate".  He insisted on "sulphate".  Turned out that "sulfate" was the accepted spelling in the scientific world.  That was a running joke for months.  Sulfate with an f.  That's how real scientists spell it.  

 

Sulfate or sulphate? Fosforus or phosphorus?

 

Even scientific world is divided by terms...

[antip]

5 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Sulfate or sulphate? Fosforus or phosphorus?

 

Even scientific world is divided by terms...

Are you ph ing around?

[rogolf]

5 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Sulfate or sulphate? Fosforus or phosphorus?

 

Even scientific world is divided by terms...

As a chemist, I've seen (and used) both sulphate and sulfate spellings, but have never seen phosphorus spelled as fosforus.