Starting the round after having played two holes

[bladehunter]

6 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Imo, yes, based on the definition of "course".  If an area is not marked or identified as out of bounds, it is part of the course.

Ok.  Again not obtuse on purpose.  
 

my home  course.  The practice putting green is behind 18 green. Approx 30 -35 feet away.  It is not marked. And has never been marked OB.  Neither is the 18 side of the driving range.  Yet the #1 fairway side of the range is OB.  
 

 I’ve played from the range and that practice green on windy windy days in competition.  But  I practiced on both before.  
 

 

I read your logic. But I don’t see it spelled out as black and white.  
 

Edited January 19, 2021 by bladehunter

[rogolf]

9 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Ok.  Again not obtuse on purpose.  
 

my home  course.  The practice putting green is behind 18 green. Approx 30 -35 feet away.  It is not marked. And has never been marked OB.  Neither is the 18 side of the driving range.  Yet the #1 fairway side of the range is OB.  
 

 I’ve played from the range and that practice green on windy windy days in competition.  But  I practiced on both before.  
 

 

I read your logic. But I don’t see it spelled out as black and white.  
 

Sounds like your Committee has not met its responsibilities regarding the driving range?  Maybe the Local Rules say it is OOB during play of hole no. 1 but not otherwise?  The practice putting green is okay as Rule 5.2b says practice before a round is permitted on any practice area.  Obviously (to me at least), the Committee must identify "practice areas" on the course.

The Committee in charge should identify areas on the course where practice is permitted. 

[Sawgrass]

48 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Again  I’m not trying to actually argue here. I’m more asking with statements of what I read.     The above quoted text from rogolf shows the “ course “ as being 18 or fewer holes as set by the committee “.   How does this include 1-2 whne the tournament is on 10-18 ?    

“The course” is not limited to specific holes.  The clubhouse itself could be part of it.

 

And if you correctly tee off on #10 and it goes into the rough near the adjacent 9th hole fairway, I don’t think you’d be claiming that was off the course — unless the Committee said so in advance. 

[Colin L]

43 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Again  I’m not trying to actually argue here. I’m more asking with statements of what I read.     The above quoted text from rogolf shows the “ course “ as being 18 or fewer holes as set by the committee “.   How does this include 1-2 whne the tournament is on 10-18 ?    

I think you have misread what Rogolf said.  The course  is the area of ground defined by the Committee in terms of its boundaries;  the round  is the number of holes you are to play as set by the Committee. It doesn't matter how many holes are  set for a particular competition,  the course remains the same unless the Committee  specifies different  boundaries for the occasion.   Rogolf refers to occasions such as the US Open at Wingfoot where  boundaries particular to that that tournament are clearly defined and communicated, boundaries which exclude other holes which are not specified as part of the round.

[naval2006]

2 hours ago, rogolf said:

When we conduct a competition on 18 holes of a 36 hole facility, we make sure that the status of the non-playing 18 holes is clearly stated, just like the US Open at Winged Foot, where the other "course" was out of bounds - clearly marked and clearly communicated - a responsibility of the Committee.

It doesn't say anywhere that a "course" is only 18 holes.  There are two pertinent definitions, shown below:

Course

The entire area of play within the edge of any boundaries set by the Committee:

• All areas inside the boundary edge are in bounds and part of the course.

• All areas outside the boundary edge are out of bounds and not part of the course.

• The boundary edge extends both up above the ground and down below the ground.

The course is made up of the five defined areas of the course.

Round

18 or fewer holes played in the order set by the Committee.

Great thread. I didn’t mean to, LOL.

 

Rogolf, this post is highly clarifying.  Hard to apply the rules because I believe most golfers who are not deep into the rules are likely to think like Bladehunter. At least I did before this explanation. 

[Colin L]

Returning to the matter of whether their playing holes 1 and 2 means the players started another hole in terms of 6.1b(2), we clearly have two differing analyses of the situation and the rule which we're perhaps not likely  to resolve without guidance from the RBs.  Alternatively, you might convince me by the cogency of your argument or be convinced by the cogency of mine. 🙂

 

Here are few further thoughts about my view.  Let's not flatter them by calling them cogent, but at least they will show how I'm thinking.   If you play from outside the correct teeing area and where you do so happens to be  another teeing area, you play from the general area.  The 1st tee has no status; nor has the 2nd tee.  These players started  the 10th hole outside its teeing area and continued to hit a ball which, we should also note, is never in play.  That in this continuation of hitting a ball not in play they happened to do so from the teeing area of the 2nd tee makes no difference: they are continuing to hit a not-in-play ball in the general area following the original error.      I note too that correction of the error of playing from outside the teeing area must be before making a stroke to begin another hole or, for the final hole of the round, before returning his or her scorecard.  Is it too much of a stretch to suggest the implication here is that the rule-writers were contemplating the holes of the specified round?

 

It's an intriguing one and  I wonder if it's a matter of not having been completely thought through.  Or is someone going to come up with something I have overlooked that will confound me?

Edited January 19, 2021 by Colin L

[Sawgrass]

10 minutes ago, Colin L said:

Returning to the matter of whether their playing holes 1 and 2 means the players started another hole in terms of 6.1b(2), we clearly have two differing analyses of the situation and the rule which we're perhaps not likely  to resolve without guidance from the RBs.  Alternatively, you might convince me by the cogency of your argument or be convinced by the cogency of mine. 🙂

 

Here are few further thoughts about my view.  Let's not flatter them by calling them cogent, but at least they will show how I'm thinking.   If you play from outside the correct teeing area and where you do so happens to be  another teeing area, you play from the general area.  The 1st tee has no status; nor has the 2nd tee.  These players started  the 10th hole outside its teeing area and continued to hit a ball which, we should also note, is never in play.  That in this continuation of hitting a ball not in play they happened to do so from the teeing area of the 2nd tee makes no difference: they are continuing to hit a not-in-play ball in the general area following the original error.      I note too that correction of the error of playing from outside the teeing area must be before making a stroke to begin another hole or, for the final hole of the round, before returning his or her scorecard.  Is it too much of a stretch to suggest the implication here is that the rule-writers were contemplating the holes of the specified round?

 

It's an intriguing one and  I wonder if it's a matter of not having been completely thought through.  Or is someone going to come up with something I have overlooked that will confound me?

IMO, it’s a player’s intention to make a stroke on the tournament’s second hole that seals his fate, whether it’s inside the teeing area of #11, just outside it, or far outside it near hole #2. 

[Hawkeye77]

Edit:  reconsidering, lol.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[rogolf]

49 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

IMO, it’s a player’s intention to make a stroke on the tournament’s second hole that seals his fate, whether it’s inside the teeing area of #11, just outside it, or far outside it near hole #2. 

Further, Rule 6.1a says, in part, "The hole has started even if the stroke was made from outside the teeing area or the stroke was cancelled under a Rule."

Reading this, imo, confirms that the player has started both hole 1 and hole 2.

[Colin L]

41 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Further, Rule 6.1a says, in part, "The hole has started even if the stroke was made from outside the teeing area or the stroke was cancelled under a Rule."

Reading this, imo, confirms that the player has started both hole 1 and hole 2.

No question but that by making a stroke from the 1st tee they have started hole 10 i.e. the first hole of their round. The crux of the matter is whether playing a ball from the second tee is a continuation of their error , the teeing area just being part of the general area, or because they thought they were starting the second hole of their round,  hitting a ball off the 2nd tee is taken to be starting play of the 11th.   I'm genuinely not sure that the wording of the rules makes it clear either way but I do realise reading them as I have implies that they could play holes 1 to 9 and then play from the 10th teeing area as  a correction of the original error at a cost of 2 strokes and that doesn't seem right!  Time to go for a lie down, I think.

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Edit:  reconsidering, lol.

It’s no use. I’ve been agreed with and overruled at the same time. .  I have no idea what the answer is. 
 

sounds t mo me like it’s dependent on what or how the committee  sets down as rules for the event.  And it seems theirs is like most on these wing ding 9 holers , you pretty much pick the time and group and go as you please.   With zero policing etc. 
 

That facts are as follows according to the op.  
 

 

9 hole event starting on 10.  Start anytime.  So we will have random evening starts by an undetermined number of players/groups.  One group at some undetermined time , starts on hole 1 and continues to 2 before someone notices joe and earl on 2 and informs  them they need to be on 10.  So they then go to 10 . And somehow we’ve determined they should be DQed based on teeing off outside #10s teeing ground - and/or practicing on the course.  
 

if a committee with such little organization as that would try to enforce a DQ based on that reasoning , they shall win the hypocrisy award for this century , surely.  Can’t be both official and anything goes at the same time Can you ?  
 

 

[Augster]

5 hours ago, rogolf said:

Imo, yes, based on the definition of "course".  If an area is not marked or identified as out of bounds, it is part of the course.

This is where the preposterousness starts. If I live on a golf course with no OB defined, that makes my yard a part of the “course”.  It also makes the park across the street a part of the “course”.  If I practice chipping in at the park, or in my own yard, before I start a stroke play round, I’m already guilty of practicing on the “course”? 
 

The ruling bodies may want to try again with their definition of “course”. 

[rogolf]

9 minutes ago, Augster said:

This is where the preposterousness starts. If I live on a golf course with no OB defined, that makes my yard a part of the “course”.  It also makes the park across the street a part of the “course”.  If I practice chipping in at the park, or in my own yard, before I start a stroke play round, I’m already guilty of practicing on the “course”? 
 

The ruling bodies may want to try again with their definition of “course”. 

The Rules are what the Rules are.  The Rules assign the responsibility of defining the course to the Committee in charge of the course or competition; you should expect that Committee to meet its responsibility.

If you lived on a course with no OB defined, you would have to expect that players would be playing out of your yard.  If that's a problem, take it up with the Committee at the course, it's not a Rules issue.

[Hawkeye77]

"A player’s round starts when the player makes a stroke to start his or her first hole (see Rule 6.1a)."

 

The round was apparently defined to be the front 9.  Teeing off on 10 is not teeing off on the first hole of the round, in any sense.  It was just a blunder.  

 

Practicing on the course I get after reading the definition of course. I assume the Committee could post a rule allowing play as it sees fit on the other 9.

 

Claiming that the mistake could be construed to be starting the round and then they were "outside the teeing area" on the hole they were supposed to start on is searching for an excuse under the rules that doesn't exist, IMO.  Hole 10 can't be, by definition, the first hole of their round so in no sense did they start their round, so "outside the teeing area" isn't even reached.

 

Ruling was bogus as stated.

[antip]

I've sat quiet here, enjoying the read, watching my fellow rules nerds/zealots discussing the issue with slightly less nerdy but genuinely rules-interested people.

IMO, the published word is being shown to be less than entirely clear. I certainly see scope to send in some clarifying questions and I thank all contributors for their efforts.

[rogolf]

3 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

"A player’s round starts when the player makes a stroke to start his or her first hole (see Rule 6.1a)."

 

The round was apparently defined to be the front 9.  Teeing off on 10 is not teeing off on the first hole of the round, in any sense.  It was just a blunder.  

 

Practicing on the course I get after reading the definition of course. I assume the Committee could post a rule allowing play as it sees fit on the other 9.

 

Claiming that the mistake could be construed to be starting the round and then they were "outside the teeing area" on the hole they were supposed to start on is searching for an excuse under the rules that doesn't exist, IMO.  Hole 10 can't be, by definition, the first hole of their round so in no sense did they start their round, so "outside the teeing area" isn't even reached.

 

Ruling was bogus as stated.

First of all, I think you've misread the original post about which nine was which.  The round was to be 10 thru 18, but not a big issue.

Secondly, you say the ruling, a disqualification, was "bogus as stated".  I would disagree with "as stated" - the ruling of dq was, imo, correct; it's just been a discussion about which Rule provided the dq.

Edited January 20, 2021 by rogolf

[Colin L]

7 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

"A player’s round starts when the player makes a stroke to start his or her first hole (see Rule 6.1a)."

 

The round was apparently defined to be the front 9.  Teeing off on 10 is not teeing off on the first hole of the round, in any sense.  It was just a blunder.  

 

Practicing on the course I get after reading the definition of course. I assume the Committee could post a rule allowing play as it sees fit on the other 9.

 

Claiming that the mistake could be construed to be starting the round and then they were "outside the teeing area" on the hole they were supposed to start on is searching for an excuse under the rules that doesn't exist, IMO.  Hole 10 can't be, by definition, the first hole of their round so in no sense did they start their round, so "outside the teeing area" isn't even reached.

 

Ruling was bogus as stated.

Searching  for an excuse under the rules that doesn't exist.

 

Does this from R6.1b  help?

If a player who is starting a hole plays a ball from outside the teeing area (including from a wrong set of tee markers for a different teeing location on the same hole or a different hole)

[Hawkeye77]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

Searching  for an excuse under the rules that doesn't exist.

 

Does this from R6.1b  help?

If a player who is starting a hole plays a ball from outside the teeing area (including from a wrong set of tee markers for a different teeing location on the same hole or a different hole)

Not at all.

 

The player wasn't starting on any hole that was part of the "round" he was supposed to be playing.  "Well, you thought you were" isn't a permissible grounds for nailing someone, and when officials reach that far they overreach, IMO.

[Hawkeye77]

7 hours ago, rogolf said:

First of all, I think you've misread the original post about which nine was which.  The round was to be 10 thru 18, but not a big issue.

Secondly, you say the ruling, a disqualification, was "bogus as stated".  I would disagree with "as stated" - the ruling of dq was, imo, correct; it's just been a discussion about which Rule provided the dq.

LOL, I read that twice and still got the 9s wrong by mistake!  I'm DQ'd! 😀

 

Not questioning the DQ on the basis of practicing on the course (I almost did, haha, but edited after reading @Sawgrass's post and others more carefully).

 

The other, see above.  I think as put to the folks involved they were given a bad ruling, the question of "justice" for a right result for wrong reasoning I'll leave for someone else.

 

I assume I'm correct it's a situation the Committee, if it were so motivated, could pretty easily "fix".  We have leagues in the evenings, but lots of retirees who have been out playing at various times during the day play in them and some of us will head out early and play one or the other 9s before league. Combination of stroke/match play scoring.  We have a "Committee" in the sense people are designated, but it's in name only.  One of the folks who is on it thinks by always playing the opposite 9 before league he's okay and likes to tease anyone who is playing the "league 9"  that they are violating the rules - well, either the match play aspect takes out that argument or its illegal either way, I don't really care.  Nobody is staying away from the course all day because of our league, lol.  I'm coming up with a short list of things I think our so-called Committee should consider posting and get them up on the bulletin board and be a little more official about things.  This situation adds something to the list! Would love to have an active Committee and opportunity for various comps, etc. but we'll never have that.  Guess I should move to the UK for the golf season - someday I may.

[Colin L]

35 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Not at all.

 

The player wasn't starting on any hole that was part of the "round" he was supposed to be playing.  "Well, you thought you were" isn't a permissible grounds for nailing someone, and when officials reach that far they overreach, IMO.

What  was their intention when they played from the 1st tee if it wasn't to start their competition round? 

[Hawkeye77]

33 minutes ago, Colin L said:

What  was their intention when they played from the 1st tee if it wasn't to start their competition round? 

Doesn't matter, that tee wasn't part of the "round' by definition. That's where the inquiry starts, IMO (and ends in this case, again IMO).

 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[Colin L]

we'

 

19 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Doesn't matter, that tee wasn't part of the "round' by definition. That's where the inquiry starts, IMO (and ends in this case, again IMO).

 

 

 

We'll need to part company there, then.  Their purpose in driving off the first does matter.  Assuming in the absence of any other realistic alternative that  they intended it to be to starting their competition round, they did so outside the correct teeing area. That the place they did so was the first tee is irrelevant.  In terms of the rule it was just somewhere that wasn't the right place, no different from a couple of centimetres in front of the correct tee markers.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Colin L

[Colin L]

double posting

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Colin L

[Hawkeye77]

3 minutes ago, Colin L said:

we'

 

 

We'll need to part company there, then.  Their purpose in driving off the first does matter.  Assuming in the absence of any other realistic alternative that  they intended it to be to starting their competition round, they did so outside the correct teeing area. That the place they did so was the first tee is irrelevant.  In terms of the rule it was just somewhere that wasn't the right place, no different from a couple of centimetres in front of the correct tee markers.

Obviously, that's no problem.

 

But IMO a lot different than being on the correct tee box for a hole that was defined as part of the "round".  Seems like straining to find a violation by taking the intent of a rule too far, when a plain language solution from the definitions is right there.

[DCSerafin]

Great discussion and I'm in a league that has this situation every week. We have players constantly going out and playing that night's league nine before the league shotgun starts. I know that's a no no. I have played the opposite nine prior but because its practice or just trying to get a full 18 in, i wouldn't think its a penalty because its not part of that evenings "defined course".

 

Not to make this more complicated, but I didnt see this anywhere in the threads (or maybe i missed it).

 

But, Prior to the players playing holes 1 and 2, Did the committee in some form (email, posted in the clubhouse, etc) state that tournament was to be played on holes 10-18? If yes, then i agree with the result. The players went to hole 1 with the "intent" of starting the tournament.

However, if it was not posted, (IMHO) then no penalty strokes, DQ, etc should be assessed because the committee didnt do their job.

[Sawgrass]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Obviously, that's no problem.

 

But IMO a lot different than being on the correct tee box for a hole that was defined as part of the "round".  Seems like straining to find a violation by taking the intent of a rule too far, when a plain language solution from the definitions is right there.

Two things, Hawk.

 

First, and most emotional to me, while some refs may be jerks trying to "get" players and taking pleasure in it, most are not.  As to the refs speaking in this thread, I am 100% sure they/we are not straining to get someone, but rather following logic and the rule book to get a resolution to what I'm sure we all see as a very unfortunate screw up on these players' part.

 

Second, if you can accept the validity of penalizing players for teeing off slightly outside the teeing area, but don't accept penalizing them for teeing off very far outside the teeing area (#1 tee instead of #10), then you must create a rule which says where the line is drawn.  (The rules, as I read them, use the OB line for this (if it exists.)

 

I fear such a modification in the rules would create needless complexity and perhaps difficulty in "measuring."  And I wouldn't be in favor of it to accommodate the occasional bone head who doesn't read the rules of the competition.

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Obviously, that's no problem.

 

But IMO a lot different than being on the correct tee box for a hole that was defined as part of the "round".  Seems like straining to find a violation by taking the intent of a rule too far, when a plain language solution from the definitions is right there.

Oh dear.  The plain language of Rule 6.1b tells that you that you must start a hole from the teeing area of the hole to be played.  If you play from  anywhere else  on the course, you are in breach of the rule. 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Colin L

[Hawkeye77]

23 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

Two things, Hawk.

 

First, and most emotional to me, while some refs may be jerks trying to "get" players and taking pleasure in it, most are not.  As to the refs speaking in this thread, I am 100% sure they/we are not straining to get someone, but rather following logic and the rule book to get a resolution to what I'm sure we all see as a very unfortunate screw up on these players' part.

 

Second, if you can accept the validity of penalizing players for teeing off slightly outside the teeing area, but don't accept penalizing them for teeing off very far outside the teeing area (#1 tee instead of #10), then you must create a rule which says where the line is drawn.  (The rules, as I read them, use the OB line for this (if it exists.)

 

I fear such a modification in the rules would create needless complexity and perhaps difficulty in "measuring."  And I wouldn't be in favor of it to accommodate the occasional bone head who doesn't read the rules of the competition.

Wasn't suggesting bad intent on the part of rules officials, just straining, again IMO, on the academic side of things.  I suppose I could be accused of going out of my way to excuse it, but that's not my frame of mind, again not trying to ascribe a "gotcha" mentality to any responses here.

 

The rest, you and Colin and others may very well be right.  Not perfect, but if they intended to start their round in this comp across the street at "x" course and after two holes ran over and teed off on 10 and played 10-18 as the comp round was designated, same outside teeing area result?  

Edited January 20, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[Sawgrass]

9 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Not perfect, but if they intended to start their round in this comp across the street at "x" course and after two holes ran over and teed off on 10 and played 10-18 as the comp round was designated, same outside teeing area result?  

I think that’s a fair point you make, particularly when you stretch it beyond “across the street” to any other course in the world.  
 

Seems like the committee holds awesome responsibility in terms of defining OB.

[Colin L]

38 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Wasn't suggesting bad intent on the part of rules officials, just straining, again IMO, on the academic side of things.  I suppose I could be accused of going out of my way to excuse it, but that's not my frame of mind, again not trying to ascribe a "gotcha" mentality to any responses here.

 

The rest, you and Colin and others may very well be right.  Not perfect, but if they intended to start their round in this comp across the street at "x" course and after two holes ran over and teed off on 10 and played 10-18 as the comp round was designated, same outside teeing area result?  

I did say that if you start a hole from anywhere on the course other than the teeing area of the hole to be played, you are in breach of the rule.