Rule 1.3b(1) and 2023 Clarification 3.2d(4)/1

[Newby]

There seems to be a conflict here. Views

[Dpavs]

What conflict are you seeing? 

I've read both parts and it is not jumping out at me at all.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Dpavs

[davep043]

This came up in the Workshop I recently attended.  In essence, the Clarification allows a player to make a unilateral decision not to enforce a Rule against his Opponent, and to inform his Opponent of that decision while the hole is still being played.  I agree that it seems conflicting, as the Opponent has an obligation to penalize himself if he becomes aware that he's breached a Rule.  Even if the Player "forgives" the breach, the Opponent could still penalize himself.

 

Previously, I've often made such a decision to ignore my Opponent's breach, but I've waited until we begin the next hole to mention anything to my Opponent.  In that way, the results of the recently completed hole stand, there's no penalty to apply, yet my Opponent is put on notice that he did breach a Rule.  The new Clarification simply allows me to inform him of my choice immediately.

 

The Rule of Thumb that I've been told is that specific permission overrides a more general prohibition.  In this case the Clarification overrides 1.3 in specific situations.

Edited December 14, 2022 by davep043

[Bye]

49 minutes ago, davep043 said:

This came up in the Workshop I recently attended.  In essence, the Clarification allows a player to make a unilateral decision not to enforce a Rule against his Opponent, and to inform his Opponent of that decision while the hole is still being played.  I agree that it seems conflicting, as the Opponent has an obligation to penalize himself if he becomes aware that he's breached a Rule.  Even if the Player "forgives" the breach, the Opponent could still penalize himself.

 

Previously, I've often made such a decision to ignore my Opponent's breach, but I've waited until we begin the next hole to mention anything to my Opponent.  In that way, the results of the recently completed hole stand, there's no penalty to apply, yet my Opponent is put on notice that he did breach a Rule.  The new Clarification simply allows me to inform him of my choice immediately.

 

The Rule of Thumb that I've been told is that specific permission overrides a more general prohibition.  In this case the Clarification overrides 1.3 in specific situations.

I think the way you have chosen to inform your opponents in the past is more in keeping with the spirit of the game. Some blatantly "bend" the rules, whilst others are just uninformed. It is normally fairly obvious which category a player falls into. 

 

Interesting change, not necessary, but interesting. 

[davep043]

3 minutes ago, Bye said:

I think the way you have chosen to inform your opponents in the past is more in keeping with the spirit of the game. Some blatantly "bend" the rules, whilst others are just uninformed. It is normally fairly obvious which category a player falls into. 

 

Interesting change, not necessary, but interesting. 

Hey, I'm old, I forget stuff.  I could easily forget to inform my Opponent of his breach if I have to wait a few minutes to do so.  This way, I can tell him immediately, while still choosing not to enforce the penalty.  I agree, its not really necessary.

[Newby]

48 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Even if the Player "forgives" the breach, the Opponent could still penalize himself.

 

The Rule of Thumb that I've been told is that specific permission overrides a more general prohibition.  In this case the Clarification overrides 1.3 in specific situations.

1.3b(i) suggests that now the player knows he had breached a rule he should (must?) apply the penalty to himself.

 

But I agree the second point now applies.

 

Interestingly, I note the new Clarification has included a couple of examples to the original Interpretation.

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

This came up in the Workshop I recently attended.  In essence, the Clarification allows a player to make a unilateral decision not to enforce a Rule against his Opponent, and to inform his Opponent of that decision while the hole is still being played.  I agree that it seems conflicting, as the Opponent has an obligation to penalize himself if he becomes aware that he's breached a Rule.  Even if the Player "forgives" the breach, the Opponent could still penalize himself.

 

Previously, I've often made such a decision to ignore my Opponent's breach, but I've waited until we begin the next hole to mention anything to my Opponent.  In that way, the results of the recently completed hole stand, there's no penalty to apply, yet my Opponent is put on notice that he did breach a Rule.  The new Clarification simply allows me to inform him of my choice immediately.

 

The Rule of Thumb that I've been told is that specific permission overrides a more general prohibition.  In this case the Clarification overrides 1.3 in specific situations.

 

I have not read those yet but this sounds like the old DQ Rule for agreeing to waive a penalty is now discarded. Or..?

[davep043]

1 minute ago, Mr. Bean said:

I have not read those yet but this sounds like the old DQ Rule for agreeing to waive a penalty is now discarded. Or..?

I'd say its still in effect, but superseded in some very specific situations in Match Play only.  

[Mr. Bean]

15 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I'd say its still in effect, but superseded in some very specific situations in Match Play only.  

 

Yes, we are talking about MP only.

 

Say, Greg notices Steve touching the sand in a bunker in his backswing. On the putting green of that hole Greg says to Steve:

"I noticed you touched the sand in the fairway bunker but I will overlook it."

Steve:

"Thanks!"

 

Is that how it goes in 2023? No DQ for agreeing to waive a penalty? Sounds puzzling.

[davep043]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Yes, we are talking about MP only.

 

Say, Greg notices Steve touching the sand in a bunker in his backswing. On the putting green of that hole Greg says to Steve:

"I noticed you touched the sand in the fairway bunker but I will overlook it."

Steve:

"Thanks!"

 

Is that how it goes in 2023? No DQ for agreeing to waive a penalty? Sounds puzzling.

That's exactly what Clarification 3.2d(4)/1 says, and in fact touching the sand in a bunker on the backswing is one of the examples used.  If Greg and Steve talk about whether the touching of the sand is a breach, and conclude that it was, and then decide jointly not to assess the penalty, then they HAVE agreed to ignore the Rule and would be DQ.

[Mr. Bean]

37 minutes ago, davep043 said:

That's exactly what Clarification 3.2d(4)/1 says, and in fact touching the sand in a bunker on the backswing is one of the examples used.  If Greg and Steve talk about whether the touching of the sand is a breach, and conclude that it was, and then decide jointly not to assess the penalty, then they HAVE agreed to ignore the Rule and would be DQ.

 

But in this case both knew it is a breach but Steve had not noticed it. Now that Greg tells him that he overlooks the breach is that DQ for both? If it is, when is it not?

 

Again, very puzzling...

 

P.S. Any clue what is the background of this change? How does it simplify the Rules?

[davep043]

14 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

But in this case both knew it is a breach but Steve had not noticed it. Now that Greg tells him that he overlooks the breach is that DQ for both? If it is, when is it not?

 

Again, very puzzling...

 

P.S. Any clue what is the background of this change? How does it simplify the Rules?

Still, Greg makes a unilateral decision not to enforce Greg's breach, before Greg became aware of that breach.  This is one player making the decision, regardless of whether his Opponent agrees, and making the unilateral nature of his decision clear in his statement.  Consequently, as specifically defined in the Clarification, this does not constitute an "Agreement" under the Rule.  I agree that there seems to be a conflict, but this is what we have.

I don't really know the background behind this change, I don't ever remember hearing of any confusion or concerns around this rule in the past.  As I mentioned earlier, my choice was simply to remain silent on my Opponent's breach until after we'd begun the next hole.  In that way the agreed-upon result of the hole could not be contested or changed, there's no agreement in place. I'll probably continue that practice, old habits can be hard to break.

[Mr. Bean]

7 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Still, Greg makes a unilateral decision not to enforce Greg's breach, before Greg became aware of that breach.  This is one player making the decision, regardless of whether his Opponent agrees, and making the unilateral nature of his decision clear in his statement.  Consequently, as specifically defined in the Clarification, this does not constitute an "Agreement" under the Rule.  I agree that there seems to be a conflict, but this is what we have.

I don't really know the background behind this change, I don't ever remember hearing of any confusion or concerns around this rule in the past.  As I mentioned earlier, my choice was simply to remain silent on my Opponent's breach until after we'd begun the next hole.  In that way the agreed-upon result of the hole could not be contested or changed, there's no agreement in place. I'll probably continue that practice, old habits can be hard to break.

 

To me this gives room for more interpretations whether there is an agreement or not between the players. This change does not convince me.

[davep043]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

To me this gives room for more interpretations whether there is an agreement or not between the players. This change does not convince me.

To me the concept is clear, one player making a decision on his own does not constitute an agreement, but the real-life application isn't likely to be as straightforward.

[Mr. Bean]

37 minutes ago, davep043 said:

To me the concept is clear, one player making a decision on his own does not constitute an agreement, but the real-life application isn't likely to be as straightforward.

 

Indeed. On paper it looks clear but taken onto the field is another story.

[Dpavs]

53 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Indeed. On paper it looks clear but taken onto the field is another story.

 

I have to say it looks rather muddy to me also.

 

It brings into consideration whether the players have come to the same position separately or come to the same position together with one being a considered an agreement and the other not. Which is just messy. Further 3.2d(4)/1 makes it impossible for Player A to change his position if, after notifying Player B of a breach of rule he saw B do but stating he is not calling him on it, Player B either basically does nothing or states yeah I'm not going to call myself on it either.

 

Also given 1.3b(1) (see below in italics), if Player B fails to call a penalty on himself after acknowledging Player A is correct in his assessment that Player B breached a rule, do we have a new breach of a rule which player A can now call B on? Or is 3.2d(4)/1 telling us he has waived the right to do so?

 

Rule 1.3

b. Applying the Rules

(1) Player Responsibility for Applying the Rules. Players are responsible for applying the Rules to themselves:

• Players are expected to recognize when they have breached a Rule and to be honest in applying their own penalties.

  • If a player knows that he or she has breached a Rule that involves a penalty and deliberately fails to apply the penalty, the player is disqualified.

[Augster]

I can’t find the clarifications for 2023, I’ll keep looking, but the 2023 Rules are very clear someone is either applying a penalty or one, or both, are taking the DQ. 
 

Why is there some magic “clarification”, that isn’t expressly part of the written Rule, that lets these clowns play however they want and apply penalties, KNOWN, ACKNOWLEDGED penalties Willy nilly? I get that it’s match play, but come

on. 
 

Is this clarification applicable to more parts of match play? Or just Penalty situations?

 

”Hey, I got 16 clubs. Is that okay or should I put a couple back before our round?”

 

”Don’t worry about it. I have 17.”

 

“You can’t play with 17, you have to play with 14 or I’m assessing the penalty.”

 

🙂

Flat-out waiving acknowledged penalties is clown golf. 

 

[davep043]

5 minutes ago, Augster said:

I can’t find the clarifications for 2023, I’ll keep looking, but the 2023 Rules are very clear someone is either applying a penalty or one, or both, are taking the DQ

The Clarifications will be taking the same spot that the Interpretations do under the 2019 rules.  I know that in the USGA online version of the 2023 rules, the clarifications are a separate tab, I'm not sure what the R&A website does with them.

[Colin L]

I think the Clarification is clear enough to apply in practice and that it comes down to timing.  If the player is unaware of having breached a rule and the first he knows about it is when his opponent says that he did so but that he is going to ignore it, it doesn't matter what the player then says as the matter has been concluded by the opponent's statement.  That is, before the player has said anything.   Like a concession, the moment  the opponent says he is ignoring the decision, it  cannot be changed.  It is a done deed and as such the player cannot influence it  in any way no matter what he says.  The crucial  point is that he was not in any way involved in the making of that decision.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Colin L

[Mr. Bean]

40 minutes ago, Colin L said:

I think the Clarification is clear enough to apply in practice and that it comes down to timing.  If the player is unaware of having breached a rule and the first he knows about it is when his opponent says that he did so but that he is going to ignore it, it doesn't matter what the player then says as the matter has been concluded by the opponent's statement.  That is, before the player has said anything.   Like a concession, the moment  the opponent says he is ignoring the decision, it  cannot be changed.  It is a done deed and as such the player cannot influence it  in any way no matter what he says.  The crucial  point is that he was not in any way involved in the making of that decision.

 

Well put, Colin. But I still wonder what kind of benefit the RBs wanted to achieve with this change. Maybe they have equally bad memory as Dave..? 😆

[Colin L]

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Well put, Colin. But I still wonder what kind of benefit the RBs wanted to achieve with this change. Maybe they have equally bad memory as Dave..? 😆

Perhaps to remove the unreasonableness - unfairness even -  of penalising a player for merely telling his opponent that he was applying a rule of golf by ignoring a breach? 

 

[Mr. Bean]

7 hours ago, Colin L said:

Perhaps to remove the unreasonableness - unfairness even -  of penalising a player for merely telling his opponent that he was applying a rule of golf by ignoring a breach? 

 

 

That has been allowed on the next hole already, thus I wonder.

 

On 2nd thought, how did an agreement become a non-agreement suddenly? If agreeing (= telling the opponent) to waive a penalty was (and still is) worth a DQ how is it now not an agreement to tell the opponent that I am ignoring their breach? In other words, is it now in 2022 a DQ if I tell my opponent that I am ignoring their breach without them saying anything?

 

Now I am confused again...

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Mr. Bean

[Colin L]

This is where I've got to in thinking about this one.

 

Telling your opponent that you are ignoring a breach seems to me to be  a statement of a fact.  Your opponent's acknowledging of it says no more than that he has registered that fact.  The original statement is not an offer which the opponent can accept or reject; it is a communication of the player's decision.  To agree to something there has to be a choice and in this instance there is none.  The player has, as is his right within the Rules, decided that his opponent is not to be sanctioned for the breach.  1.3b(1) states,

If a player knows they have breached a Rule that involves a penalty and deliberately fails to apply the penalty, the player is disqualified.

Because the player has ignored the breach, there is no penalty  1.3b(1) isn't applicable.

 

 

 

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

 

Because the player has ignored the breach, there is no penalty  1.3b(1) isn't applicable.

 

 

 

Perhaps .... 

Because the player has ignored the breach, there is no breach.

[Colin L]

53 minutes ago, Newby said:

Perhaps .... 

Because the player has ignored the breach, there is no breach.

I actually wrote that and then changed it to suit the wording of 1.3b(1) better and to keep clear of existential consideration of falling trees in the Amazon forest. 🙂

 

[Mr. Bean]

20 hours ago, Colin L said:

This is where I've got to in thinking about this one.

 

Telling your opponent that you are ignoring a breach seems to me to be  a statement of a fact.  Your opponent's acknowledging of it says no more than that he has registered that fact.  The original statement is not an offer which the opponent can accept or reject; it is a communication of the player's decision.  To agree to something there has to be a choice and in this instance there is none.  The player has, as is his right within the Rules, decided that his opponent is not to be sanctioned for the breach.  1.3b(1) states,

If a player knows they have breached a Rule that involves a penalty and deliberately fails to apply the penalty, the player is disqualified.

Because the player has ignored the breach, there is no penalty  1.3b(1) isn't applicable.

 

 

As that sentence does not apply in the cases described in the said Clarification it would have been clever to include a remark in the Rule Book after that sentence to inform reader that there is an exception.

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

20 hours ago, Colin L said:

This is where I've got to in thinking about this one.

 

Telling your opponent that you are ignoring a breach seems to me to be  a statement of a fact.

 

Let me get this straight. Is that a breach today or not? Which Rule is breached, if any? Or is the difference that today the opponent MUST include the penalty?

Edited December 16, 2022 by Mr. Bean

[st1800e]

If this discussion was brought up in a match, I’d be disappointed at the least, angered at the most.  It’s just a game…..

[antip]

2 hours ago, st1800e said:

If this discussion was brought up in a match, I’d be disappointed at the least, angered at the most.  It’s just a game…..

This discussion is simply about a new Clarification that was published unheralded and unexplained in the Rule book that commenced in operation 1 January. Previously, the two RBs were interpreting this situation dramatically differently and most of us were unaware of that. They are now on the same page (hence the published Clarification) and discussions like this were just about the rest of us learning of this and getting our heads around it. The dust has now settled on the new dawn. 

[Mr. Bean]

5 hours ago, st1800e said:

If this discussion was brought up in a match, I’d be disappointed at the least, angered at the most.  It’s just a game…..

 

It is a game that is supposed to be played by the Rules. Does that come to you as a surprise..?