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

[Augster]

Now that the clarifications are in the app where I can read them, the 3.2d(4)/1 clarification makes even less sense. 
 

I get what it’s trying to do. It makes it clear that the rule/clarification itself is designed to take the player off the hook that tells their opponent, “I saw you do this, but I choose not to act on it.”

 

At that point, according to the clarification, the opponent isn’t obligated to call a penalty on themselves, but wouldn’t any decent, upstanding golfer call the penalty on themselves once it is brought to their attention? I know I would. 
 

I guess we have to go back to the pre-2023 rule. If you’re going to ignore a penalty anyway, just don’t say anything about it until the next hole has started. 

[Colin L]

The rule hasn't changed.  A player was and is entitled to ignore a breach made by his opponent.  What has been clarified is that the player can ignore a breach even if his opponent informs him of it during play of the hole.   That's a change in how we are to apply the rule  and in my opinion a sensible one.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Colin L

[sui generis]

7 hours ago, Augster said:

Now that the clarifications are in the app where I can read them, the 3.2d(4)/1 clarification makes even less sense. 

 

Speaking as a referee and committee member, it is a welcome Clarification. 🙂

[antip]

7 hours ago, Augster said:

Now that the clarifications are in the app where I can read them, the 3.2d(4)/1 clarification makes even less sense. 
 

I get what it’s trying to do. It makes it clear that the rule/clarification itself is designed to take the player off the hook that tells their opponent, “I saw you do this, but I choose not to act on it.”

 

At that point, according to the clarification, the opponent isn’t obligated to call a penalty on themselves, but wouldn’t any decent, upstanding golfer call the penalty on themselves once it is brought to their attention? I know I would. 
 

I guess we have to go back to the pre-2023 rule. If you’re going to ignore a penalty anyway, just don’t say anything about it until the next hole has started. 

Things get a bit interesting in the situation where the breaching opponent says I actually want to apply the penalty, my conscience won't let me do otherwise. If the non-breaching opponent says okay, we'll apply the penalty, then that's what happens. But if the non-breaching opponent says I don't agree, there is no penalty, who wins that debate? Answer is the non-breaching opponent - they have the right under the rule whereas the breaching opponent has no rule-enshrined right to register the penalty inclusive score. Of course, the breaching opponent always has the right to concede the hole and in this (strange) contested scenario that may be their only option for donning the hair shirt.

 

Separately, as Colin has noted, the rule itself has not changed. What is changing from 1 January is RBs on either side of the ditch have agreed one way to deal with this issue - as per the clarification. Prior to now there were conflicting views (and conflicting rulings) on this scenario on whether the non-breaching opponent could say anything before the next hole started.

[rogolf]

My “research” suggests that the purpose of the clarification is to further define/explain/clarify “agree”.  
Personally, I had not heard of any concerns within the ruling bodies wrt the interpretation of the Rule. 

[Mr. Bean]

12 hours ago, Augster said:

Now that the clarifications are in the app where I can read them,

 

Yu could not read them from the internet..?

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

My “research” suggests that the purpose of the clarification is to further define/explain/clarify “agree”.  
Personally, I had not heard of any concerns within the ruling bodies wrt the interpretation of the Rule. 

 

😅 Tha'll be the day 😅😅😅😅😅

[Mr. Bean]

4 hours ago, antip said:

Things get a bit interesting in the situation where the breaching opponent says I actually want to apply the penalty, my conscience won't let me do otherwise. If the non-breaching opponent says okay, we'll apply the penalty, then that's what happens. But if the non-breaching opponent says I don't agree, there is no penalty, who wins that debate? Answer is the non-breaching opponent - they have the right under the rule whereas the breaching opponent has no rule-enshrined right to register the penalty inclusive score. Of course, the breaching opponent always has the right to concede the hole and in this (strange) contested scenario that may be their only option for donning the hair shirt.

 

Separately, as Colin has noted, the rule itself has not changed. What is changing from 1 January is RBs on either side of the ditch have agreed one way to deal with this issue - as per the clarification. Prior to now there were conflicting views (and conflicting rulings) on this scenario on whether the non-breaching opponent could say anything before the next hole started.

 

I still fail to understand why it was so important to have the opponent know about the breach during play of the hole and not to withhold the info until the next teeing ground. IMO this made things more complicated, not less. It would have made things less complicated if there was NO possibility of an agreement but that is not the case as I see it.

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

😅 Tha'll be the day 😅😅😅😅😅

I suppose that whether or not you "hear" something depends on your contacts and information sources.

[Mr. Bean]

22 minutes ago, rogolf said:

I suppose that whether or not you "hear" something depends on your contacts and information sources.

 

I suppose you had not the faintest idea of what I said... try figuring it out once more.

[antip]

7 hours ago, rogolf said:

My “research” suggests that the purpose of the clarification is to further define/explain/clarify “agree”.  
Personally, I had not heard of any concerns within the ruling bodies wrt the interpretation of the Rule. 

The first I heard of this issue was reading the new clarification. No-one in my rules circle - encompassing USGA and R&A 'turf' - believed it was possible to raise an opponent's breach during the hole and not have the penalty apply. I subsequently learned that this same view was shared and applied continuously by one RB (and would continue to apply until 30 Dec) but there was now an agreement to apply the other RBs view from 1 January. All fine, now we all know (but no thanks to the RBs for making this information easily available to all). I note, though, we have accepted there could be some tricky "is that an agreement" issues if a player says "penalty but I'm not imposing it" and any discussion ensues.

Like Mr B, as a player I could see no good reason not to wait until the next hole unless the breach is being repeated within the same hole. Why expose yourself to risk that you don't need to?