Matchplay putting dispute

[Schulzmc]

Just to add one more wrinkle - did the person putting for six realize the opponents already had a five? If not the rules clearly say there is no penalty.

 

And this is all moot because once they teed off on the next hole with an agreed upon result for the previous hole the result of that hole is final - correct? Bringing it up on 18 is too late.

[Colin L]

13 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Not if he’s already out of the hole.🤔

 

You mentioned they could have conceded the shorter putt for 6 but why would they need to? He’s already eliminated from the hole.

I hope enough has been said to convince you that you are misunderstanding the situation.  He is not "eliminated from the hole'.  There is no Rule to support such a conclusion.  On the contrary, it has been pointed our several times that the hole is not finished for his side until both partners have holed out or had a putt conceded.  The game of golf consists of playing a ball from the teeing area until it is in the hole or the hole is concluded in some other way.  Rule 1.1 is clear:

 

Each hole starts with a stroke from the teeing area and ends when the ball is holed on the putting green (or when the Rules otherwise say the hole is completed).

 

In the situation being discussed the the player has not yet holed out or the equivalent in having had his putt conceded.  The sided has not completed the hole.  He is entitled to hole out in terms Rule 1.1.  Whether that is just for his own satisfaction, because he he miscounted his opponents' strokes and thought he was still in it or to give his partner a line is immaterial. 

[david.c.w]

Great thread.  

 

Total bonehead move by the opponents.  If you have been playing enough golf to be part of an intraclub fourball match, you should have known to concede the putt before the previous stroke even stopped rolling.  

 

I cant find it but good example of one of the rule guru's signatures.  Something about "knowledge of the rules can help you play better golf".  I just butchered it, but it is spot on.

 

 

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

If it is not a four ball and you have already played 5 and aren’t in and your opponent is in for 5 you‘ve completed the hole. In a four ball, assume same facts but both opponents are in for 5 and you have played 5 and aren’t in and your partner can still make 5 or better the outcome of the hole has not been determined.  Absent trying to assist your partner (and leaving “practice” out of it), seems like you aren’t deemed to have yet completed the hole. 
 

Different verbiage for some reason, I assume that’s to make a distinction. For the side, vs. a single, seems to be a different answer as to when the hole is completed.  
 

I could see reading it either way and arguing about it, lol. 

 

No, the hole has been decided.

 

But with all that said, I still don't know whether you believe the player in question was allowed to putt or not.

[nsxguy]

16 minutes ago, david.c.w said:

Great thread.  

 

Total bonehead move by the opponents.  If you have been playing enough golf to be part of an intraclub fourball match, you should have known to concede the putt before the previous stroke even stopped rolling.  

 

I cant find it but good example of one of the rule guru's signatures.  Something about "knowledge of the rules can help you play better golf".  I just butchered it, but it is spot on.

 

 

 

It's sui generis.

[Mr. Bean]

16 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

No, the hole has been decided.

 

 

In the OP case the hole had not yet been decided until the 2nd player had made his par. I hope this is what you mean....

[Hawkeye77]

20 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

No, the hole has been decided.

 

But with all that said, I still don't know whether you believe the player in question was allowed to putt or not.

Indicated in a subsequent post, if that one wasn't clear.

 

The side was still "in it" because the outcome had not been determined per the clarification relating to Four-Ball.

Edited April 29 by Hawkeye77

[nsxguy]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

In the OP case the hole had not yet been decided until the 2nd player had made his par. I hope this is what you mean....

 

The Hawkeye quote I responded to said "If it is not a four ball and you have already played 5 and aren’t in and your opponent is in for 5 you‘ve completed the hole".

 

And yes, I know the (OP) hole had not yet been decided.

 

I said the hole had been "decided", i.e. not quite the same thing.

[nsxguy]

32 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

No, the hole has been decided.

 

But with all that said, I still don't know whether you believe the player in question was allowed to putt or not.

 

13 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Indicated in a subsequent post, if that one wasn't clear.

 

The side was still "in it" because the outcome had not been determined per the clarification relating to Four-Ball.

 

Are you a politician ?

 

We ALL already KNOW the side was "still in it".

 

So, since the putt was NOT conceded, WAS the player "out" of the hole, allowed by rule to hit that putt for 6 or not ?

[Hawkeye77]

52 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

Are you a politician ?

 

We ALL already KNOW the side was "still in it".

 

So, since the putt was NOT conceded, WAS the player "out" of the hole, allowed by rule to hit that putt for 6 or not ?

You are being unusually obtuse for some reason?  If the outcome hasn't been determined and it's a Four-Ball he is still eligible to putt.  I've said as much.  

Edited April 29 by Hawkeye77

[antip]

2 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

Just to add one more wrinkle - did the person putting for six realize the opponents already had a five? If not the rules clearly say there is no penalty.

 

And this is all moot because once they teed off on the next hole with an agreed upon result for the previous hole the result of that hole is final - correct? Bringing it up on 18 is too late.

It makes no difference whether there is awareness, they can make a stroke when their side is still in the hole and the stroke is not conceded.

[Schulzmc]

4 hours ago, antip said:

It makes no difference whether there is awareness, they can make a stroke when their side is still in the hole and the stroke is not conceded.

Yes - I agree. I was just pointing out another aspect of the rule which states, “If a player does not know that they have completed a hole and attempts to continue play of the hole, the player’s further play is not considered to be practice nor do they get a penalty for playing another ball…”

[Colin L]

7 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

Just to add one more wrinkle - did the person putting for six realize the opponents already had a five? If not the rules clearly say there is no penalty.

 

Where exactly do the Rules say that?  And are you implying that if he were aware that his opponents already had a 5, there would be a penalty?  And if so, where exactly is that said?

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

Where exactly do the Rules say that?  And are you implying that if he were aware that his opponents already had a 5, there would be a penalty?  And if so, where exactly is that said?

 

Handbook of Schultzrules..?

[Schulzmc]

I quoted it above:

“If a player does not know that they have completed a hole and attempts to continue play of the hole, the player’s further play is not considered to be practice nor do they get a penalty for playing another ball…”

 

And in an effort to be clearer, which I obviously was not, I was trying to tell the OP that, even if it WAS a penalty to play once out of the hole (which it is not), then knowledge of whether the putt mattered or not would be relevant. 

 

Obviously I just made the matter more complicated. Sorry and never mind.

Edited April 29 by Schulzmc

[Shilgy]

Well, sometimes the rules defy logic. We have an answer which the experts knew .  Sometimes the rules make little sense to me but I still play by them without complaint.  I would have thought that a player when eliminated by score from the hole could not play a stroke to assist his partner.  If he needs to post a score he can always do it after the hole is completed.

  I was already in the group that would have conceded the putt but don’t really find that it should be necessary.

 

thanks for your question.

Rule 23.6 only applies to strokes conceded by the opponents.  There is no penalty for continuing the play of the hole regardless of the score.  If the side wants to prevent the player from helping their partner, they need to concede the stroke, thus triggering the application of Rule 23.6.

 

I guess that’s why Maltbie used to do a piece on tour telecasts on why it’s good to know the rules.
 

[mshills]

I think that’s confirmation of what I was thinking. Keep it simple. Play until holed out, unless your next shot is conceded. 

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Well, sometimes the rules defy logic. We have an answer which the experts knew .  Sometimes the rules make little sense to me but I still play by them without complaint.  I would have thought that a player when eliminated by score from the hole could not play a stroke to assist his partner.  If he needs to post a score he can always do it after the hole is completed.

  I was already in the group that would have conceded the putt but don’t really find that it should be necessary.

 

thanks for your question.

Rule 23.6 only applies to strokes conceded by the opponents.  There is no penalty for continuing the play of the hole regardless of the score.  If the side wants to prevent the player from helping their partner, they need to concede the stroke, thus triggering the application of Rule 23.6.

 

I guess that’s why Maltbie used to do a piece on tour telecasts on why it’s good to know the rules.
 

Thanks for such a classy concession on this issue.

 

Seriously, very nicely handled. 

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

I guess that’s why Maltbie used to do a piece on tour telecasts on why it’s good to know the rules

 

Perfect example yesterday when it possibly cost the 2 longshots their chance at a win.

 

Had Mr. Ramey known the Rules yesterday at the Zurich he and his partner may have won.

 

1st playoff hole his partner had put them up near the stands in 2 (par 5). Ramey gets a drop from the TIO. Measures his relief area and puts down a tee at each side.

 

Within the relief area is a sprinkler head. The relief area gives him a very tight lie. Just outside the relief area is "fluffier" grass. Not rough-like grass, more like a beautiful fairway lie.

 

However, he avoids the sprinkler and drops - and of course, gets that very tight lie and proceeds to chunk their 3rd shot.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but what he could have done was drop in the relief area so that he'd have been standing on the sprinkler head.

 

Then, getting relief free from the sprinkler would've brought him onto the fluffier fairway-type grass.

 

With the better lie he might have gotten his 30(?) yard pitch onto the green, possibly a birdie but certainly a likely par & they'd keep playing.

 

Or at the very least would've likely gotten it much closer to the green where the up & down for par would've been considerably easier.

 

Instead, he & his partner could not get it up & down for par and McIlroy/Lowry easily 2-putted for their par and the win.

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

Perfect example yesterday when it possibly cost the 2 longshots their chance at a win.

 

Had Mr. Ramey known the Rules yesterday at the Zurich he and his partner may have won.

 

1st playoff hole his partner had put them up near the stands in 2 (par 5). Ramey gets a drop from the TIO. Measures his relief area and puts down a tee at each side.

 

Within the relief area is a sprinkler head. The relief area gives him a very tight lie. Just outside the relief area is "fluffier" grass. Not rough-like grass, more like a beautiful fairway lie.

 

However, he avoids the sprinkler and drops - and of course, gets that very tight lie and proceeds to chunk their 3rd shot.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but what he could have done was drop in the relief area so that he'd have been standing on the sprinkler head.

 

Then, getting relief free from the sprinkler would've brought him onto the fluffier fairway-type grass.

 

With the better lie he might have gotten his 30(?) yard pitch onto the green, possibly a birdie but certainly a likely par & they'd keep playing.

 

Or at the very least would've likely gotten it much closer to the green where the up & down for par would've been considerably easier.

 

Instead, he & his partner could not get it up & down for par and McIlroy/Lowry easily 2-putted for their par and the win.

Didn't see it, but what you've suggested certainly sounds possible.  He could have quite easily dropped near the sprinkler head (or on it).

[sui generis]

34 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Didn't see it, but what you've suggested certainly sounds possible.  He could have quite easily dropped near the sprinkler head (or on it).

However, as a wise man once observed here, no one's thinking is ever so clear as it is after the round.

[nsxguy]

42 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Didn't see it, but what you've suggested certainly sounds possible.  He could have quite easily dropped near the sprinkler head (or on it).

 

At the 7:54 mark in the video below you can see where the sprinkler is.

 

I'm pretty sure he dropped near the forward left part of the semi-circle relief area so I believe he easily could've dropped a bit further back to where his back foot would've been standing on the sprinkler head.

 

His drop also barely rolled so while on TV they said it was a slight downhill lie, I don't recall the ball rolling much, it at all, forward so it was pretty flat there.

 

A little harder to see is that the grass to the right is a bit fluffier.

 

 

[Colin L]

5 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

I quoted it above:

“If a player does not know that they have completed a hole and attempts to continue play of the hole, the player’s further play is not considered to be practice nor do they get a penalty for playing another ball…”

Thanks.  Sorry I overlooked your earlier quotation of this part of Rule 6.5. which is principally a definition of what completing  a hole means.   The bit you quoted clarifies the situation where a player mistakenly continues playing a hole when is unaware that he has actually completed it.  In a singles game that could occur, for example, when he doesn't realise his blind shot to a green has actually been holed (which means that he has completed the hole at that moment).  and plays a provisional ball or puts another ball into play under S&D.  In the situation under discussion, however,  the hole has not been completed even though one player is out of it and so it doesn't apply.

 

We have to follow the reference in 6.5 to 23.3c to find out that  completing a hole in a  four-ball applies to the side, to the partnership as an entity.  

 

I play a lot of four-ball golf and regret to say I find myself saying things like   "I'm out of the hole"  and  "Sorry partner, it's all yours, I'm out of it" all too often but I usually play on.  There's nothing wrong with common speak like this but it's essential to look to the defined terms of the Rules when dealing with what you can and cannot do.  When I am yet again out  of a hole but my partner still has a chance, I might carry on for the  practice, but I'm not practising in terms of the language of the Rules: I'm continuing play of a hole that has not been completed.

 

 

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

14 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Handbook of Schultzrules..?

To be fair, he was "first in" with the determinative clarification (which reminded me when looking on the app on my phone it is sometimes a good idea to put a finger on the red "Clarification" notice").

[davep043]

12 hours ago, Shilgy said:

I would have thought that a player when eliminated by score from the hole could not play a stroke to assist his partner.

When trying to make sense of this, the important thing is that in Fourball play, a Side is essentially the same as a Player in individual play.  I haven't checked exhaustively, but I believe that applies in both Match and Stroke Play.  Consequently, the determination of "completion" of a hole relates to the Side, and as long as the hole isn't completed, both Partners of the Side can continue playing.

 

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

When trying to make sense of this, the important thing is that in Fourball play, a Side is essentially the same as a Player in individual play.  I haven't checked exhaustively, but I believe that applies in both Match and Stroke Play.  Consequently, the determination of "completion" of a hole relates to the Side, and as long as the hole isn't completed, both Partners of the Side can continue playing.

 

As long as one of the side has not has his next shot conceded.  Then he MUST stop play of the hole.

 

Which I have always done.  But I do find it to be unnecessary and time consuming.

[Shilgy]

10 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

At the 7:54 mark in the video below you can see where the sprinkler is.

 

I'm pretty sure he dropped near the forward left part of the semi-circle relief area so I believe he easily could've dropped a bit further back to where his back foot would've been standing on the sprinkler head.

 

His drop also barely rolled so while on TV they said it was a slight downhill lie, I don't recall the ball rolling much, it at all, forward so it was pretty flat there.

 

A little harder to see is that the grass to the right is a bit fluffier.

 

 

As I recall he didn’t have a ton of room on the green from that angle.  Perhaps he wanted the shorter cut as to make it easier to spin and stop the shot.

[davep043]

9 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

But I do find it to be unnecessary and time consuming.

To me it falls under the big umbrella of protecting your own interests in match play.  You have a significant number of choices you can make to do that, it's up to you to understand these rules and protect yourself.  And really, does saying "that's good, pick it up" take all that much time?

[Shilgy]

3 minutes ago, davep043 said:

To me it falls under the big umbrella of protecting your own interests in match play.  You have a significant number of choices you can make to do that, it's up to you to understand these rules and protect yourself.  And really, does saying "that's good, pick it up" take all that much time?

By time consuming I assumed you knew I meant the partner with the higher score continued play when he was no longer a factor in the hole. 
 

If, by rule, in four ball a player must discontinue play of a hole when he is no longer a factor due to the other side being holed at a lower score it would speed up play.

[nsxguy]

27 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

As I recall he didn’t have a ton of room on the green from that angle.  Perhaps he wanted the shorter cut as to make it easier to spin and stop the shot.

 

Certainly possible and yes, he did not have much room on the green between the end of the upslope and the pin.

 

But it was match play at that point, alternate shot no less, so he's "responsible" for giving his partner the best play possible for the next shot. If it was himself alone, perhaps a different decision.

 

That said, McIlroy/Lowry didn't have a very difficult birdie putt to win so perhaps he was thinking he had to give his partner a birdie putt.

 

All-in-all, ya makes yer choice and do the best you can,,,,