Matchplay putting dispute

[Imp]

37 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

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.

Doubtful you'll ever see it codified, because that would break one of the basic tenants of match play and similar... you are allowed to concede the next stroke at any time. That's on the other side to do, and shouldn't be up to a player to do FOR the other side. 

Also consider this...  Player with higher strokes on Side A is on the same line from a player on Side B (who is also a foot closer to the hole). Damn straight if I was a player on Side B, I *don't* want the player from Side A to pick up just because their score is higher. I want to see that putt! It works both ways.

[Shilgy]

14 minutes ago, Imp said:

Doubtful you'll ever see it codified, because that would break one of the basic tenants of match play and similar... you are allowed to concede the next stroke at any time. That's on the other side to do, and shouldn't be up to a player to do FOR the other side. 

Also consider this...  Player with higher strokes on Side A is on the same line from a player on Side B (who is also a foot closer to the hole). Damn straight if I was a player on Side B, I *don't* want the player from Side A to pick up just because their score is higher. I want to see that putt! It works both ways.

Doubtful…..in that case it is more likely the guy out of the hole will not putt.

 

Or he’s an idiot.😏

[nsxguy]

57 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Doubtful…..in that case it is more likely the guy out of the hole will not putt.

 

Or he’s an idiot.😏

 

Or he/they just don't know any better,,,,,,,,,, like in the OP where the other team didn't know to concede the putt in question.

[Shilgy]

31 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Or he/they just don't know any better,,,,,,,,,, like in the OP where the other team didn't know to concede the putt in question.

No, this would be different.  There may be guys that don’t know they need to concede to actually prevent the player from continuing but there would be waaay fewer I would think that would still putt to give an opponent an edge when said player is already out of the hole.

[Ty_Webb]

7 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

No, this would be different.  There may be guys that don’t know they need to concede to actually prevent the player from continuing but there would be waaay fewer I would think that would still putt to give an opponent an edge when said player is already out of the hole.

 

Right? One is common sense (once you're out of the hole, don't do anything that might help your opponent) and the other is the opposite of common sense (that you can keep going once you're out of the hole if it will help your partner). IMO if you're out of the hole then your ball should go in your pocket. Not still be available to help out as needed with other stuff. It seems that's not what the rules say, but I have a new contender for stupidest rule.

[Shilgy]

Just now, Ty_Webb said:

 

Right? One is common sense (once you're out of the hole, don't do anything that might help your opponent) and the other is the opposite of common sense (that you can keep going once you're out of the hole if it will help your partner). IMO if you're out of the hole then your ball should go in your pocket. Not still be available to help out as needed with other stuff. It seems that's not what the rules say, but I have a new contender for stupidest rule.

I have a rule to never call a rule stupid.  Usually there is a valid reason that most don’t think of that makes it make sense.  In this scenario I have not heard one expressed.

 

I suppose the flip side is that would still require some knowledge of the rules.  If the rule is you cannot continue when out of the hole you would need to know the rules to apply it.  Same as conceding is the requirement now. 
 

Personally I would rather speed up play and discontinue play when you’re out of the hole.

[nsxguy]

15 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

No, this would be different.  There may be guys that don’t know they need to concede to actually prevent the player from continuing but there would be waaay fewer I would think that would still putt to give an opponent an edge when said player is already out of the hole.

 

There may be waaaaay fewer but the underlying cause is the same - they just didn't know (the Rules) any better.

[Mr. Bean]

16 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Right? One is common sense (once you're out of the hole, don't do anything that might help your opponent) and the other is the opposite of common sense (that you can keep going once you're out of the hole if it will help your partner).

 

Why is it opposite of common sense to help your partner in any way you can and are allowed by the Rules? Please explain as I do not understand your point.

 

Also explain why a partner should be deprived of that possibility to help their partner in one occasion but not in another.

 

Edited April 30 by Mr. Bean

[nsxguy]

10 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Personally I would rather speed up play and discontinue play when you’re out of the hole.

 

If the group is "on time" in the first place, that would include the time taken by that "irrelevant" putt.

 

So while it (time-saving) is literally true, practically speaking it shouldn't matter.

[Mr. Bean]

13 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Personally I would rather speed up play and discontinue play when you’re out of the hole.

 

 How often does this situation actually occur where one partner is "out of hole" and just happens to have a putt to help their partner? And how much your proposal would speed up play, IRL ?

[Ty_Webb]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Why is it opposite of common sense to help your partner in any way you can and are allowed by the Rules? Please explain as I do not understand your point.

 

Also explain why a partner should be deprived of that possibility to help their partner in one occasion but not in another.

 

 

Because the basic premise of the game is to hit the ball into the hole in the fewest strokes possible and in matchplay, in fewer strokes than your opponent(s). In the example given, the point of hitting the ball is not to hole it out in the fewest strokes possible, because that's no longer relevant. The sole purpose of hitting that putt is to help your partner see the break before he hits his putt. That doesn't sit right with me. It's common sense to do it if the rules allow sure, but it's not common sense for the rules to allow it. They shouldn't. 

 

I'm not sure what occasion a partner is not deprived of that possibility to help their partner?

[Shilgy]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

 How often does this situation actually occur where one partner is "out of hole" and just happens to have a putt to help their partner? And how much your proposal would speed up play, IRL ?

Fine guys…it wouldn’t speed up play.  
 

As has been said it pays to know the rules…and in a four ball match you need all four to know.  I have had a situation where I didn’t want someone to putt and conceded….he proceeded to tell me he was going to finish the hole anyways as was his “right”.  We all know the guy that insists on finishing every hole ignoring NDB and such.  Same guy is going to be obstinate in this case and it doesn’t matter which way the rule is written they will do what they do.  Same guy ignores the 3minute search rule.

 

Sometimes you need to pick your battles.

[Mr. Bean]

56 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

I'm not sure what occasion a partner is not deprived of that possibility to help their partner?

 

Isn't that what you propose? A player "out of play" cannot putt?

 

It is much easier and logical to grant a player same tools regardless of the score. At least that is how I see it.

[Mr. Bean]

59 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Because the basic premise of the game is to hit the ball into the hole in the fewest strokes possible and in matchplay, in fewer strokes than your opponent(s). In the example given, the point of hitting the ball is not to hole it out in the fewest strokes possible, because that's no longer relevant. The sole purpose of hitting that putt is to help your partner see the break before he hits his putt. That doesn't sit right with me. It's common sense to do it if the rules allow sure, but it's not common sense for the rules to allow it. They shouldn't. 

 

 

In fourball a player can help their partner in various ways, in fact, with more or less with all of their strokes. That is one huge part of such format. So the object is to have lowest possible score for the SIDE, not for a single player.

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Because the basic premise of the game is to hit the ball into the hole in the fewest strokes possible and in matchplay, in fewer strokes than your opponent(s). In the example given, the point of hitting the ball is not to hole it out in the fewest strokes possible, because that's no longer relevant. The sole purpose of hitting that putt is to help your partner see the break before he hits his putt. That doesn't sit right with me. It's common sense to do it if the rules allow sure, but it's not common sense for the rules to allow it. They shouldn't. 

 

I'm not sure what occasion a partner is not deprived of that possibility to help their partner?

Since the player who Is "out of the hole" is perfectly free to advise his partner on the line of his putt, how to play it, point out where to aim etc., what makes that putt to help his partner so different that it doesn't sit right with you?

[Ty_Webb]

34 minutes ago, Colin L said:

Since the player who Is "out of the hole" is perfectly free to advise his partner on the line of his putt, how to play it, point out where to aim etc., what makes that putt to help his partner so different that it doesn't sit right with you?

 

Because their partner while assisting reading the putt is still reading the putt, which is what everyone who tries to figure out what their putt is going to do has to do. Would you be okay if a caddie could drop a ball next to their player's marker and hit a putt, just to see what the line is? I sure wouldn't. It was pretty early in the thread, but someone asked would you be okay if the partner hit the ball a couple of times to get their ball to the same spot as their partner to then hit the putt from the same place? 

 

My issue is that if you've hit it 5 times and your opponent has holed out in 5, then you're out of the hole. Can't affect anything with your score. If you're out of the hole, then you should be out of the hole. But that's just like, my opinion. 

[Ty_Webb]

58 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Isn't that what you propose? A player "out of play" cannot putt?

 

It is much easier and logical to grant a player same tools regardless of the score. At least that is how I see it.

 

I probably made that confusing with too many "not"s. You asked me why a player should be deprived of the opportunity to help their playing partner on one occasion vs another. I get that I'm suggesting that a player should be deprived of the opportunity to help their playing partner when they're out of the hole (because, you know, they're out of the hole). I meant I don't quite get what the "another" occasion would be. You mean while they're still in the hole? If they're in the hole, then the primary intent of hitting their putt is almost certainly not to give their partner the line, but rather to hole the putt. I can't fathom a situation where a player would still be in with a chance of halving or winning the hole and wouldn't be trying to do that. If there is one, I can't imagine it coming up very often.

[Mr. Bean]

37 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

I probably made that confusing with too many "not"s. You asked me why a player should be deprived of the opportunity to help their playing partner on one occasion vs another. I get that I'm suggesting that a player should be deprived of the opportunity to help their playing partner when they're out of the hole (because, you know, they're out of the hole). I meant I don't quite get what the "another" occasion would be. You mean while they're still in the hole? If they're in the hole, then the primary intent of hitting their putt is almost certainly not to give their partner the line, but rather to hole the putt. I can't fathom a situation where a player would still be in with a chance of halving or winning the hole and wouldn't be trying to do that. If there is one, I can't imagine it coming up very often.

 

An example.

 

Side A-B is lying 4 and both have holed out. C has a putt for 4 and D for 3. C is closer and putts first to give D the line. C wants to make 4 so D can putt at ease.

 

In this case C has two targets. 1) To sink the putt for 4 and 2) give the line to his partner.

 

If C was lying 4 there would be only one target, to give the line. I cannot figure a reason why those two cases should be dealt with differently in the Rules.

[Mr. Bean]

47 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

My issue is that if you've hit it 5 times and your opponent has holed out in 5, then you're out of the hole. Can't affect anything with your score. 

 

No, but he CAN affect the score of the SIDE by giving the line !!!

 

 

Edited April 30 by Mr. Bean

[Ty_Webb]

31 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

No, but he CAN affect the score of the SIDE by giving the line !!!

 

 

 

Yes - that's the bit that I don't like.

[sui generis]

7 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Yes - that's the bit that I don't like.

And all you need to do is say, "That's good, pick it up."

[Ty_Webb]

1 minute ago, sui generis said:

And all you need to do is say, "That's good, pick it up."

 

Yes - I get that now, but I didn't know it a day ago and I'm feeling a little bit of empathy towards the opponents here who made what I think is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

[sui generis]

Just now, Ty_Webb said:

 

Yes - I get that now, but I didn't know it a day ago and I'm feeling a little bit of empathy towards the opponents here who made what I think is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

 

Few American golfers know match play very well. And, that's just a cultural thing. Even us referees don't work match play all that much . . . for me once a year usually. We really hit the books before taking on match play.  

[davep043]

1 minute ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Yes - I get that now, but I didn't know it a day ago and I'm feeling a little bit of empathy towards the opponents here who made what I think is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

Knowledge is power.  Knowledge of the rules is one of many "tools" a golfer can use, lack of rules knowledge is, in my mind, not completely dissimilar to inability to hit a flop shot.  Each player is lacking a useful tool.  Those same Opponents quite possibly didn't know they can re-call a stroke played out of turn, or that they can (not MUST) require a player to replay a tee shot if the first effort is made from outside of the Teeing Area.  That lack of knowledge is nobody's fault but their own.

[Ty_Webb]

Just now, sui generis said:

 

Few American golfers know match play very well. And, that's just a cultural thing. Even us referees don't work match play all that much . . . for me once a year usually. We really hit the books before taking on match play.  

 

Funnily enough I play a decent amount of matchplay, but most of it is foursomes, so this particular shenanigan isn't an issue.

[bcjim]

Could you declare that you are holing out your ball because you aren't convinced they made a legitimate 5? And you want to preserve your score just in case a dispute is brought to the committee? 🧐 🤡

 

Or that you simple are not aware of how many strokes they took and rather than delay play reviewing the hole in your head, you are just putting out?

[Colin L]

4 hours ago, bcjim said:

Could you declare that you are holing out your ball because you aren't convinced they made a legitimate 5? And you want to preserve your score just in case a dispute is brought to the committee? 🧐 🤡

 

Or that you simple are not aware of how many strokes they took and rather than delay play reviewing the hole in your head, you are just putting out?

As the player is entitled to putt,  there is no need to say anything to justify so doing.  I doubt we are going to persuade those who feel that it is somehow wrong for that to be permissible but you are looking in the right sort of direction in your first question.  It is possible for either player to get a penalty after holing out and their score seemingly being secured. Consider this possibility.

 

Partners A & B have holed out with a 5 and a 6.  C has already played 5 but his partner D has a putt for a 5.   Although C is apparently "out of the hole" he putts and secures a 6.  D three putts for a 7.   A & B win  the hole it seems.  But before they start  the next hole,  A takes his ball out of his pocket to be ready to play and realises that he has holed out with a wrong ball and being a true golfer, says so.  He is therefore disqualified from the previous hole and B's score of 6 counts for the side.  The hole is halved in 6.

 

Justice would not have been done had C been denied his putt.  

 

 

Edited May 1 by Colin L

[bcjim]

4 hours ago, Colin L said:

As the player is entitled to putt,  there is no need to say anything to justify so doing.  I doubt we are going to persuade those who feel that it is somehow wrong for that to be permissible but you are looking in the right sort of direction in your first question.  It is possible for either player to get a penalty after holing out and their score seemingly being secured. Consider this possibility.

 

Partners A & B have holed out with a 5 and a 6.  C has already played 5 but his partner D has a putt for a 5.   Although C is apparently "out of the hole" he putts and secures a 6.  D three putts for a 7.   A & B win  the hole it seems.  But before they start  the next hole,  A takes his ball out of his pocket to be ready to play and realises that he has holed out with a wrong ball and being a true golfer, says so.  He is therefore disqualified from the previous hole and B's score of 6 counts for the side.  The hole is halved in 6.

 

Justice would not have been done had C been denied his putt.  

 

 

Good point.  

[Hawkeye77]

5 hours ago, Colin L said:

As the player is entitled to putt,  there is no need to say anything to justify so doing.  I doubt we are going to persuade those who feel that it is somehow wrong for that to be permissible but you are looking in the right sort of direction in your first question.  It is possible for either player to get a penalty after holing out and their score seemingly being secured. Consider this possibility.

 

Partners A & B have holed out with a 5 and a 6.  C has already played 5 but his partner D has a putt for a 5.   Although C is apparently "out of the hole" he putts and secures a 6.  D three putts for a 7.   A & B win  the hole it seems.  But before they start  the next hole,  A takes his ball out of his pocket to be ready to play and realises that he has holed out with a wrong ball and being a true golfer, says so.  He is therefore disqualified from the previous hole and B's score of 6 counts for the side.  The hole is halved in 6.

 

Justice would not have been done had C been denied his putt.  

 

 

Nice - fascinating example!

[Ty_Webb]

6 hours ago, Colin L said:

As the player is entitled to putt,  there is no need to say anything to justify so doing.  I doubt we are going to persuade those who feel that it is somehow wrong for that to be permissible but you are looking in the right sort of direction in your first question.  It is possible for either player to get a penalty after holing out and their score seemingly being secured. Consider this possibility.

 

Partners A & B have holed out with a 5 and a 6.  C has already played 5 but his partner D has a putt for a 5.   Although C is apparently "out of the hole" he putts and secures a 6.  D three putts for a 7.   A & B win  the hole it seems.  But before they start  the next hole,  A takes his ball out of his pocket to be ready to play and realises that he has holed out with a wrong ball and being a true golfer, says so.  He is therefore disqualified from the previous hole and B's score of 6 counts for the side.  The hole is halved in 6.

 

Justice would not have been done had C been denied his putt.  

 

 

 

Yep - good point. Seems incredibly unlikely, but still possible. Mind broadly changing. One follow up question - if you give incorrect information as to the number of strokes you've played and don't correct that before the next stroke is played, you lose the hole correct? I don't see anything that says you have to do that knowingly, so in this example, the player who took 5 would have given the wrong number of strokes played and they would lose the hole? I guess that wouldn't apply if they never were actually asked how many strokes they'd had and their opponents had assumed they took 5.