Fourball etiquette question...

[TheCityGame]

My turn to putt for birdie. Partner has 5 feet for par. And he's inside opponent.

 

I say to partner, "why don't you go first?"

 

To hit his putt, he has to stand in opponent's line. The other opponent is a little ticked off we're standing in his partner's line.

 

Against the rules?

 

Against etiquette?

 

Neither?

 

Both?

 

My partner is wearing soft spikes, ftr.

 

 

[b.helts]

Not against the rules.

 

Bad etiquette.

 

Shouldn't happen.

[Augster]

Bad etiquette.

 

BUT, if they don't want him standing on their line, they can always concede the putt.

 

F-em I say.

 

The "proper" way to address this is to say that you plan on having your partner putt first, and he'll have to stand on the opponents' line. He doesn't want to do that. Offer to have the opponent putt first.

 

That's how I handle it anyway. Give them the option to putt first, and if they don't take it, they know they will have their line stepped on.

[rogolf]

So then your partner gets two looks at the break - theirs and yours! Brilliant.

[TheCityGame]

Is ceding the option of having them putt first legal?

 

I did say "hey, you can concede it." Isn't that a reasonable counter argument to it being bad etiquette?

[TheCityGame]

So then your partner gets two looks at the break - theirs and yours! Brilliant.

it was more about having partner make the par so I could "go at" the birdie. Wasn't really in the same line.

[b.helts]

In match play you don't have the option of letting your opponent play first. The ball, or in this case team whose ball is furthest away plays first.

 

Augster's answer is baseless bravado and deserves no place in a match. IMO of course.

[2bGood]

In match play you don't have the option of letting your opponent play first. The ball, or in this case team whose ball is furthest away plays first.

 

Augster's answer is baseless bravado and deserves no place in a match. IMO of course.

 

Not true. You can play out of order in Match Play, the penalty is the option of forcing your opponent to take their shot again when they play out of turn - Rule 10-1.

 

From my read of the rules if you agree to allow your opponent to play out of turn, you wave the right to recall their shot and rule 1-3 does not apply.

 

See decision 10-1c/3 as that may be helpful here as it deals with a similar issue.

[Augster]

In match play you don't have the option of letting your opponent play first. The ball, or in this case team whose ball is furthest away plays first.

 

Augster's answer is baseless bravado and deserves no place in a match. IMO of course.

 

Not true. You can play out of order in Match Play, the penalty is the option of forcing your opponent to take their shot again when they play out of turn - Rule 10-1.

 

From my read of the rules if you agree to allow your opponent to play out of turn, you wave the right to recall their shot and rule 1-3 does not apply.

 

See decision 10-1c/3 as that may be helpful here as it deals with a similar issue.

 

This is exactly correct.

 

If your opponent plays out of turn without consulting you, you have the right to have them recall the shot and wait for you to play. No penalty.

 

If they ask if they can play first, or you offer for them to play first and they accept, you relinquish your right to recall their shot.

 

Story. I was playing a friend of mine in our season long match play singles. I always want the most info I can get before I play, so I offered on each green if he'd like to putt first. He declined each time, as he should. On 15 he'd had enough. I had about 5 feet for par, he had 4 feet. Both putts were very missable. I offered good-good as I was ahead in the match. Declined. Then I offered if he'd like to putt first. I figure if he misses, I can lag and make or lag and tie. He says he'd like to putt first, and drains it.

 

My 5-footer looked like a 10 foot breaker after that. Ish.

 

Be careful what you offer.

[ruca]

Bad etiquette.

 

BUT, if they don't want him standing on their line, they can always concede the putt.

 

F-em I say.

 

The "proper" way to address this is to say that you plan on having your partner putt first, and he'll have to stand on the opponents' line. He doesn't want to do that. Offer to have the opponent putt first.

 

That's how I handle it anyway. Give them the option to putt first, and if they don't take it, they know they will have their line stepped on.

 

Decision 30-3b/1 confirms this is correct

[Stuart_G]

Bad etiquette.

 

BUT, if they don't want him standing on their line, they can always concede the putt.

 

F-em I say.

 

The "proper" way to address this is to say that you plan on having your partner putt first, and he'll have to stand on the opponents' line. He doesn't want to do that. Offer to have the opponent putt first.

 

That's how I handle it anyway. Give them the option to putt first, and if they don't take it, they know they will have their line stepped on.

 

Decision 30-3b/1 confirms this is correct

 

Close but not exactly. The decision says the "sporting gesture for Side A-B to relinquish A's right to putt first" but that means having B putt before A, that's not the same as offering the other team to putt first.

 

Decision 10-1c/3 says that it's not a breach of rule 1-3 ("agreement to waive a rule") when a player in a match invites his opponent to play out of turn (and the opponent accepts) "when done solely for the purpose of saving time". Whether other conditions then "saving time" and which ones would similarly avoid a breach of rule 1-3 is not mentioned.

[Sawgrass]

To me, 10-1c/3 seems to be only relevant to saving time, I don't see it can be expanded. And 30-3b/1 simply suggests the team should still play in "official" order but ignore their preference for which player on their team putts first. Stuart's explanation further implies that it would be unacceptable for the team to relinquish its obligation to play first.

 

Another aspect of this is that if your opponent leaves spike marks on the green on your line of putt after your ball has already come to rest, you may, in those narrow circumstances, repair them. Which seems to me to resolve the problem.

[Augster]

Okay let me understand this.

 

You're saying, and the rules are saying I guess, if I offer to have the other side play first, so that our side doesn't have to stand on their line while we play correctly, in order, someone on our side will relinquish the right to putt at all? That is, if the offer is solely for the reason of not stepping in the opponents line and not in an effort to "save time".

 

That doesn't seem gentlemanly at all.

[Sawgrass]

Okay let me understand this.

 

You're saying, and the rules are saying I guess, if I offer to have the other side play first, so that our side doesn't have to stand on their line while we play correctly, in order, someone on our side will relinquish the right to putt at all? That is, if the offer is solely for the reason of not stepping in the opponents line and not in an effort to "save time".

 

That doesn't seem gentlemanly at all.

I believe the Rules are saying that you must follow the correct order of play, and that potential spike marks are not an excuse for failing to do so. The "correct" order is for either member of the team whose member's ball is furtherest away to go first. You can sacrifice your preference as to which team member putts if you wish to be "gentlemanly."

 

Another "gentlemanly" thing to do is to ignore an order of play violation, and just not mention it.

[HitEmTrue]

Okay let me understand this.

 

You're saying, and the rules are saying I guess, if I offer to have the other side play first, so that our side doesn't have to stand on their line while we play correctly, in order, someone on our side will relinquish the right to putt at all? That is, if the offer is solely for the reason of not stepping in the opponents line and not in an effort to "save time".

 

If it isn't done to save time, could it be DQ (for all) for agreement to waive a rule?

[HitEmTrue]

Another "gentlemanly" thing to do is to ignore an order of play violation, and just not mention it.

 

But if you ask them to play out of order, it has been mentioned.

[Augster]

Okay let me understand this.

 

You're saying, and the rules are saying I guess, if I offer to have the other side play first, so that our side doesn't have to stand on their line while we play correctly, in order, someone on our side will relinquish the right to putt at all? That is, if the offer is solely for the reason of not stepping in the opponents line and not in an effort to "save time".

 

If it isn't done to save time, could it be DQ (for all) for agreement to waive a rule?

 

That's what it's sounding like. As long as you know it's a violation. Which I didn't until this thread.

[Sawgrass]

Another "gentlemanly" thing to do is to ignore an order of play violation, and just not mention it.

 

But if you ask them to play out of order, it has been mentioned.

 

By "not mention it" I mean not mention that it's a violation of the Rules. In which case the unknowing opponents are not agreeing to waive a Rule, they're just, in their minds, being reasonable.

[HitEmTrue]

By "not mention it" I mean not mention that it's a violation of the Rules. In which case the unknowing opponents are not agreeing to waive a Rule, they're just, in their minds, being reasonable.

 

Hmmm...

 

So if I say to someone "today let's call everything inside 2 feet a gimmie...", and he agrees, we haven't agreed to waive the rules of golf unless we discuss that it is a violation of the rules of golf?

 

I know this has been discussed before, so my apologies.

 

< going decision hunting >

 

The angle I'm getting at is if *I* know it's a breach of the rules, but I don't know what the other person knows.

[HitEmTrue]

Ok, here's my interpretation of Decisions 1-3/0.5 and 1-3/2.

 

Discussion of the breach of the rule isn't what causes DQ. It is knowledge of the rule. If I know the rule, and don't know if you do, suggesting to waive the rule is dangerous ground. And if you do know the rule (but don't mention it), it is still a DQ offense if you agree...because we both know.

[Stuart_G]

Okay let me understand this.

 

You're saying, and the rules are saying I guess, if I offer to have the other side play first, so that our side doesn't have to stand on their line while we play correctly, in order, someone on our side will relinquish the right to putt at all? That is, if the offer is solely for the reason of not stepping in the opponents line and not in an effort to "save time".

 

If it isn't done to save time, could it be DQ (for all) for agreement to waive a rule?

 

The verbal interaction is a bit different but dec 30-3b/2 shows that an alternative view is that by allowing the opponent inside you to putt before you, you could be abandoning your right to finish the hole.

[HitEmTrue]

Okay let me understand this.

 

You're saying, and the rules are saying I guess, if I offer to have the other side play first, so that our side doesn't have to stand on their line while we play correctly, in order, someone on our side will relinquish the right to putt at all? That is, if the offer is solely for the reason of not stepping in the opponents line and not in an effort to "save time".

 

If it isn't done to save time, could it be DQ (for all) for agreement to waive a rule?

 

The verbal interaction is a bit different but dec 30-3b/2 shows that an alternative view is that by allowing the opponent inside you to putt before you, you could be abandoning your right to finish the hole.

 

Why does Dec. 10-1c/3 say "If B then plays out of turn as suggested, have the players agreed to waive the Rules in breach of Rule 1-3?" rather than saying "If B then plays out of turn as suggested, has Player A abandoned his right to complete the hole?"

 

The words "battle it out" can't be the key difference, because A still would have been allowed to putt if D was sitting inside of B.

[Wendy123]

30-3b/1 says it all.

[Stuart_G]

Okay let me understand this.

 

You're saying, and the rules are saying I guess, if I offer to have the other side play first, so that our side doesn't have to stand on their line while we play correctly, in order, someone on our side will relinquish the right to putt at all? That is, if the offer is solely for the reason of not stepping in the opponents line and not in an effort to "save time".

 

If it isn't done to save time, could it be DQ (for all) for agreement to waive a rule?

 

The verbal interaction is a bit different but dec 30-3b/2 shows that an alternative view is that by allowing the opponent inside you to putt before you, you could be abandoning your right to finish the hole.

 

Why does Dec. 10-1c/3 say "If B then plays out of turn as suggested, have the players agreed to waive the Rules in breach of Rule 1-3?" rather than saying "If B then plays out of turn as suggested, has Player A abandoned his right to complete the hole?"

 

The words "battle it out" can't be the key difference, because A still would have been allowed to putt if D was sitting inside of B.

 

A gives up his right to putt when D actually makes his putt - and therefore out of turn if A stayed in the hole. There is no verbal indication that A plans on putting after D so it's not necessarily a clear request for D to putt out of turn.

 

If D was inside of B, and If B goes and misses, A can still putt before D (not after) since no one would have putted out of turn.

 

That's how I read it anyways.

[ruca]

Bad etiquette.

 

BUT, if they don't want him standing on their line, they can always concede the putt.

 

F-em I say.

 

The "proper" way to address this is to say that you plan on having your partner putt first, and he'll have to stand on the opponents' line. He doesn't want to do that. Offer to have the opponent putt first.

 

That's how I handle it anyway. Give them the option to putt first, and if they don't take it, they know they will have their line stepped on.

 

Decision 30-3b/1 confirms this is correct

 

Close but not exactly. The decision says the "sporting gesture for Side A-B to relinquish A's right to putt first" but that means having B putt before A, that's not the same as offering the other team to putt first.

 

Decision 10-1c/3 says that it's not a breach of rule 1-3 ("agreement to waive a rule") when a player in a match invites his opponent to play out of turn (and the opponent accepts) "when done solely for the purpose of saving time". Whether other conditions then "saving time" and which ones would similarly avoid a breach of rule 1-3 is not mentioned.

 

So I read decision 30-3b/1 over again and realized my interpretation of it is different to others. I took it to mean the sporting gesture is to invite the other side to putt first rather than relinquish the right of the player with the shorter putt to putt first, meaning the other team putt first rather than B putt before A. After re-reading it several times I still think it could reasonably be interpreted that way.

 

Do you agree this is a reasonable interpretation?

 

[Sawgrass]

Bad etiquette.

 

BUT, if they don't want him standing on their line, they can always concede the putt.

 

F-em I say.

 

The "proper" way to address this is to say that you plan on having your partner putt first, and he'll have to stand on the opponents' line. He doesn't want to do that. Offer to have the opponent putt first.

 

That's how I handle it anyway. Give them the option to putt first, and if they don't take it, they know they will have their line stepped on.

 

Decision 30-3b/1 confirms this is correct

 

Close but not exactly. The decision says the "sporting gesture for Side A-B to relinquish A's right to putt first" but that means having B putt before A, that's not the same as offering the other team to putt first.

 

Decision 10-1c/3 says that it's not a breach of rule 1-3 ("agreement to waive a rule") when a player in a match invites his opponent to play out of turn (and the opponent accepts) "when done solely for the purpose of saving time". Whether other conditions then "saving time" and which ones would similarly avoid a breach of rule 1-3 is not mentioned.

 

So I read decision 30-3b/1 over again and realized my interpretation of it is different to others. I took it to mean the sporting gesture is to invite the other side to putt first rather than relinquish the right of the player with the shorter putt to putt first, meaning the other team putt first rather than B putt before A. After re-reading it several times I still think it could reasonably be interpreted that way.

 

Do you agree this is a reasonable interpretation?

If you don't mind my butting in, here is the relevant/potentailly confusing sentence:

 

"A would also be entitled to putt first if he would be standing on an opponent's line of putt. However, it would be a sporting gesture for Side A-B to relinquish A's right to putt first in these circumstances."

 

 

I see that you are/had been thinking that "it would be sporting for A-B to relinquish A's right to putt first" could mean that C or D might then putt. But I'll point out that it doesn't say "it would be sporting for A-B to relinquish their right to putt first." It just suggests that "A" give up his right.

 

IMO the meaning is therefore, technically clear. You can decide if that's "reasonable"!

[HitEmTrue]

Okay let me understand this.

 

You're saying, and the rules are saying I guess, if I offer to have the other side play first, so that our side doesn't have to stand on their line while we play correctly, in order, someone on our side will relinquish the right to putt at all? That is, if the offer is solely for the reason of not stepping in the opponents line and not in an effort to "save time".

 

If it isn't done to save time, could it be DQ (for all) for agreement to waive a rule?

 

The verbal interaction is a bit different but dec 30-3b/2 shows that an alternative view is that by allowing the opponent inside you to putt before you, you could be abandoning your right to finish the hole.

 

Why does Dec. 10-1c/3 say "If B then plays out of turn as suggested, have the players agreed to waive the Rules in breach of Rule 1-3?" rather than saying "If B then plays out of turn as suggested, has Player A abandoned his right to complete the hole?"

 

The words "battle it out" can't be the key difference, because A still would have been allowed to putt if D was sitting inside of B.

 

A gives up his right to putt when D actually makes his putt - and therefore out of turn if A stayed in the hole. There is no verbal indication that A plans on putting after D so it's not necessarily a clear request for D to putt out of turn.

 

If D was inside of B, and If B goes and misses, A can still putt before D (not after) since no one would have putted out of turn.

 

That's how I read it anyways.

 

I'm not questioning how to interpret Dec. 30-3b/2. I'm questioning Dec. 10-1c/3 in light of Dec. 30-3b/2.

 

In a 2-ball match, if I ask you to play before me and you do so (NOT to save time), couldn't it simply be loss of hole for me? I've abandoned my right to play the hole. Instead, Dec. 10-1c/3 implies it could be DQ for both under rule 1-3.

 

Either way, the bottom line is to play in order, unless playing out of order to save time.

[Sawgrass]

 

 

If it isn't done to save time, could it be DQ (for all) for agreement to waive a rule?

 

The verbal interaction is a bit different but dec 30-3b/2 shows that an alternative view is that by allowing the opponent inside you to putt before you, you could be abandoning your right to finish the hole.

 

Why does Dec. 10-1c/3 say "If B then plays out of turn as suggested, have the players agreed to waive the Rules in breach of Rule 1-3?" rather than saying "If B then plays out of turn as suggested, has Player A abandoned his right to complete the hole?"

 

The words "battle it out" can't be the key difference, because A still would have been allowed to putt if D was sitting inside of B.

 

A gives up his right to putt when D actually makes his putt - and therefore out of turn if A stayed in the hole. There is no verbal indication that A plans on putting after D so it's not necessarily a clear request for D to putt out of turn.

 

If D was inside of B, and If B goes and misses, A can still putt before D (not after) since no one would have putted out of turn.

 

That's how I read it anyways.

 

I'm not questioning how to interpret Dec. 30-3b/2. I'm questioning Dec. 10-1c/3 in light of Dec. 30-3b/2.

 

In a 2-ball match, if I ask you to play before me and you do so (NOT to save time), couldn't it simply be loss of hole for me? I've abandoned my right to play the hole. Instead, Dec. 10-1c/3 implies it could be DQ for both under rule 1-3.

 

Either way, the bottom line is to play in order, unless playing out of order to save time.

A DQ certainly seems harsh in this sort of situation, or depending on your feelings, even more harsh when there's only two people involved. I suspect that the purpose of the harshness is to stamp out intentional, illegal rules modifications when playing in a larger field (which is sometimes true in prolonged match play). Two people alone kind of get caught in the crossfire.

 

One thing the Rules hate is people changing the Rules.

[ruca]

Bad etiquette.

 

BUT, if they don't want him standing on their line, they can always concede the putt.

 

F-em I say.

 

The "proper" way to address this is to say that you plan on having your partner putt first, and he'll have to stand on the opponents' line. He doesn't want to do that. Offer to have the opponent putt first.

 

That's how I handle it anyway. Give them the option to putt first, and if they don't take it, they know they will have their line stepped on.

 

Decision 30-3b/1 confirms this is correct

 

Close but not exactly. The decision says the "sporting gesture for Side A-B to relinquish A's right to putt first" but that means having B putt before A, that's not the same as offering the other team to putt first.

 

Decision 10-1c/3 says that it's not a breach of rule 1-3 ("agreement to waive a rule") when a player in a match invites his opponent to play out of turn (and the opponent accepts) "when done solely for the purpose of saving time". Whether other conditions then "saving time" and which ones would similarly avoid a breach of rule 1-3 is not mentioned.

 

So I read decision 30-3b/1 over again and realized my interpretation of it is different to others. I took it to mean the sporting gesture is to invite the other side to putt first rather than relinquish the right of the player with the shorter putt to putt first, meaning the other team putt first rather than B putt before A. After re-reading it several times I still think it could reasonably be interpreted that way.

 

Do you agree this is a reasonable interpretation?

If you don't mind my butting in, here is the relevant/potentailly confusing sentence:

 

"A would also be entitled to putt first if he would be standing on an opponent's line of putt. However, it would be a sporting gesture for Side A-B to relinquish A's right to putt first in these circumstances."

 

 

I see that you are/had been thinking that "it would be sporting for A-B to relinquish A's right to putt first" could mean that C or D might then putt. But I'll point out that it doesn't say "it would be sporting for A-B to relinquish their right to putt first." It just suggests that "A" give up his right.

 

IMO the meaning is therefore, technically clear. You can decide if that's "reasonable"!

 

Whilst I do see this viewpoint, and I accept it may be the way the rule was intended, to me there is an alternative viewpoint, in that it is implicit that when team AB decided that A should putt first, relinquishing A's right implies the team , and not just A.

 

Which leaves the question, can team AB invite the other team to putt first or not ( if I am wrong ) , and still retain the right for both players to putt - to be gentlemanly, rather than either be ungentlemanly or give up an advantage allowed in the rules

This situation comes up not infrequently in team match play .

(I also still unclear as to what team AB can do if this were a stroke play competition ( per the other thread))

[Sawgrass]

Decision 30-3b/1 confirms this is correct

 

Close but not exactly. The decision says the "sporting gesture for Side A-B to relinquish A's right to putt first" but that means having B putt before A, that's not the same as offering the other team to putt first.

 

Decision 10-1c/3 says that it's not a breach of rule 1-3 ("agreement to waive a rule") when a player in a match invites his opponent to play out of turn (and the opponent accepts) "when done solely for the purpose of saving time". Whether other conditions then "saving time" and which ones would similarly avoid a breach of rule 1-3 is not mentioned.

 

So I read decision 30-3b/1 over again and realized my interpretation of it is different to others. I took it to mean the sporting gesture is to invite the other side to putt first rather than relinquish the right of the player with the shorter putt to putt first, meaning the other team putt first rather than B putt before A. After re-reading it several times I still think it could reasonably be interpreted that way.

 

Do you agree this is a reasonable interpretation?

If you don't mind my butting in, here is the relevant/potentailly confusing sentence:

 

"A would also be entitled to putt first if he would be standing on an opponent's line of putt. However, it would be a sporting gesture for Side A-B to relinquish A's right to putt first in these circumstances."

 

 

I see that you are/had been thinking that "it would be sporting for A-B to relinquish A's right to putt first" could mean that C or D might then putt. But I'll point out that it doesn't say "it would be sporting for A-B to relinquish their right to putt first." It just suggests that "A" give up his right.

 

IMO the meaning is therefore, technically clear. You can decide if that's "reasonable"!

 

Whilst I do see this viewpoint, and I accept it may be the way the rule was intended, to me there is an alternative viewpoint, in that it is implicit that when team AB decided that A should putt first, relinquishing A's right implies the team , and not just A.

 

Which leaves the question, can team AB invite the other team to putt first or not ( if I am wrong ) , and still retain the right for both players to putt - to be gentlemanly, rather than either be ungentlemanly or give up an advantage allowed in the rules

This situation comes up not infrequently in team match play .

(I also still unclear as to what team AB can do if this were a stroke play competition ( per the other thread))

 

In stroke play the order of play during a hole is governed by 10-2c:

 

c. Playing Out of Turn

 

 

If a competitor plays out of turn, there is no penalty and the ball is played as it lies. If, however, the Committee determines that competitors have agreed to play out of turn to give one of them an advantage, they are disqualified.

 

 

IMO this frees us to allow avoiding walking in someone's line be the governing factor as to who "should" go first. (I suppose you could make an argument that your letting me go first so I can avoid your spike marks is an agreement for advantage, but I wouldn't buy that given my right to repair your spike marks anyway.)

 

In any case, I think we should be allowed to let our match play opponents play out of turn either to save time (as is already true) or to avoid walking in each other's line. I think that extension of the concept would be an improvement for all concerned, and I know that's what's at the heart of your pursuing this.