Fourball etiquette question...

[HitEmTrue]

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.

 

To be clear, I'm not against the DQ...I was the first to bring it up in this thread. Just trying to reconcile the decisions from rule 10 and rule 30.

 

Let's go back to the OP's scenario and Augster's proposal of having the other team putt next (play out of order). Assuming both sides know the rules on order of play, that seems to be an agreement to waive the rules, correct?

 

Is Dec. 30-3b/2 different because it shows they really weren't aware of the rules when they had player D putt before B?

[Sawgrass]

 

Let's go back to the OP's scenario and Augster's proposal of having the other team putt next (play out of order). Assuming both sides know the rules on order of play, that seems to be an agreement to waive the rules, correct?

 

 

 

There is no question in my mind that your above comment is correct, underling below by me:

 

1-3/0.5

 

When Breach of Rule 1-3 Occurs

 

Q.While walking to the 1st green, A and B agree that for a ball that is out of bounds they will drop a ball at the spot where the ball went out of bounds under penalty of one stroke, even though they know the penalty is stroke and distance. Someone overhears this conversation and advises A and B that they may not make such an arrangement. Neither player has yet hit a ball out of bounds. What is the ruling?

 

A.A and B are disqualified under Rule 1-3 for agreeing to waive Rule 27-1b.

 

Even though A and B had not yet acted on the agreement, they were in breach of Rule 1-3 as soon as the agreement was reached during the stipulated round.

 

In match play, if the players in a match agree to waive the Rules before their stipulated round, they are in breach of Rule 1-3 if either of them starts the stipulated round without having canceled the agreement.

 

In stroke play, if competitors agree to waive the Rules before their stipulated round, each competitor is in breach of Rule 1-3 if one competitor who was part of the agreement starts his stipulated round without having canceled the agreement.

[ruca]

Sawgrass

 

So in match play, ru suggesting the rule would be better as I suggest ( or is my interpretation) but currently isn't?

 

And in 4 ball better ball stroke play can a team decide the order of play (e.g. To give read or free putt) or not?

If not , I fear I've broken this rule many times

[Sawgrass]

Sawgrass

 

So in match play, ru suggesting the rule would be better as I suggest ( or is my interpretation) but currently isn't?

 

Yes. I like what you suggest

 

And in 4 ball better ball stroke play can a team decide the order of play (e.g. To give read or free putt) or not?

If not , I fear I've broken this rule many times

 

I'm not sure I understand this question, but the team that is furtherest from the hole can decide which member of the team plays first in both stroke and match.

 

While you may have broken the Rule accidentally in match play, it's hard to break it in stroke play. And in Match, if you were not challenged (and who would do that!) you're cool anyway.

[Stuart_G]

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.

 

 

That's where I think the specifics of the verbal exchange between the two parties makes the difference. The suggestion for the opponent to putt "first" implies the player plans to putt "second" when he comes back so constitutes a suggestion for the two to play out of turn. There is no such similar implied intent in 30-3b/2. Or maybe it's more accurate to say the implied intent is not clear enough in 30-3b/2 to justify a possible 1-3 'agreement'.

 

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

 

Agree completely. 10-1c/3 tells us the rules are a bit more lenient in the application of rule 1-3 when it comes to rule 10 and order of play - even in match play. But it doesn't tell us the full extent of that so sticking to just the known allowed exception is certainly the safe way to proceed.

 

 

 

While you may have broken the Rule accidentally in match play, it's hard to break it in stroke play. And in Match, if you were not challenged (and who would do that!) you're cool anyway.

 

Yes, it's important to remember that in match play, someone actually has to make the claim for the penalty to be applied.

[Stuart_G]

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"!

 

Agree. But to put in another way.

 

It would be a reasonable interpretation if it was an allowable course of action under the rules for the team to relinquish their right to putt first to the other team in match play. While the wording in the decision doesn't specify that it's isn't an allowable option, the reader is expected to know that it isn't.

[Bonneville85308]

In this day of soft spikes or even spikeless shoes, I am convinced that standing in someone's line doesn't make any difference in the roll of the ball unless you are playing on extremely soggy greens.

[smeech8000]

In this day of soft spikes or even spikeless shoes, I am convinced that standing in someone's line doesn't make any difference in the roll of the ball unless you are playing on extremely soggy greens.

 

In this day of nearly 75% of adult-aged (American) males being overweight or obese, I am convinced that standing in someone's line will make a difference regardless of the level of saturation on a particular green. Further, a lot of the "soft"spikes you see nowadays are pretty hard in the interest of durability; for example the champ stingers of today leave much more of an indent in the green than the old black widow softspikes did back in the day.

 

The marks will likely bounce back by the time the next group comes through, however they are very noticeable in the immediate foursome and will be detrimental to a ball's roll especially on a short putt where margin of error is magnified.