Order of Play… Foremost is well aware that this topic is not one which keeps his Readers awake at night … certainly, it pales in comparison to tax reform, tariffs, gun control, mayoral trysts and resignations, transit referendums (note, the Treasurer of the Opposed is Reader, Sandwich, although there are probably a few “Ayes”, as well, among this esteemed readership), and Vandy football, among other raging issues. Nevertheless, the issue of Order of Play raised it’s head recently at BMCC and merits consideration.

Facts

In stroke play competition at BMCC, Foremost and his partner, BR, recorded a best-ball 4 on the Par4 hole #4 to earn “honors” on the tee box for hole #5. On the way to the tee box, BR instructed F to stop the cart at the hospitality shed (F always drives) so he could get a Diet Coke. (BR did not offer to get anything for F). While BR was inside the shed, F observed fellow-competitors TH and DS on the tee box practice-swinging their drivers, impatiently looking over their shoulders.

F politely suggested they go ahead and hit. They did so.

The sides recorded the same best ball scores on hole # 5. TH and DS proceeded to the hole #6 teebox and were preparing to again hit first. F interrupted their preparations and stated that his side had “honors” and would hit first. TH/ DS countered that F/BR had waived honors on the preceding hole, and that since that hole had been halved, they should retain “honors.”

F considered this proposition. The 6th hole at BMCC is a short diabolical Par 3 bounded left and center by water hazards, and on the right by oft-unplayable landscaping and out of bounds. Facing swirling headwinds, a player might prefer hitting last and learning from the ball flight of the preceding shots.

Issues

(1) Are Players waiving the Rules when they agree to hit out of order on the teebox?

(2) If a side with “honors” in stroke play offers the other side permission to play first off a teebox as a courtesy for speed of play, does the side making the offer lose the “honor” on subsequent holes when the “honor” was not otherwise legitimately earned?

(3) Does Order of Play really even matter! Why not just let the other guys hit first?

Rulings

Although R10-2a clearly states, “If two or more competitors have the same score at a hole, they play from the next teeing ground in the same order as at the previous teeing ground,” F finds that this direction cannot be taken literally under these circumstances, in which the teebox was offered only as a courtesy for speed of play.

While the Rule and Decisions, frankly, do not address a specific scenario affecting “honors”, they do offer a scenario where competitors agree “to play out of turn.” (Dec.10-2/2). A similar scenario is addressed in a match play format where a player who needed to retrieve a club invited his opponent “to play first” to save time (Dec.10-1c/3).

Accordingly, F finds that while the Rules and Decisions contemplate allowing a player to, perhaps, play first on occasion, their intent is to make this allowance simply for a particular shot. The fact that this particular allowance “to play first” was granted at a teebox, would not affect “honors” on subsequent holes which must be earned.

Additionally, one might ask whether there was an agreement to waive a Rule when the Sides agreed to swap honors on the teebox? In stroke play, R1-3 (agreement to waive a Rule) doesn’t even apply to Order of Play. Instead, R10-2 governs, and generally there is no penalty for playing out of turn (as opposed to Match Play, in which case there is also no penalty, but a player may ask his opponent to cancel and replay the shot). In stroke play, the only question is whether a Player might have gained an advantage by an agreement with his fellow competitor allowing him to play first. (R1-3, R10-2c).

This Rule seems to be written to protect the field in stroke play and the penalty for a violation is severe. For instance, if competitor TH was having a bad day, and he and fellow competitor F agreed that TH would hit first so F, with honors, could watch the swirling winds, both TH and F would be disqualified by the Committee.

The Rule seems a little murkier, however, in the absence of collusion to procure the advantage. If, for instance, F had simply said “go ahead and hit”, and TH ( thinking of a cheeseburger after the round) had hit with no intention at all of assisting F, then it seems that neither competitor would be subject to penalty, even if the wily F, unbeknownst to TH, had had conceded the the teebox for the sole purpose of watching the swirling winds.

This latter case would present an interesting factual case for the Committee if presented. With F’s reputation, the Committee would, no doubt, find disqualification appropriate. (Actually, F has a great reputation and this scenario is presented simply for educational purposes).

F does raise a question: why is an agreement between players to change Order of Play, when a Player may gain an advantage, subject to disqualification under R10-2c, when the practice of “back-stopping”, to aid a fellow-competitor, remains unpenalized under current Rules? F is happy to finally address the issue of “back-stopping” which was privately raised by Reader JB months ago!

As usual, all comments and corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F