Begin forwarded message:

From: taterich
Date: April 27, 2018 at 9:49:01 AM CDT
Subject: Respect One’s Elders (R9; R10; R20)

More From the Livingstone

The great thing about a round robin match play format is the opportunity to meet and compete against various members with whom a player might not otherwise have an opportunity to play. New opponents may even be of a different generation, and will certainly present different skill levels and levels of experience.

Foremost remembers well how much he enjoyed playing with the old guys. What happened to their short game, he often wondered. Now F finds himself on the other side of the age curve, and carries both a left and right- handed putter, which may offer some commentary in and of itself as to his short game skills. How quickly times change!

F distinctly remembers one competition years ago, when he and his partner, the Yank, found themselves competing against a prominent elderly gentleman at the GCT. He would miss a putt leaving himself three or four feet away, or on a difficult slope. Each time, his well-trained caddy would reach down to pick up the ball, earnestly saying in the process, “That good, ain’t it?” … placing his young and respectful opponents in a uncomfortable position with each request. As F recalls, the Yank choked and conceded the putts on every occasion.

Without any similar claim to stature, and with no deliberative collusion, F and his partner may have unwittingly exercised the same strategy from time to time with opponents EC and NA. Flustered early and miscounting their own strokes, this team had already conceded a 12 foot putt to WT for a win, when they had a four foot putt for a tie if WT had missed.

After a few more holes, WT reached as if to rake a F two-footer for the win. “That good. Ain’t it?” NA had had enough. “H… no, that’s not good”, he said, apparently forgetting that F had sponsored his membership application into the club. “We’re down two holes already and I’m not giving any more putts to a guy that walks onto the green with two putters.”

Continuing this combative posture, with hands on his hips like a gunslinger, NA asked F to a replay a chip shot on the very next green, as F had played out of turn. (In match play, a Player may require an opponent to cancel and replay a shot if he plays out of turn, R10-1c). In fact, F had politely asked NA’s partner if he could go ahead and play in the interest of pace of play, as NA was still raking the bunker on the opposite side of the green after blading his bunker shot over the green in the vicinity of an adjacent tee box.

Finally, continuing his rules assault, NA sought to penalize F a stroke for failing to mark his ball in a fairway before placing it (the competition was being played under liberal one club-length lift, clean, and place rules in one’s own fairways). F pointed to a club cover he had tossed by the ball, and said he had marked the ball before lifting.

F and WT enjoyed the spirited play and rules attention of their opponents. And in restrospect, F thinks these incidents are perhaps worthy of further discussion.

Issues

1) In the first instance, where the opponents miscounted their own strokes, was the WT/F team required to advise said opponents that WT’s putt was for the win? (EC had lifted his own ball and conceded the hole after a brief interchange with his partner NA, who couldn’t count either). Or, upon the realization of his counting mistake, was EC allowed to replace his ball and have WT putt?

2) In match play, may a player play out of turn in the interest of pace of play?

3) Referencing the club cover on the ground, did F properly mark his ball prior to lifting it and replacing it in the fairway?

Rulings

1. In the first instance relating to the miscounting by their opponents, F and WT exchanged glances as their opponents discussed a concession, as WT and F thought opponent EC was indeed putting for a 5, which would tie the hole if WT missed. They said nothing, and a moment later the opponents swept the balls and conceded the hole.

WT and F never gave any “wrong information” as to their score (a LOH penalty in match play, R9-2). The opponents knew WT’s score- they both simply thought CE was putting for a 6. They counted together and figured out their mistake walking off the green.

If CE had picked up his own ball, and quickly realized his mistake, he could have replaced it under penalty of one stroke (R18-2) and remained in the hole, now putting for 6. By conceding the hole, however, this option was no longer available.

The more difficult issue, however, and one which F didn’t consider at the time, is whether the F/WT team committed a violation by acquiescing in their opponents’ obvious misunderstanding of their own score. Indeed, in Dec 9-2/12, where a player “consciously knew” that an opponent had misstated the status of a match, and said nothing, the player was disqualified in equity, as this deportment was contrary to the spirit of the game.

The above Decision referenced the status of the “match” between holes and not the number of strokes taken during the “hole.” F finds that a team is responsible for knowing its own score, and that its opponents are not obligated to help them count. Indeed, as this was the very first hole of the match, a quick concession may have been part of some grand match play strategy!

2. F initially thought the Order of Play question was a non-issue. NA was “Out” after his bladed bunker shot, but F sought and received permission to go ahead and play from NA’s partner as they were both standing together across the green. F was, of course, thinking of pace of play, as that was a point of emphasis repeatedly stressed by the Committee, and F asked and received permission to play out of turn.

The applicable decision on this issue is not, however, crystal clear. Where an an opponent in match play left a club on a previous hole, and he had asked his opponent to play first to save time, it was found that the opponents did not agree to waive the rule regarding order of play (Dec 10-1c/3). “When done solely for the purpose of saving time, a player whose turn it is to play may invite his opponent to play first.”

The obvious problem here is, first, that the partner, and not the player, gave the permission and; second, there was never really any “invitation” to F by the player with honors. The parties agreed to change the order of play by agreement initiated upon F’s request.

Despite these inconsistencies with the language of the Decision, F finds that there was no order of play violation. In match play, either partner speaks for his team(ie, a concession) leading F to the conclusion that the permission from the partner was valid. (This is why F forms a “Limited Partnership” with his partner, WT, so opponents will know F alone speaks for the team).

Further, F finds that an agreement upon request serves the purpose of an invitation. Certainly, both teams can be cognizant of pace of play in match play! Was this Decision so carefully drafted as to require that pace of play can only be addressed by the party that is “out?” F thinks it was not.

3. Finally, F referenced his club cover when asked if he had marked his ball. This was probably too cute an answer, and may have cost F a stroke if a claim had been made. The one club-length lift, clean, and place Rule is very liberal. F generally placed the toe of his club on the ground by the ball when exercising lift, clean, and place, but when the NA allegation was leveled, F didn’t offer this defense.

R20-1 says that the position of the ball to be marked “should” be marked by placing “a ball-marker, a small coin or similar object” behind the ball. By using the word “should” instead of “must” , however, the Rule is “a recommendation of best practice” and not a mandatory requirement (Dec 20-1/16). In fact, marking the ball with the toe of the club is cited in this decision as a permissible method of marking.

F might have had some difficulty justifying the club cover toss as an approved method of marking had NA pressed the issue. Fortunately, finally showing respect for his elders, NA did not press the issue. (In a like scenario from another recent match, F recalls that he did not press the issue either when Reader EC (the other one) used his cell phone to mark his ball).

Summary

F is a little uncomfortable, in that all the situations cited above, F, in a Comey-esque fashion, was able to resolve all the facts, issues, and rulings in his own favor. The Reader may decide!

As usual, all comments and corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F