One for the rules gurus.

[Johnny Canuck]

Thanks Mark. Of note: this was not a Pennant match and the score itself has no impact on anything else, I was just curious.

I agree with everything you said above. I think it comes down to the following options as to what happenned or what was inferred:

1) player B conceded the *hole*, match score is 2-up
2) player B conceded the stroke, player A does not concede B's putt, B picks up his ball and hole is lost, score is 2-up
3) player B conceded the stroke, losing the match, player A then concedes player B's putt, match score is 1-up

Probably comes down to asking player A: did you concede his putt on the 18th? I'm not sure they would have put a lot of thought into that once the match was won.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

The gentlemanly move, and by far most common is to concede the putt and take the 1 up victory. In 15 years of pennant, I've never seen otherwise. If someone tried telling me to putt the 6 footer to see if they win 2up or 1up, I'd tell them to go **** themselves, pick up my marker and walk away.

The only time it could even be considered is in a situation like Blakey has referred to, where total holes won could have an impact on the outcome for the team.

[markTHEblake]

I did that exact gentleman thing once on the 16th hole. Gave him a 6 footer for a half, as he was 3 down. As i offered my hand shake he says "what are you doing"?

Turns out i miscounted since the 3rd hole. Play on.
I wasnt even old then.

[Maxbxl]

The score recorded in a Ryder Cup match would be 1up, safe to assume you can do the same in club competition.

A mate tells me that at a WGC Match-Play event, the result would be flagged as 2-up. I've looked up the Rules and interpretations but have not found anything clarifying this situation.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[Dotty]

2 up, as player A has holed out for 4, and player B did not complete the hole, as player A did not concede the 6 footer.

If there was anything in the rules about 'implied conceding of putts for a half', then I would make full use of it, from anywhere on the green, starting at the first hole.

[markTHEblake]

A mate tells me that at a WGC Match-Play event, the result would be flagged as 2-up. I've looked up the Rules and interpretations but have not found anything clarifying this situation.

The rules are very clear. If a putt is not conceded and the player picks his ball up, he loses the hole. The 'situation' of the match as you described it is irrelevent to the ruling, thats why you cant find it in the rules.

[Minor_Threat]

Anyone who tries to claim a 2up win in this situation is an imbecile.

[AndyP]

Player's ball is left of the fairway in an area with some plants and rests on some bark (Windaroo 13th). Player hits ball off bark, then after shot notices a small knocked over (and damaged) sign that says that players must take a drop if ball is within the barked area.

Does the player accept the shot already hit, or does the shot need to be replayed from outside the area with a penalty?
The vibe is that the shot should stand. The rules state that the ball was played from a "no play zone" and would incur two penalty strokes. But is there something about needing reasonable access to a rule like this before playing the stroke? I can't find anything specifically except in 1.3b (2) about accepting a" player's reasonable judgement in determining a location when applying the rules", but this is more about judging where penalty lines were crossed, etc.
There is also this in 1.3 for applying the rules, where you could argue that it wasn't reasonably available: "When it is necessary to decide questions of fact, a player is responsible for considering not only his or her own knowledge of the facts but also all other information that is reasonably available."

---------------

There was also a situation where a kid in our group had a ball up against the OOB fence, which gets no relief, however there were dogs going off just on the other side of this fence. I've only just looked up now, that relief could have been taken from the dogs, although it would have been a little open to abuse to interpret where the "nearest point of complete relief" was, without just trying to move away from the OOB fence. He just took an unplayable lie in the end.

---------------

The third strange one, was when a ball went well into an area that was marked with a white line and a few white posts along this line (behind Windaroo 12th), and there was also a clearly marked drop zone. The rules board talked about OOB areas on multiple holes, where it may be ambiguous, but nothing for this hole. There was nothing to signify that it was GUR either. The shot was played as it was, since there was a drop zone, which isn't applicable for OOB. It was assumed that the area would be a temporary no play zone for when there were weddings and functions, but otherwise okay for play.

[jimandr]

In your scenario 1, I agree with your assessment. Shot stands. This is not a scenario where a player gains an advantage by playing from the zone. It is like playing from poorly marked GUR or not taking relief from a staked tree where the stake is hidden. Besides, that great escape phrase 'in good faith' applies here. Equity suggests you should not receive a two shot penalty in such circumstances.

I suspect in scenario 2 you have to be there to assess the risk of attack from wild animal, but the outcome (taking an unplayable) is fair and reasonable.

The third one sounds like temporary GUR. But I wasn't there, and I wasn't on duty as expert rules official in the booth so that the commentators could ask me how the rules should apply. Where was Cam Smith? You could've asked him.

[jimandr]

I'll put this here rather than start a new thread.

https://golf.com/gear/nonconforming-...some%20illegal

Apparently, most pre-2010 clubs will be technically illegal because the grooves rule changed quite some time ago.

My google search only brought up references to the USGA (but I didn't check the Golf Australia website).

I'm not going to worry about it because my pre-2010 clubs aren't giving me any advantage that I can detect, and I don't clean my clubs anyway. But I'll be checking to see if my playing partners have a groove measuring tool in their bags, just in case.

Interesting issue in theory though. If someone actually did pull you up on it, I think you'd have to admit defeat.

Its also bad news for the second hand club market.

[Webster]

Ignore the above linked article which is poorly researched and 100% incorrect.

There is no 2024 deadline for amateur competition play with clubs which do not conform to the 2010 groove rule. The 2024 date was only ever intended to be the earliest date, however both the R&A and the USGA were required to give 4 years notice if it were to apply, which neither did, and are highly unlikely to ever do.

So unless you are playing in elite level amateur events, then you have nothing to worry about. If your clubs were compliant before 2010, then they continue to be now.

[Johnny Canuck]

Bad news for the second hand market?

How big is the market for 14+ year old clubs?

[markTHEblake]

So unless you are playing in elite level amateur events, then you have nothing to worry about. If your clubs were compliant before 2010, then they continue to be now.

Thanks for sharing that. I have looked at the list before, and i recall that lot of prominent brands and models would be non-conforming, so as you said, i doubt R&A will enforce the rule universally, as just too many golfers using them. A member at my club still uses ping Eye originals, he has had them since new, said he tried other clubs since but these were better.

[jimandr]

Ignore the above linked article which is poorly researched and 100% incorrect.

There is no 2024 deadline for amateur competition play with clubs which do not conform to the 2010 groove rule. The 2024 date was only ever intended to be the earliest date, however both the R&A and the USGA were required to give 4 years notice if it were to apply, which neither did, and are highly unlikely to ever do.

So unless you are playing in elite level amateur events, then you have nothing to worry about. If your clubs were compliant before 2010, then they continue to be now.

That makes a lot of sense. Pretty rare for golf rules authorities to do so, but a good thing.

I remember there was a stink over non-conforming drivers about 20 years ago regarding the springboard effect. A guy at my club demanded that the pro test HIS driver to see if it conformed.

Imagine rocking up for the comp on New Years Day and be greeted by someone with a groove measuring tool, then get told your irons are OK, but your 3 hybrid and lob wedge are no good. Lots of players, including me, have an old faithful that doesn't match the rest of the set. It'd be a joke to be told you can't use it.

[3Puttpete]

I'm not going to worry about it because my pre-2010 clubs aren't giving me any advantage that I can detect

This is the standard I’m going to apply to the rules of golf now.

[markTHEblake]

Imagine rocking up for the comp on New Years Day and be greeted by someone with a groove measuring tool, then get told your irons are OK, but your 3 hybrid and lob wedge are no good. Lots of players, including me, have an old faithful that doesn't match the rest of the set. It'd be a joke to be told you can't use it.

Someone cant do this. Only an official for the tournament you are playing could require your clubs be tested, anyone else you can just tell them they are dreaming. And in any case, has this ever been done even in a major?

[Johnny Canuck]

Someone cant do this. Only an official for the tournament you are playing could require your clubs be tested, anyone else you can just tell them they are dreaming. And in any case, has this ever been done even in a major?

Xander got done with a hot driver a few years ago.

[3Puttpete]

Xander got done with a hot driver a few years ago.

About 20% of the field got done pre tournament.

Lowry’s open maybe?

[jimandr]

Two for the rules gurus actually. I got into a pedantic argument with my regular playing partner, and neither of us had a rule book handy, so we were both arguing from a position of weakness, but I wish to be armed with expert opinion for our return battle.

Rule 14 relates to marking the golf ball, on the green and elsewhere. Note: this is a strokeplay question. Anyway, he says you cannot mark another players ball without permission, and because its a rule, there must be a penalty for breaching it. This occurs quite a lot when a player is busy raking a bunker, or moving a cart, etc, after getting the ball close, and therefore in the way of other players putting.

I said there was no such rule (I was wrong), but I said even if there was, all that did was make play even slower, and therefore you could be penalised for slow play if you didn't proceed.

Upon reading Rule 14, it IS a rule, but there is no penalty for breaching it that I can see. Can I get expert opinion on this point.

Secondly, if, indeed, permission to mark is not granted, does this constitute an unreasonable cause of slow play (Rule 6), and if so, who is liable for the penalty? The player who refuses permission for another to mark, or the player who declines to mark the offending ball because permission hasn't been granted.

And who referees the fight when the group behind gets up you for all standing around waiting for the bunker raker to eventually reach the green and mark his own ball?

I told you it was a pedantic argument.

[markTHEblake]

I read it the other way. If a person was not authorised to mark and pick up the ball, the player cant incur any penalty if said person did something wrong.

[goughy]

Buggers me how often I've seen this sort of thing done, Usually, as you said, when someone has been in a bunker, or for some reason have fallen behind the group and made it onto the green but their ball is interfering with play. I've never heard someone complain about it.

[AndyP]

No penalty for breaking a rule. How good are golf rules?

[Dotty]

Next time, just mark his ball and claim that you are his aide under Rule 25.2g.

[virge666]

Question... Mud Ball.

Can i remove the mud from the ball if the ball doesn't move off its spot. It might oscillate.. but not move from its spot ?

[jimandr]

Question... Mud Ball.

Can i remove the mud from the ball if the ball doesn't move off its spot. It might oscillate.. but not move from its spot ?

I think the answer is no. You can't touch your golf ball in any circumstance without marking it, which is why you can't hold your ball in place when removing twigs and other loose impediments. You'd have to be very careful and lucky if you were able to remove mud without actually touching the golf ball. Maybe you could claim you needed to remove the mud to identify your golf ball, but its a risk I wouldn't take.

This is often why we have preferred lies (or 'lift, clean and place') on wet golf courses, to prevent mud balls, not because parts of the course are unplayable.

[markTHEblake]

Question... Mud Ball. Can i remove the mud from the ball if the ball doesn't move off its spot. It might oscillate.. but not move from its spot ?

Now thats a good question. I couldnt think of a rule that doesnt allow this, but on checking, Nope Rule 9-4(b). Is very clear after reading it twice, note the "OR"

If the player lifts or deliberately touches their ball at rest or causes it to move, the player gets one penalty stroke.

Now i know what you will say next, so i think if you are careful enough, then yes you can.