Got Called.

[stroh]

Playing the other day.  Well too, I might add.     When the guy I beat on the last hole said, I guess we'll let you have it, even though you add a 2 stroke penalty and take a 6.

I've been doing this new putting routine kind of what Phil was doing for a while, to get a feel for the short putts and build some confidence.

Say it's a four foot putt, I go have the distance and make a couple of swings like I'm putting from there, then step back and make my putt.

Well, without realizing it, I guess I had grounded the club.

A.  Do you guys agree that this is an infraction on the intended line of play/putt rule?

B.  You are allowed(from what I could find) to ground the club "before" the ball, but it does not say how much before.


FTR, we argued a fair amount about assessing the penalty.  I argued that if I broke a rule, apply it. Take away the skins. They said no. 

I used the money to buy drinks for everyone.

[Uisce Beatha]

A.  Absolutely.

B.  You're allowed to ground the club before the ball while addressing it.  Addressing the ball is defined as:

A player has "addressed the ball" when he has taken his stance and has also grounded his club, except that in a hazard a player has addressed the ball when he has taken his stance.

I think the definition effectively limits the distance in front of the ball to a few inches max.  Otherwise, you're not in your stance therefore not addressing your ball therefore touching the line of your putt.

Kudos.  You did the honorable thing by buying the drinks even though, by rule, neither side won.

1-3. Agreement to Waive Rules

Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred.

Penalty for Breach of Rule 1-3: Match play — Disqualification of both sides; Stroke play — Disqualification of competitors concerned.

[stroh]

A.  Absolutely.

B.  You're allowed to ground the club before the ball while addressing it.  Addressing the ball is defined as:

A player has "addressed the ball" when he has taken his stance and has also grounded his club, except that in a hazard a player has addressed the ball when he has taken his stance.

I think the definition effectively limits the distance in front of the ball to a few inches max.  Otherwise, you're not in your stance therefore not addressing your ball therefore touching the line of your putt.

Kudos.  You did the honorable thing by buying the drinks even though, by rule, neither side won.

1-3. Agreement to Waive Rules

Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred.

Penalty for Breach of Rule 1-3: Match play — Disqualification of both sides; Stroke play — Disqualification of competitors concerned.

Thanks for the clarification.     I figured that was the case.


We actually got into a pretty decent discussion.

This group of guys is a few years older than I am, and one of them is Karen's brother, so they always treat me with the protective kid brother type approach.  I tell them all the time, I'll play you guys straight up, don't treat me special.

Well, I was out playing them, and beating them. Very rare, they are single digit handicaps.  After we walked off the ninth when they were razzing me, and I insisted on taking the penalty I accused them of cherry picking the rules.

I said "Ok, back on 7, if I would have driven it in the water, dropped, hit on the green, and said I was laying 2, would you let the fly?  No, of course not (they all agreed).  Then why this? "

We never did get to a resolution.  Like I said, I felt it only right to "give back the money" one way or another.   

I posted with the penalty for a 43.

[Clive]

A.  Absolutely.

+1

Kudos.  You did the honorable thing by buying the drinks even though, by rule, neither side won.

1-3. Agreement to Waive Rules

Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred.

Penalty for Breach of Rule 1-3: Match play — Disqualification of both sides; Stroke play — Disqualification of competitors concerned.

I'm unsure that's the right approach, unless you mean after they brought it up and all agreed that it WAS a penalty.  Short of that, it's opponents (match play) declining to call a penalty, which is within their right.  Did Stroh agree with them that it was a penalty?  Although he demanded that the same penalty be assessed on the previous holes, it can't be -- once the players tee off on the next hole, that last one is in the books.

2-5. Doubt as to Procedure; Disputes and Claims
In match play, if a doubt or dispute arises between the players, a player may make a claim. If no duly authorized representative of the Committee is available within a reasonable time, the players must continue the match without delay. The Committee may consider a claim only if the player making the claim notifies his opponent (i) that he is making a claim, (ii) of the facts of the situation and (iii) that he wants a ruling. The claim must be made before any player in the match plays from the next teeing ground or, in the case of the last hole of the match, before all players in the match leave the putting green.

2-5/1 Player’s Obligation Regarding Lodging Claim
In match play, a player may disregard a breach of the Rules by his opponent, provided there is no agreement between the players. There is a difference between overlooking an opponent’s breach and agreement with the opponent to waive a penalty. Rule 1-3 prohibits the latter.

2-5/2  Procedure for a Valid Claim
For a claim to be valid, the claimant must notify his opponent (i) that he is making a claim, (ii) of the facts of the situation and (iii) that he wants a ruling. He must do so within the time required by Rule 2-5. For example, Rule 16-1e prohibits putting from a stance astride an extension of the line of putt behind the ball. In a match between A and B, if A putts from a stance astride an extension of the line and B states “that is not allowed, you are penalized” or “I’m making a claim because of that stroke,” the Committee should consider the claim.

Statements by B such as “I’m not sure that’s allowed” or “I don’t think you can do that” do not by themselves constitute a valid claim because each statement does not contain the notice of a claim, the facts of the situation and an indication that he wants a ruling.

[Uisce Beatha]

I assumed stroke play. 

[Clive]

I always thought of skins as a match-play format.
 

[Uisce Beatha]

Yeah, probably.  Although not definitely.  A birdie beats a par whether it be stoke play or match play.  But probably.

Who the *fudge* knows.  Stroh would chime in if he wasn't so wrapped up in the Aussie calendar.

[Clive]

You and I have a question about the rules, and you're looking to Stroh to settle it?  Cripes.

Wait, does this "stroh" have a goatee, perchance?

[stroh]

LOL

We do play stroke play.