Question:
the following happened in a local tournament I played in. A player showed up to play, he placed his bag outside the pro shop. somebody stole his clubs. He borrowed a set and teed off. The police found the thief walking down a road with the clubs( 1 hour later) and returned them to the golf shop. They took the clubs to the player on the course(5th hole). He used his original set. They wanted to DQ him. Nothing came out of it, but should he have been DQ?
Response:
the following happened in a local tournament I played in. A player showed up to play, he placed his bag outside the pro shop. somebody stole his clubs. He borrowed a set and teed off. The police found the thief walking down a road with the clubs( 1 hour later) and returned them to the golf shop. They took the clubs to the player on the course(5th hole). He used his original set. They wanted to DQ him. Nothing came out of it, but should he have been DQ?
No, but he shold have been penalized for violation of Rule 4-4a. http://www.usga.org/rules/rule/index.html (I assume that by "used his original set," you mean that he switched back to his own clubs [otherwise there's really no issue].) "4-4. Maximum of Fourteen Clubs "a. Selection and Replacement of Clubs "The player shall start a stipulated round with not more than fourteen clubs. He is limited to the clubs thus selected for that round except that, without unduly delaying play, he may: "(i) if he started with fewer than fourteen clubs, add any number provided his total number does not exceed fourteen; and "(ii) replace, with any club, a club which becomes unfit for play in the normal course of play. "The addition or replacement of a club or clubs may not be made by borrowing any club selected for play by any other person playing on the course." Penalties are as follows: "Regardless of Number of Excess Clubs Carried: "Match play – At the conclusion of the hole at which the breach is discovered, the state of the match shall be adjusted by deducting one hole for each hole at which a breach occurred. Maximum deduction per round: two holes. "Stroke play – Two strokes for each hole at which any breach occurred; maximum penalty per round: four strokes. "Bogey and par competitions – Penalties as in match play. "Stableford competitions – see Note to Rule 32-1b."* *Note to rule 32-1b: "Note: Maximum of 14 clubs (Rule 4-4) – Penalties applied as follows: From total points scored for the round, deduction of two points for each hole at which any breach occurred; maximum deduction per round: four points." —– Scott A. Munro Paint Shop Pro tutorials and skeptical UFO stuff http://www.nextdim.com/users/smunro/ Abolish the IRS: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.2525.IH:
Response:
Scott Munro suggests that a player whose clubs are stolen before a match, who then starts play with a borrowed set, and then replaces them with his original set after the thief is found and the clubs recovered, should be penalized for a breach of the 14-club rule. Er, I don’t think so. The intent of the 14-club rule is to limit to a reasonable level the player’s ability to choose specific implements for each possible shot, and instead rely on the player’s ability to make shots to determine the outcome of a match. I don’t see how the scenario described violates the spirit of this rule, and hence I can’t see how any Committee would impose a penalty. (I believe they would invoke the "Equity" principle.) FWIW, Scott’s interpretation of the rule is one of those narrowly ‘legalistic’ rulings that concerns itself only with the letter of the law, and not one whit with the spirit, that brings the law into such disrepute these days. OtherKevin * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
I think Scott is correct. The 14 club rule is very clear and I would argue that it applies here. I understand your arugment about trying to invoke the "spirit" of the rule, but for any given rule, reasonable people can disagree about things such as "spirit" and "intent". That’s why you follow the rules as written. If you don’t like the rules as written, you try to get them changed. Kenny RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/stultzk.htm "Never try to keep more than 300 separate thoughts in your mind during your swing." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Scott Munro suggests that a player whose clubs are stolen before a match, who then starts play with a borrowed set, and then replaces them with his original set after the thief is found and the clubs recovered, should be penalized for a breach of the 14-club rule. Er, I don’t think so. The intent of the 14-club rule is to limit to a reasonable level the player’s ability to choose specific implements for each possible shot, and instead rely on the player’s ability to make shots to determine the outcome of a match. I don’t see how the scenario described violates the spirit of this rule, and hence I can’t see how any Committee would impose a penalty. (I believe they would invoke the "Equity" principle.) FWIW, Scott’s interpretation of the rule is one of those narrowly ‘legalistic’ rulings that concerns itself only with the letter of the law, and not one whit with the spirit, that brings the law into such disrepute these days. OtherKevin * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
<iEr, I don’t think so. The intent of the 14-club rule is to limit to a reasonable level the player’s ability to choose specific implements for each possible shot, and instead rely on the player’s ability to make shots to determine the outcome of a match.</i And isn’t replacing all the clubs a player started the round with a violation of the ’spirit’ of limiting the number of clubs a player may use? Otherwise a player could exchange a load of long irons and woods for a set of wedges when he’s near the green, and swap them back again on the next par 5 etc. <iFWIW, Scott’s interpretation of the rule is one of those narrowly ‘legalistic’ rulings that concerns itself only with the letter of the law….</i 4-4a is pretty clear – you can’t change a club which hasn’t been made unfit for play during the normal course of play; that’s the letter and the spirit. If you played against a guy who scored a 5 but claimed a 4 on the basis that rule 6-6d was ‘legalistic’ and only concerns the letter of the law, how would you react? * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
Scott Munro suggests that a player whose clubs are stolen before a match, who then starts play with a borrowed set, and then replaces them with his original set after the thief is found and the clubs recovered,
this is so obscure that it gives "obscurity" a bad name.
Response:
Sounds like Scott has answered your question, but– I can’t believe the police would bring them back to the course when they should have been taken in for evidence in prosecution of the thief. Unfathomable that the owner would choose regaining the immediate use of them over the due process needed in bringing the offender to justice. Thieves fall just below cheaters on the lowest-form-of-human-life scale. Joe ______ the following happened in a local tournament I played in. A player showed up to play, he placed his bag outside the pro shop. somebody stole his clubs. He borrowed a set and teed off. The police found the thief walking down a road with the clubs( 1 hour later) and returned them to the golf shop. They took the clubs to the player on the course(5th hole). He used his original set. They wanted to DQ him. Nothing came out of it, but should he have been DQ? No, but he shold have been penalized for violation of Rule 4-4a.
[wording of ruling snipped]
Response:
Scott Munro suggests that a player whose clubs are stolen before a match, who then starts play with a borrowed set, and then replaces them with his original set after the thief is found and the clubs recovered, should be penalized for a breach of the 14-club rule.
[...] FWIW, Scott’s interpretation of the rule is one of those narrowly ‘legalistic’ rulings that concerns itself only with the letter of the law, and not one whit with the spirit, that brings the law into such disrepute these days.
The problem with the whole "spirit of the law" concept is that it replaces law with whim. I know what the law says, but who decides what the "spirit of the law" says? And when? Your position is that if my opponent violates a rule, I may be denied redress if the referee decides that the rule is less important than his entirely arbitrary notion of what the "spirit of the rules" says? Does it work in reverse? After I do something which the rules do not forbid, can I be penalized because the referee decides that it is against the "spirit"? Not all rules are good, and bad rules can be changed. But that must be done, and those changes made known, *before* people play according to the new rules. They must not be changed arbitrarily by an official during the course of play, or we have no rules at all. I would argue that the law is in disrepute not because of strict enforcement, but because courts (in the US, anyway) do what you seem to want them to do: they frequently ignore what the law actually says and rule based on their own personal views. —– Scott A. Munro Paint Shop Pro tutorials and skeptical UFO stuff http://www.nextdim.com/users/smunro/ Abolish the IRS: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.2525.IH:
Response:
Why not just congratulate the guy on his good fortune on the return of the clubs and let him play? I thought golf was about sportsmanship? Andy
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – the following happened in a local tournament I played in. A player showed up to play, he placed his bag outside the pro shop. somebody stole his clubs. He borrowed a set and teed off. The police found the thief walking down a road with the clubs( 1 hour later) and returned them to the golf shop. They took the clubs to the player on the course(5th hole). He used his original set. They wanted to DQ him. Nothing came out of it, but should he have been DQ?
Response:
I would argue that the difference in this case is that the clubs returned to the player are the ones he intended to use for the entire game. To me, insisting that the player finish the game with an unfamiliar set of clubs that place him at a distinct disadvantage would lack in sportsmanship. If nothing else, letting him use his own clubs for the rest of the game would eliminate the feeling that (if I won) I had only beaten him because he had to play with someone else’s clubs. Eliyahu Rooff
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <iEr, I don’t think so. The intent of the 14-club rule is to limit to a reasonable level the player’s ability to choose specific implements for each possible shot, and instead rely on the player’s ability to make shots to determine the outcome of a match.</i And isn’t replacing all the clubs a player started the round with a violation of the ’spirit’ of limiting the number of clubs a player may use? Otherwise a player could exchange a load of long irons and woods for a set of wedges when he’s near the green, and swap them back again on the next par 5 etc. <iFWIW, Scott’s interpretation of the rule is one of those narrowly ‘legalistic’ rulings that concerns itself only with the letter of the law….</i 4-4a is pretty clear – you can’t change a club which hasn’t been made unfit for play during the normal course of play; that’s the letter and the spirit. If you played against a guy who scored a 5 but claimed a 4 on the basis that rule 6-6d was ‘legalistic’ and only concerns the letter of the law, how would you react? * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
Daniel Tan writes:
Just to illustrate this – See Decision 4-4a/13 where a player counted his clubs at the 1st tee and confirms that he has 14 clubs. He then remove the driver from his bag and leaves it aside and check in with the starter. At this time, a player from another group mistakenly puts a putter in the player’s bag. The player then tee off. In this Decision the player is penalised for starting a round with more than 14 clubs. Sad isn’t it? We all sympathise with the player because it was not his fault but when we have to apply the Rules which is very explicit, we still have to penalise the player. – end of quote – Daniel, you are absolutely correct in your interpretation. However, may I suggest that, in these two cases, that Dickens is correct as well, and "the law is an ass"? I’m really disappointed that there is no discretion in the rules between a player who deliberately flouts a rule, and one who is the innocent victim of another’s actions. I’m amazed that ‘outside agency’ is considered a defence for the movement of a ball in play, but not a defence for the clubs used, as is the case in the original instance and the one you cited. The (somewhat lame, IMHO) rationale offered by the USGA’s spokesman was "Well, what do you do if the player’s friend takes his clubs because he thought was allowed to borrow them that day, and then returns them?" To which my response was "Geez, if the guy has to play with rental clubs, where’s the advantage to the player?". I mean, I could see this ruling if a player started the round with (say) forged blades, realized he was playing crummy, and took out his cellphone to call a friend to bring his cast cavity backs back to the club. But the diffeence between this type of shenanigan and the cases cited is immense. There has to be a difference between clubs that a player controls before and during a stipulated round, and clubs the player *DOES NOT* control (such as rented clubs). This would prevent a player from making switches as described above. I still feel that I’m on the high moral ground on this issue. Like Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, I would argue the defence of necessity; I don’t expect sympathy from the USGA, but I’m very interested in an R&A commentary. OtherKevin
Response:
He should have been disqualified. Once a stipulated round is started, clubs can only be substituted if they become unsuitable for play. — http://home.midsouth.rr.com/joecartpath/rsgtn.html RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/reedj.htm
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – the following happened in a local tournament I played in. A player showed up to play, he placed his bag outside the pro shop. somebody stole his clubs. He borrowed a set and teed off. The police found the thief walking down a road with the clubs( 1 hour later) and returned them to the golf shop. They took the clubs to the player on the course(5th hole). He used his original set. They wanted to DQ him. Nothing came out of it, but should he have been DQ?
Response:
He should have been disqualified. Once a stipulated round is started, clubs can only be substituted if they become unsuitable for play.
Once his clubs had been recovered, he probably considered the rental set to be unsuitable. In comparison anyway. (VBG) Paul in Portland OR
Response:
– joe cartpath wrote <iHe should have been disqualified. Once a stipulated round is started, clubs can only be substituted if they become unsuitable for play.</i Elijah Rooff wrote <i I would argue that the difference in this case is that the clubs returned to the player are the ones he intended to use for the entire game. To me, insisting that the player finish the game with an unfamiliar set of clubs that place him at a distinct disadvantage would lack in sportsmanship.</i Two opposing views, but there’s no justification for either. To Joe, rule 4-4a does not warrant disqualification. The maximum penalty for club substitution is four strokes (or loss of two hole in match play); no-one is empowered to DQ. To Elijah, it doesn’t matter what he intended, the same rule clearly says the player must use the clubs he selected for play at the start of the round. Sportsmanship is playing to the same rules as everyone else, surely. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
And isn’t replacing all the clubs a player started the round with a violation of the ’spirit’ of limiting the number of clubs a player may use?
eh, no. not if his were stolen. cant u see theres a difference — Vi kjemper, overlever og drikker te. Ivan.
Response:
<ieh, no. not if his were stolen. cant u see theres a difference</i No, I can’t. Please explain * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
I was following this thread to see what else is going to develop. The thing that we need to understand here is not how one feels(emotion) about the situation but how the Rules of Golf is to be applied. Just to illustrate this – See Decision 4-4a/13 where a player counted his clubs at the 1st tee and confirms that he has 14 clubs. He then remove the driver from his bag and leaves it aside and check in with the starter. At this time, a player from another group mistakenly puts a putter in the player’s bag. The player then tee off. In this Decision the player is penalised for starting a round with more than 14 clubs. Sad isn’t it? We all sympathise with the player because it was not his fault but when we have to apply the Rules which is very explicit, we still have to penalise the player. In the situation you have described, the player when starting a round with a borrowed set of 14 clubs is limited to that borrowed set with the exception that he is allowed to replace which has become unfit for play in the normal course of play. Therefore when he took his original clubs and used them in the stipulated round, he has breach Rule 4-4a. The penalty in match play is loss of hole at the conclusion of the hole.The maximum deduction for a round is two holes. For stroke play it is two strokes for each hole at which the breach occurred with a maximum of four strokes per round. However, when this discovery is made, the excess club/s must be declared out of play and thereafter not use during the round – see Rule 4-4c. If the player breaches this Rule (4-4c), the penalty is disqualification. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – the following happened in a local tournament I played in. A player showed up to play, he placed his bag outside the pro shop. somebody stole his clubs. He borrowed a set and teed off. The police found the thief walking down a road with the clubs( 1 hour later) and returned them to the golf shop. They took the clubs to the player on the course(5th hole). He used his original set. They wanted to DQ him. Nothing came out of it, but should he have been DQ?
Response:
The R&A has the same interpretation. The joint Decisions Book is a testimony to that fact. I still feel that I’m on the high moral ground on this issue. Like Jean Valjean – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – in Les Miserables, I would argue the defence of necessity; I don’t expect sympathy from the USGA, but I’m very interested in an R&A commentary. OtherKevin
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Daniel Tan writes: Just to illustrate this – See Decision 4-4a/13 where a player counted his clubs at the 1st tee and confirms that he has 14 clubs. He then remove the driver from his bag and leaves it aside and check in with the starter. At this time, a player from another group mistakenly puts a putter in the player’s bag. The player then tee off. In this Decision the player is penalised for starting a round with more than 14 clubs. Sad isn’t it? We all sympathise with the player because it was not his fault but when we have to apply the Rules which is very explicit, we still have to penalise the player. – end of quote – Daniel, you are absolutely correct in your interpretation. However, may I suggest that, in these two cases, that Dickens is correct as well, and "the law is an ass"? I’m really disappointed that there is no discretion in the rules between a player who deliberately flouts a rule, and one who is the innocent victim of another’s actions. I’m amazed that ‘outside agency’ is considered a defence for the movement of a ball in play, but not a defence for the clubs used, as is the case in the original instance and the one you cited. The (somewhat lame, IMHO) rationale offered by the USGA’s spokesman was "Well, what do you do if the player’s friend takes his clubs because he thought was allowed to borrow them that day, and then returns them?" To which my response was "Geez, if the guy has to play with rental clubs, where’s the advantage to the player?". I mean, I could see this ruling if a player started the round with (say) forged blades, realized he was playing crummy, and took out his cellphone to call a friend to bring his cast cavity backs back to the club. But the diffeence between this type of shenanigan and the cases cited is immense. There has to be a difference between clubs that a player controls before and during a stipulated round, and clubs the player *DOES NOT* control (such as rented clubs). This would prevent a player from making switches as described above. I still feel that I’m on the high moral ground on this issue. Like Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, I would argue the defence of necessity; I don’t expect sympathy from the USGA, but I’m very interested in an R&A commentary.
Kevin, As in my other post in reply to you as far as rules are concerned the R&A and the USGA are virtually one and the same so you will get the same answer from St.Andrews were you allowed to approach them. I have both the R&A and USGA rules on my desk which are identical until you reach the Appendices at the rear. There they differ considerably over local rules and the like. However with the rule changes to be incorporated in the New Year even they are becoming more as one. Much, much closer together. On a personal view there are many things in the rules that are "not fair" but when push comes to shove we all play from the same written language and I suppose that you have heard the much used (incorrectly generally) expression ‘rub of the green’. It applies in a lot of cases. No room for morality!!! OtherKevin
– Pat Williams Work is a pastime for those who have not discovered the game of golf.