Get a Ruling • Re: Match Play
Strong disagreement from me on this 'halved' line. Whether B has made a claim is entirely irrelevant because A has asked for a ruling. The Committee (exactly like a referee) must consider all the facts of the situation and make a ruling based on the Rules - they are not constrained to the nature of the claim - they must decide on the facts and call it on what the rules say. In this OP, a breach has been committed - stated clearly in D17-3/2. A timely claim has been made and the facts to be resolved are whether A or B is the guilty party - this is what the Committee must decide - no other outcome is possible in this situation. The hole can only be halved if the players have agreed a half (and it is irrelevant whether they got to that agreement through innocent misunderstanding of the rules) - and that is not the OP.Doug wrote:The OP is querying the difference between a referee (presumably assigned to the match) seeing and awarding a penalty and the committee deciding on a claim.
The referee is obliged to act on the observed breach.
The committee can only act on the claim. A claim was made by A and was (seemingly) specific to B's (in)action.
A's claim must be turned down. There is no claim by B for the committee to rule on.
They both holed in 4.
And to handle Quincy's comment above that he could find no authority for a Committee to rule in favour of a player that did not make an explicit claim - see D30-3c/3. This ruling is categorical in confirming - once a claim is made, the Committee must rule on all the facts - they are not 'boxed in' by which player made the claim or the specific nature of the claim. There are other decisions that also affirm this principle, but the cited one is the most applicable to this OP.
Statistics: Posted by Thom — Today, 01:27