Get a Ruling • Re: Match Play
Quincyquincy wrote:
Good try Thom D. 30-3c/3 indeed says C should be disqualified although no claim by A/B is mentioned. But the same is true in numerous other Decisions (30-3c/1, 30-3f/1, /2, /3 etc). All these Decisions address basically not a claim/no claim issue but other Rules problems.
Please keep in mind that the Committee may consider a claim only if (…) the player making the claim has notified his opponent (…) that he is making a claim(…) and also that there is no one who has the authority - without a claim having been made – to intervene in a match apart from a referee assigned to that specific match, not even the committee.
quincy
IMO, you are missing the key point. A claim has been made by player A (that he has won the hole) and the Committee must assess the full facts and decide according to the Rules. The rules state very clearly that A has lost the hole on the facts of this case. The Committee doesn't just say to A your claim of winning the hole is not correct, carry on. The Committee, once a claim by any player has been made in this OP, simply tells A he has lost the hole on the facts of the case - A, having made a claim, has fully opened Pandora's box and he cannot limit the Committee's attention. The actions of the opponent are irrelevant.
There is no decision that demonstrates a Committee ruling situation consistent with your argument - where a player that has lost the hole is 'let off' because the opponent didn't make a counter claim. An opponent never needs to make a counter claim - the opponent only needs to agree the facts of the case - and the rules decide. The capacity for the players to collectively agree an outcome and by pass the Committee/referee (regardless of what the Rules say) has ceased once a claim is made. Similarly, under R1-3, once there is doubt about a rules issue, players can choose to decide themselves or not. If they do not agree the outcome themselves (as in our OP) and learn the correct rule they must apply it or they are both DQ under R1-3. That is the case here - the correct rule outcome was questioned and went to the arbiter (in this case the Committee) - are you seriously suggesting that the Committee itself can waive the rules of golf even though the players cannot?
Statistics: Posted by Thom — Today, 00:18