Agreement to Waive Rules – Match Play

Visit www.oregonjram.org for complete tournament info.

Thursday at the 78^th Oregon Junior Amateur at Bandon Dunes Golf Resort, two players approached the par 5 ninth green. One had hit a great second to 35 feet and his opponent was lying three 20 feet from the hole. In match play, Rule 10-1b, Order of Play; During Play of Hole, states:

“After both players have started play of the hole, the ball farther from the hole is played first.”

Accordingly, the player laying two, 35 feet away was to play first. He did and lagged his eagle putt to 2 feet and, before marking his ball, I believed he looked to his opponent and asked if he could hole out. I believed his opponent said, “Yes.” I was walking with the group for the entire round as a Rules Official. I wrote in postings for the 99^th Oregon Amateur about the differences between a match that has a Referee appointed and a match that does not. In this case, I had not been appointed as a Referee. Decision USGA/34-3/100, Committee Intervention in Match Play, states:

“In the absence of a referee, a Committee has no authority to intervene in match play unless there is a reason to believe Rule 1-3 is being infringed or a breach of Rule 6-7 is involved. When there is no referee, the player must protect their own right by invoking Rule 2-5 and by referring to the Committee any dispute they cannot resolve.”

I talked with the players before they began their round and told them I would be available to assist should they request it but, without a request, I was simply a spectator. The above decision states that even if I was to observe a Rule being breached, unless the opponent or the player breaching the Rule asked for assistance, I would not act . . . except during a breach of Rule 6-7, Undue Delay; Slow Play or Rule 1-3, Agreement to Waive Rules.

Going back to the scenario on the 9^th green, the player asked his opponent if he could play while he was clearly closer to the hole and his opponent agreed to allow him to putt out. Rule 1-3 states:

“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.”

The main purpose of Rules Officials during a tournament is to 1) prevent players from incurring penalties and 2) to enforce the Rules of Golf. I talked with the players once they left the 10^th teeing ground and asked them what had occurred on the 9^th green and were they aware that the farthest from the hole was to play first. The confirmed what I had believed I saw on the 9^th green. The players had agreed to waive a Rule of Golf for which the penalty statement reads, disqualification of both sides. Again as Rules Officials our number one purpose is to prevent players from incurring a penalty. The Decisions book lays out many scenarios in which the Committee should waive a disqualification penalty if the breach was not malicious and does not have a signification impact on the outcome of the match. Decision 1-3/1, Players Agree Not to Tee Off in Prescribed Order to Save Time, states:

“Q. In match play, A wins the 4^th hole. On his way to the 5^th tee, he returns to retrieve a club left at the 4^th green and suggest that his opponent B play first to save time, which B does. Are the players in breach of Rule 1-3?

A. In order to waive a Rule, players must be aware that they are doing so. Therefore, the answer depends on whether the players knew that the Rules do not allow them the option as to who plays first from the tee.

If the players were ignorant of the Rules, there is no penalty.

If the players were aware of the Rules and agreed not to follow them, they are in breach of Rule 1-3 for agreeing to exclude the operation of Rule 10-1a. However, in these circumstances, the Committee would be justified in waiving the disqualification penalty under Rule 33-7. If the players subsequently agreed to exclude the operation of Rule 10-1a, they should be disqualified.”

Because there was a breach of 1-3, even though there was no referee for the match, the Committee would be right to intervene for two reasons. One to let them know they had breached Rule 1-3 and, most importantly, to let them know that the Committee does not believe their breach justifies disqualification though, should they commit a breach of Rule 10-1b again, both players would be disqualified.

The players completed their match without additional incidents and one will be playing this morning in the Championship Final or the 78^th Oregon Junior Amateur.