Playing into the darkness?

[A Man Called Papa]

In light of the recent situation at the Open, and an incident that is now part of Ontario Rules Official folklore, there has been a good deal of discussion about when exactly is it too dark to continue play.

So, you are sitting around at a family gathering, usually just after someone has told everyone the you likely know more about golf rules that anyone they have ever met, and someone relates this experience for your comment.

Two players are involved in a hole by hole match play playoff. One of the players is wearing prescription sunglasses, without which they can not see well enough to play at the best of times. As darkness settles in, this player wants to suspend the match and carry on the next or some other day. His or her opponent wishes to continue. What would you tell the group in order to maintain you reputation in the family, both considering the glasses and without them being a factor?

[NineNineSix]

Re: Playing into the darkness?

Just my uninformed opinion...but I don't think it would be fair to consider the sunglasses at all. It's unfortunate for that player, but ultimately his fault for not having the proper non-tinted eyewear handy.

Other than that, I'm not sure how it's determined when it's too dark for a match to continue, but whatever the process is, it should be followed as usual with no regard for the player's eyewear.

[nearace]

Re: Playing into the darkness?

I would say keep going, mutual agreement not met to stop play, glasses are a non issue imo.

[Ignatius Reilly]

Re: Playing into the darkness?

On a related note, what if one player requires strong prescription glasses (or contacts) and manages to break or lose them during the match?

Would he be able to postpone the rest of the match?

[mpare]

Re: Playing into the darkness?

I suppose one could force the other person to play on, but you'd have to be a real jerk to insist on that. What if your opponent had a seizure? Would a forfeiture claim ingratiate you to the golf gods, if the deadline for completion of the match was not upon you?

On a related note, what if one player requires strong prescription glasses (or contacts) and manages to break or lose them during the match?

Would he be able to postpone the rest of the match?

[Bern]

Re: Playing into the darkness?

Rule 6-8
Exception in match play: Players discontinuing match play by agreement are not subject to disqualification, unless by so doing the competition is delayed.

This was competition, correct?
This condition was not met. Play on.

In my opinion the player should be able to play the competition without delay. Not having suitable equipment to play is not an excuse in competition. It is very foreseeable that it gets dark each night and it is not reasonable that a competitor should be inconvenienced by your lack of foresight.

If the player's glasses became damaged and there was time to reschedule the sudden death then I would agree to suspend competition.

[A Man Called Papa]

Re: Playing into the darkness?

Okay forget about the glasses. There is a decision 6-8a/6 that deals with a disagreement as to whether or not a course is playable. Basically, the players are required to play on (resume), but the one that wants to quit (not resume) can make a claim. Do you feel that darkness would be covered by this, and how would the Committee decide just how dark is too dark at some later time when considering the claim?

[hoganapexplus]

Re: Playing into the darkness?

Okay forget about the glasses. There is a decision 6-8a/6 that deals with a disagreement as to whether or not a course is playable. Basically, the players are required to play on (resume), but the one that wants to quit (not resume) can make a claim. Do you feel that darkness would be covered by this, and how would the Committee decide just how dark is too dark at some later time when considering the claim?

If the guy can't continue playing because it is too dark with his sunglasses on, that is his problem. Dark would have to be pretty complete in order to call off a game.

[Bern]

Re: Playing into the darkness?

Okay forget about the glasses. There is a decision 6-8a/6 that deals with a disagreement as to whether or not a course is playable. Basically, the players are required to play on (resume), but the one that wants to quit (not resume) can make a claim. Do you feel that darkness would be covered by this, and how would the Committee decide just how dark is too dark at some later time when considering the claim?

The committee would be unable to make a judgment on darkness because they weren't there. It's a simple matter of the player being unable to play because of their choice in eyewear. The committee should ask the simple question, 'If you had normal corrective lenses, would you have been able to play?' If the answer is yes then the committee should reject his claim. If the answer is no then the committee should support his claim. There are many situations where the officials have to rely on the integrity of the player when making a decision. Some weight should be given to the other players opinion as well.

[rulie]

Re: Playing into the darkness?

The referee has the authority and responsibility to suspend play when the conditions warrant it.
If a player says he can no longer see well enough to play, a good referee would give that serious consideration, and most likely, suspend play.

[Bern]

Re: Playing into the darkness?

The referee has the authority and responsibility to suspend play when the conditions warrant it.
If a player says he can no longer see well enough to play, a good referee would give that serious consideration, and most likely, suspend play.

If I understand the situation correctly there is no referee at the time. It appears it was light enough to play just not with prescription sunglasses.

[A Man Called Papa]

Re: Playing into the darkness?

If I understand the situation correctly there is no referee at the time. It appears it was light enough to play just not with prescription sunglasses.

It is actually two hypothetical questions. One involving dark glasses which we should forget because we have done it to death. But the more serious question that I wonder about is just two players playing a match say at their club. Does everyone agree that darkness, forgetting the old joke about the blind firemen, fit into a consideration like too much wind, or pooling on the green of when it comes to declaring a course unplayable, or does it fall into some other vague issue. There does not appear to be any clear cut definition of when dark is too dark, or what to do if opponents disagree. Rulie has dealt with the issue if there is someone to ask, but what if there is no one to ask for a decision (ruling)?

[ColinL]

Re: Playing into the darkness?

As I see it.

If both players agree to discontinue play there is, of course no problem. If player A wants to discontinue and Player B says no, they must continue but player A should state that he is making a claim. Decisions 6-8a/5 and 6-8a/6 seem to me to be quite clear that without an agreement a match must continue.

For a committee to adjudicate on such a claim, it needs to work out some criteria and question the players on the basis of these criteria. For example, was there enough light to see the flight and landing of a full-length drive. Could you see the flag from x yards away? Could you distinguish the outline of a putting green from x yards away? Could you see the stakes marking a water hazard from x yards away?....And so on.

[JGT4]

Re: Playing into the darkness?

An interesting question. I imagine this match being played between my old self earlier this year waiting for cataract surgery and my new self today after cataract surgery. The match is all square with three to play and no strokes to be given in the remaining holes. Old self claims that it is too dark but new self disagrees. The match continues with old self playing under protest having made the claim that the course is unfit and new self ultimately prevails.

The Committee cannot after the fact see the course as either old self or new self were able to see it at the time. They must rely on the integrity of the two players and uphold old self's claim that the course was unfit.

Solomon?

[Ignatius Reilly]

Re: Playing into the darkness?

Different people's eyes perform better or worse in low light.

If, after talking to both players they stand by their version of the facts: Player A says it was light enough (for him) to see and play, Player B says it wasn't (for him).

How does The Committee handle that? Two stories, both factual, contradictory.