Error discovered after closing of competition

[BillyBeardie]

I'm a regular reader here, very infrequent poster, and am generally pretty good on the rules. I'm also a member of my club's competition committee. Whilst I'm pretty good on the rules, as are the rest of the committee, we would never look to make a ruling without the appropriate rule or decision to back it up. We have to be watertight on these things and can usually find the appropriate ruling.

However...

We had a query raised after the closure of a recent competition where it seemed the winner had signed for the incorrect score, countersigned by his marker. There is no issue with the basic ruling - ball not found following tee shot, returned to the tee and played another, then found the original and elected to complete the hole with the original ball. The wrong score was therefore recorded for the hole.

It should be noted that the circumstances have not been investigated beyond the facts as stated below, I’m “simply”(!) looking to understand how we should proceed under the stated circumstances and to be able to reference the correct decisions in support of this.

The competition was matchplay against the course, par/bogeycomp. The incorrect score recorded led to the player recording a win against the course on the given hole whereas it should have been recorded as a loss.

On completing the round he queried the situation with our professional staff and was advised that he had proceeded incorrectly and therefore that he had recorded the incorrect score. He decided to ignore this advice and submit the score as recorded, presumably the marker also signed this off or was not involved in this consultation.

This information did not find its way to the Competitions Committee in a timely manner and therefore the competition win was awarded to the player and the result published within the club. The circumstances outlined above were later relayed to the Chairman of Committees and he has passed it to us for ruling.

What is the correct procedure to be followed, what questions should be asked, and what should the outcome be? Thoughts and decision references very much appreciated.

Regardless of the outcome here the intention is to publish to our members the reason for the ruling in order to attempt to prevent such circumstances from re-occurring.



And whilst I'm at it is it just me that finds the user interface here awful? Missed characters, lagging on typing, pasted text with lost format... painful!

 

[Maninblack4612]

I have not looked it up by I understand that, if the competitor was aware, or should have been aware, of the rule breach before he submitted his card then he can be disqualified after the competition has been closed. On the basis that he was told of the breach before he submitted his card it can't be the case that he submitted it innocently. The committee therefore have no choice but to disqualify him and amend the result.

 

[Spuddy]

I agree with the above. Have a look at rule 33-1b

 

[brfcfan]

Hi

I would ask him to explain his actions and ask the marker for his opinion as it sounds like at best he has ignored checking a rule that he should of done before submitting his card and at worst he has plain cheated. Sounds like the most sensible course of action would be reopen the comp, dq him and remind him of his responsibilities.

 

[Foxholer]

Seems like a DQ to me I'm afraid!

The fact that he sought and was advised, correctly, that he should have recorded a Loss for the hole means he was aware that he was signing for an incorrect score before the Comp closed. Had he only been made aware that the score was wrong after the comp closed, then the result would have stood.

It was not the incorrect action on the hole that causes the DQ - as that mere;y becomes a '-' loss. It's his signing the scorecard knowing that it was wrong that causes the 'post closure' DQ.

Why would the Chairman of Comp Committee pass it elsewhere though? It's a responsibility of 'the Committee' to rule on it, though I can see why they might want some help.

Would probably be helpful to get the player to explain what/why he did things, and confirm with Area Authority (your County) too. That's who the player could appeal to if he objected and it probably wouldn't help when asked why you DQ-ed him if the answer was effectively 'because that's what a bunch of unknown guys on a Golf forum said'!

 

[duncan mackie]

I'm a regular reader here, very infrequent poster, and am generally pretty good on the rules. I'm also a member of my club's competition committee. Whilst I'm pretty good on the rules, as are the rest of the committee, we would never look to make a ruling without the appropriate rule or decision to back it up. We have to be watertight on these things and can usually find the appropriate ruling.

However...

We had a query raised after the closure of a recent competition where it seemed the winner had signed for the incorrect score, countersigned by his marker. There is no issue with the basic ruling - ball not found following tee shot, returned to the tee and played another, then found the original and elected to complete the hole with the original ball. The wrong score was therefore recorded for the hole.

It should be noted that the circumstances have not been investigated beyond the facts as stated below, I’m “simply”(!) looking to understand how we should proceed under the stated circumstances and to be able to reference the correct decisions in support of this.

The competition was matchplay against the course, par/bogeycomp. The incorrect score recorded led to the player recording a win against the course on the given hole whereas it should have been recorded as a loss.

On completing the round he queried the situation with our professional staff and was advised that he had proceeded incorrectly and therefore that he had recorded the incorrect score. He decided to ignore this advice and submit the score as recorded, presumably the marker also signed this off or was not involved in this consultation.

This information did not find its way to the Competitions Committee in a timely manner and therefore the competition win was awarded to the player and the result published within the club. The circumstances outlined above were later relayed to the Chairman of Committees and he has passed it to us for ruling.

What is the correct procedure to be followed, what questions should be asked, and what should the outcome be? Thoughts and decision references very much appreciated.

Regardless of the outcome here the intention is to publish to our members the reason for the ruling in order to attempt to prevent such circumstances from re-occurring.



And whilst I'm at it is it just me that finds the user interface here awful? Missed characters, lagging on typing, pasted text with lost format... painful!

your reference is 34-1b exception (iii)

"In stroke play, a penalty must not be rescinded, modified or imposed after the competition has closed. A competition is closed when the result has been officially announced or, in stroke play qualifying followed by match play, when the player has teed off in his first match.

Exceptions: A penalty of disqualification must be imposed after the competition has closed if a competitor:

(iii) returned a score for any hole lower than actually taken (Rule 6-6d) for any reason other than failure to include a penalty that, before the competition closed, he did not know he had incurred."

Once the player had had the discussion outlined with the professional staff he can no longer fall back on the last part of this exception - it becomes his responsibility to follow through with the committee before returning his card.

Decision 34-1b/1.5 could almost have been written in response to your question

"Q.In stroke play, A, in ignorance of the Rules and with the concurrence of B, his marker, removed a stone from a water hazard when his ball lay in the hazard. Subsequently, A was advised by C, a fellow-competitor, that he (A) was in breach of Rule 13-4. A disagreed, failed to settle the doubtful point with the Committee at the end of the round and returned his score card without including a two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4.

After the competition had closed, C advised the Committee of the incident. Should A be disqualified?

A.Yes. Rule 34-1b says in effect that a competitor must be disqualified after the competition has closed if he had returned a score, failing to include a penalty which, before the competition closed, he knew he had incurred. As C pointed out to A that he had proceeded incorrectly and A took no action to check whether he had incurred a penalty before returning his card, A is deemed to have known that he had incurred a penalty."

I hope this helps you in these difficult circumstances.

 

[BillyBeardie]

Seems like a DQ to me I'm afraid!

The fact that he sought and was advised, correctly, that he should have recorded a Loss for the hole means he was aware that he was signing for an incorrect score before the Comp closed. Had he only been made aware that the score was wrong after the comp closed, then the result would have stood.

It was not the incorrect action on the hole that causes the DQ - as that mere;y becomes a '-' loss. It's his signing the scorecard knowing that it was wrong that causes the 'post closure' DQ.

Why would the Chairman of Comp Committee pass it elsewhere though? It's a responsibility of 'the Committee' to rule on it, though I can see why they might want some help.

Would probably be helpful to get the player to explain what/why he did things, and confirm with Area Authority (your County) too. That's who the player could appeal to if he objected and it probably wouldn't help when asked why you DQ-ed him if the answer was effectively 'because that's what a bunch of unknown guys on a Golf forum said'!

Cheers FH - that's why I'm looking for rule and decision references and not just a bunch of opinions! That's what I thought was the case but I want to be able to present the full story including these references to be sure we are proceeding correctly.

We have a main committee and sub-committees (you have to love bureaucracy) and it's our overall Chairman referring to comp committee for a ruling that can then be ratified by the main committee.

 

[Spuddy]

Oops.. Meant 34-1b, not 33

 

[BillyBeardie]

your reference is 34-1b exception (iii)

"In stroke play, a penalty must not be rescinded, modified or imposed after the competition has closed. A competition is closed when the result has been officially announced or, in stroke play qualifying followed by match play, when the player has teed off in his first match.

Exceptions: A penalty of disqualification must be imposed after the competition has closed if a competitor:

(iii) returned a score for any hole lower than actually taken (Rule 6-6d) for any reason other than failure to include a penalty that, before the competition closed, he did not know he had incurred."

Once the player had had the discussion outlined with the professional staff he can no longer fall back on the last part of this exception - it becomes his responsibility to follow through with the committee before returning his card.

Decision 34-1b/1.5 could almost have been written in response to your question

"Q.In stroke play, A, in ignorance of the Rules and with the concurrence of B, his marker, removed a stone from a water hazard when his ball lay in the hazard. Subsequently, A was advised by C, a fellow-competitor, that he (A) was in breach of Rule 13-4. A disagreed, failed to settle the doubtful point with the Committee at the end of the round and returned his score card without including a two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4.

After the competition had closed, C advised the Committee of the incident. Should A be disqualified?

A.Yes. Rule 34-1b says in effect that a competitor must be disqualified after the competition has closed if he had returned a score, failing to include a penalty which, before the competition closed, he knew he had incurred. As C pointed out to A that he had proceeded incorrectly and A took no action to check whether he had incurred a penalty before returning his card, A is deemed to have known that he had incurred a penalty."

I hope this helps you in these difficult circumstances.

Duncan you're a hero, that's exactly the reference I was looking for. Now we need to confirm the chain of events as described above - not sure where we'll be at if competitor and pro shop disagree on these but that's a query for another day.

The most important aspect for me is ongoing education of our members as to how to proceed in cases of uncertainty to try to prevent these situations from arising in the future - nobody likes to be on either end of these sorts of rulings.

 

[Foxholer]

...

We have a main committee and sub-committees (you have to love bureaucracy) and it's our overall Chairman referring to comp committee for a ruling that can then be ratified by the main committee.

So the first the Competition Committee heard of it was when the Chairman of Committees (maybe Captain or President on other Clubs) mentioned it to them. Gotcha!

A Decisions Book and/or access to Decisions online (here for example http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-01/) would seem to be a requirement of every Comp Committee! Then it's just a case of working out where to look!

 

[BillyBeardie]

So the first the Competition Committee heard of it was when the Chairman of Committees (maybe Captain or President on other Clubs) mentioned it to them. Gotcha!

A Decisions Book and/or access to Decisions online (here for example http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-01/) would seem to be a requirement of every Comp Committee! Then it's just a case of working out where to look!

Got that FH, simply using other folks' experience to speed our way to the correct decision in the documentation.

Thanks to all responders, you've got us to where we need to be.

 

[Maninblack4612]

I had a similar experience the other week. I was playing in a medal with someone I know well, an experienced golfer of many years. He hit his tee shot into the right hand rough and couldn't find it. Three of us searched for 5 minutes, then he went back to the tee to play another. He had to wait until the folks behind us teed off, then played down with them. Walking down the left hand side of the fairway, he found his first ball, which had hit a tree & bounced across the fairway. He was shaping up to play this ball until I explained that his 5 minutes had been up before he walked back to the tee, never mind the fact he'd put another ball in play, rendering his first one out of play. I couldn't believe an intelligent (he is!) experienced golfer could not know this rule.