How do your leagues manage walkovers?

[jimbob.someroo]

I'll try and keep this as simple as poss ...

I look after the Tiger's B at our club (handicap 7-9). The format of our matches is three matches of 4BBB. You get points for the matches you win, so if you win all three, you get get 3 points and your opponents get none. If you win two matches and halve one you get 2.5 and your opponents get 0.5.

We're currently top of the league with one game to play, away at the second place team's course. We are 1.5 points ahead which means that if we lose 2-1, it will be enough to win the league by 0.5.

Our annoyance is that the second place team have been given two 3-0 walkovers this year, including this weekend away at the only course we have lost at. It's tricky to win away from home (let alone 3-0) and so needless to say we're pretty aggrieved that they have gained 6 out of 6 points for these two matches.

I'm going to bring it up at the AGM at the end of the year as I don't think it's fair that a team going to an away match and winning 3-0 is valued the same as the match not being played cos one couldn't get a team together. However, I want to go with a sensible suggestion, rather than just whinging that it isn't fair, being the youngest captain there, I am more than aware that I need to make proper suggestions at these sort of meetings to be taken seriously.

To add to the frustration, at the match this weekend which they were awarded the walkover, both teams were there ready to play and it was raining. The home team didn't want to go out and get soaked as they had nothing to play for and the second placed team were by all accounts more than happy to take the 3-0 (as I would be in their position!)

Anywho's, what do your leagues do with walk overs. Are they valued at the same as win of all matches or potentially lessened by a point or half?

 

[FairwayDodger]

We don't appear to have this formalised in the rules but (I think) when we had a few walkovers last year, due to one club struggling for a team, that a 5-0 win was awarded (teams of 5). And I agree with you that it's not fair but I'm not sure what would be more equitable - a team might need a (in your case) 3-0 win and shouldn't be deprived of the opportunity to do so.... so winners and losers either way.

I'd suggest sanctions against the club giving the walkover might be appropriate to discourage it in future?

 

[jimbob.someroo]

We don't appear to have this formalised in the rules but (I think) when we had a few walkovers last year, due to one club struggling for a team, that a 5-0 win was awarded (teams of 5). And I agree with you that it's not fair but I'm not sure what would be more equitable - a team might need a (in your case) 3-0 win and shouldn't be deprived of the opportunity to do so.... so winners and losers either way.

I'd suggest sanctions against the club giving the walkover might be appropriate to discourage it in future?

Thank you for t'reply really is a frustrating one as you're right, you could need a 3-0 win on the last game of the year and not be able to get that if the team can't play.

I think our league have already started charging £5 for every walk over but the clubs just end up paying it so it's not really enough of a deterrent. I suppose there's not much you can do at this stage of the season if teams have given up!

 

[Hobbit]

If you were 2nd in the league, 2pts behind, and the team you were to play were the leaders, imagine what would happen if a walkover was 1.5 each...

By not awarding full points to the team given the walkover you'd be handing an element of control to the team conceding.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I think the home team not wanting to play because it was raining and they had nothing to play for needs to be given a severe penalty as there is no excuse for that behaviour and clearly it has had a huge impact on the outcome

 

[jimbob.someroo]

If you were 2nd in the league, 2pts behind, and the team you were to play were the leaders, imagine what would happen if a walkover was 1.5 each...

By not awarding full points to the team given the walkover you'd be handing an element of control to the team conceding.

Agreed, it wouldn't be right to have it decided like that and I imagine would cause more harm than good.

I think the home team not wanting to play because it was raining and they had nothing to play for needs to be given a severe penalty as there is no excuse for that behaviour and clearly it has had a huge impact on the outcome

The hard part is that you can't really punish that individual team as many of them may not be playing in it next year if their handicaps go up or down.

Bit of a sticky dilemma either way I guess and nout we can do but go to their place and get a result. I'm guessing most people's league operate the same way and there not a whole lot that can be done to change it!

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Agreed, it wouldn't be right to have it decided like that and I imagine would cause more harm than good.



The hard part is that you can't really punish that individual team as many of them may not be playing in it next year if their handicaps go up or down.

Bit of a sticky dilemma either way I guess and nout we can do but go to their place and get a result. I'm guessing most people's league operate the same way and there not a whole lot that can be done to change it!

The team members may change but surely the offending club will still be putting a side in the league. Surely it is still down to the club to ensure the tie is played.

 

[SGC001]

Can't see any other way than awarding full points.

Sanctions are the way for me, but meaningful ones which with enough offences in a given period could result in clubs been demoted / banned. That should ensure the clubs have the motivation to put a side out and deal with any players causing issues.

Edit: I'd even see a case for teams (from the same club) in other divisions of the same league to suffer sanctions. The clubs need to sort teams out and if the system is built with some leeway, it could be done fairly and may help ensure clubs fulfill their commitments and players of the club will know how they stand (I'd expect clubs to have sanctions for the players who let them down). If that means clubs who can't or don't regularly field a team drop out the league, so be it.

 

[jimbob.someroo]

Can't see any other way than awarding full points.

Sanctions are the way for me, but meaningful ones which with enough offences in a given period could result in clubs been demoted / banned. That should ensure the clubs have the motivation to put a side out and deal with any players causing issues.

Edit: I'd even see a case for teams (from the same club) in other divisions of the same league to suffer sanctions. The clubs need to sort teams out and if the system is built with some leeway, it could be done fairly and may help ensure clubs fulfill their commitments and players of the club will know how they stand (I'd expect clubs to have sanctions for the players who let them down). If that means clubs who can't or don't regularly field a team drop out the league, so be it.

It would be good if there was a way that the clubs could sign up to an agreement in which if matches were thrown in a similar scenario to that above they were banned from 1 club comp or something but in reality it would never work. You'd end up with one of the five saying "well I wanted to play but noone else did". It would go all the way down the chain until the buck fell with the captain and speaking as one this year, it's hard enough to get a team out and keep everyone happy etc without having that on you as well!

I would suggest that members of the offending team aren't allowed to enter the league individual competition but again, would be hard to police and the league want all the sign up entry fees they can get for such comps.

I might suggest that the club plays the league £20 for every forfeited game and at the end of the season, the captains who haven't chucked a game get a free round at Sunningdale (obviously a joke but there would genuinely be enough money in the pot, and few enough captains that hadn't thrown games to be able to afford it!)

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Don't see any other way round it except full points but chucking a match because it's raining should carry heavy sanctions against said club. It doesn't really matter if it's fair on next years team, that team were representing their club and the club should therefore suffer as a result of it's members actions. Not getting a team together is one thing but turning up and refusing to play is something different altogether.

 

[SGC001]

It would be good if there was a way that the clubs could sign up to an agreement in which if matches were thrown in a similar scenario to that above they were banned from 1 club comp or something but in reality it would never work. You'd end up with one of the five saying "well I wanted to play but noone else did". It would go all the way down the chain until the buck fell with the captain and speaking as one this year, it's hard enough to get a team out and keep everyone happy etc without having that on you as well!

I would suggest that members of the offending team aren't allowed to enter the league individual competition but again, would be hard to police and the league want all the sign up entry fees they can get for such comps.

I might suggest that the club plays the league £20 for every forfeited game and at the end of the season, the captains who haven't chucked a game get a free round at Sunningdale (obviously a joke but there would genuinely be enough money in the pot, and few enough captains that hadn't thrown games to be able to afford it!)

It works in other sports, and once clubs, teams and players know they are making a commitment it can lead to it been easier to get teams as you know you're very unlikely to be let down or get a raw deal.

As for the situation of players there not playing in rain, I see it as easy the onsite captain gets everyone to sign I'm willing to play if it gets down to only 1 player, they may well have a change of heart; if not they deserve the sanction. Note: If the course is open, you're not injured there's no family tragedy or lightning you made a commitment and should play. This is not too much to ask, and I'd have no issues with bans been issued by the clubs for the players in that situation.

I wouldn't be banning on a single offence unless it was really bad, it would be like a black mark against the club and if another one in a certain period the sanctions go up. As I see it, it would be down to the clubs to police individual players letting sides down and getting them a bad name or black mark.

If a team can't be raised regularly it shouldn't be entered, same as matchplay k/o's don't enter if you can't play.

Can you play when short? Everyone else going up the order or something?

 

[jimbob.someroo]

It works in other sports, and once clubs, teams and players know they are making a commitment it can lead to it been easier to get teams as you know you're very unlikely to be let down or get a raw deal.

As for the situation of players there not playing in rain, I see it as easy the onsite captain gets everyone to sign I'm willing to play if it gets down to only 1 player, they may well have a change of heart; if not they deserve the sanction. Note: If the course is open, you're not injured there's no family tragedy or lightning you made a commitment and should play. This is not too much to ask, and I'd have no issues with bans been issued by the clubs for the players in that situation.

I wouldn't be banning on a single offence unless it was really bad, it would be like a black mark against the club and if another one in a certain period the sanctions go up. As I see it, it would be down to the clubs to police individual players letting sides down and getting them a bad name or black mark.

If a team can't be raised regularly it shouldn't be entered, same as matchplay k/o's don't enter if you can't play.

Can you play when short? Everyone else going up the order or something?

Fair points, will definitely raise it at the AGM.

As for playing with less players. In theory, you could play (and win) with three as far as i am aware. Your betterball would simply be your own.

All of this is made slightly more infuriating by the fact they've just updated the website and they've got .5 of a point more in total than we'd though so need to win one of the games (or halve 2) to make sure of the win!

 

[SGC001]

Best of luck with it, very few people like change and whether you do need to change and how much you may need to change will depend on your leagues current situation. If it is a problem hopefully they will address it as burying their heads in the sand won't help.

I quit another sport and one of the main reasons was cancellations and no shows. The league in a county near me took punitive action against this kind of thing and they get players turning out, the league in my county didn't have the backbone to do enough (they were scared it could discourage current players) and they struggle with numbers, teams and players showing up. They're more reasons than this, but this one gets cited a lot by players who I know in both leagues.

 

[SGC001]

Sorry for double post, wouldn't let me edit to include.

If you have a league with promotion and relegation and say it's 5 teams, 1 up 1 down; then changing the structure to 2 up 2 down may mean less dead rubbers.

Another way is to have full points for the team claiming a match, but negative points for a team conceding. This may help to reduce the likelihood of concessions.

 

[jimbob.someroo]

Sorry for double post, wouldn't let me edit to include.

If you have a league with promotion and relegation and say it's 5 teams, 1 up 1 down; then changing the structure to 2 up 2 down may mean less dead rubbers.

Another way is to have full points for the team claiming a match, but negative points for a team conceding. This may help to reduce the likelihood of concessions.

Very much like that idea. Although again might be fruitless if the team have already resigned to doing nothing in the league. Our particular league just has two groups based on location but the Tigers A (3-6 hcp) does so might be worth a suggestion there