How would you have reacted? 2

[nemicu]

Difficult to IGNORE what we don't know but I didn't start making up the rules

Exactly! And here we are full circle. If you have no knowledge of the club rules at that time, what makes the decision (in your opinion) made by the starter wrong? If you're willing to concede that starters are on the course for a reason - and that the majority of times they make the correct calls, then you have no basis for the argument he or she is wrong. You have chosen to ignore what you don't know - and this is the problem.

 

[Fish]

Would it not fall into the category of, if its an official club comp then they have priority of the course once in play, and as such as the 'match', not the 'round' was not completed, they have priority on the 1st tee to carry on and play the 19th?

I've been a member of 2 clubs and this is certainly the case although I can't find it written anywhere, is it one of those unwritten etiquette rules which we follow?

But then again, do I really want to get involved in this.......:mmm:

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Exactly! And here we are full circle. If you have no knowledge of the club rules at that time, what makes the decision (in your opinion) made by the starter wrong? If you're willing to concede that starters are on the course for a reason - and that the majority of times they make the correct calls, then you have no basis for the argument he or she is wrong. You have chosen to ignore what you don't know - and this is the problem.

I don't know what is written down & I don't really care. All I know is that in my opinion, something in which I hold much stock, the starter was in the wrong - he should have let the foresomes matchplay playoff filter onto the first tee amongst those waiting, and the majority of golfers would have been totally accepting of it if they had the situation explained to them.

 

[Birchy]

Would it not fall into the category of, if its an official club comp then they have priority of the course once in play, and as such as the 'match', not the 'round' was not completed, they have priority on the 1st tee to carry on and play the 19th?

I've been a member of 2 clubs and this is certainly the case although I can't find it written anywhere, is it one of those unwritten etiquette rules which we follow?

But then again, do I really want to get involved in this.......:mmm:

This is pretty much identical to how I see it/have come across in the past. :thup:

If its not a club comp then get in the queue

 

[Slab]

Would it not fall into the category of, if its an official club comp then they have priority of the course once in play, and as such as the 'match', not the 'round' was not completed, they have priority on the 1st tee to carry on and play the 19th?

I've been a member of 2 clubs and this is certainly the case although I can't find it written anywhere, is it one of those unwritten etiquette rules which we follow?

But then again, do I really want to get involved in this.......:mmm:

I certainly hope this is what they have in place, or something very similar


Edit: and what do you mean you don't want to get involved? I thought you volunteered yourself as the aforementioned fish

 

[chrisd]

But easy enough to slag off the starter when you don't know!


(I apologies for responding to your introduction of caps lock, it was childish)

It's easy to support him when you don't know?

I have never come across a club that would have a rule that prohibits a match from playing, immediately, the extra holes needed to conclude the tie, it wouldn't be illogical. Nor would a committee bring into a rule instructions for a starter in the event of a queue at the first extra hole, it would be too difficult to word and totally unnecessary in most clubs.

 

[Slab]

I don't know what is written down & I don't really care. All I know is that in my opinion, something in which I hold much stock, the starter was in the wrong - he should have let the foresomes matchplay playoff filter onto the first tee amongst those waiting, and the majority of golfers would have been totally accepting of it if they had the situation explained to them.

He did offer this to the match players, it just wasn't fast enough for the PP

 

[chrisd]

He did offer this to the match players, it just wasn't fast enough for the PP

Again, don't let the facts get in the way of the argument - he said they could go after 3 groups of green fees had teed off.

 

[Slab]

It's easy to support him when you don't know?

I have never come across a club that would have a rule that prohibits a match from playing, immediately, the extra holes needed to conclude the tie, it wouldn't be illogical. Nor would a committee bring into a rule instructions for a starter in the event of a queue at the first extra hole, it would be too difficult to word and totally unnecessary in most clubs.

Maybe just me taking a 'presumed innocent' stance then based on a reliance for committees to have rules & conditions to govern their comps


On the 2nd paragraph, LiverpoolPhil's club has this very thing, perhaps he can get the exact wording for us and it appears to contain instructions for a starter or anyone else to use

 

[Slab]

Again, don't let the facts get in the way of the argument - he said they could go after 3 groups of green fees had teed off.

Yes I know that's why I said it wasn't fast enough for the PP, keep up

i.e the priority offered (after green fees but before society) wasn't fast enough for the PP who conceded


Edit: for what its worth I don't agree that in a typical situation a three group wait is quick enough but we don't know enough on this example

 

[chrisd]

Maybe just me taking a 'presumed innocent' stance then based on a reliance for committees to have rules & conditions to govern their comps

That's what we've been saying all along, if however, the club had a rule telling the starter to act this way we would have simply shifted our comments to the committee for making it so.

On the 2nd paragraph, LiverpoolPhil's club has this very thing, perhaps he can get the exact wording for us and it appears to contain instructions for a starter or anyone else to use

It would be interesting I agree, but as no one knows what rule, if any, covered the OP's situation I stand by everything I've written ie etiquette and common sense should prevail and I still don't believe that the starter showed either

 

[chrisd]

Yes I know that's why I said it wasn't fast enough for the PP, keep up

i.e the priority offered (after green fees but before society) wasn't fast enough for the PP who conceded


Edit: for what its worth I don't agree that in a typical situation a three group wait is quick enough but we don't know enough on this example

To be fair to the PP, at the time, and after playing 18 holes, I don't think the majority of golfers would want to queue behind 3 x 4 balls for what could quite easily be half an hour on the tee to continue a match - I'm certain I wouldn't, although I am not certain I'd concede.

 

[Slab]

That's what we've been saying all along, if however, the club had a rule telling the starter to act this way we would have simply shifted our comments to the committee for making it so.



It would be interesting I agree, but as no one knows what rule, if any, covered the OP's situation I stand by everything I've written ie etiquette and common sense should prevail and I still don't believe that the starter showed either

Well I'm going to stick with the assumption that a rule does exist but we don't know what it says

After all if no rule for a tie match how did they even know to go to the 1st tee to start play-off holes (its recommend but not a 'must' to use the 1st)

 

[chrisd]

Well I'm going to stick with the assumption that a rule does exist but we don't know what it says

After all if no rule for a tie match how did they even know to go to the 1st tee to start play-off holes (its recommend but not a 'must' to use the 1st)

Fine Slab, I shall agree that a rule is likely to exist but wouldn't involve advice to the starter in any way shape or form as to his part in the process, it wouldn't require the players to restart the match at another time unless affected by weather or light and that the starter was the cause of all the problems, but I'm glad we got there.

I am somewhat saddened that Nemicu hasn't sought to apologise for his rude comments in earlier posts and, in particular, his wild slagging off of competition golfers.

 

[nemicu]

Fine Slab, I shall agree that a rule is likely to exist but wouldn't involve advice to the starter in any way shape or form as to his part in the process, it wouldn't require the players to restart the match at another time unless affected by weather or light and that the starter was the cause of all the problems, but I'm glad we got there.

I am somewhat saddened that Nemicu hasn't sought to apologise for his rude comments in earlier posts and, in particular, his wild slagging off of competition golfers.

sorry - but you may need to stay saddened until everybody else apologizes for calling the starter a "prick" "knob" or other profanity that I chose to avoid. Apologies for using the term "up their own arse" though.

 

[Slab]

Fine Slab, I shall agree that a rule is likely to exist but wouldn't involve advice to the starter in any way shape or form as to his part in the process, it wouldn't require the players to restart the match at another time unless affected by weather or light and that the starter was the cause of all the problems, but I'm glad we got there.

Not really agreement with all you say in this post but not sure we'll ever reach that, the readers can make their own minds up

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Now now SILH, why do I feel that this is partly linked towards HNSP! Don't start that again (accepted the world over, pah haha)

ah - wasn't very well disguised was it and easy to spot

 

[Whereditgo]

Again, don't let the facts get in the way of the argument - he said they could go after 3 groups of green fees had teed off.

Actually it would have been four if you include the group already standing on the tee box, but as previously mentioned no one expected that group to let us through.

I have just spoken to the Competitions Secretary, the rules of competition state that "if after 18 holes the match is tied, the match should proceed playing from the 1st tee under sudden death until there is a winner".

Rather unhelpfully (for this discussion) nothing is stated regarding having priority.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I'm sure it must have been mentioned elsewhere under this topic - but doesn't the two ball foursomes have precedence over a four ball in any case, And even if the fourballs with booked tee times tee'd off ahead of the foursomes match - would the fourballs not have to let the foursomes through straight away as they would be (by definition) holding them up - as the foursomes would be standing waiting on the tee - and wouldn't it be accepted courtesy for the fourballs to do exactly that.

We are all frustrated from time to time when a 2 ball that had started on the 9th appears off the 18th green when there are groups waiting to start). And so the 2 ball slots in after the first group have tee'd off (some clubs would suggest the 2 ball has precedence over ALL groups on the 1st). And sure enough the 2 ball will then get invited through by all groups currently on the course - if that is what the 2 ball wishes (I note that will often decline the offer to play through if I am in that 2 ball as I know it irks some fourballs to have to do this)

 

[North Mimms]

Gahd!

Golfers can be very boring....