How would you have reacted? 2

[HomerJSimpson]

If I'd booked a tee time at a course, paid my green fee then after waiting on the tee due to the course being busy and then got told a members foursome comp was going to extra holes and I had to delay my tee time even more I wouldn't return to that course.

I know comps have priority but going to extra holes is just tough luck and you should plan for that.

From funding out you're opponents how long did you have to play the match by?

But as it was a) foursomes and so would move quickly and b) going to a few extra holes at most it isn't as if this is really going to interrupt your day out that much. If I'd been in the same position I'd have let them go. Hit a few putts and they'd have been gone time you got back to your bag and problem over. If you can't wait an extra ten minutes I wouldn't book a tee time at busy periods.

 

[nemicu]

But the OP had already said they could only do this weekend and so I'm assuming that there wasn't a chance to arrange to come back and play to a conclusion. A starter given this information should be flexible enough to be able to adapt and let the match through for the sake of a hole or two. I would be prepared to bet if the course didn't have the starter and the match rocked back up to the first and explained to those waiting, as golfers they'd see the sense and let them on their way. The starter seems to be the root cause of all the issues. It wasn't you was it?

Lol - if it were, I would probably be holding a shotgun too.
True enough, most starters are flexible enough to read into most situations on the course. However, they are also there to ensure tee times are upheld - otherwise, whats's the point of booking a tee time if it isn't available at the time you want? Matches in comps also must start at allotted times and dates - and competitors in matches should make every effort to make themselves available for these times and dates.
I've been in matchplay comps before where dates and times have to be agreed between groups - no surprises either that some teams are totally inflexible with dates and can only play during a working week at 10am. They normally get a bye to the next round because the other side can't make it. To stop this, our club has now instituted matchplay comps on fixed dates at the weekend - if you can't play, then you shouldn't have really entered the competition.
Needless to say, quite a few weekend matches also go the distance of 18 holes and sometimes they have the ability to go to extra holes - IF the groups waiting to play on whatever hole agree to allow them through (like I said - courtesy normally prevails) but by the same token, matches also waiting to start also think they have the right to play at their allotted time slot (which they do).
It all adds up to bedlam at times, but without a starter to ensure things run smoothly (and indeed tee times are upheld), it can go a lot worse. It's no use in allowing a match to play through if it holds up another 3 groups waiting to tee off - the match could end up going several extra (18?) holes - and they normally take their time about too like they're playing for a row of houses.
In my opinion, the starter got it right on balance since the match was tied after 18 holes and it didn't need to go extra holes unless all parties could agree - that includes the opponents, the starter and the rest of the groups teeing off. Once the OP conceded anyway (a bit of a rash decision IMO) then it was a done deal. But then again, if you enter 2 competitions in one day, you leave yourself open to such situations.
But tee times are tee times - otherwise, as stated, whats the point of booking a time..or having a starter?

 

[bozza]

But as it was a) foursomes and so would move quickly and b) going to a few extra holes at most it isn't as if this is really going to interrupt your day out that much. If I'd been in the same position I'd have let them go. Hit a few putts and they'd have been gone time you got back to your bag and problem over. If you can't wait an extra ten minutes I wouldn't book a tee time at busy periods.

But there was 3 groups of paying visitors waiting and then a society, who says the foursome match would have been quick, it could have went on for another 9 holes which would have caused a backlog and delayed pre booked tee times.

From my experience you usually get a month to play matchplay comps, if your free time is that limited you can only play 1 day from a whole month then I'd suggest rethinking about entering these comps.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

it could have went on for another 9 holes which would have caused a backlog and delayed pre booked tee times.

But do you honestly see that happening in sudden death and playing foursomes which is a format where holes can be won or lost very easily

 

[fundy]

Some of the posts on this thread make me grateful to be a member at the club I am at

 

[Airlie_Andy]

But there was 3 groups of paying visitors waiting and then a society, who says the foursome match would have been quick, it could have went on for another 9 holes which would have caused a backlog and delayed pre booked tee times.

From my experience you usually get a month to play matchplay comps, if your free time is that limited you can only play 1 day from a whole month then I'd suggest rethinking about entering these comps.

They weren't "waiting" they had booked tee times. Assuming the tee times were running on time then your talking a 5-10 minute delay in starting for the next group out which would be quickly made up once the match was finished. By the 18th hole most of those groups would be walking off at exactly the same time they would have been had they not let them through to finish the matchplay. It would seem to be a very selfish attitude to not let them through on the first in those circumstances.

 

[nemicu]

But do you honestly see that happening in sudden death and playing foursomes which is a format where holes can be won or lost very easily

They can also halve very easily too - for several holes. Good job there's enough daylight in summer...

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Think the clue is in the title of the thread. How would you have reacted. I think the starter in this situation was errant. As Airlie_Andy rightly points out, the delay at the beginning will easily be made up by the time everyone has played 18. For the sake of a few minutes to let them off it wouldn't have caused the huge backlog everyone seems to think would be inevitable

 

[bozza]

They weren't "waiting" they had booked tee times. Assuming the tee times were running on time then your talking a 5-10 minute delay in starting for the next group out which would be quickly made up once the match was finished. By the 18th hole most of those groups would be walking off at exactly the same time they would have been had they not let them through to finish the matchplay. It would seem to be a very selfish attitude to not let them through on the first in those circumstances.

The op said there was 3 groups of visitors waiting on the 1st tee which indicates to me the course was busy and there was a delay as why would 3 groups be on 1 tee?

 

[nemicu]

Think the clue is in the title of the thread. How would you have reacted. I think the starter in this situation was errant. As Airlie_Andy rightly points out, the delay at the beginning will easily be made up by the time everyone has played 18. For the sake of a few minutes to let them off it wouldn't have caused the huge backlog everyone seems to think would be inevitable

Since when did every starter know what the result of a match needing extra holes would be? The onus needs to be placed on agreement by all parties - courtesy plays a big part in this.
The things that gets up my nose is "competition" matches assume they have rights over and above everyone else on the course. They don't.
A simple "do you mind if we play through?" usually suffices in most circumstances, but I've seen enough groups also state "we're in a competition - we ARE coming through" to know that it doesn't take much to p**s off any groups waiting to play (who may have also traveled some distance and gone to similar extenuating lengths to play at a certain time).
If you want to read the rule book verbatim, then only the committee can decide if extra holes should be played after the conclusion of an 18 hole tie - but normally common sense (and the aforementioned courtesy) comes into to play.
How would I have reacted? Well, once the starter had stated there wasn't a space available, that would have been the end of the matter and a re-match would need to be arranged. Not ideal perhaps, but better than conceding and arguing the toss later.

 

[bozza]

But do you honestly see that happening in sudden death and playing foursomes which is a format where holes can be won or lost very easily

But there's a chance it may not, what if they all have a nightmare on the 1st and have to look for balls?

Like i said earlier, you usually get around a month to play your round of a matchplay comp, if your time is that limited you only have 1 free day in a month to play it then you should reconsider entering such comps.

 

[Airlie_Andy]

The op said there was 3 groups of visitors waiting on the 1st tee which indicates to me the course was busy and there was a delay as why would 3 groups be on 1 tee?

Because they were early? Because they knew each other and arrived together? Because the putting green is very close to the first tee? Who knows. The likelihood is, however, that all of those groups would be walking off the 18th tee at exactly the same time whether they let the match play finish off or not. So for me it's selfish to not allow them to finish off.

 

[bozza]

Because they were early? Because they knew each other and arrived together? Because the putting green is very close to the first tee? Who knows. The likelihood is, however, that all of those groups would be walking off the 18th tee at exactly the same time whether they let the match play finish off or not. So for me it's selfish to not allow them to finish off.

Or because the course was busy and there was already a delay?

We don't actually know the reason though.

 

[GB72]

Personally I think the actions of the starter are irrelevant. Simple fact is that the playing partner committed to play the match and was totally out of order for walking off and conceding. The starter was in a difficult position trying to look after the interests of the paying guests and the members. The person who conceded was just being selfish and is the only person who has acted wrongly

 

[Foxholer]

Personally I think the actions of the starter are irrelevant. Simple fact is that the playing partner committed to play the match and was totally out of order for walking off and conceding. The starter was in a difficult position trying to look after the interests of the paying guests and the members. The person who conceded was just being selfish and is the only person who has acted wrongly

Seems the most reasonable reply to me.

If I were the Starter, then I'd filter matches that needed extra holes - especially Foursomes (played properly) as it's super-quick - faster than a single even! It would only require a small touch of diplomacy - I can normally handle that - as the explanation that groups will almost certainly still finish at the same time as expected should suffice.

As a team, it was a bit naff for 1 player not to consult with his partner!

 

[chrisd]

Some of the posts on this thread make me grateful to be a member at the club I am at

Me too!

I've never known a situation where a match going to extra holes wouldn't have been allowed to play through to a conclusion.

 

[Slab]

When I read the original post I get the idea the question is "How would you have reacted".... towards the OP's partner!

I think the starter was looking to provide a solution without just barging a group in to the order of play and is therefore a bit of a red herring

The partner's actions as described are for me are out of order & for not consulting or apparently considering the teams options, he needs a slap with a wet fish










Edit: just re-read my post and cant believe what I wrote so I should clarify that while the red herring is an option for said weapon to doll out the stated punishment ideally a fish with larger stature & girth should be selected

 

[Snelly]

Some of the replies on this thread are borderline embarrassing.

Here is the correct answer for those that haven't played golf very long or haven't quite understood the spirit of the game......

The playing partner is someone to be avoided by the sounds of things.

The starter is totally in the wrong and should have given the match immediate priority.

Priority on the tee for matches going to extra holes is part of the fabric of the game. It is common sense, it is basic courtesy and it is the right thing to do. Anyone on this thread that disagrees is simply wrong. You are entitled to your opinions of course but in this case your views are worthless and you need to develop your understanding of some of the more prosaic, unwritten intricacies of golf.

 

[Slab]

Although its worthless, I think immediate priority is impractical and unwarranted in the scenario. The starter was getting them priority but it would seem not fast enough for a player who perhaps thought another group should be pulled off the tee box!

The trouble with unwritten intricacies is that they are unwritten and most amount to no more than worthless personal opinions

 

[patricks148]

If its a members club, you should get priority, no question.

We have full time starters and even if there were 50 guys waiting on the tee we would be let though to play extra holes.

as for your partner, i wouldn't be happy about that either.