How would you have reacted? 2

[bozza]

Ok, it seems there a re a number of points that need clearing up:

1 - I don't believe it was suggested that anyone should be asked to step back off the tee to let us conclude our match.

2 - All other groups waiting were perfectly accepting of us being allowed to go through.

3 - We have circa 5 weeks to play the match, the juniors can play evenings or weekends, my PP is on nights then annual leave for 3 weeks, he arrives back as I leave for my hols. So as per the OP, last weekend was the only available date.

4 - Don't know where the idea that time was tight between matches comes from? I had a coffee in the clubhouse, drove to Lincoln, went to MacDonalds, a quick look round Direct Golf, then on to the course arriving an hour before anyone else!

5 - While I did, and still do, think the starter was unreasonable (no, I'm not sure what, if anything, is stated in the club handbook to cover this situation) given that all the greenfee groups appeared not to have a problem, my annoyance was with my PP, I would have waited until after all the greenfee groups had gone out if necessary to complete the match.

Did you let the starter know that the other groups on the tee were fine with you teeing off before them to complete your match?

 

[Whereditgo]

Did you let the starter know that the other groups on the tee were fine with you teeing off before them to complete your match?

Yes, he simply said he couldn't do that as they had times booked.

So in summary, the starter go it right then? Especially when you consider their aim is to "start" groups and not "finish" them. Quit making the starter the bad guy. If you weren't really that rushed as you indicated, your beef needs to be with your PP and nobody else really.

Bit of selective reading I think? Someone, maybe Slab, implied in an earlier post that we expected the group on the tee to be asked to stand aside, so I clarified that wasn't the case.

 

[nemicu]

Yes, he simply said he couldn't do that as they had times booked.



Bit of selective reading I think? Someone, maybe Slab, implied in an earlier post that we expected the group on the tee to be asked to stand aside, so I clarified that wasn't the case.

So if wasn't the case, are you saying the starter "made" your PP throw the towel in?

 

[Foxholer]

Yes, he simply said he couldn't do that as they had times booked.

Then he was about as stupid a Starter as you are likely to find!

 

[Whereditgo]

So if wasn't the case, are you saying the starter "made" your PP throw the towel in?

I don't believe that's been either stated or implied.

 

[nemicu]

I don't believe that's been either stated or implied.

So why did your PP concede - if you had no issue with the groups on the tee or with the starter doing his job?

 

[chrisd]

So if wasn't the case, are you saying the starter "made" your PP throw the towel in?

It's quite clear this this PP wasn't going to hang about because of the intransigence of the starter, that was made clear in the OP

 

[nemicu]

I don't believe that's been either stated or implied.

It's quite clear this this PP wasn't going to hang about because of the intransigence of the starter, that was made clear in the OP

The OP just stated that was not the case, or certainly not implied. Which does beg the question why have we 9 pages of a thread?

 

[chrisd]

The OP just stated that was not the case, or certainly not implied. Which does beg the question why have we 9 pages of a thread?

Because people want to discuss the issue?

 

[nemicu]

I don't believe that's been either stated or implied.

Because people want to discuss the issue?

The issue with the starter or the issue with the PP? The starter did their job as they saw fit - the PP clearly had another agenda. I think the OP maybe feels (understandably) hard done by by the situation, but I feel his attention is directed to the wrong culprit.
The OP could have stayed and played, but the PP didn't - he feels the starter is largely but not entirely to blame but can't seem to form this direct statement and would rather the forum would reassure him that he didn't do anything wrong and agree his opinion is correct - judging by the "how would you react"? title. End of discussion really. Thank christ.

 

[Whereditgo]

So why did your PP concede - if you had no issue with the groups on the tee or with the starter doing his job?

Perhaps because of this.

Played in the 2nd round of the club Foursomes yesterday, the 2nd round matches have to be played by mid August and what with holidays, work commitments (my PP works shifts) this weekend was the only dates we could sort out. We were drawn against a couple of the fast improving juniors, 2 nice lads and they will both be decent golfers in a couple of years.

Our club has a Junior Open running today and of course the lads were playing in that, so we had to play Saturday. I had a B Team match in the afternoon, away with a 45 minute drive and 13:00 tee time, so we booked a 7:40 tee for the Foursomes match. It meant a long day for me, up at 6:00 and not home until after 20:00, I live another 30 mins away from my club.

We had a good match with the lads and they managed to win the last 2 holes with a par, getting a stroke on 17 and a par on the last after my PP put us in a greenside bunker and I only got it out to about 10 foot, so we made bogey to end up all square.

We walked over to the 1st tee and there was quite a queue, one group on the tee, 3 greenfee groups waiting and then a society gathering. I asked the starter if we could 'push in', he said no, because the greenfee groups had
booked their tee times, but he would see if he could squeeze us in before the society. My PP, said "I'm not hanging around, we'll concede, come on lads I'll give you a lift home".

I was pretty hacked off to say the least! Not the first time there have been 'attitude' issues with the guy, we play together regularly and he has a 'flakey' temperament to say the least.

It has now got me considering switching clubs, I have a 25 mile drive including a toll bridge crossing just to get to my current club and yet my office overlooks probably the most picturesque course in the area, with a nice outdoor practice area etc.

On the positive side, I was still pretty miffed on the first tee in the afternoon and drove the green and sunk the 8 footer for eagle! Had a good match with a couple of guys that were really good company and won 3 & 2.

 

[chrisd]

We had a good match with the lads and they managed to win the last 2 holes with a par, getting a stroke on 17 and a par on the last after my PP put us in a greenside bunker and I only got it out to about 10 foot, so we made bogey to end up all square.

I asked the starter if we could 'push in', he said no, because the greenfee groups had
booked their tee times, but he would see if he could squeeze us in before the society. My PP, said "I'm not hanging around, we'll concede, come on lads I'll give you a lift home".

It suggest to me that he wasn't going to hang around because the starter was unhelpful I arranging suitable passage through

The OP just stated that was not the case, or certainly not implied.

It certainly seems implied to me that the starter was a clown!

 

[nemicu]

it would be a lot easier if the OP simply stated - rather than implying - whom he felt was to blame. 10 pages in, judging by his last response, I think he is swaying towards the PP.

 

[Whereditgo]

it would be a lot easier if the OP simply stated - rather than implying - whom he felt was to blame. 10 pages in, judging by his last response, I think he is swaying towards the PP.

You asked if I was saying that the starter "made" my PP concede - I've neither stated nor implied that.

For the hard of thinking......

I think the starter was wrong given that none of the groups waiting objected to us going straight through, I also think my PP was a complete prat for not even discussing any options, showed a lack of respect to to his PP and not a very good example to the two juniors!

 

[Maninblack4612]

In my view both the starter & the PP are both pricks. If the match had been allowed to go through it would have gone on for a few holes at the most. Once the players walked in the gap would have probably closed up with the match behind catching up the group in front and everyone would have finished at exactly the same time as they would have done if they'd started on time. All it needed was a bit of common sense on the part of the starter.

 

[chrisd]

it would be a lot easier if the OP simply stated - rather than implying - whom he felt was to blame. 10 pages in, judging by his last response, I think he is swaying towards the PP.

The post asked what how we, the forum members, would have reacted had we been in his place. Most of us said that we would blame the starter and react accordingly - it wasn't important what and who he blamed although I would also, like most, have been unhappy with my PP at his reaction.

You seem to me that you just majored on the OP's views

 

[nemicu]

I don't believe that's been either stated or implied.

I don't think the problem lies with the starter and stated as much. The PP needs a slice of humble pie washed down with a can of man up. The OP needs to work on his communication skills on saying what he really means. That means stating rather than implying.
Should we imply he gets a new PP or is it a bit obvious?

 

[chrisd]

I don't think the problem lies with the starter and stated as much. The PP needs a slice of humble pie washed down with a can of man up. The OP needs to work on his communication skills on saying what he really means. That means stating rather than implying.
Should we imply he gets a new PP or is it a bit obvious?

Or maybe you should have tried answering the question he asked

 

[nemicu]

Or maybe you should have tried answering the question he asked

I did - on the first page.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I did - on the first page.

And followed with masses of crap about how the starter was holier than the pope and absolutely faultless in the whole process