How would you have reacted? 2

[Slab]

Some very selective reading going on and getting rather tedious and verging on accusing me of a lack of etiquette

All I have ever contested on this thread is:

1. That its is not a 'right' of any golfer to get priority unless the comp committee deem it
2. Commencement of playoff does not have to be 'immediate' unless the comp committee deem it

I didn't introduce these words into the thread, other golfers did and they are wrong! (& it would seem are above any judgement)

I've also said:

1. Its the committees responsibility to outline priority within the comp rules
2. In the absence of a competent committee its absolutely common sense to give some form of priority for a play-off

Even though I'm not part of the OP scenario I'll add that yes I would let a play-off go ahead of me if I'm waiting on the 1st tee... because its either in the rules or its the common sense thing to do. It really doesn't matter which (you can add an etiquette notch to your putter if it makes you feel better)

Where am I showing a lack of etiquette? (over to you, time to put up or shut up!)

In the absence of committee guideline then getting priority (any priority) is common sense and coincidentally good etiquette. But when as some on here do, you start to expect a certain degree or level of etiquette from others, guess what... its no longer etiquette, its actually obedience and subservience your looking for! And that is a real shame

 

[chrisd]

Evolving etiquette? Ignores rational arguments? Using reason? Protocols?
Am I missing something here?

Yes, sadly you are, but I think at this late stage in the thread it's a case of "you have your view and we'll have ours" after all the only question asked by the OP was "how you would have reacted" and I, like most posters, would have been incensed at the starters intransigence and utter stupidity in the circumstances described and you would have stuck up for the knob.

 

[nemicu]

Yes, sadly you are, but I think at this late stage in the thread it's a case of "you have your view and we'll have ours" after all the only question asked by the OP was "how you would have reacted" and I, like most posters, would have been incensed at the starters intransigence and utter stupidity in the circumstances described and you would have stuck up for the knob.

Etiquette dictates that although we might strongly disagree with a decision (and of course there are appropriate channels to lodge a dispute), we must accept it if forms part of club rules or policy.
I don't get to make the rules - I just play by them. Maybe you should try it sometime.

 

[chrisd]

Where am I showing a lack of etiquette? (over to you, time to put up or shut up!)

In the absence of committee guideline then getting priority (any priority) is common sense and coincidentally good etiquette. But when as some on here do, you start to expect a certain degree or level of etiquette from others, guess what... its no longer etiquette, its actually obedience and subservience your looking for! And that is a real shame

I, for one, haven't accused you of anything.

I happen to disagree with your rigidity that the rules should cover ALL eventualities. Swing It Like Hogan made a point in post 148 about the matter that I totally concur that some people have to have everything covered by written rules so that they can be blindly followed and common sense is then not required

Good etiquette is classed as such simply because it is good etiquette and, yes, I would, unless there was an undeniable reason for ignoring it, absolutely expect to see it applied on the course and not ignored by some jobsworth knob of a starter who clearly didn't understand the stupidity of his decision.

 

[chrisd]

I don't get to make the rules - I just play by them. Maybe you should try it sometime.

That is an outrageous comment!

 

[nemicu]

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".

This in a nutshell is the starters decision. He even tried to allow the group a spot in front of a society which is commendable. Calling him a "knob" because of what in your opinion? Doing his job?

 

[Slab]

I, for one, haven't accused you of anything.

I happen to disagree with your rigidity that the rules should cover ALL eventualities. Swing It Like Hogan made a point in post 148 about the matter that I totally concur that some people have to have everything covered by written rules so that they can be blindly followed and common sense is then not required

Good etiquette is classed as such simply because it is good etiquette and, yes, I would, unless there was an undeniable reason for ignoring it, absolutely expect to see it applied on the course and not ignored by some jobsworth knob of a starter who clearly didn't understand the stupidity of his decision.

Jeez Chris its not my rigidity, its the RandA's!

Rule 33-6 states in part “the Committee must announce the manner, day and time for the decision of a halved match or of a tie, whether played on level terms or under handicap”. It is essential that such decisions are taken in advance of the competition and established in the conditions. The recommended methods of settling ties are detailed in Appendix I, Part C of the Rules of Golf.

I'd rather ditch a number of the rules of golf and make the game a lot more user friendly but it is what it is

What's staggering is those who wish to ignore a written rule! Which other rules will they ignore?

 

[Foxholer]

It makes sense to have a 'Club Policy' written up and available somewhere. However, part of that policy should state that it is not all-encompassing and that the likes of Starters will be authorised to make decisions according to the circumstances as they see fit.

The fact that this one was a bit of a pillock and didn't seem to apply common sense - and may have breached policy (written or not) anyway - is somewhat beside the point. As Snelly posted so succinctly, it should be obvious that there is a 'proper' way to handle the situation and it wouldn't have involved any overall delay of the guys on/waiting for the 1st tee, nor needed a concession!

How/why this thread has got to 165 posts amazes me!

 

[chrisd]

This in a nutshell is the starters decision. He even tried to allow the group a spot in front of a society which is commendable. Calling him a "knob" because of what in your opinion? Doing his job?

I don't think a starters job is to ignore the needs of the players ON the course and thereby blindly sticking to a policy of seeing that every golfer gets off exactly at an appointed time. His job, in my opinion, is to manage the tee for the benefit of ALL the golfers. I believe that is, by far and away, the opinion of the majority of the golfers who have posted on this thread and I stick with my opinion of the starter for that reason and don't accept he was "doing his job" in any sense of the phrase that I would accept.

 

[chrisd]

Jeez Chris its not my rigidity, its the RandA's!

Rule 33-6 states in part “the Committee must announce the manner, day and time for the decision of a halved match or of a tie, whether played on level terms or under handicap”. It is essential that such decisions are taken in advance of the competition and established in the conditions. The recommended methods of settling ties are detailed in Appendix I, Part C of the Rules of Golf.

I'd rather ditch a number of the rules of golf and make the game a lot more user friendly but it is what it is

What's staggering is those who wish to ignore a written rule! Which other rules will they ignore?

So, in this actual case what was the committees laid down rule?

 

[nemicu]

Jeez Chris its not my rigidity, its the RandA's!

Rule 33-6 states in part “the Committee must announce the manner, day and time for the decision of a halved match or of a tie, whether played on level terms or under handicap”. It is essential that such decisions are taken in advance of the competition and established in the conditions. The recommended methods of settling ties are detailed in Appendix I, Part C of the Rules of Golf.

I'd rather ditch a number of the rules of golf and make the game a lot more user friendly but it is what it is

What's staggering is those who wish to ignore a written rule! Which other rules will they ignore?

Lol - I did make that distinction in post #148 - but like the starters decision too, most people chose to ignore it.

 

[chrisd]

It makes sense to have a 'Club Policy' written up and available somewhere. However, part of that policy should state that it is not all-encompassing and that the likes of Starters will be authorised to make decisions according to the circumstances as they see fit.

The fact that this one was a bit of a pillock and didn't seem to apply common sense - and may have breached policy (written or not) anyway - is somewhat beside the point. As Snelly posted so succinctly, it should be obvious that there is a 'proper' way to handle the situation and it wouldn't have involved any overall delay of the guys on/waiting for the 1st tee, nor needed a concession!

How/why this thread has got to 165 posts amazes me!

Spot on Fox, I can't be so difficult to understand surely!

 

[Slab]

So, in this actual case what was the committees laid down rule?

Don't even think about telling us now that you've been making all the sweeping statements and yes questioning my conduct... and you don't even know what this committees laid down rule is!

 

[chrisd]

Don't even think about telling us now that you've been making all the sweeping statements and yes questioning my conduct... and you don't even know what this committees laid down rule is!

So, what was the rule AT THAT CLUB that the starter was enforcing?

 

[Slab]

So, what was the rule AT THAT CLUB that the starter was enforcing?

YOU TELL ME!

I'm not the one who wants to ignore it in favour of my own preference

 

[rosecott]

Yes, it would be interesting if the OP could find out, and share with the forum, his club committee's take on the situation under discussion.

 

[chrisd]

YOU TELL ME!

I'm not the one who wants to ignore it in favour of my own preference

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

 

[Fish]

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Chris - it appears that there are some golfers who will not accept anything that is not written down - which is a bit of a problem in golf as so much of our etiquette and aspects of courtesy to other players has evolved over time and is not explicitly written down - even although it may generally be accepted the world over. Maybe we take an old-fashioned view of things and must accept the new order - that is along the lines of - if it ain't written down and it doesn't suit me then I will choose whether to bother about it - and if I choose to ignore it then tough - I've paid my money and that's it.

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)

 

[Slab]

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

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)