Jorge Campillo - no shout of ‘Fore’

[Bxm Foxy]

If the player / caddies shout fore left / right etc, and point, even at 300 yards plus, you have an idea if it's coming your way, and can take whatever action you see fit.

 

[robinthehood]

I'd love to see that and one of the more pushy interviewers on both sides of the Atlantic really push a top player on it. Unfortunately all that will happen is they will stop doing the TV interviews by the Sky cart etc and all we'll get are the managed press conferences

What do you think this will achieve? You'll get a stock answer and move on. I really don't get this obsession with pros shouting fore or at least the massive hate they get if they don't

 

[need_my_wedge]

It would be the same reply you get from all golfers don't shout fore,
They didn't think it was anywhere near you.

As in all cases, this is an unacceptable answer. If your ball is heading off line in any direction, and likely to be anywhere near members of the public or players on another fairway etc. You SHOUT, regardless of where you think it is going to end up. It is the courtesy you extend to everyone else on the course, and due diligence that you did attempt to warn anyone that actually gets hit. There is no acceptable excuse for not shouting.

 

[HamiltonGuy]

To add to my last post, I’m wondering whether a shout of ‘fore’ is an legal acceptance of culpability against keeping quiet effectively playing the ‘no comment’ card.

I’m sure a boy at bellshill got sued for 10k as he hit someone on an opposing fairway and didn’t shout it. I think he issue was that someone before him had shouted it who also went out. I don’t know the exact story it was relayed by someone in a medal to me. Perhaps one of the guys who are members of bellshill will know better. I believe the issue was after the first shout of fore the second who didn’t shout knew they were there so was liable

 

[woofers]

Does anyone have a “legally informed” opinion of the acceptance of the risk of being injured as a spectator at a pro event. And, if so, is there a different position in the States v Europe? There is a view that compensation for damages are sought more readily in the States.

Your ticket, or terms and conditions, will have a statement to the effect that you attend at your own risk and the tour accept no responsibility for damage or injury.

 

[Jamesbrown]

To add to my last post, I’m wondering whether a shout of ‘fore’ is an legal acceptance of culpability against keeping quiet effectively playing the ‘no comment’ card.

As not shouting fore in golf isn’t illegal, can’t see how it would stand it court.
When going to events, and with the knowledge yourself being a golfer you’d be aware of how errant golf balls are and the associated risk.

KenL says that he marshalled at the open and they wasn’t there to warn spectators.
I can’t be bothered to fish it out again but the USGA have a manual for those who are marshalling at PGA events and have instructions on how to make the spectators aware using phrases such as “fore to my left”, and “fore to my right”.

On a personal note. Players, or the organisation shouldn’t be liable.
You should be aware of the risks. They don’t have a duty of care. Your there to spectate on your own admission.



http://insurance.dwf.co.uk/news-upd...ck-by-golf-ball-fails-in-case-against-golfer/

 

[clubchamp98]

Your ticket, or terms and conditions, will have a statement to the effect that you attend at your own risk and the tour accept no responsibility for damage or injury.

Yes they do .

Challenged in court though and it may be different, most cases have been settled out of court.
Maybe someone needs to go all the way to set a precedent not just take the cash.
Difficult choice depending how much is offered.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

We have gone legislation mad. What happened to natural Justice?
If you go to spectate at a golf competition, to stand on the Course and watch someone hit a golf ball, then it is fair and logical for you to accept that the nature of the game is that a golf ball may go astray and strike you.
End of.
If you cannot accept that risk, that it is a risk taken consciously by yourself, then don't go! No one forces you to be there.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Your ticket, or terms and conditions, will have a statement to the effect that you attend at your own risk and the tour accept no responsibility for damage or injury.

I get this and for the most part its the standard get out clause but playing devils advocate for a moment and heaven forbid it happens but what would happen if someone got hit with life changing or fatal consequences. In the US in particular I would expect that to be a lawyers pension fund as this went to the courts to appoint blame and claim compensation

 

[Beezerk]

So someone gets seriously hurt at the Masters next week what do you think the fallout would be? The US lawyers would be all over it but would it change the game from a spectators point of view?
Personally I hate it when pros don’t shout fore, no matter how far away they are, it’s pretty obvious sometimes they are trying to use someone’s noggin to get a healthy bounce.

 

[clubchamp98]

We have gone legislation mad. What happened to natural Justice?
If you go to spectate at a golf competition, to stand on the Course and watch someone hit a golf ball, then it is fair and logical for you to accept that the nature of the game is that a golf ball may go astray and strike you.
End of.
If you cannot accept that risk, that it is a risk taken consciously by yourself, then don't go! No one forces you to be there.

Natural justice what’s that? There’s no such thing imo.
Some of the wealthiest people in the world are mostly criminals .
If a golfer wins a tournament but hit a fan in the second round which stopped the ball going oob where’s the justice in that.
There supposed to be professional not shouting is very unprofessional.
I take your point about not going but some people are morons I can’t belive how close to players some get, even the pros can hosel one, just ask Poulter.

 

[clubchamp98]

I get this and for the most part its the standard get out clause but playing devils advocate for a moment and heaven forbid it happens but what would happen if someone got hit with life changing or fatal consequences. In the US in particular I would expect that to be a lawyers pension fund as this went to the courts to appoint blame and claim compensation

Out of court settlement they can’t refuse usually works in this scenario.
That’s why it’s never been tested.
Plenty of ams have been to court and won damages from other ams but never heard of a pro

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Out of court settlement they can’t refuse usually works in this scenario.
That’s why it’s never been tested.
Plenty of ams have been to court and won damages from other ams but never heard of a pro

I accept there must have been lots of out of court settlements with amateur golfers, but surely there will come a time when a pro at a golf event causes life changing damage or heaven forbid a fatality and it will get tested in court. I am sure the PGA has a robust defence already in place to protect its players and there are clear warnings on the tickets sold, but I can see a case getting to court at some stage and I guess will become some sort of benchmark going forward

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Natural justice what’s that? There’s no such thing imo.
Some of the wealthiest people in the world are mostly criminals .
If a golfer wins a tournament but hit a fan in the second round which stopped the ball going oob where’s the justice in that.
There supposed to be professional not shouting is very unprofessional.
I take your point about not going but some people are morons I can’t belive how close to players some get, even the pros can hosel one, just ask Poulter.

Natural justice is what is fair and logical and honourable. I am not saying that natural justice is the attainment of right over wrong all the time, which is what you seem to be understanding the term "natural justice " to mean.
I agree that fair and honourable behaviour doesn't happen all the time, or even enough of the time, and you are right about some wealthy people etc.
I also agree fully that golfers should shout fore whenever a shot goes awry,
And also, at pro tournaments where there is marshalling, the marshals should be under instruction to watch the shots and shout fore themselves if a stray ball is unleashed
.And like you , I do not see why some people stand where they do , as if the next drive of the pro is bound to be straight and true.
Having said all that, if those shouts of fore are properly made, then anyone who is unfortunately struck , should accept the fact that it has happened with no fault laying against the golfer. As I say, it's a risk they take.
Litigation should not ensue. Though I know it will.

 

[r0wly86]

It is arguable that when attending a professional event your Volenti non fit injura, which is the Law of Tort principle that you cannot make a claim for negligence if you have voluntarily accepted the risk. For example you cannot play a rugby match then sue someone from the opposition for hurting you with a legal tackle.

It has not been tested in a court of law to my knowledge whether spectators are volenti to the risks, yes errant golf balls are a risk, but the risk is low. In a pro event, how many shots are hit, how many go into the crowd. It will be a very low percentage and so will probably not be in the minds of people attending the events that it is a risk they are volenti to, which is different to the rugby match where you know that there will be physical contact.

The chances are in a pro tournament that the player will not be liable, but the tournament organisers who have set up the course and viewing galleries, if they have a cordoned off area that is likely to be peppered with golf balls.

For a case of negligence there needs to be a duty of care owed; that duty of care breached; and the breach resulting in damage or loss.

It would be hard to argue that a professional golfer owes a duty of care to a spectator, in law to try and establish a duty of care you need to show that the harm was reasonably foreseeable, there was a relationship of proximity, and it is fair just and reasonable to place a duty of care on that person.

I would feel that for a pro golfer it would fail on the fair just and reasonable part of that, if every slightly errant golf shot could result in a lawsuit and successful claim, pros would refuse to play on courses where spectators are anywhere near where a ball may go, plus professional golf has the social benefit of encouraging people to take part in sport.

It is fundamentally different from an amateur.

Shouting fore would not be a admission of culpability, it is merely a warning. In a negligence case it would be argued that shouting fore is doing everything in your power to avoid an injury

 

[Orikoru]

Before reading some of the posts in this topic, I never considered that a player might deliberately not shout fore so that it hits someone and stays in bounds. Do you really think that could be true?? What kind of a man would be happy about that? Surely not. Remember Koepka hitting someone (at the Ryder was it?) and showing genuine remorse afterwards, it affected him for a few holes. I can't believe anyone would be cold enough to actually want their wayward shot to hit someone.

I can see two sides to the argument though. If you're watching a golf event, you should be able to tell from where you're standing and watching the shot that the ball is coming your way, to the point that them shouting fore doesn't make much difference. But as ScienceBoy said in post #2, they are setting an example to amateur golfers as well. And there's no harm in shouting anyway, so not much excuse for not doing it. If you shout fore and it ends up not going anywhere near anyone anyway, no harm done. It's what we do on our courses - if you're heading towards another hole you shout straight away.

 

[NearHull]

At the Ryder Cup this year a spectator was hit in the eye and blinded by a golf ball after Brooks Koepka’s tee shot on the sixth hole flew into the crowd of spectators. Corine Remande, who had travelled from Egypt to watch the tournament, suffered a fractured eye socket and an explosion of the eyeball, rendering her blind in that eye. She is considering taking legal action against the organisers of the tournament because, she alleges, no warnings were shouted at the crowd as the ball flew towards them.

Anyone know what subsequently happened? I cannot find anything so far.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Before reading some of the posts in this topic, I never considered that a player might deliberately not shout fore so that it hits someone and stays in bounds. Do you really think that could be true?? What kind of a man would be happy about that? Surely not. Remember Koepka hitting someone (at the Ryder was it?) and showing genuine remorse afterwards, it affected him for a few holes. I can't believe anyone would be cold enough to actually want their wayward shot to hit someone.

I can see two sides to the argument though. If you're watching a golf event, you should be able to tell from where you're standing and watching the shot that the ball is coming your way, to the point that them shouting fore doesn't make much difference. But as ScienceBoy said in post #2, they are setting an example to amateur golfers as well. And there's no harm in shouting anyway, so not much excuse for not doing it. If you shout fore and it ends up not going anywhere near anyone anyway, no harm done. It's what we do on our courses - if you're heading towards another hole you shout straight away.

Concerning your first paragraph, I agree. I never thought such a calculation would come into it, but now that the possibility has been muted I must now concede that, in this day and age of succeeding at all costs by some , it could be the case. I sincerely hope that is not the reality, though.
I like to think that the lack of shouts are because it is thought that 300 yds away no one is going to hear, hence the outstretched arm to show where the wayward shot is going.
And if that is done, in conjunction with Marshals who are near the "receiving end" shouting fore as a matter of duty, as part of their brief, then I think it is reasonable duty of care by the organisers.

 

[clubchamp98]

It is arguable that when attending a professional event your Volenti non fit injura, which is the Law of Tort principle that you cannot make a claim for negligence if you have voluntarily accepted the risk. For example you cannot play a rugby match then sue someone from the opposition for hurting you with a legal tackle.

It has not been tested in a court of law to my knowledge whether spectators are volenti to the risks, yes errant golf balls are a risk, but the risk is low. In a pro event, how many shots are hit, how many go into the crowd. It will be a very low percentage and so will probably not be in the minds of people attending the events that it is a risk they are volenti to, which is different to the rugby match where you know that there will be physical contact.

The chances are in a pro tournament that the player will not be liable, but the tournament organisers who have set up the course and viewing galleries, if they have a cordoned off area that is likely to be peppered with golf balls.

For a case of negligence there needs to be a duty of care owed; that duty of care breached; and the breach resulting in damage or loss.

It would be hard to argue that a professional golfer owes a duty of care to a spectator, in law to try and establish a duty of care you need to show that the harm was reasonably foreseeable, there was a relationship of proximity, and it is fair just and reasonable to place a duty of care on that person.

I would feel that for a pro golfer it would fail on the fair just and reasonable part of that, if every slightly errant golf shot could result in a lawsuit and successful claim, pros would refuse to play on courses where spectators are anywhere near where a ball may go, plus professional golf has the social benefit of encouraging people to take part in sport.

It is fundamentally different from an amateur.

Shouting fore would not be a admission of culpability, it is merely a warning. In a negligence case it would be argued that shouting fore is doing everything in your power to avoid an injury

Yes that sounds right but if he dosnt shout fore isn’t he partly negligent.

 

[clubchamp98]

Concerning your first paragraph, I agree. I never thought such a calculation would come into it, but now that the possibility has been muted I must now concede that, in this day and age of succeeding at all costs by some , it could be the case. I sincerely hope that is not the reality, though.
I like to think that the lack of shouts are because it is thought that 300 yds away no one is going to hear, hence the outstretched arm to show where the wayward shot is going.
And if that is done, in conjunction with Marshals who are near the "receiving end" shouting fore as a matter of duty, as part of their brief, then I think it is reasonable duty of care by the organisers.

Dog leg where you can’t see the tee it’s no good putting your arm up the crowd won’t see you.
Golfers are taught from day one if you might endanger someone shout fore.
That should go for everyone.

How many times have you lost the flight of your own ball never mind a pros.
I struggle to see the ball unless I am right behind the shot.
That’s why I don’t go to pro tournaments any more.