Knockout Terms of the Competition

[Length]

Worth noting that ‘guidance’ is not ‘rules’. It may persuade the committee to change their approach but it does not compel them to do so. Better tactics to be persuasive rather than demanding when referring them to this.

Thanks, it says it is a rule though not guidance?

 

[Steven Rules]

Thanks, it says it is a rule though not guidance?

Sometimes the Rules dictate mandatory practice and impose penalties for failing to do so. For example 6.3b:

The player must hole out with the same ball played from the teeing area, except when....

Sometimes (even within the same Rule) the Rules provide non-mandatory guidance on good practice. For example also within 6.3b:

The player should put an identifying mark on the ball to be played...

In the scenario in this thread, we should interpet Rules 20.2d(2) and 20.2f as giving license or permission to the Committee to resolve stuff ups like this, no matter how long after the event they occur. But there is no provision in the Rules to disqualfy a Committee or impose a two stroke penalty on the Committee. Any grievance wth the way a Committee is performing would have to be taken to a 'higher authority'.

 

[Length]

Sometimes the Rules dictate mandatory practice and impose penalties for failing to do so. For example 6.3b:

The player must hole out with the same ball played from the teeing area, except when....

Sometimes (even within the same Rule) the Rules provide non-mandatory guidance on good practice. For example also within 6.3b:

The player should put an identifying mark on the ball to be played...

In the scenario in this thread, we should interpet Rules 20.2d(2) and 20.2f as giving license or permission to the Committee to resolve stuff ups like this, no matter how long after the event they occur. But there is no provision in the Rules to disqualfy a Committee or impose a two stroke penalty on the Committee. Any grievance wth the way a Committee is performing would have to be taken to a 'higher authority'.

Yes, think I see what you mean, even though 20.2f appears very clearly worded to indicate mandatory (there is no hint of “should”). But the only penalty can be for a Captain, Chairman of the club or if not the County to instruct the Handicap Committee to act.

And with 20.2d(2) the administrative mistake was to include entrants in the draw that did not meet the Terms?

 

[Steven Rules]

And with 20.2d(2) the administrative mistake was to include entrants in the draw that did not meet the Terms?

Yes.

There are some examples of administrative errors dotted throughout the Rules and Clarifications.

Committee Procedures 7D provides a bit of guidance on administrative errors and provides a non-exhaustive list of examples, including:

Having allowed ineligible players to enter.

 

[woofers]

Yes, I realise we have to check on the WHS portal all those that IG has flagged, but I don't understand what that has got to do with what happened at my club.

Sorry, I misunderstood / didn’t read your update post correctly.
So the system accepted entries without flagging with the amber warning triangle from players with fewer than the required “acceptable scores” specified in the sign up settings?
As you have suggested other users of IG do a manual check, did you find any specific criteria that allowed these players to enter? Did the club raise the issue with IG? I have found them to be very helpful in sorting out these types of problems.
Did your club have any an acceptable score distinction between competition and general play scores?

 

[rulie]

Sorry, I misunderstood / didn’t read your update post correctly.
So the system accepted entries without flagging with the amber warning triangle from players with fewer than the required “acceptable scores” specified in the sign up settings?
As you have suggested other users of IG do a manual check, did you find any specific criteria that allowed these players to enter? Did the club raise the issue with IG? I have found them to be very helpful in sorting out these types of problems.
Did your club have any an acceptable score distinction between competition and general play scores?

Perhaps too much reliance on software? Often used theory/acronym "GIGO" (garbage in, gospel out).

 

[doublebogey7]

Sorry, I misunderstood / didn’t read your update post correctly.
So the system accepted entries without flagging with the amber warning triangle from players with fewer than the required “acceptable scores” specified in the sign up settings?
As you have suggested other users of IG do a manual check, did you find any specific criteria that allowed these players to enter? Did the club raise the issue with IG? I have found them to be very helpful in sorting out these types of problems.
Did your club have any an acceptable score distinction between competition and general play scores?

Thanks for your reply.
I couldn't identify anything from the players tecords to indicate anything that would prevent IG flagging them up. This has occurred with more rhan one competition, so a colleague has reported it to IG and as far as I know they have not yet provided an explanation.
We require 6 acceptable scores on a players record, from either competition or GP rounds.