Match Play dispute

[Gary Ward]

In a pairs match there is a dispute on the first hole, Team A play their third shot to the green during which Team B believe the player knocked leaves off on his line of swing during a practice swing. The hole is halved and the dispute lodged. Team A deny that leaves came off and if they did it was certainly not enough to improve the line of swing. Team B are unhappy claiming that it helped the actual shot. They cannot agree, no rules officials are available. Team B walk in after the one hole refusing to continue and write the the committee claiming the match.
Given there is no clear agreement on breach of rule 13-2 but there is clear breach of 2-5 but there is no clear penalty stated for breaching 2-5 how should the rules committee proceed with resolving the dispute?

 

[doublebogey7]

I would say Team B have not completed the stipulated round and therefore are disqualified for breach of Rule 2-1.
Are you sure there there is no other reason for there leaving the course?

 

[Region3]

What is the clear breach of 2-5? (I'm not a rules expert).
Team B make a claim, sort it out later when an official is available.

Team B forfeit by walking off.

 

[guest100718]

What is the clear breach of 2-5? (I'm not a rules expert).
Team B make a claim, sort it out later when an official is available.

Team B forfeit by walking off.

I'd go with this, if they had a claim and no rules official aroud then carry on with the match and sort it out after.

 

[DCB]

At best, the claim against Team A would have resulted in a loss of hole and Team B going to the 2nd tee 1up. Team B seem to have taken a bad case of the sturdies.

No real reason to walk off, a claim was made (13-2) and disputed on the course, so the committee need to look at it and all the info from both sides. At worst it's a hole lost for Team A. Walking off created further troubles for Team B. Play should have continued.

 

[woody69]

Team B walk in after the one hole refusing to continue and write the the committee claiming the match.

Ha, pathetic. Good luck with that one Team B

 

[Fyldewhite]

Forgetting the walking off for a minute, who is the judge in cases like this? In the absence of any independent witness or evidence I can't see how the committee could decide anything else but going with the players view that it did not improve his swing. It's on his conscience at the end of the day and the opposition would probably call him a cheat etc (which sticks) but can't see any other outcome. Making a claim would almost certainly fail so why bother? Walking off is just stupid......you can't allege rule breaking then break one yourself!

Edit: Also, this seems a very strong reaction for something so subjective on the first hole......was their any "history" between the players concerned?

 

[Gary Ward]

My gut instinct was to tell them to grow up, replay the match and referee it

 

[Maninblack4612]

Personally, if I were in team A I would have conceded the hole then made sure we beat them.

 

[woody69]

Personally, if I were in team A I would have conceded the hole then made sure we beat them.

Even if you were 100% convinced you had not broken any rule?

 

[Maninblack4612]

Even if you were 100% convinced you had not broken any rule?

Yes, as long as the opponents were made aware of this. It's only a game & I'd rather behave like a grown up.

 

[duncan mackie]

My gut instinct was to tell them to grow up, replay the match and referee it

Team B need to grow up, Team A have done nothing.

Clear case of Team A go through.

From your description I am at a complete loss as to what Team B are even claiming - if they are unhappy to claim that the players actions (knocking off a leaf/leaves) improves the area of his swing then there is no breach of 13-2 anyway.

Team B DQ and fined heavily (contribution to captains charity) for wasting everyone's time.

 

[freddielong]

Its one of those rules that was never going to be resolved afterwards as it's not a black or white thing but for me team B have given the match to team A by walking in.

At the very least you play the rest of the match the disputed hole may not even be relevant by the time the match is finished.

 

[Crazyface]

Ha, pathetic. Good luck with that one Team B

Looks as though Team A have had a lucky escape. 4 hours with Team B...no thank you.

 

[Norrin Radd]

sound like a couple of dummy spitters to me .
team b lose and no committee worth its salt isnt going to side with them ,,,,,,,,,,unless of course the old pals act comes into play and team b have mates on the committee.

 

[Three]

Team B raised a valid dispute in a timely manner. But just because they did so, it doesn't mean that the dispute can necessarily be dealt with on the spot, nor does it mean that the decision will necessarily go in their favour. There was no justification for walking off and subsequently trying to claim the match in writing.

Answer is clear, Team B walked off and effectively conceded the match. Team A win.

And also, what is a "pairs" match? It's either fourball, foursomes or greensomes, whether it was fourball or one of the others could also affect the result of the hole.

 

[duncan mackie]

Team B need to grow up, Team A have done nothing.

Clear case of Team A go through.

From your description I am at a complete loss as to what Team B are even claiming - if they are unhappy to claim that the players actions (knocking off a leaf/leaves) improves the area of his swing then there is no breach of 13-2 anyway.

Team B DQ and fined heavily (contribution to captains charity) for wasting everyone's time.

I has just occurred to me that when you wrote "Team B are unhappy claiming that it helped the actual shot" you may have meant "Team B are unhappy, claiming that it helped the actual shot" which would make a lot more sense if claiming under 13-2.
Because this entire situation fits exactly with the provisions of 2-5 there is no justification under 6-8 a.(iii) and Team B should be disqualified as laid out under that rule.

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

From what has been said above it looks as though Team B will be DQ'd when the committee meets. This may leave Team A tainted and other members may then take sides so should the committee follow through the appeal, even going as far as visiting the spot where the alleged infringement took place? They could then explain to the teams concerned and the membership as a whole, what the decision would have been if Team B had not walked in. At least Team A will then be exonerated or proved to be trying to pull a fast one.

 

[Colin L]

From what has been said above it looks as though Team B will be DQ'd when the committee meets. This may leave Team A tainted and other members may then take sides so should the committee follow through the appeal, even going as far as visiting the spot where the alleged infringement took place? They could then explain to the teams concerned and the membership as a whole, what the decision would have been if Team B had not walked in. At least Team A will then be exonerated or proved to be trying to pull a fast one.

Absolutely not. Team B has completely misunderstood and messed up the process of making a claim. It had the chance of carrying out the procedure properly by completing the match and allowing the Committee to arrive at a ruling. As it chose to walk off without completing the match, it has no claim. Note the wording of part of Rule 2-5 (my bold):

If no duly authorized representative of the Committee is available within a reasonable time, the players must continue the match without delay.

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

Absolutely not. Team B has completely misunderstood and messed up the process of making a claim. It had the chance of carrying out the procedure properly by completing the match and allowing the Committee to arrive at a ruling. As it chose to walk off without completing the match, it has no claim. Note the wording of part of Rule 2-5 (my bold):

If no duly authorized representative of the Committee is available within a reasonable time, the players must continue the match without delay.

Understand that thanks but just thought it may help to aleviate some of the bad feeling that will inevitably exist between the two sides.