woody69
Journeyman Pro
Bad feeling caused by Team Bs petulance. Team B should be apologising to Team A and accepting disqualification gracefully.
Match Play dispute
- Thread starter Gary Ward
- Start date
Bad feeling caused by Team Bs petulance. Team B should be apologising to Team A and accepting disqualification gracefully.
Green Bay Hacker
Journeyman Pro
I agree. Also feel that there must be some history between the players concerned.
Robster59
Tour Rookie
I think there's more to this than just the one stroke. It sounds to me like there's some history there.
We had a similar situation at our club in a match play game where there was a query about relief from a stance. This happened on the 18th and what the two players agreed was that the one with the stance query would play two balls in. One as if relief was given and one as if it wasn't, and then get the handicap committee to provide a ruling. It all worked out well.
We had a similar situation at our club in a match play game where there was a query about relief from a stance. This happened on the 18th and what the two players agreed was that the one with the stance query would play two balls in. One as if relief was given and one as if it wasn't, and then get the handicap committee to provide a ruling. It all worked out well.
G
guest100718
Guest
Other than the 2nd ball.option isn't available in matchplay.
DCB
Well-known member
That's interesting, thought playing two balls under 3-3 was in stroke play only 😉
Robster59
Tour Rookie
Possibly but that's what they did. As it turns out, relief was allowed.
G
guest100718
Guest
Not that it matters now but what they did by playing a 2nd ball was actually play a wrong ball.
Gary Ward
Newbie
Thanks guys, some interesting views 
It was a foursomes match. There is some history between the pairs but nothing huge. Team B are a notorious pairing who are prone to gamesmanship which they push to the limit at times.
Consensus seems to be Team B are DQ'd, I'm still minded to ask them to go and play the game and arrange a referee, it is a semi final so we would rather it was played. Statements from both sides are obviously very different and as said above no clear evidence to be certain of whether a breach of 13-2 occurred. Absolutely no old pals act here either even though one of those involved is on the gen committee!
It was a foursomes match. There is some history between the pairs but nothing huge. Team B are a notorious pairing who are prone to gamesmanship which they push to the limit at times.
Consensus seems to be Team B are DQ'd, I'm still minded to ask them to go and play the game and arrange a referee, it is a semi final so we would rather it was played. Statements from both sides are obviously very different and as said above no clear evidence to be certain of whether a breach of 13-2 occurred. Absolutely no old pals act here either even though one of those involved is on the gen committee!
Kellfire
Blackballed
Thanks guys, some interesting views
It was a foursomes match. There is some history between the pairs but nothing huge. Team B are a notorious pairing who are prone to gamesmanship which they push to the limit at times.
Consensus seems to be Team B are DQ'd, I'm still minded to ask them to go and play the game and arrange a referee, it is a semi final so we would rather it was played. Statements from both sides are obviously very different and as said above no clear evidence to be certain of whether a breach of 13-2 occurred. Absolutely no old pals act here either even though one of those involved is on the gen committee!
Team B had their chance to play the game and forfeited it IMO.
Three
Tour Rookie
Thanks guys, some interesting views
It was a foursomes match. There is some history between the pairs but nothing huge. Team B are a notorious pairing who are prone to gamesmanship which they push to the limit at times.
Consensus seems to be Team B are DQ'd, I'm still minded to ask them to go and play the game and arrange a referee, it is a semi final so we would rather it was played. Statements from both sides are obviously very different and as said above no clear evidence to be certain of whether a breach of 13-2 occurred. Absolutely no old pals act here either even though one of those involved is on the gen committee!
I'm sorry but to ask them to replay the game is not within the rules and is bang out of order.
Team A did nothing wrong, Team B left the course and therefore left the match, losing it.
Team A are in the final, the fact that that " it's a semi final and we would rather it was played" is frankly irrelevant. Your "rather it was played" has no bearing on anything, Team B lost when they walked off and that is the only decision that should be made.
G
guest100718
Guest
Yeah there's a clear procedure they should have followed and who knows if that first hole would have mattered anyway. Team A have to be put through.
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
Thanks guys, some interesting views
It was a foursomes match. There is some history between the pairs but nothing huge. Team B are a notorious pairing who are prone to gamesmanship which they push to the limit at times.
Consensus seems to be Team B are DQ'd, I'm still minded to ask them to go and play the game and arrange a referee, it is a semi final so we would rather it was played. Statements from both sides are obviously very different and as said above no clear evidence to be certain of whether a breach of 13-2 occurred. Absolutely no old pals act here either even though one of those involved is on the gen committee!
If I was team A i would start by politely asking the committee to explain their ruling (there is no basis for it) after which I would request that it be referred to the R&A (as the rules of golf permit) where, due to the timing etc, I would expect a relevant and timely ruling to DQ Team B.
I reference the timing g because most such rulings are after a competition has been closed and the rulings are frequently that you should have won but the comps closed...this doesn't apply here.
If you really feel you have a valid basis for your proposed ruling please post it - I can't see it based on what's been posted here and, you never know, this thread may yet end up printed in Golf Monthly.
hovis
Tour Winner
What a delightful couple of chaps to play with. in this situation if i was in team A i would have said "if this is the tone of the game then take your pissing win and leave me and my partner to a friendly round"
I once played with a random bloke who joined our 3 ball. We usually play for £1. He agreed that he could stretch to £1. On the 14th hole my friend took delivery of his new driver (random i know, he is one of the green keepers so his colleague bought it out to him)
My friend understandably wanted to have a wack but the random player had a megga fit saying its against the rules blah blah blah)
He played the last 4 holes on his own
I once played with a random bloke who joined our 3 ball. We usually play for £1. He agreed that he could stretch to £1. On the 14th hole my friend took delivery of his new driver (random i know, he is one of the green keepers so his colleague bought it out to him)
My friend understandably wanted to have a wack but the random player had a megga fit saying its against the rules blah blah blah)
He played the last 4 holes on his own
rulefan
Tour Winner
What ruling? I didn't think we had one yet.
Three
Tour Rookie
Read what was quoted and it's obvious what is being referred to.
The OP has hinted that he wants the match replayed, Duncan quotes that and says that if that happens he would ask for an explanation of the ruling.
Gary Ward
Newbie
We dont, the committee hasn't met yet, I'm looking to get as much info and opinion as i can prior to it happening. The rule about making a claim in a dispute is rule 2-5 which i agree they have breached, but in both the rules and the decisions there is no clear penalty for breach of this rule. I my view you disqualify people when you have to not when you can, usually the rules are very clear and you have to but it seems unusually foggy in this instance, i am sure we can but it seems to stop short of we must, certainly under 2-5 it doesn't. It could be argued that a disqualification penalty because of unauthorised discontinuance of play doesn't apply as they were seeking a rules clarification in line with 6-8 (iii) however they were wrong to walk in as 2-5 clearly states they MUST play on without delay but it doesn't say clearly that the penalty for not playing on is disqualification.
rulefan
Tour Winner
What positive action did they take to get clarification or a ruling?
Gary Ward
Newbie
Rang the competition secretary and wrote a letter of explanation that evening
Colin L
Tour Winner
Gary, you wrote in your opening post that Team B walked in, refusing to continue. There is no way you should accept that as "seeking a rules clarification" and I suggest you put 6-8 (iii) out of your mind. You do not necessarily have to disqualify them in my opinion and are perhaps giving yourself too much worry over doing so.. By walking off and refusing to continue, they have, in my view, effectively conceded the match.
But if you do want justification for a DQ, try Rule 33-7:
If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
The relevant breach is 6-8. The penalty is disqualification.
6-8a iii provides a potential get out but -
1. References 2-5 which they knew about but chose to override by their actions
2. The committee have to assess whether the players actions were justified. Examples of this might be that the course was unplayable (the area around the hole being completely flooded) damaged (significant damage to the hole) tee markers missing etc
In all of this there has been no mention of the two teams agreeing to discontinue play and get a ruling. If this was the case then it would provide the one set of circumstances that would lead play continuing. Note, the match shouldn't be replayed, they should continue from the second tee but with a committee ruling on the outcome of hole 1 (no doubt the committee will all visit the tree in question and discuss the potential breach of 13-2 to determine their ruling...)
