NR'd from a Medal - Thoughts?

[AJNairn]

Your PP has a few options now


1. Go to county , tell the committee that you will be taking the case to county because it’s a Handicap Q comps which affects Handicaps , also tell them that it will include witness statements of what happened

2. leave the club


The HC/Comp committee appear to be stuck in the dark ages and no clue about any proper process


If it was me then I would be emailing the county and England Golf and include the committee

Exactly this! The 'committee' don't seem to know how these procedures should be handled! The alternative 'involve a solicitor' is a tempting approach, but shouldn't be needed, as, imo, County will sort them out - at least procedurally! The fact that the guy who observed the incident is prepared to apologise if assured he was wrong adds weight to the 'don't accept the committee's decision' argument!

 

[Colin L]

Much of this thread has gone beyond the ridiculous. Nothing significant has changed from the opening post. Player A says he saw Player B move his ball; Player B says he didn't; the Committee determined that Player B had indeed moved his ball but got and is still getting the process wrong.

To infer that this amounts to a conspiracy by the Committee on behalf of one of its own is as unsupportable as the associated assumption that B is a wronged innocent when he could in fact have deliberately moved his ball to gain an advantage and be lying to protect himself.

Basically, we don't know and shouldn't make assumptions.

 

[Bdill93]

I like this option. Go nuclear straight away and work backwards from there.
No way would I just roll over and be shafted if I was innocent.

I say make an Instagram page called “theyaccusedmeofcheatingnews” and slate the course publicly for all to see. Even better if you can get the committee members going mad at you on film

 

[Steven Rules]

I say make an Instagram page called “theyaccusedmeofcheatingnews” and slate the course publicly for all to see. Even better if you can get the committee members going mad at you on film

See #62

 

[rulefan]

Much of this thread has gone beyond the ridiculous. Nothing significant has changed from the opening post. Player A says he saw Player B move his ball; Player B says he didn't; the Committee determined that Player B had indeed moved his ball but got and is still getting the process wrong.

To infer that this amounts to a conspiracy by the Committee on behalf of one of its own is as unsupportable as the associated assumption that B is a wronged innocent when he could in fact have deliberately moved his ball to gain an advantage and be lying to protect himself.

Basically, we don't know and shouldn't make assumptions.

The OP said "The spot in question was when I was actually 20 yards away from him he was in a mound and I could clearly see he was clearing twigs around the playing area but at no point did I witness a ball being picked up and moved".
Isn't that relevant?

 

[IJames]

Much of this thread has gone beyond the ridiculous. Nothing significant has changed from the opening post. Player A says he saw Player B move his ball; Player B says he didn't; the Committee determined that Player B had indeed moved his ball but got and is still getting the process wrong.

To infer that this amounts to a conspiracy by the Committee on behalf of one of its own is as unsupportable as the associated assumption that B is a wronged innocent when he could in fact have deliberately moved his ball to gain an advantage and be lying to protect himself.

Basically, we don't know and shouldn't make assumptions.

Surely the procedure the Committee used to determine what action to take should be challenged! Likewise, the action it took!

 

[Steven Rules]

Surely the procedure the Committee used to determine what action to take should be challenged! Likewise, the action it took!

I think that is exactly what Colin said in the final bit of his first para: ".... but got and is still getting the process wrong."

But if I interpret or paraphrase what else Colin was saying: Stop second guessing the actual evidence or the motives of those involved.

 

[AussieKB]

Problem I see going forward is that if the Committee is overturned then they will not be happy with the player, if the decision is upheld then the player will not be happy with the Committee, hence it is a no win situation.

Should not have been allowed to get to this stage and that is all down to the Committee, whether they like it or not.

Feel for the player in this situation.

 

[Swango1980]

If you watched the player and are adamant that he didn't move the ball I think you should ask for a "proper" hearing where the player, you, and any others in your group are allowed to attend and give your, and their, story of the events. It isn't good enough to rubbish a players integrity without a full and proper hearing. Generally where it's one sides story against another I believe that the Club normally falls to the side of the player if there is reasonable doubt which seems very much the case here

His side of the story should definitely be taken into account, although I suppose he can only be adamant that HE didn't see the chap move the ball. That wouldn't be the same as the chap not moving the ball, unless he said he watched the chap 100% of the time, and can convince others of that.

However, it really does seem the Committee have made a mess of this. If they were prepared to DQ a player after effectively being accused of cheating, why on earth did they not invite the player to give their defence, or any others who may have been present? If they are that convinced a player would resort to cheating, why would they not be convinced that another might resort to telling lies about another cheating (I'm not saying either is true, just that they seem to be easily swayed without investigation). Then, when challenged, accept that some actions were not perfect, yet still allow no appeal by the player, is incredible. They really are digging a hole for themselves. Also brings into question, if they are that convinced a player did actually cheat, how can they allow that player to continue playing future competitions. Their punishment is either ridiculously harsh (i.e. the player never cheated and the witness was mistaken), or ridiculously lenient (i.e. the player did cheat, and allowed to play future comps). Yet they probably have little confidence in knowing if it is harsh or lenient, as they've not really investigated.

 

[chrisd]

His side of the story should definitely be taken into account, although I suppose he can only be adamant that HE didn't see the chap move the ball. That wouldn't be the same as the chap not moving the ball, unless he said he watched the chap 100% of the time, and can convince others of that.

However, it really does seem the Committee have made a mess of this. If they were prepared to DQ a player after effectively being accused of cheating, why on earth did they not invite the player to give their defence, or any others who may have been present? If they are that convinced a player would resort to cheating, why would they not be convinced that another might resort to telling lies about another cheating (I'm not saying either is true, just that they seem to be easily swayed without investigation). Then, when challenged, accept that some actions were not perfect, yet still allow no appeal by the player, is incredible. They really are digging a hole for themselves. Also brings into question, if they are that convinced a player did actually cheat, how can they allow that player to continue playing future competitions. Their punishment is either ridiculously harsh (i.e. the player never cheated and the witness was mistaken), or ridiculously lenient (i.e. the player did cheat, and allowed to play future comps). Yet they probably have little confidence in knowing if it is harsh or lenient, as they've not really investigated.

I dont disagree, but by cocking up the basic stuff the committee have made the matter much worse than it needs to be. If they did the hearing and other stuff wrong I'd expect them to backtrack and go for a " not proven" sort of conclusion so the smear on the player is just one word against another and hope it all dies down

 

[Jason.H]

Well they have took the committee members word for it as in he watched the player move his ball to a better lie.
It would have been better to speak with him after the round and put it to him if he wanted to amend his score. But if he did cheat and therefore sign an incorrect score then dq is right.
There is no way a playing partner watched him 100% of the time.

 

[MACM85]

Well they have took the committee members word for it as in he watched the player move his ball to a better lie.
It would have been better to speak with him after the round and put it to him if he wanted to amend his score. But if he did cheat and therefore sign an incorrect score then dq is right.
There is no way a playing partner watched him 100% of the time.

For what it is worth we don't sign the cards after comps. Just input the scores with the marker present to agree the card before entry.

This could have all been prevented if there was a conversation before the round score was entered and if the committee had followed the correct procedure.

 

[RichA]

Well they have took the committee members word for it as in he watched the player move his ball to a better lie.
It would have been better to speak with him after the round and put it to him if he wanted to amend his score. But if he did cheat and therefore sign an incorrect score then dq is right.
There is no way a playing partner watched him 100% of the time.

The important bits for me are that somebody 130 yards away on another hole saw the player move his ball while, at the same time, his playing partner 20 yards away saw that the player was moving loose sticks and didn't touch his ball.
Neither the player or his partner were even asked about it.
We've all hit balls 100 yards onto a green and seen them nestle up to the hole only to find as we get closer that it's not even within 6 feet. By any standard of proof, the guy within 20 yards is the witness whose account you take.

 

[Beezerk]

Very interesting thread, makes me wonder, from 130 yards away did the committee member actually see him move his ball or did he see him move some twigs but took the assumption he had moved his ball instead. Would love to see a photo from the tee box where the committee member was stood pointing towards where the guy “moved his ball”, is it a clear view, absolutely zero things in the way like rough or tree branches?

 

[AussieKB]

My eyesight is that bad these days I don't know if I hit the green or not form 160 yards plus.

 

[MACM85]

Very interesting thread, makes me wonder, from 130 yards away did the committee member actually see him move his ball or did he see him move some twigs but took the assumption he had moved his ball instead. Would love to see a photo from the tee box where the committee member was stood pointing towards where the guy “moved his ball”, is it a clear view, absolutely zero things in the way like rough or tree branches?

I am playing a round this evening so will take a picture of the tee box that the witness was on and where the ball was on the mound on the 9th for everyone to get a clear picture.

 

[IanM]

If the committee took the testimony of one person, and didn't see fit to ask anyone closer, they have messed up. Maybe they are accusing you ALL of cheating.

 

[patricks148]

This stinks more than the dead decomposing badger Rupert rolled in yesterday

 

[doublebogey7]

I

For what it is worth we don't sign the cards after comps. Just input the scores with the marker present to agree the card before entry.

This could have all been prevented if there was a conversation before the round score was entered and if the committee had followed the correct procedure.

Hold on a minute, are you saying that your committee accepts scores that do not have any form of evidenced markers verification. If that is the case then your committee is seriousley incompetent and clearly have very little knowledge of the basic rules of golf. The incident you have described merely adds further weight to that thought.

 

[MACM85]

I

Hold on a minute, are you saying that your committee accepts scores that do not have any form of evidenced markers verification. If that is the case then your committee is seriousley incompetent and clearly have very little knowledge of the basic rules of golf. The incident you have described merely adds further weight to that thought.

That is correct. When the round is done we do not need to sign and stick them in. We merely get our marker to agree the score and then manually input them straight to the system.