NR'd from a Medal - Thoughts?

[doublebogey7]

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.

So does the marker provide an electronic signature of any sort? Do the cards go to the committee or are they dispensed with once the player has entered the score into the electronic device.

 

[Whereditgo]

There is no way that you could be certain that someone had moved their ball when viewing the alleged infringement from well over 100 yards away.

 

[MACM85]

So does the marker provide an electronic signature of any sort? Do the cards go to the committee or are they dispensed with once the player has entered the score into the electronic device.

No electronic signature. Merely a two min chat of I have myself as a 80 you as a 85 etc. Once agreed it is down to the individual to input their own scores. Scorecards are binned or if you are like me kept in the back pocket until you get home in case there is a discrepency that you spot.

 

[Swango1980]

No electronic signature. Merely a two min chat of I have myself as a 80 you as a 85 etc. Once agreed it is down to the individual to input their own scores.

So, let us say both players agree a score of 40 points. The player then puts this in the system, make a "mistake" and get 42 points, and win the comp, I suppose the Committee just have to either accept this is correct, or hope that markers or players will notify them of the mistake? There are no cards that they can at least double check the winning scores? There is no evidence that this "chat" between player and marker ever actually took place?

Having been on a Committee previously, for a good few years, that is quite alarming. Especially as the number of times errors have been made in score entry onto the system is quite common, and these have had to be corrected before closing the comp.

 

[rulie]

No electronic signature. Merely a two min chat of I have myself as a 80 you as a 85 etc. Once agreed it is down to the individual to input their own scores. Scorecards are binned or if you are like me kept in the back pocket until you get home in case there is a discrepency that you spot.

The player is responsible for hole by hole scores, not totals. So you're saying that there is no hole by hole verification?

 

[doublebogey7]

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.

Oh dear, that is clearly contrary to rule Rule 3.3, and your committee has no authority to use a different rule in their competitions. Not sure your committee would be best served by letting this get to the Area Authority.

 

[doublebogey7]

The player is responsible for hole by hole scores, not totals. So you're saying that there is no hole by hole verification?

It sounds to me that there is no verification that conforms to the Rules full stop.

 

[MACM85]

The player is responsible for hole by hole scores, not totals. So you're saying that there is no hole by hole verification?

Apart from each player advising their marker of their score there is no verification unless you smell a rat with the score being mentioned to you as you know the score is higher than they are suggesting.

Once the round is done we input the scores and then look at the leaderboard for the winner. The comp secretary will close it off in the afternoon but they dont have the physical cards in front of them

 

[doublebogey7]

Apart from each player advising their marker of their score there is no verification unless you smell a rat with the score being mentioned to you as you know the score is higher than they are suggesting.

Once the round is done we input the scores and then look at the leaderboard for the winner. The comp secretary will close it off in the afternoon but they dont have the physical cards in front of them

The rules don't require a phyical scorecard to be submitted but they do require that all hole scores are verified by the Marker either by way of a signed physical scorecard, or some form of electronic verification. Your club seems to have neither and therefore your scores should not be counting for handicapping purposes. The Area Authority could in principle remove all your scores entered in this way from all your members handicap records, if they were to become aware of this breach of the handicapping rules.

 

[IJames]

The rules don't require a phyical scorecard to be submitted but they do require that all hole scores are verified by the Marker either by way of a signed physical scorecard, or some form of electronic verification. Your club seems to have neither and therefore your scores should not be counting for handicapping purposes. The Area Authority could in principle remove all your scores entered in this way from all your members handicap records, if they were to become aware of this breach of the handicapping rules.

So something else the committee seems to have blundered on!

 

[Neilds]

For those who have been on committees before, how would the meeting go between the accused and accuser?
“Did you see him move his ball?”
“Yes”
“Did you move your ball?”
“No”
“…………”
Real question, how do they decide who is right? No trial by TV viewer in the monthly medal

 

[IanM]

I wonder what else this club doesn't bother doing properly?

 

[Deleted member 31467]

For those who have been on committees before, how would the meeting go between the accused and accuser?
“Did you see him move his ball?”
“Yes”
“Did you move your ball?”
“No”
“…………”
Real question, how do they decide who is right? No trial by TV viewer in the monthly medal

Standard practice SHOULD apply.....innocent until PROVEN guilty. But in this club who knows.........

 

[Neilds]

Standard practice SHOULD apply.....innocent until PROVEN guilty. But in this club who knows.........

Agree with your thinking but if there are only two people involved, why would anyone bother reporting suspected cheats if they would always ‘get away’ with it?

 

[Deleted member 31467]

Agree with your thinking but if there are only two people involved, why would anyone bother reporting suspected cheats if they would always ‘get away’ with it?

No idea, my view on this is that there is some form of ulterior motive. However 'he said, they said' isn't enough to hang anyone out to dry. There needs to be (reliable) witnesses IMHO.

 

[doublebogey7]

For those who have been on committees before, how would the meeting go between the accused and accuser?
“Did you see him move his ball?”
“Yes”
“Did you move your ball?”
“No”
“…………”
Real question, how do they decide who is right? No trial by TV viewer in the monthly medal

If it was simply one word against another then convention and good sense would find in favour of the player. There should have undoubtedly been a proper inquiry in this case with all witnesses given an opportunity to say what they believed they witnessed. Whilst any verdict should be based in the balance of possibilities no assumptions should be made about anyone character unless there is other evidence, which should be heard. This is not a criminal court so the bar is not set as high as "innocent until proven guilty".

 

[AJNairn]

If it was simply one word against another then convention and good sense would find in favour of the player. There should have undoubtedly been a proper inquiry in this case with all witnesses given an opportunity to say what they believed they witnessed. Whilst any verdict should be based in the balance of possibilities no assumptions should be made about anyone character unless there is other evidence, which should be heard. This is not a criminal court so the bar is not set as high as "innocent until proven guilty".

This committee doesn't seem to have demonstrated much 'good sense' so far though! In fact, they've simply trusted 'their man' - who seems content to accept the player's word that he didn't move the ball! The whole incident could have been settled simply and relatively amicably imo!

 

[MACM85]

For those that have asked here is an image of the view point from the 12th tee to the 9th mound in question

The spot where the chap was on the right handside of the mound around 2 feet up from the bottom and in line with the second tree in from the green water shed.

 

[AussieKB]

Did he have binoculars ?

 

[MACM85]

Did he have binoculars ?

haha no. Just a pair of glasses on. Must be a decent lense in them