oob stake

[hovis]

blimey, today i found my ball oob. however, our oob stakes have a 4 inch spike at the bottom but they are also housed in a man made 4x4 inch square hole to give them extra stability. the oob stakes are always in the same place.

it looks like someone had removed the post, spiked it in the floor behind them and took their shot. the post was not put back (this is speculation) had the oob stake been in its usual position my ball would have been in play. what's the ruling? tough luck?

 

[rulie]

Play two balls (Rule 3-3) and ask the Committee to sort it out.

 

[hovis]

Play two balls (Rule 3-3) and ask the Committee to sort it out.

it was only a friendly game. and we don't have a committe.

 

[atticusfinch]

Second clause of the prime directive is "play the course as you find it."

 

[rosecott]

it was only a friendly game. and we don't have a committe.

As an affiliated club you must have, as an absolute minimum, a Handicap Committee.

 

[hovis]

As an affiliated club you must have, as an absolute minimum, a Handicap Committee.

we have one man that is responsible for :
organising competitions
membership
social events
handicaps
administration

 

[rulie]

Is this person on the payroll? Are there members that volunteer to be on Committees?

 

[Colin L]

"Out of bounds" is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of the course so marked by the Committee.

In my view, a boundary as defined and marked by the committee is unchanged even though a stake has been moved by a player. In some situations it might be impossible to determine where the stake originally was placed but in this case you know exactly where it was - in the identifiable hole specially prepared for it. That is where the Committee marked the boundary to be and so that is where the boundary is. I would therefore say that in this situation you decide whether a ball is on the course or out of bounds relative to the line from the front edge of the next stake to the front edge of the hole. Where the stake has been planted by the player is irrelevant. [He should have copped a 2 stroke penalty for moving it, but that is by the way.]

That's based just on my reasoning and open to argument. I had a faint memory of an applicable Decision but couldn't find it online. I'll have a look in the Decisions Book later: that amazing index might help.

 

[backwoodsman]

If Colin can find a decision then great.

But my take on it goes as follows; what would you do if the stake was lying on the ground? In that circumstance you'd be 99% confident the stake was not in the correct place. In that instance you'd make your decision based on the general layout of the other markers wouldn't you? . In OP circumstance there is also pretty conclusive evidence (the post sockets) that the post is not in the correct place. So you do the same - but in this case you don't actually need to work out the right place - as the socket shows where it is.

But as l try to be accurate by the rules, in a comp I'd do rule 3/3 - but in a casual game, it's in bounds.

 

[hovis]

Is this person on the payroll? Are there members that volunteer to be on Committees?

he is an employee.
no volunteers either. just one man

 

[hovis]

"Out of bounds" is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of the course so marked by the Committee.

In my view, a boundary as defined and marked by the committee is unchanged even though a stake has been moved by a player. In some situations it might be impossible to determine where the stake originally was placed but in this case you know exactly where it was - in the identifiable hole specially prepared for it. That is where the Committee marked the boundary to be and so that is where the boundary is. I would therefore say that in this situation you decide whether a ball is on the course or out of bounds relative to the line from the front edge of the next stake to the front edge of the hole. Where the stake has been planted by the player is irrelevant. [He should have copped a 2 stroke penalty for moving it, but that is by the way.]

That's based just on my reasoning and open to argument. I had a faint memory of an applicable Decision but couldn't find it online. I'll have a look in the Decisions Book later: that amazing index might help.

that all makes sense. thanks

 

[rulie]

he is an employee.
no volunteers either. just one man

I hope the members pay him well, they don't seem to be willing to help the club in other ways.

 

[hovis]

I hope the members pay him well, they don't seem to be willing to help the club in other ways.

1. we help our club by paying them £1400 a year in subs. i dont expect to pay that amount of money then do the work for myself.

2. plus the belfry do pay him very handsomely

3. there isn't even a procedure in place to volunteer even if we wanted to. they ask us to volunteer for big events. marshal duties etc.

 

[Colin L]

The only snag about that is this CONGU requirement:

It is a requirement of the UHS that the Handicap Committee is comprised of a minimum of three persons with the majority being Members.

You'll find the rest of the statement on p21 of the Manual.

 

[hovis]

The only snag about that is this CONGU requirement:

It is a requirement of the UHS that the Handicap Committee is comprised of a minimum of three persons with the majority being Members.

You'll find the rest of the statement on p21 of the Manual.

simple fix. you find two members of staff that are also members and just put their names down

 

[rulefan]

simple fix. you find two members of staff that are also members and just put their names down

And what about:

"Prior to 1st March each year, or such earlier date as directed from time to time by theHome Club’s Union, the Handicap Committee must undertake a review of the handicaps of all Members for whom the club is the Home Club and make such handicap adjustment as may be appropriate under the provisions of Clause 23 and Appendix M."

 

[hovis]

And what about:

"Prior to 1st March each year, or such earlier date as directed from time to time by theHome Club’s Union, the Handicap Committee must undertake a review of the handicaps of all Members for whom the club is the Home Club and make such handicap adjustment as may be appropriate under the provisions of Clause 23 and Appendix M."

the same one man does the reviews

 

[rulefan]

And a spot check by the county would cancel all their handicaps.

 

[Old Skier]

the same one man does the reviews

Outside the requirements of CONGU, club should be de-affiliated

 

[Deleted member 15344]

And a spot check by the county would cancel all their handicaps.

It's The Belfry - from the stories that he has said if they are true their HC/Comps person breaks all the Congu rules - apparently there was some comp where they all didn't play one hole or something so the comp guy gave them all a par on that hole then put it through as an official qualfier !!