Foxholer
Blackballed
Btw Fish.
I trust you were aware that you would have had to play off 18 if you had been put forward.
I trust you were aware that you would have had to play off 18 if you had been put forward.
Opinion
- Thread starter Fish
- Start date
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
I'd agree with that, the error is in the club not handling the differences in qualification and making a judgement beforehand.
I think you mean the mighty Mr. Foy and his inept assistants.
I was aware and its not a problem :thup:
I would have thought the winning pair being ineligible should result in the 2nd place team taking their place. I can't seem how you can substitute someone in who didn't even play. If it was me, I'd be kicking up a stink and asking to see in writing the criteria for making the decision. Seems like one for "mates"
LIG
Q-School Graduate
Agree with Homer - decision smacks of "jobs for the boys". Even if it isn't and all is above board and Fish is unaware of prior discussions, the decision itself should be seen to be impartially made. Worth having a word imho!
rosecott
Money List Winner
I suspect that the problem is that the club did not have a rule in place to decide what would happen in the event of one of the winning pair being ineligible. That, inevitably, leads to the committee - having got it wrong - having to make a decision as to what to do. I don't think there is a "correct" answer but I would certainly lean towards the second-placed pair representing the club.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Have you actually asked them how they made their decision?
fenwayrich
Assistant Pro
I would say that either the second pair qualify, or the club do not enter anyone at all. Anything else makes a complete mockery of the qualifying competition. Might just as well select two blokes who might have a decent stab at winning without going through the tedious rigmarole of 18 holes.
chellie
Tour Winner
That's my opinion as well.
louise_a
Money List Winner
Some of these comps don't allow replacements, my partner and I qualified for the Ping 4BBB at our club, the winners couldn't go but they wouldn't allow us to play instead.
NorfolkShaun
Journeyman Pro
Seems obvious to me that the first eligible pair should go through.
May be worth asking how this decision was made, out of interest did the replacement play in the board comp?
If so not sure you should be able to represent two teams in the same comp, technically he entered the comp and did not qualify.
May be worth asking how this decision was made, out of interest did the replacement play in the board comp?
If so not sure you should be able to represent two teams in the same comp, technically he entered the comp and did not qualify.
rosecott
Money List Winner
In the Daily Mail Foursomes, as soon as the club's nominated pair plays their first match in the competition, that is the pair that must play in any subsequent round.
Foxholer
Blackballed
You've missed the point I made some time back. The DM merely invites each club to enter 1 pair. How the club chooses that pair is up to the club. Fish's club simply used an unrelated, but similar format, competition as a means to determine the selection. So it's not 'the same comp'.
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
No, not the same comp, but as the qualifying comp for the other comp, you'd expect a competent club to make the qualifying criteria for the other comp clear in the first instance, and have a published policy in place to deal with the issue of the winners of the club comp not being qualified for the other comp prior to the first ball being struck.
pbrown7582
Money List Winner
it does seem a oversight by the clubs comp committee and I agree with all the first eligible should be put forward.
and a rule amendment made for future years regarding the selection process.
and a rule amendment made for future years regarding the selection process.
NorfolkShaun
Journeyman Pro
Exactly what I was trying to say, I know it is not the same comp but the club are using it as a qualifier so although it is not part of the same comp in this case it could be seen as the same imho.
D
Deleted member 18588
Guest
Please do not take this as a dig as it certainly is not but I have been trying to work out how the Club reached its decision and the only theory I could come up with involved handicap.
In the same way that their is an age qualification there is also a maximum playing handicap of 18, players with a higher handicap can compete subject to that limit.
I just wonder if someone has misguidedly decide that you are ineligible due to your actual handicap exceeding the competition's limit on playing handicap.
Still does not make it right but it is a theory worth questioning with the Club I feel.
No that's not the case or the 3rd placed illegible pair should then warrant going forward.
Something I didn't mention earlier as I didn't see its relevance at the time but now since you raised the handicap criteria, it is.
I was asked a few weeks back if my partner and I would like to go forward as they were having trouble contacting the winning pair, we accepted and then heard nothing until I heard 3rd hand at the weekend that a substitute had been agreed due to 1 of the pair being under age.
Anyone can enter any restricted handicap competition if they choose to declare a lower handicap and playing to 18 is not an issue for me and well within my ability, however, you cannot alter your age!
I've had a reply from the club last night and they have said that they have now put it on the notice for the competition this year that you have to be over 18 to be able to play in the Daily Mail competition. He stated that last year he was unaware of the condition and only found out when they sent out the information about the competition. He assumes that it has never cropped up before as all of the previous winning pairs were eligible and that they now know so the conditions are as I have suggested, being the highest eligible pair.
They didn't go as far as to say sorry for inviting us to go forward and then not getting back to us or explain why they reached the decision they did though!
No doubt when we run into each other he may expand on it, but then again, he may not!
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
We also had this crop up this year for the first time, and there were views put forwards both ways as to how to resolve it.
Some took the view that the eligible player in the winning team should be permitted to select an eligible partner and others that the highest placed eligible pair should go forwards. I could see merit in both arguments at the time - and as ever there were individual circumstances that clouded the decision making as the ineligible pair had specifically been told by the club that they were OK to play (in error).
As ever the biggest issue in such situations is always when decisions have to be made after the event.
