Possible rules question - FC cancelling matchplay

[dufferman]

Hi all

Had a Winter Pairs matchplay booked in for a while, about a month, due to be played this weekend.

Just been called and told one FC is having to cancel due to an injury.

I can't do any date after this weekend (as I told them when booking) due to impending nuptials and honeymoon. This round must be played by 15th March.

What is the ruling? Not our fault he cancelled and we had given them 3 dates we could play a month ago, however it's me that is now causing issue being unable to re-book.

Just wanted to know what the ruling is and what the best thing to do is. We don't want to forfit the match!

Thanks!

 

[fundy]

will depend on your clubs comp rules but imho as the game cant be rearranged then his partner should fulfill the original date on his own (assuming its 4bbb not 4somes or greensomes) or they should concede the game

 

[Colin L]

I've deleted my post - fundy has said it already.

 

[Foxholer]

Indeed, this is not a Rules of Golf issue. It's a 'Conditions of Competition' one, so dependent on organisers (in this case the Club) to set.

 

[dufferman]

It is 4somes (alternative shots) so it's play or concede!

 

[pbrown7582]

It is 4somes (alternative shots) so it's play or concede!

May have to go to commitee to seek ruling? I would get clarification at least.

 

[chrisd]

It gets really difficult to sort these situations out as I've found in the past. They'll say that they can make the dates you can't, and that their players injury should cause a rearrangement. You'll say that you gave them 3 dates and they accepted one. What can a committee do ? I'm sure they won't have put into the comp rules an answer to the problem and will probably suggest a solution that one side will feel totally unjust or, in other words, they won't care (golf wise) that it's your wedding and suggest that you rearrange a date (or impose one in the four of you) and that'll be that.

 

[Colin L]

Interesting that you think the committee is unlikely to have covered this in the rules. I'm sure our rules would without any argument about the injury. The challenger must offer 3 dates; if none of these is suitable, the challenged must offer 3 dates. If none of the 3 dates is suitable to the challenger, the challenger goes through to the next round. On that basis Dufferman and his partner would go through (assuming from what he said that they were the challengers).

 

[chrisd]

Interesting that you think the committee is unlikely to have covered this in the rules. I'm sure our rules would without any argument about the injury. The challenger must offer 3 dates; if none of these is suitable, the challenged must offer 3 dates. If none of the 3 dates is suitable to the challenger, the challenger goes through to the next round. On that basis Dufferman and his partner would go through (assuming from what he said that they were the challengers).

I'm only going by the experience of my own club and the previous one I belonged to, neither of whom thought to be so clear with their rules as yours, quite rightly, is

 

[duncan mackie]

This is a particular issue for me over the years....

As said it's not a rules issue but IMO the best committees have open rules that permit and enable them to rule appropriately as and when required. The worst situations a committee that tries to rule in advance and avoid having to get involved later on.

The reason for my view is that there at are people who enter these events to win - personally I enter to play and meet new people (that I am very successful is another matter!)

Basically, retaining the committee's option to make an objective ruling will always be better than a set of regimented rules such as top pair go through if it's not played on time etc

 

[Deleted member 15344]

This is a particular issue for me over the years....

As said it's not a rules issue but IMO the best committees have open rules that permit and enable them to rule appropriately as and when required. The worst situations a committee that tries to rule in advance and avoid having to get involved later on.

The reason for my view is that there at are people who enter these events to win - personally I enter to play and meet new people (that I am very successful is another matter!)

Basically, retaining the committee's option to make an objective ruling will always be better than a set of regimented rules such as top pair go through if it's not played on time etc

The thing is you need to make sure players know the timelines and the rule before hand to ensure there equality throughout

If you start making decisions on each disagreement on KOs it just gets a mess.

Leave the guys to sort it themselves mainly and if it comes to the cut off date and neither team has put their name down then both are out.

 

[Tarkus1212]

At my club it is the joint responsibility of both pairs to organise the match and if this cannot be done to decide upon a way to resolve the tie. For example if the match cannot be decided by playing golf then use another method such as tossing a coin. If the tie is not resolved then both pairs are DQ'd. In other words we are expected to act like grown ups and find a resolution without expecting the committee to resolve it for us.

 

[Old Skier]

Lose lose situation for committes usually, agree with dm post. Both sides normally think they are in the right. Once suggested that we DQd both if they couldn't agree in a comp once, it was surprising how quick they came to a decision.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Interesting that you think the committee is unlikely to have covered this in the rules. I'm sure our rules would without any argument about the injury. The challenger must offer 3 dates; if none of these is suitable, the challenged must offer 3 dates. If none of the 3 dates is suitable to the challenger, the challenger goes through to the next round. On that basis Dufferman and his partner would go through (assuming from what he said that they were the challengers).

Interesting you refer to challengers and challenged as I don't think there is that concept in our club comps. Previous club it was the responsibility of the pair on top to make the initial contact to arrange - but not sure even then that that made them the challengers.

 

[Break90]

At my club, if no agreement can be made between the two players (or pairs) on a suitable date and time, you go through if you are present at the clock on the Old Course first tee at noon on the deadline day. If neither party is present both are DQ'd.

 

[Colin L]

Interesting you refer to challengers and challenged as I don't think there is that concept in our club comps. Previous club it was the responsibility of the pair on top to make the initial contact to arrange - but not sure even then that that made them the challengers.

It's just a matter of terminology and definition. We define the challenger as the pair on top.

 

[rulefan]

Within 7 days of the draw or date of last round, our upper team on the draw sheet are required to give the lower team 3 dates. If they can't make them, the lower team are required to give 3 dates. If they can't reach agreement, the committee will try and arbitrate. I that fails, a team that doesn't appear on the tee at 6pm on the last due date will be be DQd.

The only 2 reasons for the committee allowing a deferment are death of close family member or hospitalization of player.
Confined to bed doesn't count.