Reopening an abandoned competition.

[Shanker69]

A midweek medal was abandoned due to adverse weather. Many of the early birds completed their rounds before the completion was cancelled at around lunchtime.

Later in the afternoon, the weather improved to the extent that play on the course was possible. An inexperienced comps committee chairman decided he could reopen the competition, even though all those who could have played in the early afternoon didn't because the comp was effectively abandoned.

Nobody seemed aware of this until Presentation Evening at the end of the season.

The winners of monthly medals automatically qualify to play in a board competition, (Final Medal).

It transpired that the winner of the abandoned midweek medal, (who really shouldn't have qualified because his score was effectively cancelled), was called out as the winner of the Final Medal.

There were murmurings and representations. The retired previous comps chairman, who was present, agreed that the guy should not have played and the winner should have been the second place in the Final Medal.

Over the ensuing weeks letters, emails and phone calls went back and forth. To convince the inexperienced chair it took a black and white ruling pulled from a copy of the Decisions on the Rules of Golf.

This happened in 2008. I was the guy fighting for my right to having my name on the board. I was the one who found the ruling. The sense of satisfaction at the time was immense.

I'm looking back over that time trying to find that paragraph in the book(s) that I now have to admit I came across almost by sheer chance.

I've got all the Decisions from 2000 on, and having searched and searched, I am struggling to find the ruling that saved me.

I have tried contacting the R&A, which used to have a portal where you could get clarifications relatively easily, but it seems it is no longer available.

I know that the rules prior to 2019 have been revised but much of it is just renumbering and simplification. The Decisions prior to 2019 can still be cross referenced to a degree.

Can anyone please put me out of my misery and point me in the right direction and show me the referenced ruling that states that once a completion has been abandoned that it cannot be reopened?

 

[Steven Rules]

Can anyone please put me out of my misery and point me in the right direction and show me the referenced ruling that states that once a completion has been abandoned that it cannot be reopened?

Not I, I am afraid.

The best I can do is old Rule 33-2d which reinforces that when a round is cancelled (i.e. declare play null and void) all scores for the round in question are cancelled. The essence of this has been carried forward to the post-2019 Committee Procedures 6E(4).

Old Decision 34-3/1.5 deals with Committee errors in stroke play (although not your specific scenario) and says 'In cases where the incorrect information significantly affects the results of the Competition, the Committee may have no option but to cancel the round.'

I assume you are already aware of all this through your extensive searching.

There are numerous references - old and new - to correcting Committee errors but I can't find anything anywhere that explicitly states that once a competition has been abandoned it cannot be reopened. But surely this is implicit in the act of cancelling the competition.

I haven't been much help, sorry.

 

[rulie]

Don’t know if it’s the right one for your situation but check 33-2d/3.

 

[jim8flog]

If you want my personal view -

14 years is too long to hang on to grievance of this nature - let it go.

 

[Colin L]

I'm not sure why they needed a Decision. The clue is in the word abandoned as opposed to delayed.

 

[Shanker69]

At the time, there was a transition between the old competitions committee, which consisted of two old fellahs who were extremely experienced and never put a foot wrong, to a new pair who were very inexperienced and naive. At that time the difficulty was convincing the new pair that they were in the wrong. It was only when the ruling was quoted to them, and they realised that they had in fact broken the Rules of Golf or waived them, that they had to rescind.

I don't play at that club anymore, mainly because it has become too corporate. It's lost its affinity with the members in favour of bending over backwards to the R&A, professional and high amateur bodies and visitors. Many have left as I have.

The only reason why I brought it up after all this time was because someone else was asking me advice and I was genuinely trying to help. It's not a case of holding any grudges or grievances. It was an experience that should have been logged at the time for future reference, but it wasn't, and I don't want it to get lost in the mists of time.

I think at the time, if my memory serves, my argument was that it was abandoned as opposed to delayed. They could have taken the easy route and actually delayed it, leaving their options open but they didn't. I think, looking back, that the reason why they attempted to reopen it up was perhaps a knee jerk reaction to someone complaining that although they'd cancelled the competition, visitors and societies with long standing bookings were being allowed out on a course that, if the committee saw fit to abandon the competition, really ought to have been closed. So basically, it was probably all about lost revenue.

I am still waiting for a response from the R&A on two different email addresses I have but so far nothing. It's easier to contact the HMRC!

 

[Neilds]

At the time, there was a transition between the old competitions committee, which consisted of two old fellahs who were extremely experienced and never put a foot wrong, to a new pair who were very inexperienced and naive. At that time the difficulty was convincing the new pair that they were in the wrong. It was only when the ruling was quoted to them, and they realised that they had in fact broken the Rules of Golf or waived them, that they had to rescind.

I don't play at that club anymore, mainly because it has become too corporate. It's lost its affinity with the members in favour of bending over backwards to the R&A, professional and high amateur bodies and visitors. Many have left as I have.

The only reason why I brought it up after all this time was because someone else was asking me advice and I was genuinely trying to help. It's not a case of holding any grudges or grievances. It was an experience that should have been logged at the time for future reference, but it wasn't, and I don't want it to get lost in the mists of time.

I think at the time, if my memory serves, my argument was that it was abandoned as opposed to delayed. They could have taken the easy route and actually delayed it, leaving their options open but they didn't. I think, looking back, that the reason why they attempted to reopen it up was perhaps a knee jerk reaction to someone complaining that although they'd cancelled the competition, visitors and societies with long standing bookings were being allowed out on a course that, if the committee saw fit to abandon the competition, really ought to have been closed. So basically, it was probably all about lost revenue.

I am still waiting for a response from the R&A on two different email addresses I have but so far nothing. It's easier to contact the HMRC!

LET
IT
GO!

 

[jim8flog]

I am still waiting for a response from the R&A on two different email addresses I have but so far nothing. It's easier to contact the HMRC!

The R&A no longer answer questions on the rules they have now passed on the responsibility to the National Authority e.g. England Golf

 

[Shanker69]

I'm in Wales.

 

[Steven Rules]

The only reason why I brought it up after all this time was because someone else was asking me advice and I was genuinely trying to help.

Well, frankly, that's pretty annoying.

You gave us paragraphs of background from something that happened in 2008 and told us that the answer to your question required us to trawl back through old Decision books when, in fact, you were 'asking for a friend' about (presumably) a contemporary situation that needs to be answered by reference to the current Rules.

 

[LizAig]

You need to ask your area England Golf handicap secretary,not the R&A although given it was 14 years ago I doubt it’s a priority And I’m not sure why it needs logging for future reference as if a comp is abandoned then it’s abandoned and can’t be re-opened!

 

[rulefan]

You need to ask your area England Golf handicap secretary,not the R&A although given it was 14 years ago I doubt it’s a priority And I’m not sure why it needs logging for future reference as if a comp is abandoned then it’s abandoned and can’t be re-opened!

As Shanker69 is in Wales perhaps asking Wales Golf would be a better idea.

 

[Shanker69]

Well, frankly, that's pretty annoying.

You gave us paragraphs of background from something that happened in 2008 and told us that the answer to your question required us to trawl back through old Decision books when, in fact, you were 'asking for a friend' about (presumably) a contemporary situation that needs to be answered by reference to the current Rules.

I am really sorry. It's seems you have taken offence. I didn't realise I was offending you and wasting your valuable time.

You know it's so difficult finding forums these days where you can find like minded people who are happy to help.

Most of them are hacked and infested with people trying to sell get rich quick schemes whilst working from home. Boy that must be a bit of a bummer as a lot of people are working all day in their pyjamas now.

 

[Colin L]

......You know it's so difficult finding forums these days where you can find like minded people who are happy to help.....

Well, if you're looking for like-minded golf rules folk who are happy to help, you've certainly come to a good forum. You'll get an answer whether from someone in their jammies, a dinner suit or nothing at all. Mercifully you'll never know the dress code of the moment. One trouble with your question is that since 2008 there will have been something like three revisions of the Rules, the 2019 one being major. Relating a current situation to 14 year old rules doesn't have much going for it other than historical interest (if even that) and it was unfortunate that it wasn't clear at the start that's what we seem to be being asked to do.

If your 2008 situation were replicated today, I wouldn't seen the need to look for chapter and verse in the Rules. As I suggested, a word like abandoned has a clear meaning, as does cancelled. If you plan to go along to watch a football match and learn it has been cancelled because of the weather you don't go on the off chance the second half will be played because the sun has come out. If you're at a match and it is abandoned because the floodlights have failed, you head home or off to the pub. A word has a meaning and if that is clear and unambiguous, the Rules don't need to define them.

That being said, the club's Terms of the Competition (the specific conditions of entry, format, play etc of a competition) should be clear about the procedure for abandoning/cancelling. The Rules themselves cover the situation where a competition is temporarily stopped/suspended [Rule 5.7]

You experienced an unfortunate muddle cause by inexperience (and perhaps a failure to consult the more experienced?). Stuff like that happens, especially in organisations run largely by volunteers. It's good that it was sorted out.