Rule 33-5. Local rule enabling Committee to DQ for their failings.

[Beware-the-3putt]

Can the Committee introduce a LR to DQ anyone that posts a scorecard which the Committee have failed to fill in the name and comp details on?

The rules say the players responsibility is to sign card, make sure marker has signed the card and scores are correct and handicap is shown. If all these things are done but the Committee fail to adhere to their responsibility can they punish the player for their failings?

 

[duncan mackie]

They can, but they may not.

 

[Foxholer]

Can the Committee introduce a LR to DQ anyone that posts a scorecard which the Committee have failed to fill in the name and comp details on?

The rules say the players responsibility is to sign card, make sure marker has signed the card and scores are correct and handicap is shown. If all these things are done but the Committee fail to adhere to their responsibility can they punish the player for their failings?

It won't be an LR - but a Condition of Competition.

And you missed the 'disclaimer' Note to 33.5 that the Committee can request that the competitor records the date and name on his scorecard. So not necessarily a 'failing to adhere to there responsibility'.

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

Thanks Duncan.

I thought I read somewhere in the distant past that the Committee could only introduce a LR to punish the player by means of a ban from a future comp or whatever as they have not broken a rule of golf in the actual competition.

I would assume this local rule should be posted on the board or on the card?

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

'can request' to me does not infer to me that they are breaking a rule. If they ask and you don't I wouldn't have thought they could DQ you but could punish you in another way by barring you from a future comp.

 

[Foxholer]

'can request' to me does not infer to me that they are breaking a rule. If they ask and you don't I wouldn't have thought they could DQ you but could punish you in another way by barring you from a future comp.

Remember that the Rules of Golf are only part of the Rules that a particular competition is played under - the other parts being Local Rules and Conditions of Competition (CofCs) though, as that is stated in the Definitions section of Rules of Golf, it's arguable that it is covered! That note merely eliminates the absolute responsibility for The Committee to mark up the cards - thus permitting them to require the player to do so as part of the CofCs.

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

Thanks Foxholer.

Much appreciated.

 

[duncan mackie]

Thanks Duncan.

I thought I read somewhere in the distant past that the Committee could only introduce a LR to punish the player by means of a ban from a future comp or whatever as they have not broken a rule of golf in the actual competition.

This is the case. The point I was trying to make is that they can, and do, but the rules do not permit them to do so - as you highlight.
As a player you have to adhere to the LRS when playing, even if they are not permitted or illegal.
If the committee act, then close the comp, then the result will stand. However, they should change it if it's bought to their attention beforehand (they don't always).

As an example there's a recent thread that references a course that DQs players under a LR for using a mobile phone for anything except 999 calls...

 

[Foxholer]

This is the case. The point I was trying to make is that they can, and do, but the rules do not permit them to do so - as you highlight.
As a player you have to adhere to the LRS when playing, even if they are not permitted or illegal.
If the committee act, then close the comp, then the result will stand. However, they should change it if it's bought to their attention beforehand (they don't always).

As an example there's a recent thread that references a course that DQs players under a LR for using a mobile phone for anything except 999 calls...

Well, that resolves the query I had about which way to interpret your 'may not'!

What about my point about CofCs?As the Rules have the note with the 'disclaimer'.

Can be pretty hard for The Committee to identify card from signatures if no name - especially if wet. So not unreasonable for The Committee to require the players to do it - as opposed to simply 'requesting' as per the note.

 

[duncan mackie]

Well, that resolves the query I had about which way to interpret your 'may not'!

What about my point about CofCs?As the Rules have the note with the 'disclaimer'.

Can be pretty hard for The Committee to identify card from signatures if no name - especially if wet. So not unreasonable for The Committee to require the players to do it - as opposed to simply 'requesting' as per the note.

Committee are required to make a reasonable effort to establish whose card it is - after that there's not a lot more to be done!

There's a ruling, note or decision that says so somewhere (got to fly right now)

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

I'm not convinced the LR exists and is more a rule in the M&Hs head, as I've never seen anything recorded anywhere.

Ive not been affected by this 'iffy' ruling and aim not to be in the future. I've just heard it mentioned that people are being DQ'd for this and I wasn't convinced it was correct.

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

I appreciate it may be difficult for the Committee to determine who's card it is from just signatures, however this problem would not occur if the Committee provide cards with the details on them, as rule 33-5 suggests they should do.

 

[duncan mackie]

Committee are required to make a reasonable effort to establish whose card it is - after that there's not a lot more to be done!

There's a ruling, note or decision that says so somewhere (got to fly right now)

it's the last line of decision 6-6d/4 which clearly contemplates a card being returned without a name.

whilst 33-5 would seem to mean it's impossible for a valid card to be returned without a name under the rules, as already pointed out the committee are empowered to request competitors to complete it 9so it's legibility is unknown) and in the case of a card being lost or damaged a competitor is permitted to substitute the card issued by the committee (6-6a/7) with no requirement under the rules for a name to be entered!

 

[rulefan]

CONGU - R&A Rules Limited has confirmed that “provided a player fulfils the requirements of Rule 6-6 a
penalty cannot be imposed under the Rules of Golf for failure to comply with these conditions.
However, imposing a penalty of a disciplinary nature, such as suspension of handicap is not
considered to be contrary to the Rules of Golf.” An alternative penalty would be to suspend the
player’s right to compete in Club competitions for a specified period. (See R&A Decisions on the
Rules of Golf,Decision 6-6b/8).

You will note that there is no requirement in the Rules for the player to enter his name on the card other than in the form of a signature.

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

CONGU - R&A Rules Limited has confirmed that “provided a player fulfils the requirements of Rule 6-6 a
penalty cannot be imposed under the Rules of Golf for failure to comply with these conditions.
However, imposing a penalty of a disciplinary nature, such as suspension of handicap is not
considered to be contrary to the Rules of Golf.” An alternative penalty would be to suspend the
player’s right to compete in Club competitions for a specified period. (See R&A Decisions on the
Rules of Golf,Decision 6-6b/8).

You will note that there is no requirement in the Rules for the player to enter his name on the card other than in the form of a signature.

Thanks for this. Seems fairly clear that this should not be happening.