Tee off time

[chrisd]

My thoughts on the OP - The Asst Pro, as the only authority figure available, is acting on behalf of the Committee. Otherwise you would have to have a Committee Member present during every hour of every competition to be able to make these rulings. Not feasible at 99% of clubs I suspect.

Agreed. But the other side of the coin is that the ass pro should know the rules and properly apply them and the club should ave a policy as to whether the pro shop staff are acting on the Committee behalf. My own club pro has botched a couple of comps by giving inaccurate rules information

 

[Imurg]

Agreed. But the other side of the coin is that the ass pro should know the rules and properly apply them and the club should ave a policy as to whether the pro shop staff are acting on the Committee behalf. My own club pro has botched a couple of comps by giving inaccurate rules information

I guess they jsut hadn't thought that this sort of thing could happen and the possible consequences.

I remember at my last club, there had never been a tie for the Club Championship (36 over 2 days), not even close. But one year there was. "So how do we decide who's won?" - "No Idea - hadn't thought about it"
So a Playoff over 4 holes was agreed by all.

 

[Colin L]

Chris (and I am still in time for my start!), you touch on what I came back to the computer to say briefly. Check on what your club's Conditions of Competition say about the status of the starter - assuming you have a a set of standing competition rules. If nothing is said, then maybe it would be wise to put something in. And at the same time, a little bit of "in-service training" for your assistant pro would be in order

I'll have a look at our Rules of Competition when I am at the club.

 

[chrisd]

Chris (and I am still in time for my start!), you touch on what I came back to the computer to say briefly. Check on what your club's Conditions of Competition say about the status of the starter - assuming you have a a set of standing competition rules. If nothing is said, then maybe it would be wise to put something in. And at the same time, a little bit of "in-service training" for your assistant pro would be in order

I'll have a look at our Rules of Competition when I am at the club.

It's not my club Colin I am just asking because a friend told me about the issue and I said that if anyone knows the answer it'll be the guys here

I hope that you made your start time!

 

[CMAC]

isnt there also the issue of when a complaint was lodged? i.e with other situations you normally have to rectify before teeing off from the next tee type scenario's, but this 'complaint' was lodged after the round and after they lost!

 

[chrisd]

isnt there also the issue of when a complaint was lodged? i.e with other situations you normally have to rectify before teeing off from the next tee type scenario's, but this 'complaint' was lodged after the round and after they lost!

You've misunderstood Darth. The competition had about 30 pairs playing a better ball Stableford, which was played as several rounds and weeks, the overall winners being the champs. The 2 pairs involved in the reschedule were top of the league going into the final round and it was a different pair, affected by the decision, who complained.

 

[duncan mackie]

This is quite common as an issue, as referenced by more than one response.

Whilst it should be documented, as should the authority of the pro (and others) to give 'rulings' when people get beck in, it rarely is in most clubs, until issues arise!

Not surprisingly it wasn't in our COC, but is after last years re-write.

In this instance the authority of the 'professional' in relation to tee times would seem to be accepted, the fact that it was an assistant doesn't strike me as relevant in this context - they carry the same authority.

Without the wording of the claim it's not possible to be definitive but, as the decision quoted by Colin makes clear, the players aren't in breach of 6-3.

The issue of whether the professional should have made this change to the groups tee time is a completely different matter, but I can't see how it has a bearing on the outcome. For example, if someone clearly authorised by the committee makes a wrong ruling on the course that ruling stands from the players perspective (without going into the detailed what nexts here!).

Scores stand - COC and individuals authority should be reviewed and documented.

FWIW ours is documented to permit exactly this for strokeplay events, for the reasons Imurg posted above. Whilst it does put a little pressure on the Pro shop staff to facilitate (if possible) this is a small price to maintain the fundamental of our club which is 'inclusion' ie we want as many as possible to be able to compete in, complete rounds of, competitions.

 

[Region3]

The players that I am asking on behalf of we're happy to let the golf decide, it was others who complained, but as both pairs have been penalised I said that I would look and see if the rules have been correctly applied - no one is getting uptight, it's just best to learn from a mistake if one as been made

Apologies, I'd misread the OP.

 

[chrisd]

This is quite common as an issue, as referenced by more than one response.

Whilst it should be documented, as should the authority of the pro (and others) to give 'rulings' when people get beck in, it rarely is in most clubs, until issues arise!

Not surprisingly it wasn't in our COC, but is after last years re-write.

In this instance the authority of the 'professional' in relation to tee times would seem to be accepted, the fact that it was an assistant doesn't strike me as relevant in this context - they carry the same authority.

Without the wording of the claim it's not possible to be definitive but, as the decision quoted by Colin makes clear, the players aren't in breach of 6-3.

The issue of whether the professional should have made this change to the groups tee time is a completely different matter, but I can't see how it has a bearing on the outcome. For example, if someone clearly authorised by the committee makes a wrong ruling on the course that ruling stands from the players perspective (without going into the detailed what nexts here!).

Scores stand - COC and individuals authority should be reviewed and documented.

FWIW ours is documented to permit exactly this for strokeplay events, for the reasons Imurg posted above. Whilst it does put a little pressure on the Pro shop staff to facilitate (if possible) this is a small price to maintain the fundamental of our club which is 'inclusion' ie we want as many as possible to be able to compete in, complete rounds of, competitions.

Thanks Duncan for your considered opinion and I have to say that it is, plus Colin's contribution, much my own take on it.

 

[CMAC]

You've misunderstood Darth. The competition had about 30 pairs playing a better ball Stableford, which was played as several rounds and weeks, the overall winners being the champs. The 2 pairs involved in the reschedule were top of the league going into the final round and it was a different pair, affected by the decision, who complained.

your right, I've misunderstood

 

[MashieNiblick]

In this instance the authority of the 'professional' in relation to tee times would seem to be accepted, the fact that it was an assistant doesn't strike me as relevant in this context - they carry the same authority.

Without the wording of the claim it's not possible to be definitive but, as the decision quoted by Colin makes clear, the players aren't in breach of 6-3.

The issue of whether the professional should have made this change to the groups tee time is a completely different matter, but I can't see how it has a bearing on the outcome. For example, if someone clearly authorised by the committee makes a wrong ruling on the course that ruling stands from the players perspective (without going into the detailed what nexts here!).

Scores stand - COC and individuals authority should be reviewed and documented.

Thinking about it, I believe Duncan is correct here (no surprise there! )

Whether or not the assistant explicity had authority to change the tee time, the players were entitled to believe that he did and to accept his decision and proceed on that basis. The players shouldn't be penalised if it turns out that he didn't. So result stands (in equity, if nothing else?).

 

[rulefan]

So result stands (in equity, if nothing else?).

If the pro had the authority, no penalty at all. If he didn't and a COC didn't cover it then 33-7 applies (Committee error), not equity.

Our pro is on our Comps Committee and his assistant co-opted on competition days. They have explicit authority to adjust start times. However, the assistant may not make on course rulings.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

For what it is worth Duncan is correct [IMVHO]

Re the wrong ruling given by an official.
I once witnessed a County official give a wrong decision during the final of a county match.
I could see he was struggling, it involved a rare local rule on my home course. I started to walk towards him to explain but stopped myself as I thought it may be improper. He eventually ruled 'in equity' which gave a big break to one of the players but thankfully did not affect the result.

 

[rulefan]

I think a referee would rather get the ruling right providing he is approached in the right way.

A quiet 'Excuse me but .....' might be appreciated more than 'You've got it wrong mate ....'

 

[Colin L]

I did give this a little more thought on the way round the course (cold but dry and most enjoyable) and concluded that I wouldn't even try to untangle the mess if the starter did not have the Committee's authority because I couldn't see any argument for that. Even if only implicitly, the starter's decisions have to be taken as having the authority of the Committee. It would really be unworkable otherwise.

 

[chrisd]

I did give this a little more thought on the way round the course (cold but dry and most enjoyable) and concluded that I wouldn't even try to untangle the mess if the starter did not have the Committee's authority because I couldn't see any argument for that. Even if only implicitly, the starter's decisions have to be taken as having the authority of the Committee. It would really be unworkable otherwise.

I agree Colin, the usual mess that happens when people try and be helpful and fair. My mate is/was happy that the league was won by the pair who's player was late.

 

[MadAdey]

Just spent the last 15 minutes reading the thread as it is an interesting one. Never have been and never will be a rules expert, so i will give an opinion as I see it.

For me if the pro is in control of organising the tee times on the day as there is no member of the committee there, then he has the power to make decisions regarding moving tee times. So then punishing the players concerned is wrong as they have acted on the advise of the starter.

Who ever it was that made the complaint, needs strapping up to a post on the driving and let people hit golf balls at them. To me pulling someone up for that and denying them winning the comp is out of line and not playing within the spirit of the game. It is not like they had been caught kicking their ball onto a better lie or taking a rather generous drop when taking relief, both of them will change the outcome of your final score. Teeing off 15 minutes will not.

 

[chrisd]

Just spent the last 15 minutes reading the thread as it is an interesting one. Never have been and never will be a rules expert, so i will give an opinion as I see it.

For me if the pro is in control of organising the tee times on the day as there is no member of the committee there, then he has the power to make decisions regarding moving tee times. So then punishing the players concerned is wrong as they have acted on the advise of the starter.

Who ever it was that made the complaint, needs strapping up to a post on the driving and let people hit golf balls at them. To me pulling someone up for that and denying them winning the comp is out of line and not playing within the spirit of the game. It is not like they had been caught kicking their ball onto a better lie or taking a rather generous drop when taking relief, both of them will change the outcome of your final score. Teeing off 15 minutes will not.

In many ways I take your view Adey ....... But, if the rules were broken there is scope for someone to ask them to be properly applied, in this case I believe the pair finishing 3rd would be promoted and would win more of the prize pool and if they thought a rule was broken then they are entitled to ask for a ruling, in any ways the spirit of the game should not override the proper application of the rules . I have given both sides of the argument on the thread but feel that once the decision to tell the players to switch start times was made then that was that

 

[chrisd]

Apparently the final decision fell in line with our views. The penalties were dropped and the pro shop was considered to have made the decision and therefore they did tee off at the (new) correct time.

Had the asst pro understood the rules though, my mate and his partner would have almost certainly been on the honours board! Oh well!