your thoughts on a possible situation

[bigslice]

my other golf club has a monthly wed league stableford played over 18 holes (9 holes 18 tees). it was decided two years ago you could just turn up any time and play with another member if theres one waiting. today something for discussion happened. a player turned up waited half an hour but noone else to play with. he notices a two ball of members coming down the 9. he decides to join up with them at the 10th and plays the back nine with them, gets his card signed. another two ball appear and he join ups with them and plays the front nine. gets his card signed again.
as ive tried to say its a very informal game of golf basically to accomodate peoples choices of tee times etc. on the sunday comps its a ballot on the monday before and very strict with teeing of in time etc.

so is there anything wrong with what this person has done? (if you think there is something) and where in the rule book does it say it? (if it does)

 

[duncan mackie]

nothing wrong with it all, and the rule book does cover it along the lines of a player being able to select his own marker if the committee fails to provide one.

6-6a confirms that more than one marker, for different holes, is fine, and confirms that they should both sign for thier bits.

6-6a/1 Lone Competitor appoints own marker? Confirms that this is fine.

 

[Imurg]

Don't see why it should be a problem. Technically he's played the course the wrong way round but you often get 2 tee starts at busy times and big events.
As it's a relatively informal game I wouldn't be up in arms about it.

 

[bigslice]

nothing wrong with it all, and the rule book does cover it along the lines of a player being able to select his own marker if the committee fails to provide one.

6-6a confirms that more than one marker, for different holes, is fine, and confirms that they should both sign for thier bits.

6-6a/1 Lone Competitor appoints own marker? Confirms that this is fine.

its really the order of playing the course that MAY be an issue, but as we have put in place an informal event myself as vice captain dont have an issue

 

[rosecott]

Stipulated round?

 

[bigslice]

Stipulated round?

yep just read that, 'unless otherwise authorised by the committee', the person believed that was the case.

 

[duncan mackie]

its really the order of playing the course that MAY be an issue, but as we have put in place an informal event myself as vice captain dont have an issue

this bit will be a function of the CoC for the competition, and the definition of the stipulated round that the committee have made. If they haven't made one then yes, failure to start on the 1st and finish on the 18th is a breach of 3-1, and a penalty of DQ under 33-7 would be appropriate.

this crops up a lot in respect of 9 hole evening rounds/swindles when people want to play the front 9 first when the event is for the back 9 (thus playing 18) or continue round after finishing the front 9 etc - technically both these would be in breach of the above but the organisers normally point out that they don't have a committee so they can neither authorise it nor DQ someone under 33-7!

 

[bigslice]

if yet unamed person:mmm: is DQd what happens to his card for handicap purposes

 

[duncan mackie]

if yet unamed person:mmm: is DQd what happens to his card for handicap purposes

you would have to refer to the CONGU manual to see what...without looking my guess would be that it counts


edit

but I guessed wrong.

despite being acceptable within the general principle 1, because it ends up a 33-7 decision (and they can't rule on all of them) it's not acceptable.

 

[bigslice]

you would have to refer to the CONGU manual to see what...without looking my guess would be that it counts


edit

but I guessed wrong.

despite being acceptable within the general principle 1, because it ends up a 33-7 decision (and they can't rule on all of them) it's not acceptable.

just to update this i was dqd, they are unsure about handicap side,but this isnt the first time its came up and congu will discuss this soon and possibly update things

 

[duncan mackie]

thx for the update

this one is a little tricky because theoretically the DQ is because you have broken a rule (CoC) that was there to prevent you gaining some advantage, otherwise why have it that someeone else can see an advantage and you (include me too) can't makes it difficult to either rule (33-7 is too wide to do other than what they already have) or leave it to committee's to decide - the same ones that made the rule generally (hence tricky)