Integrity at the Club Level

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 10 Oct 2006 19:34:03
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Integrity at the Club Level

Ran into an interesting situation recently. Our men's golf organization
annual tournament (flighted and handicap adjusted with a separate trophy for
low gross) was held as a two day, two round affair.

After the first day, one of our better golfers had the low gross lead and
was on the leaderboard in his flight for low net. That evening he called the
tournament organizer and told him that when he got home he discovered that
he was carrying 15 clubs the whole round.

Ultimately he was assessed a four stroke penalty (the max for such an
offense, I think) but not DQ'ed for an incorrect scorecard. I think he
ultimately got third place in his flight.

You gotta' admire that kind of integrity.

dave

Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:49:22
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

sfb wrote:
> Please take the time to read ROG 33-7 at
> http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/books/. The Committee may only waive the
> DQ and not any other ROG.

> >

This is of no relevance to what I said. I think you have answered the
wrong post.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:41:31
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:07:07
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Oct 12, 7:58 am, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
> "Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in messagenews:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
>
>
>
> > "sfb" <s...@spam.net> writes:
>
> > > I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
> > > powers.
>
> > Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
>
> > > You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the ROG
> > > which they clearly did not do.
>
> > So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
> > would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
> > because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
> > know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
> > to ignorance on the Committee's part.
>
> > --FWIW, the committee was well-aware of 6-6d and 33-7. Who knows - maybe the
> exceptional circumstances were that they were having a hard time reaching an
> agreement, it was cocktail hour, and the only available avenue to not
> missing cocktail hour was to not DQ. But IMHO they didn't want to do that
> under these circumstances for a couple of club-specific reasons and 33-7 was
> the best they could come up with.
>

Dave,
Technically speaking, I think the committee made a mistake. I've
seen worse mistakes, but I still think it was a mistake.
If the player had been DQ'd as a result of his
honesty, it would have been unfortunate, but... that's golf.

On the other hand, I think this would be a good question to pose
to the usga, whether the committee acted correctly when they
waived the DQ. I've been wrong about the rules before.

By the way, what club is this? If I remember right, don't you play
out of Pinehurst? Is this the Pinehurst Men's Club?

Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:37:31
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Responsible is not the same as perform. All 6-6/d says is a player can not
be DQed for an incorrect total score and/or handicap adjustment.
.
"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160669227.454546.122860@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Oct 12, 7:58 am, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>> "Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "sfb" <s...@spam.net> writes:
>>
>> > > I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within
>> > > their
>> > > powers.
>>
>> > Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
>>
>> > > You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the
>> > > ROG
>> > > which they clearly did not do.
>>
>> > So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
>> > would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
>> > because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
>> > know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
>> > to ignorance on the Committee's part.
>>
>> > --FWIW, the committee was well-aware of 6-6d and 33-7. Who knows -
>> > maybe the
>> exceptional circumstances were that they were having a hard time reaching
>> an
>> agreement, it was cocktail hour, and the only available avenue to not
>> missing cocktail hour was to not DQ. But IMHO they didn't want to do that
>> under these circumstances for a couple of club-specific reasons and 33-7
>> was
>> the best they could come up with.
>>
>
> Dave,
> Technically speaking, I think the committee made a mistake. I've
> seen worse mistakes, but I still think it was a mistake.
> If the player had been DQ'd as a result of his
> honesty, it would have been unfortunate, but... that's golf.
>
> On the other hand, I think this would be a good question to pose
> to the usga, whether the committee acted correctly when they
> waived the DQ. I've been wrong about the rules before.
>
> By the way, what club is this? If I remember right, don't you play
> out of Pinehurst? Is this the Pinehurst Men's Club?
>

Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:31:09
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160669227.454546.122860@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Oct 12, 7:58 am, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> > "Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in
messagenews:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > "sfb" <s...@spam.net> writes:
> >
> > > > I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within
their
> > > > powers.
> >
> > > Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
> >
> > > > You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the
ROG
> > > > which they clearly did not do.
> >
> > > So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
> > > would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
> > > because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
> > > know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
> > > to ignorance on the Committee's part.
> >
> > > --FWIW, the committee was well-aware of 6-6d and 33-7. Who knows -
maybe the
> > exceptional circumstances were that they were having a hard time
reaching an
> > agreement, it was cocktail hour, and the only available avenue to not
> > missing cocktail hour was to not DQ. But IMHO they didn't want to do
that
> > under these circumstances for a couple of club-specific reasons and 33-7
was
> > the best they could come up with.
> >
>
> Dave,
> Technically speaking, I think the committee made a mistake. I've
> seen worse mistakes, but I still think it was a mistake.
> If the player had been DQ'd as a result of his
> honesty, it would have been unfortunate, but... that's golf.
>
> On the other hand, I think this would be a good question to pose
> to the usga, whether the committee acted correctly when they
> waived the DQ. I've been wrong about the rules before.
>
> By the way, what club is this? If I remember right, don't you play
> out of Pinehurst? Is this the Pinehurst Men's Club?
>

Bill, this would be the Men's Golf Association at Pinehurst. The honest
truth is that the MGA's intent is to 'run by the rules' pretty strictly with
regards to how scores are calculated. In a couple of areas that I'll call
'administrative' they knowlingly violate a strict interpretation of the ROG,
quite frankly, for their own convenience.

An example would be our weekly competitions where adding up scores
incorrectly, improper handicap application, or not correctly posting scores
will get you DQ'ed. I don't believe that this strictly follows the ROG, but
it is a most effective way to get folks to pay attention to what they are
turning in and avoids forcing the MGA to have to do detailed scoring of
300-400 golfers per week.

Similarly in this competition there wasn't exactly 'a ker' as prescribed
by the ROG. There was one card for each threesome, obviously somebody wrote
down the scores on each hole, and all three golfers had to sign/date the
card. Without studying the matter seriously, this violates 33-5 as I
understand it. And that is the way it is and will remain, I believe (I have
no objections). This is simply a practical consideration as our software is
set up to generate scorecards in this manner and this is how MGA folks are
used to doing things.

In the case being discussed there were two competing considerations.

1) MGA wants to encourage integrity as much as possible
2) In this tourney we have problems with folks having a poor round, they get
a very early tee time for their second round (say 7:30 in early October),
and withdraw. The MGA wants to discourage this and the board/committee
wasn't thrilled with the thought of kicking someone in contention out when
others are being told they should play.

The committee made their decision and if it stretched the rules a bit, ....

The Club Championship (and the many higher level tournaments run by the
resort) are handled a bit differently in some cases.

dave

Date: 11 Oct 2006 20:01:20
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Exactly.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 19:59:54
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Wayne wrote:

>
> It's a fair point that you make, but I just don't see the problem with
> adding the 4 shots instead of a DQ in a club competition like that. If it
> were a provincial amateur event or above, I'd think differently but the
> stakes are a lot higher in that situation.
>

So you think that we should not all play by the same rules, but that
playing rules are altered or introduced depending on the standard of
the competitors?

That pretty much goes against the basic tenets of the game since it was
founded.

Date: 16 Oct 2006 01:47:27
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On 11 Oct 2006 19:59:54 -0700, "johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote:

>So you think that we should not all play by the same rules, but that
>playing rules are altered or introduced depending on the standard of
>the competitors?

Sort of like playing some people playing flag football or T-ball, or
with low baskets?

Date: 12 Oct 2006 00:20:35
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

johnty wrote:

>
> Wayne wrote:
>
>>
>> It's a fair point that you make, but I just don't see the problem with
>> adding the 4 shots instead of a DQ in a club competition like that. If
>> it were a provincial amateur event or above, I'd think differently but
>> the stakes are a lot higher in that situation.
>>
>
> So you think that we should not all play by the same rules, but that
> playing rules are altered or introduced depending on the standard of
> the competitors?

That's not what I'm saying. I just don't think that a DQ is warranted in
this situation, though I'm not sure that it satisfies rule 33-7 in being an
exceptional situation. I just don't see the point in DQing a guy who
realizes after one round of a multi-round club competition (club
competition is the key) that he had an extra club in the bag.

It's not like I'm suggesting that a lost ball not be stroke and distance.
I'm just giving the committee a little leeway in deciding what warrants a
DQ. I agree with Pflum that it's possible to create a really slippery
slope, but I would hope that the committee at my club (if I belonged to
one) would have the common sense to be able to decide when it was really
necessary to DQ someone and when it would be ok to add the penalty strokes
after the fact.

Maybe I've just been away from competitive golf for too long and have
developed a soft spot. *shrugs*

Wayne
--
www.nhlfa.com
"There are only two things I can't stand in this world: people who are
intolerant of other peoples' cultures, and the Dutch."
-Nigel Powers

Date: 11 Oct 2006 23:42:40
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Please take the time to read ROG 33-7 at
http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/books/. The Committee may only waive the
DQ and not any other ROG.

"johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160621993.932495.315960@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Wayne wrote:
>
>>
>> It's a fair point that you make, but I just don't see the problem with
>> adding the 4 shots instead of a DQ in a club competition like that. If
>> it
>> were a provincial amateur event or above, I'd think differently but the
>> stakes are a lot higher in that situation.
>>
>
> So you think that we should not all play by the same rules, but that
> playing rules are altered or introduced depending on the standard of
> the competitors?
>
> That pretty much goes against the basic tenets of the game since it was
> founded.
>

Date: 11 Oct 2006 12:57:26
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Oct 11, 2:41 pm, John van der Pflum <jpflu...@ughookugh.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:15:02 -0400, "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote:
> >ROG 33-7 grants the Committee authority to waive a DQ in "exceptional
> >individual cases."
>
> >Applying 6-6d in this case is convoluted at best. The hole scores reported
> >were correct. The penalty increases them. To say that the posted scores were
> >lower than the final scores, the 6-6d DQ, seems a stretch when the final
> >result is posting a higher score which isn't a DQ.A couple of things.
>
> 1. This is HARDLY an exceptional individual case. People sign wrong
> score cards all the time. People write down wong scores on holes all
> the time. They are DQed. "An exptional individual case" might be a
> guy who finishes his round and on his way to the scoring tent is
> attacked by a polar bear that rips his right arm off. Due to the
> trauma of the injury, and the fact that he doesn't write very well
> with his left hand, he puts down a 4 instead of the 5 he actually
> scored. I can see the committee giving some leeway in that case.
>
> 2. The hole scores reported were NOT correct. Let's say he makes 4
> on the first hole and that's what he records. Well, he really got a 6
> because of the penalty. He makes birdie on the next hole and records
> a 2. Well, he really got a 4 because of the penalty. From there on
> out the scores reported were correct but not for the first two holes.
> (Rule 4-4a if you want to look it up.)
>
> 3. The final result WAS the correct score but he had already turned
> in, and presumably signed, his score card with the incorrect (and
> lower) scores.
>
> So by recording a lower, incorrect score on holes 1 and 2 he should
> have been DQed. End of story.
>
> --

I gotta go with Slim on this. I greatly admire this guy's integrity,
but the correct penalty is DQ. This kind of thing happens every
once in a while on the pro tours, and results in DQ every time.
If you sign for a score lower than what you really made, it is
DQ, and penalty strokes DO count in that determination.

I guess the only grey area would be if the scorecards were
not "signed" after the first round. Not sure what happens
if scorecards are not signed (and too lazy to look it up),
but that may be grounds for DQ all by itself.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 16:28:13
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Birdie Bill wrote:

>> 1. This is HARDLY an exceptional individual case. People sign wrong
>> score cards all the time. People write down wong scores on holes all
>> the time. They are DQed. "An exptional individual case" might be a
>> guy who finishes his round and on his way to the scoring tent is
>> attacked by a polar bear that rips his right arm off. Due to the
>> trauma of the injury, and the fact that he doesn't write very well
>> with his left hand, he puts down a 4 instead of the 5 he actually
>> scored. I can see the committee giving some leeway in that case.
>>
>> 2. The hole scores reported were NOT correct. Let's say he makes 4
>> on the first hole and that's what he records. Well, he really got a 6
>> because of the penalty. He makes birdie on the next hole and records
>> a 2. Well, he really got a 4 because of the penalty. From there on
>> out the scores reported were correct but not for the first two holes.
>> (Rule 4-4a if you want to look it up.)
>>
>> 3. The final result WAS the correct score but he had already turned
>> in, and presumably signed, his score card with the incorrect (and
>> lower) scores.
>>
>> So by recording a lower, incorrect score on holes 1 and 2 he should
>> have been DQed. End of story.
>>
>> --
>
> I gotta go with Slim on this. I greatly admire this guy's integrity,
> but the correct penalty is DQ. This kind of thing happens every
> once in a while on the pro tours, and results in DQ every time.
> If you sign for a score lower than what you really made, it is
> DQ, and penalty strokes DO count in that determination.
>
> I guess the only grey area would be if the scorecards were
> not "signed" after the first round. Not sure what happens
> if scorecards are not signed (and too lazy to look it up),
> but that may be grounds for DQ all by itself.

Christ, you guys are awfully tough! While I agree that DQ is the textbook
penalty and certainly what would happen in a tour event, I don't have a
problem with them just adding the 4 strokes to his score in a competition
like this. I can't imagine any of the competitors having a problem with
it, either.

I think the DQ penalty is often far too penal, though.

Wayne
--
www.nhlfa.com
"There are only two things I can't stand in this world: people who are
intolerant of other peoples' cultures, and the Dutch."
-Nigel Powers

Date: 11 Oct 2006 15:41:01
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Wayne <way96ah@hotmail.com > writes:

> Birdie Bill wrote:
>
> >> 1. This is HARDLY an exceptional individual case. People sign wrong
> >> score cards all the time. People write down wong scores on holes all
> >> the time. They are DQed. "An exptional individual case" might be a
> >> guy who finishes his round and on his way to the scoring tent is
> >> attacked by a polar bear that rips his right arm off. Due to the
> >> trauma of the injury, and the fact that he doesn't write very well
> >> with his left hand, he puts down a 4 instead of the 5 he actually
> >> scored. I can see the committee giving some leeway in that case.
> >>
> >> 2. The hole scores reported were NOT correct. Let's say he makes 4
> >> on the first hole and that's what he records. Well, he really got a 6
> >> because of the penalty. He makes birdie on the next hole and records
> >> a 2. Well, he really got a 4 because of the penalty. From there on
> >> out the scores reported were correct but not for the first two holes.
> >> (Rule 4-4a if you want to look it up.)
> >>
> >> 3. The final result WAS the correct score but he had already turned
> >> in, and presumably signed, his score card with the incorrect (and
> >> lower) scores.
> >>
> >> So by recording a lower, incorrect score on holes 1 and 2 he should
> >> have been DQed. End of story.
> >>
> >> --
> >
> > I gotta go with Slim on this. I greatly admire this guy's integrity,
> > but the correct penalty is DQ. This kind of thing happens every
> > once in a while on the pro tours, and results in DQ every time.
> > If you sign for a score lower than what you really made, it is
> > DQ, and penalty strokes DO count in that determination.
> >
> > I guess the only grey area would be if the scorecards were
> > not "signed" after the first round. Not sure what happens
> > if scorecards are not signed (and too lazy to look it up),
> > but that may be grounds for DQ all by itself.
>
> Christ, you guys are awfully tough! While I agree that DQ is the textbook
> penalty and certainly what would happen in a tour event, I don't have a
> problem with them just adding the 4 strokes to his score in a competition
> like this. I can't imagine any of the competitors having a problem with
> it, either.
>
> I think the DQ penalty is often far too penal, though.

This is why every competitor should ask the Committee, prior to
the start of play, which Rules are not going to be applied due
to the inconvenience of doing so.

Personally, I find it very inconvenient to add those
water hazard relief penalties...

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 11 Oct 2006 21:43:54
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

ROG 33-7 allows the Committee to waive a DQ. It does NOT allow them to waive
any other penalty or ROG.

"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote in message
news:barejtetwki.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...

>
> This is why every competitor should ask the Committee, prior to
> the start of play, which Rules are not going to be applied due
> to the inconvenience of doing so.
>
> Personally, I find it very inconvenient to add those
> water hazard relief penalties...
>

Date: 12 Oct 2006 05:37:31
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > writes:

> ROG 33-7 allows the Committee to waive a DQ. It does NOT allow them to waive
> any other penalty or ROG.

So, what exceptional circumstances existed in this case?
I forgot to count my clubs is not an exceptional circumstance.

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:24:43
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
powers.

You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the ROG
which they clearly did not do.

"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote in message
news:barodsh95w4.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>
>> ROG 33-7 allows the Committee to waive a DQ. It does NOT allow them to
>> waive
>> any other penalty or ROG.
>
> So, what exceptional circumstances existed in this case?
> I forgot to count my clubs is not an exceptional circumstance.
>
> --
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
> Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
> Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 12 Oct 2006 19:46:14
From: Crispin Roche
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:24:43 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

>I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
>powers.

Although the committee have the power to waive the penalty of
disqualification (Rule 33-7) the decisions make it quite clear that
this responsibility is not something to do just for the heck of it.
With respect to the original post it seems to me that Decision 4-1/1
(the committee would not be justified in waiving the DQ penalty in the
case of a player unwittingly carrying a non conforming club which they
do not use) indicates that the player with 15 clubs should have been
disqualified.

Crispin Roche

Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:53:56
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:46:14 GMT, Crispin Roche
<crispin.roche@ntlworld.com > wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:24:43 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
>>powers.
>
>Although the committee have the power to waive the penalty of
>disqualification (Rule 33-7) the decisions make it quite clear that
>this responsibility is not something to do just for the heck of it.
>With respect to the original post it seems to me that Decision 4-1/1
>(the committee would not be justified in waiving the DQ penalty in the
>case of a player unwittingly carrying a non conforming club which they
>do not use) indicates that the player with 15 clubs should have been
>disqualified.
>
>Crispin Roche

Of course there is always 33-7/4.5. It seems to sum it all up pretty
clearly.

33-7/4.5 Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether
Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified

Q. A competitor returns his score card and the score for one hole is
lower than actually taken due to failure to include a penalty of two
strokes which he did not know he had incurred. The error is discovered
before the competition has closed.

Would the Committee be justified, under Rule 33-7, in waiving or
modifying the penalty of disqualification prescribed in Rule 6-6d?

A. No. It is the responsibility of the competitor to know the Rules.

--

jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:09:04
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

There are two separate and distinct question be entwined.

Does the Committee have the authority to waive the DQ? Yes, absolutely.

Did the Committee abuse the authority in this case? Probably in a PGA type
tournament and probably not at your basic everyday golf club in the US.

"John van der Pflum" <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote in message
news:s77ti2t6gc2a5s6bu099h8ip2gqq1bk97a@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:46:14 GMT, Crispin Roche
> <crispin.roche@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:24:43 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
>>>powers.
>>
>>Although the committee have the power to waive the penalty of
>>disqualification (Rule 33-7) the decisions make it quite clear that
>>this responsibility is not something to do just for the heck of it.
>>With respect to the original post it seems to me that Decision 4-1/1
>>(the committee would not be justified in waiving the DQ penalty in the
>>case of a player unwittingly carrying a non conforming club which they
>>do not use) indicates that the player with 15 clubs should have been
>>disqualified.
>>
>>Crispin Roche
>
> Of course there is always 33-7/4.5. It seems to sum it all up pretty
> clearly.
>
> 33-7/4.5 Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether
> Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified
>
>
> Q. A competitor returns his score card and the score for one hole is
> lower than actually taken due to failure to include a penalty of two
> strokes which he did not know he had incurred. The error is discovered
> before the competition has closed.
>
> Would the Committee be justified, under Rule 33-7, in waiving or
> modifying the penalty of disqualification prescribed in Rule 6-6d?
>
> A. No. It is the responsibility of the competitor to know the Rules.
>
> --
>
> jvdp
> Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:40:28
From: Crispin Roche
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:35:04
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:09:04 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

>There are two separate and distinct question be entwined.
>
>Does the Committee have the authority to waive the DQ? Yes, absolutely.
>
>Did the Committee abuse the authority in this case? Probably in a PGA type
>tournament and probably not at your basic everyday golf club in the US.
>

We clearly disagree on the answer to your second question.

Why is there one standard for the PGA and one standard for everyone
else? I didn't know there were two sets of rule books.
--

jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:50:58
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

There are multiple Committees each following the same rule book and
exercising their authority to different standards.

You argument is with the Committee as I've been willing to see the
Committee's side of things without necessarily agreeing with them.

We have all looked the other way when some guy deep in last place has taken
an ambitious drop out of a hazard. It isn't worth starting a feces throwing
contest.

"John van der Pflum" <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote in message
news:0j9ti29s45mvse1vqhd7e2u8j6ooja5n6a@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:09:04 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>There are two separate and distinct question be entwined.
>>
>>Does the Committee have the authority to waive the DQ? Yes, absolutely.
>>
>>Did the Committee abuse the authority in this case? Probably in a PGA type
>>tournament and probably not at your basic everyday golf club in the US.
>>
>
> We clearly disagree on the answer to your second question.
>
> Why is there one standard for the PGA and one standard for everyone
> else? I didn't know there were two sets of rule books.
> --
>
> jvdp
> Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 12 Oct 2006 17:15:23
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:50:58 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

>There are multiple Committees each following the same rule book and
>exercising their authority to different standards.
>
>You argument is with the Committee as I've been willing to see the
>Committee's side of things without necessarily agreeing with them.
>
>We have all looked the other way when some guy deep in last place has taken
>an ambitious drop out of a hazard. It isn't worth starting a feces throwing
>contest.

What unusual individual cicumstances, aside from the golfer being
mauled by a bear, would warrant waiving the DQ?

I would hardly call this a feces contest. A spirited debate, perhaps.
We, well *I*, haven't thrown out any insults.
--

jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 12 Oct 2006 06:40:20
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > writes:

> I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
> powers.

Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.

> You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the ROG
> which they clearly did not do.

So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
to ignorance on the Committee's part.

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:58:24
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote in message
news:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>
> > I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
> > powers.
>
> Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
>
> > You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the ROG
> > which they clearly did not do.
>
> So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
> would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
> because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
> know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
> to ignorance on the Committee's part.
>
> --
FWIW, the committee was well-aware of 6-6d and 33-7. Who knows - maybe the
exceptional circumstances were that they were having a hard time reaching an
agreement, it was cocktail hour, and the only available avenue to not
missing cocktail hour was to not DQ. But IMHO they didn't want to do that
under these circumstances for a couple of club-specific reasons and 33-7 was
the best they could come up with.

But what the heck - these guys even allow the competitors to add their own
scores (audit only by the committee) and make their own handicap adjustments
for net scores (strokes indicated on the card by the committee). And this is
in clear violation of 6-6d. I guess this isn't even golf - and all this time
that is the game that I thought I was playing :-)

dave

Date: 12 Oct 2006 19:48:56
From: Crispin Roche
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:58:24 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:

>
>"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in message
>news:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
>> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>>
>> > I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
>> > powers.
>>
>> Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
>>
>> > You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the ROG
>> > which they clearly did not do.
>>
>> So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
>> would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
>> because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
>> know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
>> to ignorance on the Committee's part.
>>
>> --
>FWIW, the committee was well-aware of 6-6d and 33-7. Who knows - maybe the
>exceptional circumstances were that they were having a hard time reaching an
>agreement, it was cocktail hour, and the only available avenue to not
>missing cocktail hour was to not DQ. But IMHO they didn't want to do that
>under these circumstances for a couple of club-specific reasons and 33-7 was
>the best they could come up with.
>

So its quite ironic then that in a thread entitled "Integrity at the
Club Level" we have a set of actions by the committee which really
leave a lot to be desired.

Crispin Roche

Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:05:26
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

"Crispin Roche" <crispin.roche@ntlworld.com > wrote in message
news:067ti29b6g7ovoskrla5kdiiht8hoih3it@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:58:24 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in message
> >news:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> >> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
> >>
> >> > I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within
their
> >> > powers.
> >>
> >> Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
> >>
> >> > You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the
ROG
> >> > which they clearly did not do.
> >>
> >> So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
> >> would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
> >> because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
> >> know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
> >> to ignorance on the Committee's part.
> >>
> >> --
> >FWIW, the committee was well-aware of 6-6d and 33-7. Who knows - maybe
the
> >exceptional circumstances were that they were having a hard time reaching
an
> >agreement, it was cocktail hour, and the only available avenue to not
> >missing cocktail hour was to not DQ. But IMHO they didn't want to do that
> >under these circumstances for a couple of club-specific reasons and 33-7
was
> >the best they could come up with.
> >
>
> So its quite ironic then that in a thread entitled "Integrity at the
> Club Level" we have a set of actions by the committee which really
> leave a lot to be desired.
>
> Crispin Roche

Depends on your 'standards of integrity'. If you live in a very pure 'ROG
only' world, your statement might be accurate. If you live in a real world,
you might still feel that way or you might not. I'm on the 'not side', but
understand the point (re: my response to Birdie Bill in this thread).

dave

Date: 13 Oct 2006 01:07:53
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: George W. Bush

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:44:11 +0000, Chris Bellomy wrote:

> I think the problem is that increasingly, corporations are effectively
> run by stockholders with no criminal liability should the corporations
> break the law. I haven't really thought through how to fix that, but
> when the investors' directive is to maximize profit at the expense of
> all else, bad things tend to happen.

So the corporation becomes a kind of psychopath, fixed on profits to the
exclusion of all else. They buy lawmakers and they write legislation and
they increasingly tilt the balance of power in their favor. This will be
the thing that destroys America.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:14:24
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Adding your own hole scores and applying the handicap is not a violation of
6-6/d which says the responsibility lies with the Committee not the player.
6-6/d says nothing about who does the addition and handicap adjustment vs.
who audits the addition and adjustment.

"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:QZqXg.12859$UG4.1969@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in message
> news:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
>> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>>
>> > I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
>> > powers.
>>
>> Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
>>
>> > You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the
>> > ROG
>> > which they clearly did not do.
>>
>> So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
>> would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
>> because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
>> know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
>> to ignorance on the Committee's part.
>>
>> --
> FWIW, the committee was well-aware of 6-6d and 33-7. Who knows - maybe the
> exceptional circumstances were that they were having a hard time reaching
> an
> agreement, it was cocktail hour, and the only available avenue to not
> missing cocktail hour was to not DQ. But IMHO they didn't want to do that
> under these circumstances for a couple of club-specific reasons and 33-7
> was
> the best they could come up with.
>
> But what the heck - these guys even allow the competitors to add their own
> scores (audit only by the committee) and make their own handicap
> adjustments
> for net scores (strokes indicated on the card by the committee). And this
> is
> in clear violation of 6-6d. I guess this isn't even golf - and all this
> time
> that is the game that I thought I was playing :-)
>
> dave
>
>

Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:12:38
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:mvGdnWpfsfktorPYnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Adding your own hole scores and applying the handicap is not a violation
of
> 6-6/d which says the responsibility lies with the Committee not the
player.
> 6-6/d says nothing about who does the addition and handicap adjustment vs.
> who audits the addition and adjustment.
>
snip

When I responded to a similar post from Aress I expressed relief at his
observation of the same thing. However, the Committee required that the
players make their own handicap adjustments and total their own scores. In
our weekly events an error here would get you DQ'ed - I assume (but don't
know for sure) that the same thing would be true in the Association Tourney.

Would seem to me that this is the same type of 'overstepping' that is being
discussed relative to not DQ'ing for a 6-6d violation.

Darn - I was so close to back to being a golfer :-)

dave

Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:16:19
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > writes:

> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote in message
> news:mvGdnWpfsfktorPYnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > Adding your own hole scores and applying the handicap is not a violation
> of
> > 6-6/d which says the responsibility lies with the Committee not the
> player.
> > 6-6/d says nothing about who does the addition and handicap adjustment vs.
> > who audits the addition and adjustment.
> >
> snip
>
> When I responded to a similar post from Aress I expressed relief at his
> observation of the same thing. However, the Committee required that the
> players make their own handicap adjustments and total their own scores. In
> our weekly events an error here would get you DQ'ed - I assume (but don't
> know for sure) that the same thing would be true in the Association Tourney.
>
> Would seem to me that this is the same type of 'overstepping' that is being
> discussed relative to not DQ'ing for a 6-6d violation.

Yup, Decision 33-1/7.

> Darn - I was so close to back to being a golfer :-)

Actually, it just means that they are not a "real" Committee;
it has no effect on real-ness as a golfer.

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 12 Oct 2006 08:13:20
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > writes:

> "Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in message
> news:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
> >
> > > I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
> > > powers.
> >
> > Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
> >
> > > You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the ROG
> > > which they clearly did not do.
> >
> > So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
> > would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
> > because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
> > know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
> > to ignorance on the Committee's part.
> >
> > --
> FWIW, the committee was well-aware of 6-6d and 33-7. Who knows - maybe the
> exceptional circumstances were that they were having a hard time reaching an
> agreement, it was cocktail hour, and the only available avenue to not
> missing cocktail hour was to not DQ. But IMHO they didn't want to do that
> under these circumstances for a couple of club-specific reasons and 33-7 was
> the best they could come up with.
>
> But what the heck - these guys even allow the competitors to add their own
> scores (audit only by the committee) and make their own handicap adjustments
> for net scores (strokes indicated on the card by the committee). And this is
> in clear violation of 6-6d.

It is not a breach of the Rules if the player totals his card or
applies his handicap; the Committee should just disregard it
and do its own work.

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:27:09
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote in message
news:bar1wpdn0cv.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
>
> > "Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in message
> > news:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > > "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
> > >
snip
>
> It is not a breach of the Rules if the player totals his card or
> applies his handicap; the Committee should just disregard it
> and do its own work.
>
> --

What a relief - maybe the audit is close enough and I really am playing golf
:-)

dave

Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:57:02
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
Committee in question

"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote in message
news:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>
>> I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
>> powers.
>
> Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
>
>> You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the ROG
>> which they clearly did not do.
>
> So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
> would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
> because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
> know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
> to ignorance on the Committee's part.
>
> --
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
> Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
> Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:13:19
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > writes:

> If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
> then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
> Committee in question

Please enlighten me, concoct any set of circumstances related to
carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
justify waiving the disqualification penalty.

The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating to
this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was providing
medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 12 Oct 2006 08:38:40
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

The maximum 4 stroke penalty was assessed per ROG 4-4/a. Using authority
granted by ROG 33-7, the Committee waived the wrong hole score DQ in ROG
6-6/d. Whether the Committee was justified in this case is a question best
answered by the Committee which did not violate the ROG.

Them's the facts.

"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote in message
news:barejtdn34w.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>
>> If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average
>> amoeba,
>> then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
>> Committee in question
>
> Please enlighten me, concoct any set of circumstances related to
> carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
> justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
>
> The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating
> to
> this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was
> providing
> medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
>
> --
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
> Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
> Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:55:09
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > writes:

> The maximum 4 stroke penalty was assessed per ROG 4-4/a. Using authority
> granted by ROG 33-7, the Committee waived the wrong hole score DQ in ROG
> 6-6/d. Whether the Committee was justified in this case is a question best
> answered by the Committee which did not violate the ROG.
>
> Them's the facts.

If no exceptional circumstances existed, the Committee exceeded
its authority under the Rules of Golf.

I know that you have already dug in your heels and are probably
no longer interested in the proper application of the Rules;
however, for those who may be, Decisions 33-7/4 and 33-7/4.5
may be of interest.

For a case where modifying the score rather than DQing the
player is correct one can look to the situation that occurred
with Lee Janzen in a U.S. Open several years ago.

Play was discontinued overnight and when Janzen returned to his ball
he mopped-up the dew around it (the grounds crew had 'whipped'
the fairway but had avoided Janzen's ball or ball-ker) in breach
of Rule 13-2. A member of the Committee witnessed the breach
but was unsure whether a penalty had been incurred and said nothing.

Janzen returned his scorecard without the 2ps incurred. When
the facts became known, the Committee altered Janzen's score.

This case is different because a member of the Committee was
had witnessed the breach and should have resolved his own doubt
so that Janzen could return a correct scorecard.

>
> "Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in message
> news:barejtdn34w.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
> >
> >> If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average
> >> amoeba,
> >> then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
> >> Committee in question
> >
> > Please enlighten me, concoct any set of circumstances related to
> > carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
> > justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
> >
> > The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating
> > to
> > this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was
> > providing
> > medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
> >
> > --
> > +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
> > Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
> > Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
> > +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:22:03
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Aress Gee wrote:
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>
>> The maximum 4 stroke penalty was assessed per ROG 4-4/a. Using authority
>> granted by ROG 33-7, the Committee waived the wrong hole score DQ in ROG
>> 6-6/d. Whether the Committee was justified in this case is a question best
>> answered by the Committee which did not violate the ROG.
>>
>> Them's the facts.
>
> If no exceptional circumstances existed, the Committee exceeded
> its authority under the Rules of Golf.
>
> I know that you have already dug in your heels and are probably
> no longer interested in the proper application of the Rules;
> however, for those who may be, Decisions 33-7/4 and 33-7/4.5
> may be of interest.
>
> For a case where modifying the score rather than DQing the
> player is correct one can look to the situation that occurred
> with Lee Janzen in a U.S. Open several years ago.
>
> Play was discontinued overnight and when Janzen returned to his ball
> he mopped-up the dew around it (the grounds crew had 'whipped'
> the fairway but had avoided Janzen's ball or ball-ker) in breach
> of Rule 13-2. A member of the Committee witnessed the breach
> but was unsure whether a penalty had been incurred and said nothing.
>
> Janzen returned his scorecard without the 2ps incurred. When
> the facts became known, the Committee altered Janzen's score.
>
> This case is different because a member of the Committee was
> had witnessed the breach and should have resolved his own doubt
> so that Janzen could return a correct scorecard.

Would the end result have changed? Would the assessed penalty to Janzen
have been any different.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:30:45
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Aress Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com > writes:

> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>
> > If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
> > then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
> > Committee in question
>
> Please enlighten me, concoct any set of circumstances related to
> carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
> justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
>
> The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating to
> this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was providing
> medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...

Of course, even if we determine that an exceptional
event (clubs mating and producing offspring during
the round, perhaps) occurred, the real issue is whether
exceptional circumstances surround the 6-6d penalty.

Going back to the original post (excerpt below) we learn
that the player's failure to include the 4-4a penalty in
his scores for the first two holes was caused by his
ignorance of the existence of this 15th club.

So, what exceptional circumstances can we find that prevented
the player from discovering this 15th club during his round?

I'm afraid that we (me and the other average amoeba) are
unable to come up with any circumstances other than
space aliens erasing the player's memory.

>> Excerpt from original post <<
That evening he called the tournament organizer and told him that
when he got home he discovered that he was carrying
15 clubs the whole round.
>>

> --
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
> Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
> Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:16:45
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On 12 Oct 2006 07:30:45 -0500, Aress Gee
<invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote:

>Aress Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com> writes:
>
>So, what exceptional circumstances can we find that prevented
>the player from discovering this 15th club during his round?
>

Maybe his eyes were gouged out by a polar bear.
--

jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:39:24
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

John van der Pflum <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > writes:

> On 12 Oct 2006 07:30:45 -0500, Aress Gee
> <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
>
> >Aress Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com> writes:
> >
> >So, what exceptional circumstances can we find that prevented
> >the player from discovering this 15th club during his round?
> >
>
> Maybe his eyes were gouged out by a polar bear.

In the face this new evidence, I withdraw my previous comments.

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 12 Oct 2006 08:29:08
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On 12 Oct 2006 07:13:19 -0500, Aress Gee
<invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote:

>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>
>> If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
>> then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
>> Committee in question
>
>Please enlighten me, concoct any set of circumstances related to
>carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
>justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
>
>The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating to
>this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was providing
>medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...

Maybe the 15th club was really his prosthetic (sp?) arm that had been
ripped off and devoured by the polar bear.
--

jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 12 Oct 2006 08:45:51
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

John van der Pflum wrote:
> On 12 Oct 2006 07:13:19 -0500, Aress Gee
> <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
>>>then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
>>>Committee in question
>>
>>Please enlighten me, concoct any set of circumstances related to
>>carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
>>justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
>>
>>The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating to
>>this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was providing
>>medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
>
>
> Maybe the 15th club was really his prosthetic (sp?) arm that had been
> ripped off and devoured by the polar bear.

The 'polar bear' analogy is not appropriate at all - quite silly in fact.

Polar bears are not found this far south, prefering the colder climes of
the Arctic and sub-arctic. His arm was ripped off, most probably, by a
brown or black bear. The bear may have been on it's way to a formal
function, dressed in a white tux, hence mistaken for a polar bear.

Just wanted to clear this up.

David

Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:07:30
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:45:51 -0400, David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net >
wrote:

>John van der Pflum wrote:
>> On 12 Oct 2006 07:13:19 -0500, Aress Gee
>> <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
>>>>then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
>>>>Committee in question
>>>
>>>Please enlighten me, concoct any set of circumstances related to
>>>carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
>>>justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
>>>
>>>The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating to
>>>this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was providing
>>>medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
>>
>>
>> Maybe the 15th club was really his prosthetic (sp?) arm that had been
>> ripped off and devoured by the polar bear.
>
>The 'polar bear' analogy is not appropriate at all - quite silly in fact.
>
>Polar bears are not found this far south, prefering the colder climes of
>the Arctic and sub-arctic. His arm was ripped off, most probably, by a
>brown or black bear. The bear may have been on it's way to a formal
>function, dressed in a white tux, hence mistaken for a polar bear.
>
>Just wanted to clear this up.
>
>David

Well, I used the polar bear in the hope that it would provide an
"individual exceptional circumstance."
--

jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:46:37
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

John van der Pflum wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:45:51 -0400, David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>
>>>On 12 Oct 2006 07:13:19 -0500, Aress Gee
>>><invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
>>>>>then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
>>>>>Committee in question
>>>>
>>>>Please enlighten me, concoct any set of circumstances related to
>>>>carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
>>>>justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
>>>>
>>>>The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating to
>>>>this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was providing
>>>>medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe the 15th club was really his prosthetic (sp?) arm that had been
>>>ripped off and devoured by the polar bear.
>>
>>The 'polar bear' analogy is not appropriate at all - quite silly in fact.
>>
>>Polar bears are not found this far south, prefering the colder climes of
>>the Arctic and sub-arctic. His arm was ripped off, most probably, by a
>>brown or black bear. The bear may have been on it's way to a formal
>>function, dressed in a white tux, hence mistaken for a polar bear.
>>
>>Just wanted to clear this up.
>>
>>David
>
>
> Well, I used the polar bear in the hope that it would provide an
> "individual exceptional circumstance."

I can see that, however I believe the black bear in a white tuxedo would
provide the same crcumstance.

David

Date: 12 Oct 2006 22:06:05
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

David Sneddon wrote:

> I can see that, however I believe the black bear in a white tuxedo would
> provide the same circumstance.

But pandas only live in China.

--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 2006 00:33:49
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:06:05 GMT, Colin Wilson <nowhere@nospam.com >
wrote:

> David Sneddon wrote:
>
> > I can see that, however I believe the black bear in a white tuxedo would
> > provide the same circumstance.
>
> But pandas only live in China.

Very good point, Colin. Not, alas, for this thread or discussion, but
good point, nonetheless.
Except, of course, that it's incorrect. They also live in zoos in
other countries.
Koalas, on the other hand, are quite shy, we anthropomorphically
claim. They, however, see themselves as quite forward, they've told
me on more than one occasion. And in several different dialects, to
boot.

Peter
(evidently spinning wildly out of control)

Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:19:32
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Colin Wilson wrote:
> David Sneddon wrote:
>
>> I can see that, however I believe the black bear in a white tuxedo
>> would provide the same circumstance.
>
>
> But pandas only live in China.

Then Chinese golfers better lookout.

David

Date: 12 Oct 2006 21:26:30
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net > wrote:
: John van der Pflum wrote:
: > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:45:51 -0400, David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net>
: > wrote:
: >
: >
: >>John van der Pflum wrote:
: >>
: >>>On 12 Oct 2006 07:13:19 -0500, Aress Gee
: >>><invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
: >>>
: >>>
: >>>
: >>>>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>>>If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
: >>>>>then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
: >>>>>Committee in question
: >>>>
: >>>>Please enlighten me, concoct any set of circumstances related to
: >>>>carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
: >>>>justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
: >>>>
: >>>>The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating to
: >>>>this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was providing
: >>>>medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
: >>>
: >>>
: >>>Maybe the 15th club was really his prosthetic (sp?) arm that had been
: >>>ripped off and devoured by the polar bear.
: >>
: >>The 'polar bear' analogy is not appropriate at all - quite silly in fact.
: >>
: >>Polar bears are not found this far south, prefering the colder climes of
: >>the Arctic and sub-arctic. His arm was ripped off, most probably, by a
: >>brown or black bear. The bear may have been on it's way to a formal
: >>function, dressed in a white tux, hence mistaken for a polar bear.
: >>
: >>Just wanted to clear this up.
: >>
: >>David
: >
: >
: > Well, I used the polar bear in the hope that it would provide an
: > "individual exceptional circumstance."
:
: I can see that, however I believe the black bear in a white tuxedo would
: provide the same crcumstance.

Sneddon, I believe I speak for most of the group when I tell
you that we are getting damned sick of your polarist attitude!

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:20:20
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Chris Bellomy wrote:
> David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

> : I can see that, however I believe the black bear in a white tuxedo would
> : provide the same crcumstance.
>
> Sneddon, I believe I speak for most of the group when I tell
> you that we are getting damned sick of your polarist attitude!

That's only because we had snow today.

David

Date: 13 Oct 2006 02:56:55
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net > wrote:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
:
: > : I can see that, however I believe the black bear in a white tuxedo would
: > : provide the same crcumstance.
: >
: > Sneddon, I believe I speak for most of the group when I tell
: > you that we are getting damned sick of your polarist attitude!
:
: That's only because we had snow today.

Familiarity breeds contempt, eh?

(New motto of rsg?)

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 11 Oct 2006 16:36:32
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:28:13 -0400, Wayne <way96ah@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Birdie Bill wrote:
>
>>> 1. This is HARDLY an exceptional individual case. People sign wrong
>>> score cards all the time. People write down wong scores on holes all
>>> the time. They are DQed. "An exptional individual case" might be a
>>> guy who finishes his round and on his way to the scoring tent is
>>> attacked by a polar bear that rips his right arm off. Due to the
>>> trauma of the injury, and the fact that he doesn't write very well
>>> with his left hand, he puts down a 4 instead of the 5 he actually
>>> scored. I can see the committee giving some leeway in that case.
>>>
>>> 2. The hole scores reported were NOT correct. Let's say he makes 4
>>> on the first hole and that's what he records. Well, he really got a 6
>>> because of the penalty. He makes birdie on the next hole and records
>>> a 2. Well, he really got a 4 because of the penalty. From there on
>>> out the scores reported were correct but not for the first two holes.
>>> (Rule 4-4a if you want to look it up.)
>>>
>>> 3. The final result WAS the correct score but he had already turned
>>> in, and presumably signed, his score card with the incorrect (and
>>> lower) scores.
>>>
>>> So by recording a lower, incorrect score on holes 1 and 2 he should
>>> have been DQed. End of story.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> I gotta go with Slim on this. I greatly admire this guy's integrity,
>> but the correct penalty is DQ. This kind of thing happens every
>> once in a while on the pro tours, and results in DQ every time.
>> If you sign for a score lower than what you really made, it is
>> DQ, and penalty strokes DO count in that determination.
>>
>> I guess the only grey area would be if the scorecards were
>> not "signed" after the first round. Not sure what happens
>> if scorecards are not signed (and too lazy to look it up),
>> but that may be grounds for DQ all by itself.
>
>Christ, you guys are awfully tough! While I agree that DQ is the textbook
>penalty and certainly what would happen in a tour event, I don't have a
>problem with them just adding the 4 strokes to his score in a competition
>like this. I can't imagine any of the competitors having a problem with
>it, either.
>
>I think the DQ penalty is often far too penal, though.
>
>Wayne

So how do you pick which rules to apply during a tournament? Some
people think stroke and distance is too penal. Should that be waived
during a tournament?

/begin devil's advocate

Is it really that big of a deal to carry 15 clubs? I mean, who really
uses that 15th club and does it make that much of a difference?

What about 3" putts? Everybody allways makes those so we'll call them
"good."

/end devil's advocate

There really isn't much gray area. If you are going to do a
tournament you have to do it by the rules. Just ask the large number
of people who have been DQed at various tournaments -- pro, amateur,
or RSG events.
--

jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 11 Oct 2006 22:43:32
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

John van der Pflum wrote:

>>Christ, you guys are awfully tough! While I agree that DQ is the textbook
>>penalty and certainly what would happen in a tour event, I don't have a
>>problem with them just adding the 4 strokes to his score in a competition
>>like this. I can't imagine any of the competitors having a problem with
>>it, either.
>>
>>I think the DQ penalty is often far too penal, though.
>>
>>Wayne
>
> So how do you pick which rules to apply during a tournament? Some
> people think stroke and distance is too penal. Should that be waived
> during a tournament?

It's a fair point that you make, but I just don't see the problem with
adding the 4 shots instead of a DQ in a club competition like that. If it
were a provincial amateur event or above, I'd think differently but the
stakes are a lot higher in that situation.

> /begin devil's advocate
>
> Is it really that big of a deal to carry 15 clubs? I mean, who really
> uses that 15th club and does it make that much of a difference?
>
> What about 3" putts? Everybody allways makes those so we'll call them
> "good."
>
> /end devil's advocate
>
> There really isn't much gray area. If you are going to do a
> tournament you have to do it by the rules. Just ask the large number
> of people who have been DQed at various tournaments -- pro, amateur,
> or RSG events.

I hear what you're saying, but I have to agree with what the committee did
in this situation. A DQ would have been awfully harsh. Commend the guy
for calling in to let them know of his situation, apply the 4 shots and
play the next day.

Wayne
--
www.nhlfa.com
"There are only two things I can't stand in this world: people who are
intolerant of other peoples' cultures, and the Dutch."
-Nigel Powers

Date: 11 Oct 2006 17:13:15
From: Loudon Briggs
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

John van der Pflum <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote:

(CLIP)
>What about 3" putts? Everybody allways makes those so we'll call them
>"good."
(CLIP)

Everybody but Hale Irwin. :}
--

Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ

"How Can You Not Like A Game Where It's Okay To
Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies,
and If You're Under Par It's A Great Day!"

(from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves -- used with permission)

Date: 11 Oct 2006 20:51:50
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:13:15 -0700, Loudon Briggs <larebe@bbz.net >
wrote:

>John van der Pflum <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com> wrote:
>
>(CLIP)
>>What about 3" putts? Everybody allways makes those so we'll call them
>>"good."
>(CLIP)
>
>Everybody but Hale Irwin. :}

Hehehe. My point exactly. :-)
--

http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
jvdp

Date: 11 Oct 2006 16:17:16
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On 11 Oct 2006 12:57:26 -0700, "Birdie Bill"
<bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
>
>On Oct 11, 2:41 pm, John van der Pflum <jpflu...@ughookugh.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:15:02 -0400, "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote:
>> >ROG 33-7 grants the Committee authority to waive a DQ in "exceptional
>> >individual cases."
>>
>> >Applying 6-6d in this case is convoluted at best. The hole scores reported
>> >were correct. The penalty increases them. To say that the posted scores were
>> >lower than the final scores, the 6-6d DQ, seems a stretch when the final
>> >result is posting a higher score which isn't a DQ.A couple of things.
>>
>> 1. This is HARDLY an exceptional individual case. People sign wrong
>> score cards all the time. People write down wong scores on holes all
>> the time. They are DQed. "An exptional individual case" might be a
>> guy who finishes his round and on his way to the scoring tent is
>> attacked by a polar bear that rips his right arm off. Due to the
>> trauma of the injury, and the fact that he doesn't write very well
>> with his left hand, he puts down a 4 instead of the 5 he actually
>> scored. I can see the committee giving some leeway in that case.
>>
>> 2. The hole scores reported were NOT correct. Let's say he makes 4
>> on the first hole and that's what he records. Well, he really got a 6
>> because of the penalty. He makes birdie on the next hole and records
>> a 2. Well, he really got a 4 because of the penalty. From there on
>> out the scores reported were correct but not for the first two holes.
>> (Rule 4-4a if you want to look it up.)
>>
>> 3. The final result WAS the correct score but he had already turned
>> in, and presumably signed, his score card with the incorrect (and
>> lower) scores.
>>
>> So by recording a lower, incorrect score on holes 1 and 2 he should
>> have been DQed. End of story.
>>
>> --
>
>I gotta go with Slim on this. I greatly admire this guy's integrity,
>but the correct penalty is DQ. This kind of thing happens every
>once in a while on the pro tours, and results in DQ every time.
>If you sign for a score lower than what you really made, it is
>DQ, and penalty strokes DO count in that determination.
>
>I guess the only grey area would be if the scorecards were
>not "signed" after the first round. Not sure what happens
>if scorecards are not signed (and too lazy to look it up),
>but that may be grounds for DQ all by itself.

Decisions that might apply.........

*************************************************
6-6c/1 When Score Card Considered Returned

Q. Rule 6-6c prohibits alterations to the score card �after the
competitor has returned it to the Committee." When is a score card
considered returned?

A. This is a matter for the Committee to decide and it will vary
depending on the nature of the competition. The Committee should
designate a �scoring area� where competitors are to return their score
cards (e.g., in a tent, a trailer, the golf shop, by the scoreboard,
etc.). When it has done so, Rule 6-6c should be interpreted in such a
way that a competitor within the �scoring area� is considered to be in
the process of returning his score card. Alterations may be made on
the score card even if the competitor has handed the score card to a
member of the Committee. He is considered to have returned his score
card when he has left the scoring area.
Alternatively, the Committee may require a competitor to return his
score card by placing it in a box and thus consider it returned when
it is dropped into the box, even if he has not left the scoring area.
*************************************************

and

*************************************************
6-6b/3 Competitor Fails to Sign First-Round Card; Error Discovered on
Completion of Last Round

Q. In a 36-hole stroke-play event, it was discovered just before the
results were announced that a competitor had omitted to sign his score
card at the end of the first round. In all other respects the cards
for both rounds were correct. Should he be disqualified?

A. Yes, because he was in breach of Rule 6-6b.

--

jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 11 Oct 2006 14:51:07
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:34:03 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:

>Ran into an interesting situation recently. Our men's golf organization
>annual tournament (flighted and handicap adjusted with a separate trophy for
>low gross) was held as a two day, two round affair.
>
>After the first day, one of our better golfers had the low gross lead and
>was on the leaderboard in his flight for low net. That evening he called the
>tournament organizer and told him that when he got home he discovered that
>he was carrying 15 clubs the whole round.
>
>Ultimately he was assessed a four stroke penalty (the max for such an
>offense, I think) but not DQ'ed for an incorrect scorecard. I think he
>ultimately got third place in his flight.
>
>You gotta' admire that kind of integrity.
>
>dave
>

Hey Dave,

Why didn't the tournament committee DQ this guy?

That seems crazy. He should have been DQed under 6-6d without
question.

If it were me I'd be pissed he wasn't DQed. But that's just me,
following the rules and all.
--

jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 11 Oct 2006 20:27:48
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

"John van der Pflum" <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote in message
news:74fqi2poh0rjdugeb2dsjbjkgh3gdj0m72@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:34:03 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> >Ran into an interesting situation recently. Our men's golf organization
> >annual tournament (flighted and handicap adjusted with a separate trophy
for
> >low gross) was held as a two day, two round affair.
> >
> >After the first day, one of our better golfers had the low gross lead and
> >was on the leaderboard in his flight for low net. That evening he called
the
> >tournament organizer and told him that when he got home he discovered
that
> >he was carrying 15 clubs the whole round.
> >
> >Ultimately he was assessed a four stroke penalty (the max for such an
> >offense, I think) but not DQ'ed for an incorrect scorecard. I think he
> >ultimately got third place in his flight.
> >
> >You gotta' admire that kind of integrity.
> >
> >dave
> >
>
> Hey Dave,
>
> Why didn't the tournament committee DQ this guy?
>
> That seems crazy. He should have been DQed under 6-6d without
> question.
>
> If it were me I'd be pissed he wasn't DQed. But that's just me,
> following the rules and all.
> --
>
> jvdp

Basically this isn't the PGA tour. The rules allow some discretion and the
committe made their decision. There have been no complaints from the
tournament participants.

dave

Date: 17 Oct 2006 00:54:56
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:27:48 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:

> Basically this isn't the PGA tour. The rules allow some discretion and the
> committe made their decision. There have been no complaints from the
> tournament participants.

That might be because they trust the Committee to know, and operate
by, the rules.
In fact, the Committee violated the rules in waiving the DQ, which, as
has been pointed out eloquently, was certainly warranted. Yes, it's a
Draconian penalty for an apparently innocent mistake. However, it is,
as has also been eloquently pointed out, the responsibility of the
player to know the rules. Had the player in question been truly
coming from not only personal integrity but knowledge of the RoG, he
would have DQ'd himself.
Perhaps the Committee should go to a Rules school?

And as for the totalling of scores and application of handicaps, how,
if the Committee doesn't audit the scorecards, would they know whether
such math had been correctly applied? And if they're auditing the
cards, then presumably they're arriving at their own computations of
totals and applied handicaps. Why require the players to do that?
Especially when the RoG state that that is precisely NOT the
responsibility of the player (6-6 Note 1; 33-5).

Perhaps, indeed, the Committee, or at least one of its members, should
go to a Rules school.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 08:10:55
From: Thomas Prufer
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:54:56 GMT, Peter Strauss <pfs126@earthlink.net > wrote:

>That might be because they trust the Committee to know, and operate
>by, the rules.
>In fact, the Committee violated the rules in waiving the DQ, which, as
>has been pointed out eloquently, was certainly warranted. Yes, it's a
>Draconian penalty for an apparently innocent mistake. However, it is,
>as has also been eloquently pointed out, the responsibility of the
>player to know the rules. Had the player in question been truly
>coming from not only personal integrity but knowledge of the RoG, he
>would have DQ'd himself.
>Perhaps the Committee should go to a Rules school?

Why ever?

If the Committee pulls a completely absurd ruling out of its hat, it's correct
by definition. If the player doesn't think they have it right --because for
instance it clearly contravenes the RoG, or some other minor detail -- he may
politely and humbly request the Committee to go and ask in writing if they are a
bunch of iggerant gits and screwed up.

And if they don't, the player can go stuff himself.

'bout right?

Thomas Prufer

Date: 17 Oct 2006 01:37:27
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

"Peter Strauss" <pfs126@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:qt98j2liqjo19nv1dacfigmkkhgvfi25hp@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:27:48 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> > Basically this isn't the PGA tour. The rules allow some discretion and
the
> > committe made their decision. There have been no complaints from the
> > tournament participants.
>
> That might be because they trust the Committee to know, and operate
> by, the rules.
> In fact, the Committee violated the rules in waiving the DQ, which, as
> has been pointed out eloquently, was certainly warranted. Yes, it's a
> Draconian penalty for an apparently innocent mistake. However, it is,
> as has also been eloquently pointed out, the responsibility of the
> player to know the rules. Had the player in question been truly
> coming from not only personal integrity but knowledge of the RoG, he
> would have DQ'd himself.
> Perhaps the Committee should go to a Rules school?
>
> And as for the totalling of scores and application of handicaps, how,
> if the Committee doesn't audit the scorecards, would they know whether
> such math had been correctly applied? And if they're auditing the
> cards, then presumably they're arriving at their own computations of
> totals and applied handicaps. Why require the players to do that?
> Especially when the RoG state that that is precisely NOT the
> responsibility of the player (6-6 Note 1; 33-5).
>
> Perhaps, indeed, the Committee, or at least one of its members, should
> go to a Rules school.

This is not an understanding of the rules issue. It is a matter of
practicality.

Regarding the audits, only the 'winning cards' are audited (plus occasional
sampling, just for grins). So if you mess up the math and record a higher
team score than you should, you lose.

dave

Date: 11 Oct 2006 16:37:17
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:27:48 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:

>> Hey Dave,
>>
>> Why didn't the tournament committee DQ this guy?
>>
>> That seems crazy. He should have been DQed under 6-6d without
>> question.
>>
>> If it were me I'd be pissed he wasn't DQed. But that's just me,
>> following the rules and all.
>> --
>>
>> jvdp
>
>Basically this isn't the PGA tour. The rules allow some discretion and the
>committe made their decision. There have been no complaints from the
>tournament participants.
>
>dave
>

<shrug >

Okie dokie.
--

jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 11 Oct 2006 15:15:02
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

ROG 33-7 grants the Committee authority to waive a DQ in "exceptional
individual cases."

Applying 6-6d in this case is convoluted at best. The hole scores reported
were correct. The penalty increases them. To say that the posted scores were
lower than the final scores, the 6-6d DQ, seems a stretch when the final
result is posting a higher score which isn't a DQ.

"John van der Pflum" <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote in message
news:74fqi2poh0rjdugeb2dsjbjkgh3gdj0m72@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:34:03 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
>>Ran into an interesting situation recently. Our men's golf organization
>>annual tournament (flighted and handicap adjusted with a separate trophy
>>for
>>low gross) was held as a two day, two round affair.
>>
>>After the first day, one of our better golfers had the low gross lead and
>>was on the leaderboard in his flight for low net. That evening he called
>>the
>>tournament organizer and told him that when he got home he discovered that
>>he was carrying 15 clubs the whole round.
>>
>>Ultimately he was assessed a four stroke penalty (the max for such an
>>offense, I think) but not DQ'ed for an incorrect scorecard. I think he
>>ultimately got third place in his flight.
>>
>>You gotta' admire that kind of integrity.
>>
>>dave
>>
>
> Hey Dave,
>
> Why didn't the tournament committee DQ this guy?
>
> That seems crazy. He should have been DQed under 6-6d without
> question.
>
> If it were me I'd be pissed he wasn't DQed. But that's just me,
> following the rules and all.
> --
>
> jvdp
> Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 11 Oct 2006 15:41:03
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:15:02 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

>ROG 33-7 grants the Committee authority to waive a DQ in "exceptional
>individual cases."
>
>Applying 6-6d in this case is convoluted at best. The hole scores reported
>were correct. The penalty increases them. To say that the posted scores were
>lower than the final scores, the 6-6d DQ, seems a stretch when the final
>result is posting a higher score which isn't a DQ.
>

A couple of things.

1. This is HARDLY an exceptional individual case. People sign wrong
score cards all the time. People write down wong scores on holes all
the time. They are DQed. "An exptional individual case" might be a
guy who finishes his round and on his way to the scoring tent is
attacked by a polar bear that rips his right arm off. Due to the
trauma of the injury, and the fact that he doesn't write very well
with his left hand, he puts down a 4 instead of the 5 he actually
scored. I can see the committee giving some leeway in that case.

2. The hole scores reported were NOT correct. Let's say he makes 4
on the first hole and that's what he records. Well, he really got a 6
because of the penalty. He makes birdie on the next hole and records
a 2. Well, he really got a 4 because of the penalty. From there on
out the scores reported were correct but not for the first two holes.
(Rule 4-4a if you want to look it up.)

3. The final result WAS the correct score but he had already turned
in, and presumably signed, his score card with the incorrect (and
lower) scores.

So by recording a lower, incorrect score on holes 1 and 2 he should
have been DQed. End of story.

--

jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 11 Oct 2006 08:29:13
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:34:03 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:

>Ran into an interesting situation recently. Our men's golf organization
>annual tournament (flighted and handicap adjusted with a separate trophy for
>low gross) was held as a two day, two round affair.
>
>After the first day, one of our better golfers had the low gross lead and
>was on the leaderboard in his flight for low net. That evening he called the
>tournament organizer and told him that when he got home he discovered that
>he was carrying 15 clubs the whole round.
>
>Ultimately he was assessed a four stroke penalty (the max for such an
>offense, I think) but not DQ'ed for an incorrect scorecard. I think he
>ultimately got third place in his flight.
>
>You gotta' admire that kind of integrity.
>
>dave
>

Yep -- that's pretty cool. To be honest, though, I almost expect this
type of behavior out of golfers. The cheater seems to be the
exception, rather than the rule.

I was playing a match with my dad and found my daughter's putter in my
golf bag about halfway through the match. That sure turned things
around in a hurry. :-)
--

jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 10 Oct 2006 16:16:15
From: Kevin D. Timm
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Dave Lee wrote:
>
> Ran into an interesting situation recently. Our men's golf organization
> annual tournament (flighted and handicap adjusted with a separate trophy for
> low gross) was held as a two day, two round affair.
>
> After the first day, one of our better golfers had the low gross lead and
> was on the leaderboard in his flight for low net. That evening he called the
> tournament organizer and told him that when he got home he discovered that
> he was carrying 15 clubs the whole round.
>
> Ultimately he was assessed a four stroke penalty (the max for such an
> offense, I think) but not DQ'ed for an incorrect scorecard. I think he
> ultimately got third place in his flight.
>
> You gotta' admire that kind of integrity.
>
> dave

Smile. Thanks.

Date: 10 Oct 2006 16:29:07
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:16:15 -0500, "Kevin D. Timm"
<kevindtimm@comcast.net > wrote:

>
>
>Dave Lee wrote:
>>
>> Ran into an interesting situation recently. Our men's golf organization
>> annual tournament (flighted and handicap adjusted with a separate trophy for
>> low gross) was held as a two day, two round affair.
>>
>> After the first day, one of our better golfers had the low gross lead and
>> was on the leaderboard in his flight for low net. That evening he called the
>> tournament organizer and told him that when he got home he discovered that
>> he was carrying 15 clubs the whole round.
>>
>> Ultimately he was assessed a four stroke penalty (the max for such an
>> offense, I think) but not DQ'ed for an incorrect scorecard. I think he
>> ultimately got third place in his flight.
>>
>> You gotta' admire that kind of integrity.
>>
>> dave
>
>Smile. Thanks.

I'm also impressed that you belong to North Carolina golf org, and
play in their tournament...while living in Texas :-)

Date: 10 Oct 2006 19:04:28
From: Kevin D. Timm
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level

Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:16:15 -0500, "Kevin D. Timm"
> <kevindtimm@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Dave Lee wrote:
> >>
> >> Ran into an interesting situation recently. Our men's golf organization
> >> annual tournament (flighted and handicap adjusted with a separate trophy for
> >> low gross) was held as a two day, two round affair.
> >>
> >> After the first day, one of our better golfers had the low gross lead and
> >> was on the leaderboard in his flight for low net. That evening he called the
> >> tournament organizer and told him that when he got home he discovered that
> >> he was carrying 15 clubs the whole round.
> >>
> >> Ultimately he was assessed a four stroke penalty (the max for such an
> >> offense, I think) but not DQ'ed for an incorrect scorecard. I think he
> >> ultimately got third place in his flight.
> >>
> >> You gotta' admire that kind of integrity.
> >>
> >> dave
> >
> >Smile. Thanks.
>
> I'm also impressed that you belong to North Carolina golf org, and
> play in their tournament...while living in Texas :-)

Sorry, wasn't clear. I smiled, then thanked him for the day brightener.
I certainly did not mean to take credit for aforementioned actions
(though I sure hope I would do the same)