| |
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: 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 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 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)
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 08:29:13
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
On Tue, 10 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: 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: 11 Oct 2006 21:08:52
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Joe" <joehnospam@ospamwarwick.net > wrote in message
news:3kaXg.2216$FV6.2173@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> sfb wrote:
>
>> "Joe" <joehnospam@ospamwarwick.net> wrote in message
>> news:%%8Xg.6336$F87.5794@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>
>>>>Your own link says you are wrong. There is only IOU's in the 'fund'.
>>>
>>>If you have $100,000 in a bank savings account, does your bank have a
>>>little box with your name on it and $100,000 inside?
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>
>> You missed the point. The bank has reserves and assets. The Social
>> Security Trust fund has no assets.
>>
>> When Social Security benefits paid out exceed the taxes coming in, the
>> Treasury has to tap the Trust Fund. The Congress then has four choices.
>> 1) Increase SS taxes, 2) decrease SS benefits, 3) increase general taxes
>> to repay the borrowings, or 4) borrow more money on the open market.
>>
>
> It has ever been thus. I didn't miss the point, Treasury notes are
> writtten to underpin the excess of reciepts over outlays. Shortfalls must
> be covered by the Government. How is this any different than any other
> government program?
>
> And the bank in question has how much in reserve and assets?
>
> Joe
Are you saying the Superfund had no assets before it was killed by Bush? And
that FEMA has no actual money in the bank or that the World Bank has no
money? I guess they are smarter to be spending money they actually have.
|
| | |
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: 16 Oct 2006 01:47:27
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
On 11 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: 11 Oct 2006 12:57:26
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
On 11, 2:41 pm, John van der Pflum <jpflu...@ughookugh.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 11 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 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 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: 11 Oct 2006 16:37:17
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
On Wed, 11 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: 17 Oct 2006 00:54:56
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
On Wed, 11 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 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 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: 17 Oct 2006 08:10:55
From: Thomas Prufer
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
On Tue, 17 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: 11 Oct 2006 16:17:16
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
On 11 2006 12:57:26 -0700, "Birdie Bill"
<bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
>
>On 11, 2:41 pm, John van der Pflum <jpflu...@ughookugh.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 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 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 15:15:02
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 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 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: 12 Oct 2006 09:07:07
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
On 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 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 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 marker' 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 ober),
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: 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
|
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.
|
|
