Hole-in-one in Chapman?

[Lenny Intensity]

I was lucky enough to get an ace in our member-member, but it was in the Modified Chapman format day of a 3-day tourney.  We have a hole-in-one "fund" we pay into that pays out those that get one that year.  I was told I wouldn't be eligible for that since it wasn't in the course of a stroke play 18 hole round, which I think is a little questionable given apparently the USGA recommends recognizing a hole-in-one when it occurs in match play or a scramble.  I had 7 witnesses and it was a tourney with like 150 players.  Thoughts on if I have a legitimate grievance?  Seems a little petty to me.

[smoky25]

At my club, as long as it's witnessed by at least 2 other players, it's a hole-in-one and it pays out, no matter the format.

[kozubs]

That's really weird.  Not sure why the Tourney should matter.  The members have paid into it and I'm sure they would complain.  

 

Our club does it to help with the bar tab.  Member Member is probably the most expensive time.  

[dmecca2]

That seems off. If it's in a tournament and people witnessed it, then it counts. 

[wildcatden]

Find another golf club to join.

[shaneyank]

That's lame. It should definitely count and I hope you have the support of your peers, i.e. all club members!

 

To use an example from another sport, in swimming, when competing in a relay event, the lead-off swimmer is still eligible for a world record for that respective individual discipline. Using similar logic, there should be no reason why a HIO is thought of differently for stroke play, stableford, match play, scramble, chapman or anything else.

[Newby]

Show the USGA advice to the organisers.

[limegreengent]

I don't know what a modified Chapman tournament is but that is irrelevant.

What  is relevant is laying down IN ADVANCE  the conditions relating to which strokes count and which strokes do not count in relation in to the members hole in one payout.

Once the conditions are laid down - you either qualify or you do not..

if current conditions are not lpopular change the conditions for the start of next year..

 

 

[SNIPERBBB]

California scramble format it wouldn't count of you weren't the one that made the shot.

 As long as it wasn't a mulligan, it's an ace.

[North Butte]

Any insurance policy is only as good as the fine print says.

[2bGood]

Most clubs have a HIO policy. Ours is pretty clear that it must be in a regulation round, played from regulation tees played in order, playing Format under the Rules of Golf.

 

So you would have to be able to show in the ROG where the (modified) Chapman Format is listed that you were playing. If it is not recognized in the ROG, then it is goofy golf and not recognized by our club.

 

I like that it is written this way as there is no splitting hairs between formats that are legal and ones that are not - if it is in the ROG you are good, if not - sorry. 

 

 

[davep043]

5 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

Most clubs have a HIO policy. Ours is pretty clear that it must be in a regulation round, played from regulation tees played in order, playing Format under the Rules of Golf.

 

So you would have to be able to show in the ROG where the (modified) Chapman Format is listed that you were playing. If it is not recognized in the ROG, then it is goofy golf and not recognized by our club.

 

I like that it is written this way as there is no splitting hairs between formats that are legal and ones that are not - if it is in the ROG you are good, if not - sorry. 

I think this is a fair policy, and after a very quick review of the rules, Chapman falls into the same category as Scramble and a number of other formats.  On the other hand, if the membership expects you to buy drinks for this ace, the membership which contributes to the HOI insurance pool should insist that your ace is covered.

[Sawgrass]

8 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

Most clubs have a HIO policy. Ours is pretty clear that it must be in a regulation round, played from regulation tees played in order, playing Format under the Rules of Golf.

 

So you would have to be able to show in the ROG where the (modified) Chapman Format is listed that you were playing. If it is not recognized in the ROG, then it is goofy golf and not recognized by our club.

 

I like that it is written this way as there is no splitting hairs between formats that are legal and ones that are not - if it is in the ROG you are good, if not - sorry. 

 

 

Be careful of rule 21.5.

[2bGood]

5 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

Be careful of rule 21.5.

 Noted. I don't recall that in the 'old rules' it certainly complicates that policy. 

[Sawgrass]

Just now, 2bGood said:

 Noted. I don't recall that in the 'old rules' it certainly complicates that policy. 

Yes, it’s new for 2019, and it’s not really all that fleshed-out, is it!

[2bGood]

17 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

Yes, it’s new for 2019, and it’s not really all that fleshed-out, is it!

You are telling me. I see that causing more harm than good, as it basically opens the door for any format to be called 'golf,' and even allows you to modify the rules as needed. 

 

The handicap manual does good job of outlining acceptable formats, so that might be a better to have HOI policies reference. 

Edited August 25, 2020 by 2bGood

[davep043]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

You are telling me. I see that causing more harm than good, as it basically opens the door for any format to be called 'golf,' and even allows you to modify the rules as needed. 

 

The handicap manual does good job of outlining acceptable formats, so that might be a better to have HOI policies reference. 

But the handicap manual suggests specific handicap allowances for both scramble and Chapman formats.

[Mudguard]

I had to google Chapman format. I think the closest we have is Canadian Foursomes but it is different again. Sorry, I'm in the camp of it doesn't count. Same as an ambrose/scramble. 

I'd assume it wouldn't count for foursomes either. I presume most of the clubs I've been a member of have required the 18 hole card to be marked and submitted (for handicapping). 

[2bGood]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

But the handicap manual suggests specific handicap allowances for both scramble and Chapman formats.

 

I am not too fussed about what formats are included in a policy (to a point), just that a policy clearly outlines what is included and what is not.

 

I have been a club captain a few times over the years and had to make the call on HIO in odd situation. I tended to error on the generous side when ever I could. I was however involved in ruling on a HOI protest recently where a covid cup with foam was being used and the player was convinced with great certainty it would have been a HOI if the cup was full depth. Not sure how you could tell from a 150 yards away, bit even my most kind hearted generous side could not allow that 'one'. ?

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by 2bGood

[davep043]

9 hours ago, 2bGood said:

 

I am not too fussed about what formats are included in a policy (to a point), just that a policy clearly outlines what is included and what is not.

 

I have been a club captain a few times over the years and had to make the call on HIO in odd situation. I tended to error on the generous side when ever I could. I was however involved in ruling on a HOI protest recently where a covid cup with foam was being used and the player was convinced with great certainty it would have been a HOI if the cup was full depth. Not sure how you could tell from a 150 yards away, bit even my most kind hearted generous side could not allow that 'one'. ?

Agree completely, if there are limitations for the payout, they should be pretty clearly defined. 

As I said before, the real determination to be made is whether the hole-out requires the player to buy drinks for a big crowd of people.  If the HOI "insurance" denies payment, it must not be a hole-in-one, so the player shouldn't be expected to buy the drinks.

[DaveLeeNC]

I think you need to be careful here in dis-allowing competitions not described in the RoG. Unless it were explicitly excluded in the HIO rules, I would be most upset to have contributed to this fund, have gotten a HIO, but no payout simply because it was a four person team format (not in the RoG unless it showed up somewhere somehow in 2019). In that format you play your own ball under the RoG. You just add a calculation at the end of the round to determine a team score based on individual scores (which may or may not be simply the sum of the individual scores). 

 

dave

[david.c.w]

3 hours ago, davep043 said:

Agree completely, if there are limitations for the payout, they should be pretty clearly defined. 

As I said before, the real determination to be made is whether the hole-out requires the player to buy drinks for a big crowd of people.  If the HOI "insurance" denies payment, it must not be a hole-in-one, so the player shouldn't be expected to buy the drinks.

 

100% with @davep043 on this one.  This is not ROG issue at all.  This is an "etiquette"  issue.  Do the ROG cover HIO insurance policies?  Do the ROG recommend you buy drinks?   Like others have said, if the HIO rules do not exclude this format directly, it should pay out.  And MOST IMPORTANTLY, if the member-member participants expected free drinks on you, it should pay out.

 

Congrats on your ace.  I recognize it!

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I think you need to be careful here in dis-allowing competitions not described in the RoG. Unless it were explicitly excluded in the HIO rules, I would be most upset to have contributed to this fund, have gotten a HIO, but no payout simply because it was a four person team format (not in the RoG unless it showed up somewhere somehow in 2019). In that format you play your own ball under the RoG. You just add a calculation at the end of the round to determine a team score based on individual scores (which may or may not be simply the sum of the individual scores). 

 

dave

 

I'm with you.

 

If it's a club event and everyone in the event is playing their own ball on every par 3, knock it in and the pool is yours. In my mind it's just that simple.

 

Unless, as you mentioned, it is specifically excluded beforehand.

[2bGood]

21 hours ago, david.c.w said:

 

100% with @davep043 on this one.  This is not ROG issue at all.  This is an "etiquette"  issue.  Do the ROG cover HIO insurance policies?  Do the ROG recommend you buy drinks?   Like others have said, if the HIO rules do not exclude this format directly, it should pay out.  And MOST IMPORTANTLY, if the member-member participants expected free drinks on you, it should pay out.

 

Congrats on your ace.  I recognize it!

To be clear, I would award this HOI, unless the the club has policy that contradicts this. 

 

Most clubs I have been at have a HOI policy and also have a policy that the Club Captain has final ruling on golf related matters that fall outside of policy. Seems in this case the power is with the GM. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by 2bGood

[davep043]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

To be clear, I would award this HOI, unless the the club has policy that contradicts this. 

 

Most clubs I have been at have a HOI and also have a policy that the Club Captain has final ruling on golf related matters that fall outside of policy. Seem in this case the power is with the GM. 

I guess at this stage we need @Lenny Intensity to come back and provide more information.  Who is responsible for maintaining and disbursing the HOI "fund", and what rules (if any) are actually written down?  Who made the decision not to award the cash?  Did @Lenny Intensity actually buy drinks for the whole crowd?  

[Bushwood Country Club]

On 8/23/2020 at 11:41 PM, Lenny Intensity said:

I was lucky enough to get an ace in our member-member, but it was in the Modified Chapman format day of a 3-day tourney.  We have a hole-in-one "fund" we pay into that pays out those that get one that year.  I was told I wouldn't be eligible for that since it wasn't in the course of a stroke play 18 hole round, which I think is a little questionable given apparently the USGA recommends recognizing a hole-in-one when it occurs in match play or a scramble.  I had 7 witnesses and it was a tourney with like 150 players.  Thoughts on if I have a legitimate grievance?  Seems a little petty to me.

You 100% have a beef.  That is a complete BS response from whomever gave it to you.

[Mudguard]

3 hours ago, Bushwood Country Club said:

You 100% have a beef.  That is a complete BS response from whomever gave it to you.

Seems pretty cut and dried, it wasn't an 18 hole stroke play round. Not eligible. These things always go round and round. Have you had a hole in one if you're buy yourself? Is it a course record if there is clean and place? Etc etc. 

I have no doubt the OP pays into a fund each year, but that's to cover the rounds that are eligible. 

[ArtMBgolf]

The tourney format should not matter, as long as maybe you aren't a blue tee player, playing the red tees, like in a red, white blue event, where 
you changes tees every hole and you aced it on the red tee as a 2 Hdc.    
  
If Chapman can't count, then what if you were rained out after it happened?  Sure the round is no good, but the Ace is a Ace.
Ask the members to vote, if it happened to you, would you expect it to count?     

[HatsForBats]

On 8/25/2020 at 10:27 PM, Mudguard said:

I had to google Chapman format. I think the closest we have is Canadian Foursomes but it is different again. Sorry, I'm in the camp of it doesn't count. Same as an ambrose/scramble. 

I'd assume it wouldn't count for foursomes either. I presume most of the clubs I've been a member of have required the 18 hole card to be marked and submitted (for handicapping). 

OK, you are in the camp of it doesn't count but what are your reasons for why it shouldn't count? As far as scramble the below is from the National Hole In One Registry...

 

What constitutes a valid hole in one?

The Rules of Golf do not address the issue of the validity of a hole in one. The USGA recommends that a hole in one be considered valid:

• If made during a round of at least nine holes, except that a hole in one made during a match should be acceptable even if the match ends before the stipulated round is completed
• If the player is playing one ball; a hole in one made in a practice round in which the player is playing two or more balls should not be acceptable
• If attested by an acceptable witness
• If made at a hole with a temporary tee and/or putting green in use, even if the Committee did not specifically define the teeing ground with tee-markers; the length of the hole at the time should be stated on any certificate
• If made in a “scramble” competition, for example, a Captain’s Choice

[HatsForBats]

8 hours ago, ArtMBgolf said:

... as long as maybe you aren't a blue tee player, playing the red tees, like in a red, white blue event, where 
you changes tees every hole and you aced it on the red tee as a 2 Hdc. 

 

So we have 4 par 4's from the Red (forward tees) that are 220 to 250 yards long. Shouldn't a hole-in-one on those par 4's count as a hole in one for any player?

 

With the shortest holes on our forward tee's being around 90 yards I don't see any reason they wouldn't count for a hole in one. I think the issue with trying to exclude a hole-in-one for such an event is it is would be unfair to players that would/should normally be playing those tees. As far as a hole-in-one pool I could see it going either way but it should be specifically identified at signup and time of the competition.

Edited August 27, 2020 by HatsForBats