Starting the round after having played two holes

[Hawkeye77]

52 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

I think that’s a fair point you make, particularly when you stretch it beyond “across the street” to any other course in the world.  
 

Seems like the committee holds awesome responsibility in terms of defining OB.

 

So now just sarcasm? 

 

Even thought he didn't actually do it, lol, and no problem, I agree with @Colin L and think parting company on this is best.  

 

Guess it was a dumb question, but questions dumb and smart root out the underpinnings of answers.  I'm stuck on "round" and how a round starts and view that differently and am out of ideas to explore that for now, and probably won't suggest any if any come to me.

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

The plain language of Rule 6.1b tells that you that you must start a hole from the teeing area of the hole to be played.  If you play from  anywhere else  on the course, you are in breach of the rule. 

 

Exactly. 

 

And other than the penalty nothing happens until you play from the right place.

If you never play from the correct tee you are DQd.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Newby

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, Sawgrass said:

Two things, Hawk.

 

First, and most emotional to me, while some refs may be jerks trying to "get" players and taking pleasure in it, most are not.  As to the refs speaking in this thread, I am 100% sure they/we are not straining to get someone, but rather following logic and the rule book to get a resolution to what I'm sure we all see as a very unfortunate screw up on these players' part.

 

Second, if you can accept the validity of penalizing players for teeing off slightly outside the teeing area, but don't accept penalizing them for teeing off very far outside the teeing area (#1 tee instead of #10), then you must create a rule which says where the line is drawn.  (The rules, as I read them, use the OB line for this (if it exists.)

 

I fear such a modification in the rules would create needless complexity and perhaps difficulty in "measuring."  And I wouldn't be in favor of it to accommodate the occasional bone head who doesn't read the rules of the competition.

While I agree with you based on my experience with refs , 99.9.% are good people. With fair minds.   Though I’ve met one who didnt understand the difference between the safe sign and pointing  OB.  And blamed me for his mis use of the safe sign , but I digress.  
 

I think how I read it here though is that the committee in this instance seems to be getting a complete pass on the setup and information side of things.  I’ve read no questions asked ( other than mine ) about the setup , tee times , information pathways etc.  it’s always  just assumed that it’s the players fault.  That it was a wel informed , setup event , etc.  My point being , it’s a two way street.  Fact  finding would show us where the breakdown occurred. 
 

we keep talking about intent.  But I think the wrong angle of intent is being asked.  It is not “ did you intend to tee off from #1 “. That doesn’t matter.  The question should be “ did you intend to practice on the course “,  if that’s the angle of DQ ......or “ were you notified of the start time and hole to start on ? “.   If intent doesn’t mattter why has it been cited  as justification several times for the DQ ? 

[rogolf]

In the situations under discussion, "intent" is not a factor.  Did you play from outside the correct teeing area?  Did you make stokes on the course before your round?  These are factual matters only.

[Sawgrass]

2 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

So now just sarcasm? 

 

Even thought he didn't actually do it, lol, and no problem, I agree with @Colin L and think parting company on this is best.  

 

Guess it was a dumb question, but questions dumb and smart root out the underpinnings of answers.  I'm stuck on "round" and how a round starts and view that differently and am out of ideas to explore that for now, and probably won't suggest any if any come to me.

I wasn’t being sarcastic, I was being supportive. 

[Sawgrass]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

While I agree with you based on my experience with refs , 99.9.% are good people. With fair minds.   Though I’ve met one who didnt understand the difference between the safe sign and pointing  OB.  And blamed me for his mis use of the safe sign , but I digress.  
 

I think how I read it here though is that the committee in this instance seems to be getting a complete pass on the setup and information side of things.  I’ve read no questions asked ( other than mine ) about the setup , tee times , information pathways etc.  it’s always  just assumed that it’s the players fault.  That it was a wel informed , setup event , etc.  My point being , it’s a two way street.  Fact  finding would show us where the breakdown occurred. 
 

we keep talking about intent.  But I think the wrong angle of intent is being asked.  It is not “ did you intend to tee off from #1 “. That doesn’t matter.  The question should be “ did you intend to practice on the course “,  if that’s the angle of DQ ......or “ were you notified of the start time and hole to start on ? “.   If intent doesn’t mattter why has it been cited  as justification several times for the DQ ? 

The OP seems to have told us the players thought they were playing in the tournament.  If tee times were missed, that’s a different story which I would have expected a response to.

 

There was no obligation for the committee to exclude the front nine from the course, in fact I think the OB problem that would have created for adjacent holes would be a terrible idea.

 

whether practicing or playing, a DQ is appropriate. I don’t think it’s “assumed that this was the player’s fault, I think it’s proven to be the player’s fault.

[bladehunter]

10 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

The OP seems to have told us the players thought they were playing in the tournament.  If tee times were missed, that’s a different story which I would have expected a response to.

 

There was no obligation for the committee to exclude the front nine from the course, in fact I think the OB problem that would have created for adjacent holes would be a terrible idea.

 

whether practicing or playing, a DQ is appropriate. I don’t think it’s “assumed that this was the player’s fault, I think it’s proven to be the player’s fault.

Not saying this negates your last line.  But it needs to be explained. 
 

there is/was no tee time to miss.  This is a “ tee off after work “ deal.  Times are chosen by the players , at random inside of a twilight window.  A lot of times it’s just a walk up and go whne clear.  No tee time at all.  This is how a lot of these things are done.  Our Saturday morning comps are this way. Times are blocked from 8-930 am.  Show up - pair up and go.  And even that is more a schedule than the afternoon ones.   My point in that is -  how can you be DQed from such a silly and unofficial thing as that ?  It’s a bit like being thrown out of a backyard football game for not walking off exactly 10 yards on a “penalty “. lol. 
 

and to the last line. How so ?  How do we know what the parameters are if there aren’t any ? Can you say they teed off in a tournament on the wrong hole when no outline is present for when or where to go off ? 

Edited January 20, 2021 by bladehunter

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

In the situations under discussion, "intent" is not a factor.  Did you play from outside the correct teeing area?  Did you make stokes on the course before your round?  These are factual matters only.

I agree. Was just pointing out that intent has been incorrectly blamed several times here to justify 

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, Sawgrass said:

I wasn’t being sarcastic, I was being supportive. 

Sorry, I totally misread that!

[Hawkeye77]

2 hours ago, rogolf said:

In the situations under discussion, "intent" is not a factor.  Did you play from outside the correct teeing area?  Did you make stokes on the course before your round?  These are factual matters only.

Isn't "did you start on a hole that was part of the defined round for the comp" a factual question?  Intent has been the part of the answer every time -- "but they intended to start their round even though they were on a hole that the comp wasn't being contested over."

 

 

[rogolf]

A good referee or Committee member would simply ask, "Hi guys, what's up here?"

[bladehunter]

17 minutes ago, rogolf said:

A good referee or Committee member would simply ask, "Hi guys, what's up here?"

Lol.  To hopefully draw out a self incriminating answer on intent ?    This ^ is why I learned at an early age to know nothing , have seen nothing and have heard nothing when asked. Most “ hey guys what you up to” questions have hooks in them.  
 

why would this question need to be asked if intent doesn’t matter and the rules are clear ? 

[antip]

5 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Lol.  To hopefully draw out a self incriminating answer on intent ?    This ^ is why I learned at an early age to know nothing , have seen nothing and have heard nothing when asked. Most “ hey guys what you up to” questions have hooks in them.  
 

why would this question need to be asked if intent doesn’t matter and the rules are clear ? 

That's the Sergeant Schultz line from Hogan's Heroes, "I know NuTHING!" (rising intonation).

[rogolf]

50 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Lol.  To hopefully draw out a self incriminating answer on intent ?    This ^ is why I learned at an early age to know nothing , have seen nothing and have heard nothing when asked. Most “ hey guys what you up to” questions have hooks in them.  
 

why would this question need to be asked if intent doesn’t matter and the rules are clear ? 

If you want to learn facts, you need to ask open-ended questions, like "Who is on first?".

Edited January 21, 2021 by rogolf

[Sawgrass]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

Lol.  To hopefully draw out a self incriminating answer on intent ?    This ^ is why I learned at an early age to know nothing , have seen nothing and have heard nothing when asked. Most “ hey guys what you up to” questions have hooks in them.  
 

 

I wouldn’t be so fearful of honesty.  If it works against you, you have the honor of having done the right thing. If it works for you, great.  But it’s only golf!

[bladehunter]

53 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

I wouldn’t be so fearful of honesty.  If it works against you, you have the honor of having done the right thing. If it works for you, great.  But it’s only golf!

It’s not that I would be dishonest.  But , you don’t have to tell on yourself before you know what the end game is.  I’d answer that question with a question and find out what they were driving at first.  Then , I’d tell the truth ..... but then would be armed to protest ASAP since I would  then have the needed info.  
 

the player in me wants to question the committee first.  The official in ROgolf wants to question the player first.   And that’s fine. It’s natural from two different perspectives.  It’s always been “ us vs them “ in any sport.  and likely always will be.  I think it actually has to be that way.  
 

I realize you aren’t accusing.  So I didn’t take it that way.  

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

It’s not that I would be dishonest.  But , you don’t have to tell on yourself before you know what the end game is.  I’d answer that question with a question and find out what they were driving at first.  Then , I’d tell the truth ..... but then would be armed to protest ASAP since I would  then have the needed info.  
 

the player in me wants to question the committee first.  The official in ROgolf wants to question the player first.   And that’s fine. It’s natural from two different perspectives.  It’s always been “ us vs them “ in any sport.  and likely always will be.  I think it actually has to be that way.  
 

I realize you aren’t accusing.  So I didn’t take it that way.  

I disagree that it's "us versus them".  In golf, all competitors, committees, referees and sponsors want a competition to be played within the Rules of golf.  Other sports, and I'm not being critical, have an accepted attitude that it's not a penalty unless you get caught.  That attitude is not consistent with Rules 1.2a (Conduct Expected of All Players) and 1.3b.(1) (Applying the Rules).

And so ends my sermon for the day.  🙂

Edited January 21, 2021 by rogolf

[Newby]

7 hours ago, bladehunter said:

the player in me wants to question the committee first.  The official in ROgolf wants to question the player first.   And that’s fine. It’s natural from two different perspectives.  It’s always been “ us vs them “ in any sport.  and likely always will be.  I think it actually has to be that way.  

(1) The advocate/lawyer asks questions. (2) The accused or witnesses answer questions. (3) The jury gives the verdict.

 

(1) The referee asks questions. (2) The player(s) answer questions. (3) The committee (represented by the referee) gives the verdict.

 

Party (1) does not answer questions. Party (2) does not ask questions. Party (3) makes a ruling

 

None of the parties are opponents.

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, Newby said:

(1) The advocate/lawyer asks questions. (2) The accused or witnesses answer questions. (3) The jury gives the verdict.

 

(1) The referee asks questions. (2) The player(s) answer questions. (3) The committee (represented by the referee) gives the verdict.

 

Party (1) does not answer questions. Party (2) does not ask questions. Party (3) makes a ruling

 

None of the parties are opponents.

Lol. Yep. I’m well versed in how it’s written to go.  I’m just telling you I’m the guy who doesn’t go gently into the night as they say.   We will have a conversation or you won’t get anything from me. Cop , lawyer , referee , or committee.   There’s no reason for any correspondence to be one sided.  Unless one side has an agenda.   
 

when I reference the committee , I’m saying that it should be check that the committee actually set up the event properly before hand.  Before questioning the player it should  be known that the committee notified the field of the starting point and time.  If they didn’t , no need to talk to the player.  You know then where the issue lies. 

Edited January 21, 2021 by bladehunter

[Newby]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

when I reference the committee , I’m saying that it should be check that the committee actually set up the event properly before hand.  Before questioning the player it should  be known that the committee notified the field of the starting point and time.  If they didn’t , no need to talk to the player.  You know then where the issue lies. 

You are referee out in the field. Do you check that the committee has done its job before you set out?

 

You encounter a player with an issue.  Do you ask the player what the issue issue is about first or do you check that the committee has done its job before approaching the player?

[bladehunter]

34 minutes ago, Newby said:

You are referee out in the field. Do you check that the committee has done its job before you set out?

 

You encounter a player with an issue.  Do you ask the player what the issue issue is about first or do you check that the committee has done its job before approaching the player?

On both cases I want to know my legal standing before hand.  I can’t referee if I don’t  know the building blocks or lack thereof than I’m standing on.  

Edited January 21, 2021 by bladehunter

[Sawgrass]

3 hours ago, bladehunter said:

I’m just telling you I’m the guy who doesn’t go gently into the night as they say.   We will have a conversation or you won’t get anything from me. Cop , lawyer , referee , or committee.   There’s no reason for any correspondence to be one sided.  Unless one side has an agenda.   

What I see that you're failing to accept is that both "sides" should have the same agenda -- to get the ruling right according to the rules of golf.  If you respect the rules, present all the facts and let the chips fall where they may.  What's the problem with that?

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

On both cases I want to know my legal standing before hand.  I can’t referee if I don’t  know the building blocks or lack thereof than I’m standing on.  

 

You're not required to participate in the referee's ruling. However, you'll have your work cut out for you if you don't accept the Committee's ruling, especially if you've been Bolshie in the process.

[bladehunter]

15 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

What I see that you're failing to accept is that both "sides" should have the same agenda -- to get the ruling right according to the rules of golf.  If you respect the rules, present all the facts and let the chips fall where they may.  What's the problem with that?

None. I just disagree with the procedure to get there.  
 

Whats wrong with me questioning the strart of the ruling which is the committees setup ?  If it checks out then we go to blaming the player. 

Edited January 21, 2021 by bladehunter

[bladehunter]

1 minute ago, sui generis said:

 

You're not required to participate in the referee's ruling. However, you'll have your work cut out for you if you don't accept the Committee's ruling, especially if you've been Bolshie in the process.

I didn’t say I wouldn’t participate. Lol. In fact I wanted to participate more.  
 

why do I feel like you guys are trying to officiate the us open , and I’m talking about a Thursday night wing ding ?  Yes. Rules should be same at the root. But. sin r I highly doubt anything was said before hand ; as has been my experience . This one needs to know what was said before play , to whom and when.  That’s literally all I’m saying.  
 

Find out if they posted the rules and start place and time before hand or if they just told joe to tell Tom and assumed Tom would tell George.  And nobody wonders if this same body declared the front 9 out of play or not.   It would be irregular.  But possible. How do you not ask this before giving the player direction?  I’m reading a lot of assumptions that all is on the up and up. 

[Sawgrass]

10 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I didn’t say I wouldn’t participate. Lol. In fact I wanted to participate more.  
 

why do I feel like you guys are trying to officiate the us open , and I’m talking about a Thursday night wing ding ?  Yes. Rules should be same at the root. But. sin r I highly doubt anything was said before hand ; as has been my experience . This one needs to know what was said before play , to whom and when.  That’s literally all I’m saying.  
 

Find out if they posted the rules and start place and time before hand or if they just told joe to tell Tom and assumed Tom would tell George.  And nobody wonders if this same body declared the front 9 out of play or not.   It would be irregular.  But possible. How do you not ask this before giving the player direction?  I’m reading a lot of assumptions that all is on the up and up. 

No one is saying you shouldn't get apprised of the conditions under which any tournament is played.  And I suspect all would agree that if a meaningful omission was made by the Committee, that should be strongly considered.

 

But I completely disagree that a ref in a lower-level event should behave differently than one in the US Open.  Why the hell not?  Isn't the reason he/she is there to make things operate as closely as humanly possible to the Rules?

 

I don't know if you can see it, but many of your comments here regarding the relationship between refs and players come off, at least to me, as confrontational.  There's zero value to that.  I'll help you if I'm able, I'll tell it to you straight if I'm not.  And most all of us are volunteers who do this for the love of what's right, not to take advantage of players.

[bladehunter]

3 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

No one is saying you shouldn't get apprised of the conditions under which any tournament is played.  And I suspect all would agree that if a meaningful omission was made by the Committee, that should be strongly considered.

 

But I completely disagree that a ref in a lower-level event should behave differently than one in the US Open.  Why the hell not?  Isn't the reason he/she is there to make things operate as closely as humanly possible to the Rules?

 

I don't know if you can see it, but many of your comments here regarding the relationship between refs and players come off, at least to me, as confrontational.  There's zero value to that.  I'll help you if I'm able, I'll tell it to you straight if I'm not.  And most all of us are volunteers who do this for the love of what's right, not to take advantage of players.

Sure.  I’ll own that.  But it’s my experience that the same sentiment comes off from this section here a lot of the time. on purpose or not. And from in person refs at the lower levels a whole lot  of the time.
 

 If you pose a question on course it will go one of two ways.   1. you get lucky and have a nice guy or gal.  One who lives by the “ the only dumb question is the one you don’t ask “ mantra.  I can get along with this person 110 % of the time , and accept what the outcome is.  But then there’s #2. ( aptly named ) .... he/she is not there for a back and forth to make you understand , they are simply there to demonstrate their ability .  Sometimes I can take that.  And ignore it and go on.  But I had a run in with a ref during the county amateur 4/5 years ago that killed my trust in humanity.  It’s a long drawn out ordeal that nobody cares about. But in the end the committee head overruled him. But I only got the second opinion  because I refused to play on until a second opinion was given .  He Held up play for 25 minutes refusing to radio for it , in the porting rain.  Finally he caved.  And was wrong.   
 

now I’ll give you that on the USga and state level. I’ve not had a bad experience..... those people are beyond prepared.  But it seems to be all or nothing.  Very well run or a complete train wreck.  
 

 

[rogolf]

But I completely disagree that a ref in a lower-level event should behave differently than one in the US Open.  Why the hell not?  Isn't the reason he/she is there to make things operate as closely as humanly possible to the Rules?

 

I don't know if you can see it, but many of your comments here regarding the relationship between refs and players come off, at least to me, as confrontational.  There's zero value to that.  I'll help you if I'm able, I'll tell it to you straight if I'm not.  And most all of us are volunteers who do this for the love of what's right, not to take advantage of players.

 

Agree!  And don't be surprised that some of the posters here may have officiated at the US Open (or events of similar stature) and have probably dealt with all types of players.

[rogolf]

6 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Sure.  I’ll own that.  But it’s my experience that the same sentiment comes off from this section here a lot of the time. on purpose or not. And from in person refs at the lower levels a whole lot  of the time.
 

 If you pose a question on course it will go one of two ways.   1. you get lucky and have a nice guy or gal.  One who lives by the “ the only dumb question is the one you don’t ask “ mantra.  I can get along with this person 110 % of the time , and accept what the outcome is.  But then there’s #2. ( aptly named ) .... he/she is not there for a back and forth to make you understand , they are simply there to demonstrate their ability .  Sometimes I can take that.  And ignore it and go on.  But I had a run in with a ref during the county amateur 4/5 years ago that killed my trust in humanity.  It’s a long drawn out ordeal that nobody cares about. But in the end the committee head overruled him. But I only got the second opinion  because I refused to play on until a second opinion was given .  He Held up play for 25 minutes refusing to radio for it , in the porting rain.  Finally he caved.  And was wrong.   
 

now I’ll give you that on the USga and state level. I’ve not had a bad experience..... those people are beyond prepared.  But it seems to be all or nothing.  Very well run or a complete train wreck.  
 

 

Your approach, which appears to be assuming the worst in the interaction with any referee, can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Edited January 21, 2021 by rogolf

[Hawkeye77]

16 hours ago, rogolf said:

If you want to learn facts, you need to ask open-ended questions, like "Who is on first?".

Haha, that always ended well!

 

Classic.