|
Sports » uk.sport.golf » Solomon required
| Solomon required [message #334381] |
Sa, 28 Mai 2005 21:37 |
|
An hour ago (7.00pm Saturday) I was telephoned by a competitor in our Spring
Match Play competition with the following:
The Spring Match play has 32 contestants determined by an 18 hole stroke
play event. This is an extract from the published conditions:
The dates for the completion of each round shall be those determined by the
Competitions Committee and shown on the draw sheet. There will be no
extensions made to these dates for any reason. It is the responsibility of
the player on the top of the draw for the round to make every effort to
arrange the date and time for the match. If the players cannot reach
agreement as to the date and time of a match, the match shall be played at 4
p.m. on the date of closing for that round or, if 4 p.m. is not available,
the first available time on the time sheet thereafter.
A player who is unable to play on any of the dates scheduled must notify his
opponent and the Committee that he is conceding the match to his opponent.
If a player has not so notified the Committee then it is the opponent's
responsibility to be on the tee ready to play at 4 p.m. on the date of
closing for that round if he wishes to claim a walk-over.
Tied matches are to be decided by playing extra holes until a result is
achieved. Strokes are to be given at the same holes as were given previously
in the match.
Then this happened:
The first round had to be completed within a two week period, ending on
Sunday night last week.
The pair in this saga scheduled their match with one week remaining. After
18 holes the match was all flat, but had to be suspended at 10.15 due to
darkness. They agreed, vaguely, that they would resume play of the necessary
extra holes before the deadline of the following Sunday night.
Coincidentally, at this point the Competition Committee became aware
(finally realized) that the following Saturday and Sunday the course was
not available because it was taken over by the Irish Ladies Senior Cup. In
order to accommodate players who were relying on the weekend to complete
matches, all match deadlines were moved out by one week. This in spite of
our own condition that "there will be no extension made to these dates for
any reason." Thus our pair now had two weeks to resume their match at the
19th hole.
A week passed, and then player A's mother called player B. The message was
that player A, who is at university and doing exams, would call player B to
schedule the restart. He didn't call. Today, Saturday evening, with one day
to go, player B called player A. They were unable to agree a time to
complete this match within the next 24 hours, nor would one of them agree to
concede the match to the other.
Player B called me asking if he could invoke the published conditions and be
on the tee ready to resume his match at 4 pm tomorrow, and, if player A is
not there, claim the match. My response was that, as they had already agreed
a date to play the match, and in fact started the match, that part of the
competition condition was no longer applicable. He then asked whether the
condition placing responsibility on the player at the top of the draw to
arrange the match should mean anything in terms of being responsible for
scheduling the restart, especially given the message from his opponent's
mother.
My final words to him an hour or so ago, was to the effect that it was down
to the two of them to resolve this my nightfall tomorrow.
What do we do if they don't?
Thanks in advance for your wisdom - hopefully delivered before nightfall
tomorrow!
John T
|
|
|
| Re: Solomon required [message #334382 ] |
Sa, 28 Mai 2005 21:50 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Solomon required [message #334383 ] |
Sa, 28 Mai 2005 21:49 |
|
"John Turner" <jgturner [at] not.for.use.net> wrote in message
news:gO3me.293$R5.129 [at] news.indigo.ie...
> An hour ago (7.00pm Saturday) I was telephoned by a competitor in our
> Spring Match Play competition with the following:
>
I should add that Player A is the top player in the draw.
|
|
|
| Re: Solomon required [message #334390 ] |
So, 29 Mai 2005 02:00 |
|
"John Turner" <jgturner [at] not.for.use.net> wrote in message
news:gO3me.293$R5.129 [at] news.indigo.ie...
> An hour ago (7.00pm Saturday) I was telephoned by a competitor in our
> Spring Match Play competition with the following:
>
> The Spring Match play has 32 contestants determined by an 18 hole stroke
> play event. This is an extract from the published conditions:
>
> The dates for the completion of each round shall be those determined by
> the Competitions Committee and shown on the draw sheet. There will be no
> extensions made to these dates for any reason. It is the responsibility of
> the player on the top of the draw for the round to make every effort to
> arrange the date and time for the match. If the players cannot reach
> agreement as to the date and time of a match, the match shall be played at
> 4 p.m. on the date of closing for that round or, if 4 p.m. is not
> available, the first available time on the time sheet thereafter.
>
> A player who is unable to play on any of the dates scheduled must notify
> his opponent and the Committee that he is conceding the match to his
> opponent. If a player has not so notified the Committee then it is the
> opponent's responsibility to be on the tee ready to play at 4 p.m. on the
> date of closing for that round if he wishes to claim a walk-over.
>
>
> Tied matches are to be decided by playing extra holes until a result is
> achieved. Strokes are to be given at the same holes as were given
> previously in the match.
>
>
> Then this happened:
>
> The first round had to be completed within a two week period, ending on
> Sunday night last week.
>
> The pair in this saga scheduled their match with one week remaining.
> After 18 holes the match was all flat, but had to be suspended at 10.15
> due to darkness. They agreed, vaguely, that they would resume play of the
> necessary extra holes before the deadline of the following Sunday night.
>
> Coincidentally, at this point the Competition Committee became aware
> (finally realized) that the following Saturday and Sunday the course was
> not available because it was taken over by the Irish Ladies Senior Cup. In
> order to accommodate players who were relying on the weekend to complete
> matches, all match deadlines were moved out by one week. This in spite of
> our own condition that "there will be no extension made to these dates for
> any reason." Thus our pair now had two weeks to resume their match at the
> 19th hole.
>
> A week passed, and then player A's mother called player B. The message was
> that player A, who is at university and doing exams, would call player B
> to schedule the restart. He didn't call. Today, Saturday evening, with one
> day to go, player B called player A. They were unable to agree a time to
> complete this match within the next 24 hours, nor would one of them agree
> to concede the match to the other.
>
> Player B called me asking if he could invoke the published conditions and
> be on the tee ready to resume his match at 4 pm tomorrow, and, if player A
> is not there, claim the match. My response was that, as they had already
> agreed a date to play the match, and in fact started the match, that part
> of the competition condition was no longer applicable. He then asked
> whether the condition placing responsibility on the player at the top of
> the draw to arrange the match should mean anything in terms of being
> responsible for scheduling the restart, especially given the message from
> his opponent's mother.
>
> My final words to him an hour or so ago, was to the effect that it was
> down to the two of them to resolve this my nightfall tomorrow.
>
> What do we do if they don't?
>
> Thanks in advance for your wisdom - hopefully delivered before nightfall
> tomorrow!
>
> John T
>
>
I think the reference to the wisdom of Solomon is totally apposite.
As the comp rules do not deal with the situataion (and clearly both parties
attempted to complete the match by playing 18 holes) the catch-all equity
clause of 1-4 comes into play. You and the committee seem to feel that both
parties are equally responsible.
Solomon's core approach was "sort it out between you or you both lose out",
(at which point the one with the most to lose revealed her identity).
The analogous situation is "Deliver me a result (by whatever means including
spin of a coin) by (eg) Friday or you're both DQ'd." .Of course, if one
party concedes voluntarily, Solomon suggests he wins the match!
Set that as a precedent and you'll confuse the hell out of future potential
course litigants!
Putting back to normal
Philip Bain
|
|
|
| Re: Solomon required [message #334392 ] |
So, 29 Mai 2005 08:23 |
|
> What do we do if they don't?
>
> Thanks in advance for your wisdom - hopefully delivered before nightfall
> tomorrow!
John,
It is enlightening to see your C's of C in print but I do not think that
they are relevant in the given situation as they have been largely
complied with when the match was commenced and failed to reach a
conclusion.
Both competitors, as you said, "vaguely agreed" that they should
complete the tie within a week so the responsibility to rearrange the
tie was equally distributed between the pair. The week became two weeks
and in 13 days there has been no contact between them, other than the
irrelevant telephone call from the mother of A. (I would suggest that
your first step is to DQ the mother :-) ) Competitor A has made no
effort whatever to make contact despite promising to do so via the
mother and is unwilling to concede. Competitor B has been lax in leaving
the contact to the last minute but he has at least made contact and
appears willing to play today. Thus he rightly doesn't wish to concede
and is under no obligation to do so.
So if there is to be a competitor to progress then I would feel that B,
having made the late effort to arrange the replay, should be given the
benefit of the doubt by the committee. The alternative, to DQ the pair,
gives a big advantage to the relevant half of the draw.
Not a judgement of Solomon but an opinion nevertheless!
Pat
|
|
|
| Re: Solomon required [message #334394 ] |
So, 29 Mai 2005 09:01 |
|
"John Turner" <jgturner [at] not.for.use.net> wrote in message
news:gO3me.293$R5.129 [at] news.indigo.ie...
> An hour ago (7.00pm Saturday) I was telephoned by a competitor in our
> Spring Match Play competition with the following:
>
> The Spring Match play has 32 contestants determined by an 18 hole stroke
> play event. This is an extract from the published conditions:
>
> The dates for the completion of each round shall be those determined by
> the Competitions Committee and shown on the draw sheet. There will be no
> extensions made to these dates for any reason. It is the responsibility of
> the player on the top of the draw for the round to make every effort to
> arrange the date and time for the match. If the players cannot reach
> agreement as to the date and time of a match, the match shall be played at
> 4 p.m. on the date of closing for that round or, if 4 p.m. is not
> available, the first available time on the time sheet thereafter.
>
> A player who is unable to play on any of the dates scheduled must notify
> his opponent and the Committee that he is conceding the match to his
> opponent. If a player has not so notified the Committee then it is the
> opponent's responsibility to be on the tee ready to play at 4 p.m. on the
> date of closing for that round if he wishes to claim a walk-over.
>
>
> Tied matches are to be decided by playing extra holes until a result is
> achieved. Strokes are to be given at the same holes as were given
> previously in the match.
>
>
> Then this happened:
>
> The first round had to be completed within a two week period, ending on
> Sunday night last week.
>
> The pair in this saga scheduled their match with one week remaining.
> After 18 holes the match was all flat, but had to be suspended at 10.15
> due to darkness. They agreed, vaguely, that they would resume play of the
> necessary extra holes before the deadline of the following Sunday night.
>
> Coincidentally, at this point the Competition Committee became aware
> (finally realized) that the following Saturday and Sunday the course was
> not available because it was taken over by the Irish Ladies Senior Cup. In
> order to accommodate players who were relying on the weekend to complete
> matches, all match deadlines were moved out by one week. This in spite of
> our own condition that "there will be no extension made to these dates for
> any reason." Thus our pair now had two weeks to resume their match at the
> 19th hole.
>
> A week passed, and then player A's mother called player B. The message was
> that player A, who is at university and doing exams, would call player B
> to schedule the restart. He didn't call. Today, Saturday evening, with one
> day to go, player B called player A. They were unable to agree a time to
> complete this match within the next 24 hours, nor would one of them agree
> to concede the match to the other.
>
> Player B called me asking if he could invoke the published conditions and
> be on the tee ready to resume his match at 4 pm tomorrow, and, if player A
> is not there, claim the match. My response was that, as they had already
> agreed a date to play the match, and in fact started the match, that part
> of the competition condition was no longer applicable. He then asked
> whether the condition placing responsibility on the player at the top of
> the draw to arrange the match should mean anything in terms of being
> responsible for scheduling the restart, especially given the message from
> his opponent's mother.
>
> My final words to him an hour or so ago, was to the effect that it was
> down to the two of them to resolve this my nightfall tomorrow.
>
> What do we do if they don't?
>
> Thanks in advance for your wisdom - hopefully delivered before nightfall
> tomorrow!
>
> John T
>
John, a difficult situation compounded by poor CoC.
As I see it the match has begun and they are now at the stage where play has
been suspended by the agreement of both parties. One of them wishes to
continue, maybe Dec 6-8a/5 holds the answer?
Don
|
|
|
| Re: Solomon required [message #334398 ] |
So, 29 Mai 2005 11:37 |
|
"Don Lilley" <don.lilley [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:iNdme.175$iy2.167 [at] newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "John Turner" <jgturner [at] not.for.use.net> wrote in message
> news:gO3me.293$R5.129 [at] news.indigo.ie...
> John, a difficult situation compounded by poor CoC.
> As I see it the match has begun and they are now at the stage where play
has
> been suspended by the agreement of both parties. One of them wishes to
> continue, maybe Dec 6-8a/5 holds the answer?
> Don
>
I am not critical of the CoC but otherwise agree with Don and others that B
wins by default.
6-8a/5 provides the necessary support for resolving the matter in B's
favour.
Malcolm
|
|
|
| Re: Solomon required [message #334403 ] |
So, 29 Mai 2005 14:52 |
|
John,
Rule 6-8 states that an agreement to discontinue play (outwith the listed
reasons) is legal provided that the competition is not delayed. So, I agree
with you that the tie must be resolved before the course opens tomorrow (30
May, yes?).
Your CoC are fine and now that the match has commenced, the RoG take over.
Under the RoG the agreement to discontinue is no longer in place because one
player wishes to resume play and presumably no legal reason (as listed in
Rule 6-8) exists to discontinue play. If the player who wishes to resume
gives sufficient notice (time to change clothes, travel and say 1 hr to
practise/warm up, etc) to his opponent that he intends to resume at a stated
time, it then becomes the opponent's responsibility to be there.
I believe that it would be appropriate for a member of the committee to
speak to both players (even at this late stage) and explain Rule 6-8 so that
both of them are aware of their individual responsibilities and thereby any
time consuming appeal would be obviated.
Thats my tuppence worth.
Regards
Kev
|
|
|
| Re: Solomon required [message #334411 ] |
So, 29 Mai 2005 19:34 |
|
"John Turner" <jgturner [at] not.for.use.net> wrote in message
news:gO3me.293$R5.129 [at] news.indigo.ie...
> An hour ago (7.00pm Saturday) I was telephoned by a competitor in our
> Spring Match Play competition with the following:
>
> The Spring Match play has 32 contestants determined by an 18 hole stroke
> play event. This is an extract from the published conditions:
>
> The dates for the completion of each round shall be those determined by
> the Competitions Committee and shown on the draw sheet. There will be no
> extensions made to these dates for any reason. It is the responsibility of
> the player on the top of the draw for the round to make every effort to
> arrange the date and time for the match. If the players cannot reach
> agreement as to the date and time of a match, the match shall be played at
> 4 p.m. on the date of closing for that round or, if 4 p.m. is not
> available, the first available time on the time sheet thereafter.
>
> A player who is unable to play on any of the dates scheduled must notify
> his opponent and the Committee that he is conceding the match to his
> opponent. If a player has not so notified the Committee then it is the
> opponent's responsibility to be on the tee ready to play at 4 p.m. on the
> date of closing for that round if he wishes to claim a walk-over.
>
>
> Tied matches are to be decided by playing extra holes until a result is
> achieved. Strokes are to be given at the same holes as were given
> previously in the match.
>
>
> Then this happened:
>
> The first round had to be completed within a two week period, ending on
> Sunday night last week.
>
> The pair in this saga scheduled their match with one week remaining.
> After 18 holes the match was all flat, but had to be suspended at 10.15
> due to darkness. They agreed, vaguely, that they would resume play of the
> necessary extra holes before the deadline of the following Sunday night.
>
> Coincidentally, at this point the Competition Committee became aware
> (finally realized) that the following Saturday and Sunday the course was
> not available because it was taken over by the Irish Ladies Senior Cup. In
> order to accommodate players who were relying on the weekend to complete
> matches, all match deadlines were moved out by one week. This in spite of
> our own condition that "there will be no extension made to these dates for
> any reason." Thus our pair now had two weeks to resume their match at the
> 19th hole.
>
> A week passed, and then player A's mother called player B. The message was
> that player A, who is at university and doing exams, would call player B
> to schedule the restart. He didn't call. Today, Saturday evening, with one
> day to go, player B called player A. They were unable to agree a time to
> complete this match within the next 24 hours, nor would one of them agree
> to concede the match to the other.
>
> Player B called me asking if he could invoke the published conditions and
> be on the tee ready to resume his match at 4 pm tomorrow, and, if player A
> is not there, claim the match. My response was that, as they had already
> agreed a date to play the match, and in fact started the match, that part
> of the competition condition was no longer applicable. He then asked
> whether the condition placing responsibility on the player at the top of
> the draw to arrange the match should mean anything in terms of being
> responsible for scheduling the restart, especially given the message from
> his opponent's mother.
>
> My final words to him an hour or so ago, was to the effect that it was
> down to the two of them to resolve this my nightfall tomorrow.
>
> What do we do if they don't?
>
> Thanks in advance for your wisdom - hopefully delivered before nightfall
> tomorrow!
>
> John T
>
>
Thanks for your replies. I find it hard to apply 6-8a/5 to the situation for
the following reason. In my reading of that decision, I envision the players
sheltering from the rain, and at worst returning to the clubhouse to do so,
and then after a brief interlude one of the pair, who are still both
present, wishes to continue. In the case under discussion almost two weeks
has passed, and with barely 24 hours left to complete the match they
couldn't agree on a time. My leaning was towards B, as seems to be the
opinion of most of you.
Don, your unsupported comment of "poor CoC" is unhelpful at best. As most
people here would recognize, I wrote these conditions, and they would also
know that I am very receptive to constructive criticism. As it stands, your
comment is nothing more than a throw-away comment - it adds no value to the
discussion.
You will all be pleased to know that at 9,30 pm yesterday evening the match
was resumed and a winner decided before darkness set in once again. Player B
won, but I don't know how many extra holes were required. When I went to the
club this morning for my round, I checked the draw sheet to see if the match
had been resolved yet. It had, but I then noticed that two other matches
were still undecided. It was after golf that I heard that the match under
discussion was resolved late yesterday. As I left this evening, one of the
two remaining pairs was teeing off. It remains to be seen what happens to
the final unresolved match.
Thanks again
John T
In actual
|
|
|
| Re: Solomon required [message #334412 ] |
So, 29 Mai 2005 22:23 |
|
"John Turner" <jgturner [at] not.for.use.net> wrote in message
news:v6nme.322$R5.53 [at] news.indigo.ie...
>
> "John Turner" <jgturner [at] not.for.use.net> wrote in message
> news:gO3me.293$R5.129 [at] news.indigo.ie...
>> An hour ago (7.00pm Saturday) I was telephoned by a competitor in our
>> Spring Match Play competition with the following:
>>
>> The Spring Match play has 32 contestants determined by an 18 hole stroke
>> play event. This is an extract from the published conditions:
>>
>> The dates for the completion of each round shall be those determined by
>> the Competitions Committee and shown on the draw sheet. There will be no
>> extensions made to these dates for any reason. It is the responsibility
>> of the player on the top of the draw for the round to make every effort
>> to arrange the date and time for the match. If the players cannot reach
>> agreement as to the date and time of a match, the match shall be played
>> at 4 p.m. on the date of closing for that round or, if 4 p.m. is not
>> available, the first available time on the time sheet thereafter.
>>
>> A player who is unable to play on any of the dates scheduled must notify
>> his opponent and the Committee that he is conceding the match to his
>> opponent. If a player has not so notified the Committee then it is the
>> opponent's responsibility to be on the tee ready to play at 4 p.m. on the
>> date of closing for that round if he wishes to claim a walk-over.
>>
>>
>> Tied matches are to be decided by playing extra holes until a result is
>> achieved. Strokes are to be given at the same holes as were given
>> previously in the match.
>>
>>
>> Then this happened:
>>
>> The first round had to be completed within a two week period, ending on
>> Sunday night last week.
>>
>> The pair in this saga scheduled their match with one week remaining.
>> After 18 holes the match was all flat, but had to be suspended at 10.15
>> due to darkness. They agreed, vaguely, that they would resume play of the
>> necessary extra holes before the deadline of the following Sunday night.
>>
>> Coincidentally, at this point the Competition Committee became aware
>> (finally realized) that the following Saturday and Sunday the course was
>> not available because it was taken over by the Irish Ladies Senior Cup.
>> In order to accommodate players who were relying on the weekend to
>> complete matches, all match deadlines were moved out by one week. This in
>> spite of our own condition that "there will be no extension made to these
>> dates for any reason." Thus our pair now had two weeks to resume their
>> match at the 19th hole.
>>
>> A week passed, and then player A's mother called player B. The message
>> was that player A, who is at university and doing exams, would call
>> player B to schedule the restart. He didn't call. Today, Saturday
>> evening, with one day to go, player B called player A. They were unable
>> to agree a time to complete this match within the next 24 hours, nor
>> would one of them agree to concede the match to the other.
>>
>> Player B called me asking if he could invoke the published conditions and
>> be on the tee ready to resume his match at 4 pm tomorrow, and, if player
>> A is not there, claim the match. My response was that, as they had
>> already agreed a date to play the match, and in fact started the match,
>> that part of the competition condition was no longer applicable. He then
>> asked whether the condition placing responsibility on the player at the
>> top of the draw to arrange the match should mean anything in terms of
>> being responsible for scheduling the restart, especially given the
>> message from his opponent's mother.
>>
>> My final words to him an hour or so ago, was to the effect that it was
>> down to the two of them to resolve this my nightfall tomorrow.
>>
>> What do we do if they don't?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your wisdom - hopefully delivered before nightfall
>> tomorrow!
>>
>> John T
>>
>>
> Thanks for your replies. I find it hard to apply 6-8a/5 to the situation
> for the following reason. In my reading of that decision, I envision the
> players sheltering from the rain, and at worst returning to the clubhouse
> to do so, and then after a brief interlude one of the pair, who are still
> both present, wishes to continue. In the case under discussion almost two
> weeks has passed, and with barely 24 hours left to complete the match they
> couldn't agree on a time. My leaning was towards B, as seems to be the
> opinion of most of you.
>
> Don, your unsupported comment of "poor CoC" is unhelpful at best. As most
> people here would recognize, I wrote these conditions, and they would also
> know that I am very receptive to constructive criticism. As it stands,
> your comment is nothing more than a throw-away comment - it adds no value
> to the discussion.
>
> You will all be pleased to know that at 9,30 pm yesterday evening the
> match was resumed and a winner decided before darkness set in once again.
> Player B won, but I don't know how many extra holes were required. When I
> went to the club this morning for my round, I checked the draw sheet to
> see if the match had been resolved yet. It had, but I then noticed that
> two other matches were still undecided. It was after golf that I heard
> that the match under discussion was resolved late yesterday. As I left
> this evening, one of the two remaining pairs was teeing off. It remains to
> be seen what happens to the final unresolved match.
>
> Thanks again
>
> John T
>
> In actual
John, I meant no personal critcism, (I didn't know who framed the COC), I
will get back to you in the next day or so to be more constructive as to why
I think they are badly set out, if that will be appreciated!
Don
|
|
|
| Re: Solomon required [message #334413 ] |
So, 29 Mai 2005 22:35 |
|
Looking for wisdom in a room full of golfers.............it's absurd,
but cute.
|
|
|
| Re: Solomon required [message #339093 ] |
Di, 31 Mai 2005 00:05 |
|
"Don Lilley" <don.lilley [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vxpme.9788$RG2.1118 [at] newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "John Turner" <jgturner [at] not.for.use.net> wrote in message
> news:v6nme.322$R5.53 [at] news.indigo.ie...
>>
>> "John Turner" <jgturner [at] not.for.use.net> wrote in message
>> news:gO3me.293$R5.129 [at] news.indigo.ie...
>>> An hour ago (7.00pm Saturday) I was telephoned by a competitor in our
>>> Spring Match Play competition with the following:
>>>
>>> The Spring Match play has 32 contestants determined by an 18 hole stroke
>>> play event. This is an extract from the published conditions:
>>>
>>> The dates for the completion of each round shall be those determined by
>>> the Competitions Committee and shown on the draw sheet. There will be no
>>> extensions made to these dates for any reason. It is the responsibility
>>> of the player on the top of the draw for the round to make every effort
>>> to arrange the date and time for the match. If the players cannot reach
>>> agreement as to the date and time of a match, the match shall be played
>>> at 4 p.m. on the date of closing for that round or, if 4 p.m. is not
>>> available, the first available time on the time sheet thereafter.
>>>
>>> A player who is unable to play on any of the dates scheduled must notify
>>> his opponent and the Committee that he is conceding the match to his
>>> opponent. If a player has not so notified the Committee then it is the
>>> opponent's responsibility to be on the tee ready to play at 4 p.m. on
>>> the date of closing for that round if he wishes to claim a walk-over.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tied matches are to be decided by playing extra holes until a result is
>>> achieved. Strokes are to be given at the same holes as were given
>>> previously in the match.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then this happened:
>>>
>>> The first round had to be completed within a two week period, ending on
>>> Sunday night last week.
>>>
>>> The pair in this saga scheduled their match with one week remaining.
>>> After 18 holes the match was all flat, but had to be suspended at 10.15
>>> due to darkness. They agreed, vaguely, that they would resume play of
>>> the necessary extra holes before the deadline of the following Sunday
>>> night.
>>>
>>> Coincidentally, at this point the Competition Committee became aware
>>> (finally realized) that the following Saturday and Sunday the course
>>> was not available because it was taken over by the Irish Ladies Senior
>>> Cup. In order to accommodate players who were relying on the weekend to
>>> complete matches, all match deadlines were moved out by one week. This
>>> in spite of our own condition that "there will be no extension made to
>>> these dates for any reason." Thus our pair now had two weeks to resume
>>> their match at the 19th hole.
>>>
>>> A week passed, and then player A's mother called player B. The message
>>> was that player A, who is at university and doing exams, would call
>>> player B to schedule the restart. He didn't call. Today, Saturday
>>> evening, with one day to go, player B called player A. They were unable
>>> to agree a time to complete this match within the next 24 hours, nor
>>> would one of them agree to concede the match to the other.
>>>
>>> Player B called me asking if he could invoke the published conditions
>>> and be on the tee ready to resume his match at 4 pm tomorrow, and, if
>>> player A is not there, claim the match. My response was that, as they
>>> had already agreed a date to play the match, and in fact started the
>>> match, that part of the competition condition was no longer applicable.
>>> He then asked whether the condition placing responsibility on the player
>>> at the top of the draw to arrange the match should mean anything in
>>> terms of being responsible for scheduling the restart, especially given
>>> the message from his opponent's mother.
>>>
>>> My final words to him an hour or so ago, was to the effect that it was
>>> down to the two of them to resolve this my nightfall tomorrow.
>>>
>>> What do we do if they don't?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for your wisdom - hopefully delivered before nightfall
>>> tomorrow!
>>>
>>> John T
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks for your replies. I find it hard to apply 6-8a/5 to the situation
>> for the following reason. In my reading of that decision, I envision the
>> players sheltering from the rain, and at worst returning to the clubhouse
>> to do so, and then after a brief interlude one of the pair, who are still
>> both present, wishes to continue. In the case under discussion almost two
>> weeks has passed, and with barely 24 hours left to complete the match
>> they couldn't agree on a time. My leaning was towards B, as seems to be
>> the opinion of most of you.
>>
>> Don, your unsupported comment of "poor CoC" is unhelpful at best. As most
>> people here would recognize, I wrote these conditions, and they would
>> also know that I am very receptive to constructive criticism. As it
>> stands, your comment is nothing more than a throw-away comment - it adds
>> no value to the discussion.
>>
>> You will all be pleased to know that at 9,30 pm yesterday evening the
>> match was resumed and a winner decided before darkness set in once again.
>> Player B won, but I don't know how many extra holes were required. When I
>> went to the club this morning for my round, I checked the draw sheet to
>> see if the match had been resolved yet. It had, but I then noticed that
>> two other matches were still undecided. It was after golf that I heard
>> that the match under discussion was resolved late yesterday. As I left
>> this evening, one of the two remaining pairs was teeing off. It remains
>> to be seen what happens to the final unresolved match.
>>
>> Thanks again
>>
>> John T
>>
>> In actual
> John, I meant no personal critcism, (I didn't know who framed the COC),
> I will get back to you in the next day or so to be more constructive as to
> why I think they are badly set out, if that will be appreciated!
> Don
It certainly will be Don.
John T
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Sep 9 13:31:11 CEST 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,05353 Sekunden |
