"The Committee" / "Competition"

[mjf]

As suggested, I'm opening up a new thread on the meaning of "The Committee" and a "competition". This was discussed in another thread that had gone off-topic. I'm going to start fresh here with a new angle though.

I was reading a discussion on another golf forum about punched greens. It's clear that aeration holes are not considered GUR. However, the rules of golf recommend that a local rule may put in place by the Committee. The rule says something like "through the green, balls that come to rest in an aeration hole may be lifted, cleaned and dropped no nearer the hole".

Now, I've played on several courses where the greens/fairways were aerated and I've never seen a local rule posted in the clubhouse saying there was a free drop from aeration holes. Most courses just don't care...

In the same thread on the other forum, some of the posters jokingly implied that they formed the Committee and activated this local rule when conditions permitted. I don't see why this shouldn't be permitted. If the group is playing a competition and they also form the Committee then they should be able to enact this local rule.

The definition of "the Committee" as provided by Gary in the previous thread is: The “Committee’’ is the committee in charge of the competition or, if the matter does not arise in a competition, the committee in charge of the course. Nowhere in that definition does it state the rules for forming the Committee or who can/can't be on it. Can my wife be "the Committee"?

It was also implied in the previous thread that a weekend round with your buddies was not a competition so therefore only the course could enact any local rules. In my opinion, the match I have with my buddy nearly every weekend is a competition. What constitutes a competition? Do there need to be prizes? Do the results need to be in the paper? Does there need to be more than X number of competitors?

Looking forward to continued discussion...

MJF

[Gary Hill]

Can my wife be "the Committee"?

Only if she is your caddie.

What constitutes a competition?

You must have at least 100,000 spectators.

Do there need to be prizes?

Yes, but the prize can only be beer.

Do the results need to be in the paper?

The results must be posted in the Citizen, but not the Sun.

Does there need to be more than X number of competitors?

Yes. There must be more than X number of competitors, but than Y number of competitors.

[Big Johnny69]

I think he's asking a legitimate question. You tell him his group could not constitute a committee for a competition, but won't explain why. Instead you reply with a sarcastic remark. Does this mean someone might have actually stumped you with a rules question?

[jeffc]

i doubt it. To me the whole "committee" thing is a bit of a farce. Sure, in tournament action, private courses, etc it exists. I am pretty sure if I walked into half the courses in Ottawa after playing a round and asked a ruling from the "committee" they would look at me like I had 2 heads.

[Big Johnny69]

i doubt it. To me the whole "committee" thing is a bit of a farce. Sure, in tournament action, private courses, etc it exists. I am pretty sure if I walked into half the courses in Ottawa after playing a round and asked a ruling from the "committee" they would look at me like I had 2 heads.

I totally agree with you Jeff. But I too am curious to hear an answer on mjf's question.

[Gary Hill]

I think he's asking a legitimate question. You tell him his group could not constitute a committee for a competition, but won't explain why. Instead you reply with a sarcastic remark. Does this mean someone might have actually stumped you with a rules question?

Apparently there are only two people on the planet who don't know who is charge of a golf course. You and mjf.

[Big Johnny69]

Apparently there are only two people on the planet who don't know who is charge of a golf course. You and mjf.

A simple "A round of golf is only deemed a competition if it is overseen by a governing body etc", something a little less insulting than telling us we don't know who's in charge of a golf course. mjf has said he has read the rule book and can't find an outline as to what is deemed as a competition. If that could be answered than maybe the rest will make sense.

[AAA]

Please don't insult my intelligence, I know very well who's in charge of a golf course. But that answer is only relevant if you can answer the other parts of his question.

There is only one authority 'in charge' on a golf course at one time as far as any one player is concerned. If he is in a bona fide competition, it is the Committee organising the competition. If he is not playing in a competition, it is the committee (or management) of the club or course.
If the player decides not to play by the Rules of Golf set by the RCGA, R&A or USGA, supplemented by any Local Rules or Conditions oF Competition set by the responsible Committee, he is not playing by the Rules of Golf.
The Ruling body will not respond to any query on a rule in a game when the RoG are not being played to. In fact the R&A will not answer questions if they are not submitted by an authorised representative of a Club, Course or Competition Committee. From what I see on the website, the RCGA have a similar stance.
If a rules question is asked on this forum one must expect that the answer will be as specified in the RoG or Decisions.
That doesn't mean to say that Gary (or anyone else) will not try and answer a question about casual golf as if Golf was being played but always with the proviso that if all the RoGs are not being applied, the game being played is Flog.

[Big Johnny69]

Fair enough AAA, but I know jvincent personally (mjf's regular playing opponent) and he plays by the rules of golf. I know, I've played with him a few times. So because no governing body organizes their match, the club management is the Commitee? But what I think mjf wants to know is, because it is the guys in the foursome who organize their "competition" are they not allowed to rule on incidents throughout the match? Or are they just not allowed to call their match a "competition" because they are not a governing body? Do my questions make sense?

So basically what I'm asking is, if they are playing by the rules of golf, who is/are the commitee and is it a competition? I hope that's simple enough.

[mjf]

Apparently there are only two people on the planet who don't know who is charge of a golf course. You and mjf.

Perhaps I was not entirely clear... although I don't see how. Let me try again.

The “Committee’’ is the committee in charge of the competition or, if the matter does not arise in a competition, the committee in charge of the course.

Let's deconstruct the above sentence. "... if the matter does not arise in a competition, the committee in charge of the course." As I read this, if I'm out with my buddies playing a friendly round of golf... banging the ball around and enjoying the weather and the company, then there is no competition occurring... so the owners/management of the golf course are the "Committee". I think we all agree on that.

The disagreement comes from the first portion of the sentence: "The “Committee’’ is the committee in charge of the competition..." Unless we know what constitutes a competition, how can we know who the Committee is? If I say that my match against my competitor is a competition then who's to say that it isn't? What is the definition of a competition?

If my match is a competition, then how is the "Committee" defined? Who can be part of the Committee? Who can't?

MJF

[BC MIST]

I was reading a discussion on another golf forum about punched greens. It's clear that aeration holes are not considered GUR. However, the rules of golf recommend that a local rule may put in place by the Committee. The rule says something like "through the green, balls that come to rest in an aeration hole may be lifted, cleaned and dropped no nearer the hole".

Now, I've played on several courses where the greens/fairways were aerated and I've never seen a local rule posted in the clubhouse saying there was a free drop from aeration holes. Most courses just don't care...MJF

You have obviously NOT played Greensmere in the last 3 years. The local rules, which are posted on the "tournament board," reflect the unique characteristics of the course, AND punched or aeration holes.

Following the exact recommendation of the RCGA, I/we included the suggested local rules for aeration holes both through the green (fairway + rough) and the putting greens, where the ball may be dropped or placed accordingly. In addition, we have included the stones in bunkers recommendation. In fact, here is the exact text of our local rules for your perusal. Most clubs do this, but, as you suggested, some don't give a damn.

Rules of Play

1. R.C.G.A. rules govern all play, except as may be modified by the local rules below.

2. THE BALL IS TO BE PLAYED AS IT LIES AND NOT TOUCHED. (Rule 13)

3. OUT OF BOUNDS: Out of bounds is defined by white stakes or fences bordering the golf course property. Out of bounds are located on holes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, & 13.
Penalty - Stroke & Distance. (Rule 27-1)

4. WATER HAZARDS: Water hazards are defined by yellow stakes. (Hole 12)
Lateral water hazards are defined by red stakes.(Holes 10, 12, 14, 16 & 18) (Rule 26.)

5. OBSTRUCTIONS: Relief may be taken from immoveable obstructions such as artificially surfaced cart paths and roadways, hole signs, ball washers, sprinkler heads, staked or tagged trees, culverts not in hazards, French drains, the tractor on #17, railway ties and buildings. Relief – 1 club length from nearest point of relief. (Rule 24–2)
Line of sight relief may also be taken from the scoreboard on hole 18. There is NO line of sight relief from the tractor on #17.
Stones in bunkers are moveable obstructions. (Rule 24–1) The two small marked areas of exposed bedrock to the right of the French drain on #6, are immoveable obstructions.

6. GROUNDS UNDER REPAIR: Grounds under repair is any part of the course marked or declared by the rules committee and includes material piled for removal.
Relief – 1 club length from nearest point of relief. (Rule 25, 1-b)
NUMBER 16: If your ball lies in the marked area under construction to the right of the 16th green, it is in Grounds Under Repair. The ball is to be played from the nearest point of relief, OR, it may be played from the Drop Area. No penalty.

7. AERATION HOLES: On the putting green or through the green,(fairway and/or rough) relief may be taken from aeration holes. On the putting green the ball shall be placed, and on through the green, it must be dropped, not nearer the hole, as near as possible to where the ball originally lay. (Appendix 1–3, c)

8. PLUGGED BALLS: If the ball becomes embedded in its own pitch mark, through the green, BUT NOT IN A HAZARD, relief may be taken. Drop the ball as near as possible to where the ball originally lay, not nearer the hole. (Appendix 1-3, a)

9. WHEN ABNORMAL GROUND CONDITIONS EXIST, THE FOLLOWING LOCAL RULE APPLIES, BUT ONLY WHEN POSTED IN THE CLUB HOUSE OR ON THE BOARD:
ADVERSE FAIRWAY AND/OR ROUGH CONDITIONS – The player may mark, lift, clean and place the ball within 6” of the spot where the ball originally lay, not nearer the hole, without penalty. Once placed, the ball is in play.

[mjf]

You have obviously NOT played Greensmere in the last 3 years. The local rules, which are posted on the "tournament board," reflect the unique characteristics of the course, AND punched or aeration holes.

You are correct, I've only ever played 9 holes at Greensmere and I believe it was in 2003.

It's nice to see that the management... er... I mean, Committee at some courses has common sense though!

MJF

[jvincent]

But what I think mjf wants to know is, because it is the guys in the foursome who organize their "competition" are they not allowed to rule on incidents throughout the match? Or are they just not allowed to call their match a "competition" because they are not a governing body? Do my questions make sense?

So basically what I'm asking is, if they are playing by the rules of golf, who is/are the commitee and is it a competition? I hope that's simple enough.

Doing stuff around the house today, so only joining this one now.

Geoff has summarized the question exactly.

Nowhere in the rules is there a definition of a competition so I believe that I could legitimately consider a competition between two, three, .... players on a date a "competition" according to the rules and appoint a committee from those players.

[BC MIST]

You are correct, I've only ever played 9 holes at Greensmere and I believe it was in 2003.

It's nice to see that the management... er... I mean, Committee at some courses has common sense though! MJF

It was NOT management. It was gbower and I who did the above. We ARE the "Committee." While we only have level 1 certification, we know enough about the rules to do the above, also believe that playing by them is of the utmost importance and we do things with the members to educate them about the rules. It is both working and appreciated by the members at large, minus the few who cheat.

[jvincent]

It was NOT management. It was gbower and I who did the above. We ARE the "Committee."

So my obvious question is......

Who gave you and gbower the authority to declare yourselves the committee?

[Big Johnny69]

So my obvious question is......

Who gave you and gbower the authority to declare yourselves the committee?

I would assume either they approached the management or management approached them. And seeing that they have level 1 certification it must be acceptable. I for one am glad to see members somewhere take initiative like that at their course. I know for a fact we don't have anything like that at our course. We have a few local rules on printed on our score cards, but nothing to take into account course maintenance.

[Hacker]

I find this to be an interesting discussion to be sure. I find myself agreeing with those who submit that a foursome who are in "competition" with one another can agree to be the "Committee" for the purposes of their competition, and thus establish additional rules for said competition

I also agree that without a definition of competition that would prohibit it, the definition that the RCGA provides for committee would seem to allow for the scenario that has been described above.

The thing that bothers me in all of this is the level of sarcasim in some of the responses....especially referring to Golf as Flog if not played by the exact letter of the law. I've done a search and I can't find a legitimate reference to "Flog" so it would seem to be a made up term that to me is a tad arrogant and could be considered demeaning to the vast majority of casual golfers.

Let's not forget that like any set of rules, the rules of golf are certainly open to interpretation...

[mjf]

It was NOT management. It was gbower and I who did the above. We ARE the "Committee." (

Well... good on you then. Well done.

MJF

[AAA]

The thing that bothers me in all of this is the level of sarcasim in some of the responses....especially referring to Golf as Flog if not played by the exact letter of the law. I've done a search and I can't find a legitimate reference to "Flog" so it would seem to be a made up term that to me is a tad arrogant and could be considered demeaning to the vast majority of casual golfers.

Regular readers will have noticed that the term 'flog' was invented, by Gary I believe, to differentiate between the game played to the RoG and more casual or social games. I don't believe it was meant to be sarcastic, it just takes fewer key depressions to spell it out. I thought it was humourous and clever - nearly the same as but not quite.

Let's not forget that like any set of rules, the rules of golf are certainly open to interpretation...

I doubt that you will find many serious players believe that. The words used in the Rules and Decisions have been thought about by a lot of people over many years specifically to avoid that accusation. This probably isn't the thread for discussing this point but I would be interested it you posted a few examples of ambiguous rules/decisions on another thread.

[jvincent]

I doubt that you will find many serious players believe that. The words used in the Rules and Decisions have been thought about by a lot of people over many years specifically to avoid that accusation.

Umm, technically the Decisions are interpretations of the Rules.

[Hacker]

I doubt that you will find many serious players believe that. The words used in the Rules and Decisions have been thought about by a lot of people over many years specifically to avoid that accusation. This probably isn't the thread for discussing this point but I would be interested it you posted a few examples of ambiguous rules/decisions on another thread.

If we have a series of laws which govern our society that are not iron clad and are debated and intrepreted on a daily basis, it would be foolhardy to think that the rules of golf can be defined to a higher standard. The very fact that there are decisions is proof that the rules themselves are open to interpretation.

I don't think that you can account for every possible situation with words, at least not in a form that would be practical to the average person.

[Hacker]

Umm, technically the Decisions are interpretations of the Rules.

LOL - you beat me to it and you are 100% correct!!

[BC MIST]

Who gave you and gbower the authority to declare yourselves the committee?

The management appointed a member, club captain for the first 2 years and then appointed gbower as club captain since that time. I volunteered to write the local rules for the initial captain and they were in effect until we updated them last or two years ago, and we look at them regularly to ensure that they reflect the current playing conditions of the club. The management was not involved in the writing of these local rules.

I have no official position but offer my "services," or experience. Sometimes it is solicited and sometimes not. Regardless, we have eliminated some grey areas and come competition time, participants have a better idea of what they can and cannot do. There are no "executive decisions," as I know that there are at many other clubs, and if there is any doubt or question as to procedure, we consult the rule book, just as it should be, everywhere.

[Hacker]

The management appointed a member, club captain for the first 2 years and then appointed gbower as club captain since that time. I volunteered to write the local rules for the initial captain and they were in effect until we updated them last or two years ago, and we look at them regularly to ensure that they reflect the current playing conditions of the club. The management was not involved in the writing of these local rules.

I have no official position but offer my "services," or experience. Sometimes it is solicited and sometimes not. Regardless, we have eliminated some grey areas and come competition time, participants have a better idea of what they can and cannot do. There are no "executive decisions," as I know that there are at many other clubs, and if there is any doubt or question as to procedure, we consult the rule book, just as it should be, everywhere.

I applaud any efforts that clubs take to eliminate the "Grey Areas". Unlike Hockey, Football, Basketball, Soccer etc. golf is not played on a standard, regulated arena. Because of this, it is virtually impossible to anticipate every possible scenario and provide for them all in the rules. Local Rules help to provide for the scenarios that are unique to the course in question and I think members are well served by robust Local Rules

[jvincent]

Thanks for the explanation BC.

[AAA]

Umm, technically the Decisions are interpretations of the Rules.

That is why I deliberately used both words, twice, in my comment.

[Hacker]

That is why I deliberately used both words, twice, in my comment.

That still doesn't change the fact the the Rules of Golf themselves are open to intrepretation. If they were not, there would not be any Decisions.

"The Rules book isn't the final word on the Rules of Golf. That distinction belongs to the "Decisions on the Rules of Golf," a 600-page publication produced by the USGA and R&A.

Since there are so many crazy things that can happen on a golf course and the 130-page Rules book can't cover all possible interpretations, the game's ruling bodies are constantly called on to make rulings on doubtful situations (the USGA fields a couple of hundred Rules questions a week). The most interesting and/or common of those rulings are gathered and put into the Decisions book, giving them official status.

On the whole, the Decisions represent sensible attempts to uphold the letter of the law while invoking the concept of equity in situations not specifically addressed by the Rules."

- DAVID BARRETT
Senior Editor, GOLF Magazine

[AAA]

Umm, technically the Decisions are interpretations of the Rules.

Not quite. If we are being pedantic, and why not.

The Decisions are interpretations of the Rules of Golf.
Decisions are themselves rules.

Rule or Rules
The term 'rule' includes the Rules of Golf and their interpretations as contained in the Decisions on the Rules of Golf.

[Hacker]

Not quite. If we are being pedantic, and why not.

The Decisions are interpretations of the Rules of Golf.
Decisions are themselves rules.

Rule or Rules
The term 'rule' includes the Rules of Golf and their interpretations as contained in the Decisions on the Rules of Golf.

Fair enough, but the fact still remains that the "Rules" (The Rules of Golf AND the Decisions on the Rules of Golf) are STILL open to intrepretation. If they weren't there would be no need for the RCGA, the RA, the USGA or any other governing body to issue any further decisions.

Any attempt to disagee with this statement defies all logic whether we are being pedantic or not.

[AAA]

No, I do not disagree. But look at the thread re ambiguous rules. There isn't an example posted yet.