Ball "Moved" by Outside Agency

[BC MIST]

Gee no wonder lowly green fee players are looked on with such scorn by the high and mighty privilaged ones. They destroy the turf and steal from the members.

While it's nice that they are permitted to support your facility financially, and lower your membership costs. It's a shame that they have to be allowed to play on your sacred ground too. Maybe they should be only allowed in the bar, where they can drink themselves silly, support the club through their bar bills, and watch you play through the window.

I understand the situation where a "stranger" may be more rude than a player known to all in the group. Anonimity is a shield (just read some of the posts in here).

I had no issue with the use of "green fee player" in your first post. I understand where you were coming from, however I personally find your comments in the second post to be pretty arrogant. Perhaps you should join a real private club, like the Royal Ottawa and not have to deal with the peons.

“Me thinks thou doth protest too much.”

I must admit that I have been affected by barrage of criticisms thrown my way by Dan, broken27, Colby, The Shtick, Powerlefty, Steve Karam and Lob Wedge, based on my statement that green fee players are more likely to have poorer etiquette than members. Instead of simply considering whether or not this statement had any validity, you all chose to take the comment as though I was attacking you personally, which is absurd. LW suggests that making this generalization is wrong. I say that this generalization is right, provable and measurable. It does not mean that green fee player are “peons,” as Dan so sarcasticly suggests, nor does it mean that members are condescending, arrogant, elitist, yuppie snobs. It’s just the way it is. Likewise, daily members fill the times not used by members at a semi-private club and the revenue brought in helps to pay the bills of the club. This fact aids in keeping annual membership fees lower. This makes good business sense so why would any of you object to that? And yet POWERLEFTY thinks that because of this all members of semi-private clubs are “elitist”.

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to determine that there are many members whose etiquette is atrocious or that there are many green fee players whose etiquette is superb. However, after over 40 years of observing golfers at scores of venues, public, private and semi-private, I stand by my statement.

I find Broken27’s comments confusing. On one hand he agrees with me, “Statistics will show (almost certainly) that greens fee players make more damage, but that's also likely because there's far more of them. If you looked at it in terms of "per capita", you're likely looking at a much smaller disparity,” and on the other, he craps all over me.

I did not say Steve that green fee players were “bad etiquette minded,” nor did I say that green fee players are a “menace to the golf course.” They are just MORE LIKELY to breach golf etiquette. Does anyone know what more likely means? 50/50 means equally likely. 51/49 means more likely.

FYI Dan, I have been a member at two local private clubs, Carleton G&YC and Rivermead. I joined the former to be able to play more with my parents and the latter because I liked the course, because it was 15 minutes from where I lived and because they dropped the initiation fee to $750 making it affordable. At each of these clubs I met a number of interesting, down to earth people, but I also met a number of arrogant snobs, that you accuse me of being. I am not one of those, but, as your mind is made up that I am a boor, childish, a manipulator, insulting, a snob and a troll, (BC MIST)I will not confuse you with the facts.

OUT!

[Gary Hill]

If all 4 players agreed that the stolen ball was the ball in play, then it is "the ball in play".

Agreement by players in a group is NEVER a valid ruling or a valid course of action.

The players in your group are OUTSIDE AGENCIES.

Agreement by them is no more valid than agreement by the cart girls.

[Kilroy]

I am not one of those, but, as your mind is made up that I am a boor, childish, a manipulator, insulting, a snob and a troll, I will not confuse you with the facts.

You are entitled to your opinion, which you made crystal clear. Are you trying to backpedal?

As I said, it was not the initial reference to green fee players that bothered me, but your follow up post where you accused them all of being the scourge of your course. If you do not like GF players on your course join a private one.

Like it or not those comments were taken by many of us as elitist and boorish. You wrote it I didn't. I wrote a sarcastic protest. Perhaps not the best thing for a moderator to do, but hey, I am human too.

[Gary Hill]

what would you have rules if you were the committee at this event?

   

So, the specific answer to your question is: I dunno. I wasn't there. I didn't see the situation. I don't have enough facts to give you an answer.

[NoBack]

my appologies Gary
must have missed that

[Gary Hill]

If the ball were sitting (visible) in the rough, and you saw someone pick it up, then that would be reasonable evidence.

What do you mean by "the ball"? Do you mean "the player's ball" or "a ball"?

If the ball visibly sitting in the rough can be seen by the players from the spot of the original stroke and someone is seen to pick it up, then you need no "reasonable evidence". You have actually seen someone pick up your ball.

If you are searching for your ball and an outside agency picks up a ball (whether in view or hidden), that ball is not necessarily the player's ball.

[Farzin]

Agreement by players in a group is NEVER a valid ruling or a valid course of action.

The players in your group are OUTSIDE AGENCIES.

Agreement by them is no more valid than agreement by the cart girls.

I think then we should call up on God to appear on the golf course to make a ruling, since everybody in the group is an outside agency and there are no cameras or referees or inspectors who saw exactly what happened, If 4 people agree on one thing and their agreement is not valid, their agreement should be dishonoured. Very funny Gary, Then the game should be halted untill a rulng is made and evidence produced by somebody who is not an outside agent. Who could that be?

[Colby]

“Me thinks thou doth protest too much.”

I must admit that I have been affected by barrage of criticisms thrown my way by Dan, broken27, Colby, The Shtick, Powerlefty, Steve Karam and Lob Wedge, based on my statement that green fee players are more likely to have poorer etiquette than members.

Actually BC MIST, if you had read my post, I was commenting on your choice of words in your second post, the words "indisputable fact". I agree with you that green fee players are more likely to have poor etiquette than some members. I won't say all, because there are some members who are very bad.

This year we had a course cleanup day where members were encouraged to come out and do a little work around the course. I was dismayed that less than 10% of the membership base showed up to fill divots in fairways and tee boxes to help make the start of the season a little better. What's harm in a couple of hours of socializing, helping make your course look better. Not that this has to do with etiquette, but pride in YOUR course. I think that fixing ball marks, divots, etc is both a pride thing, and also a reflection that the player should leave the course as close to the way he found it as possible, for more enjoyment when they return.

I have the luxury of belonging to a private club. No daily fee players, but Clublink likes to have corporate events play at the club. That's where extra money comes in, along with member guests. I still think these events do far more damage than the casual daily fee player at the higher end semi-private or public courses.

[Gary Hill]

Then the game should be halted untill a rulng is made

Why do you want to halt the game? Why do you need an immediate ruling?

Invoke Rule 3-3 (Doubt as to Procedure). Play one ball from that spot and play another ball using stroke and distance. Get a ruling at the end of the round.

The Committee's ruling is always valid and they are obviously much better equipped to make that ruling.

[Kilroy]

What do you mean by "the ball"? Do you mean "the player's ball" or "a ball"?

If the ball visibly sitting in the rough can be seen by the players from the spot of the original stroke and someone is seen to pick it up, then you need no "reasonable evidence". You have actually seen someone pick up your ball.

If you are searching for your ball and an outside agency picks up a ball (whether in view or hidden), that ball is not necessarily the player's ball.

I meant the players ball.

How about this...
All FC's see the player's ball land on the next fairway over. By the time you get to the ball the group on the next fairway play past your ball and it is no longer where you saw it land. The ball was only out of sight during the walk to the ball, not sitting down in the rough out of sight from the tee.
Is there reasonable evidence then that the ball was interfered with by an outside agency?

If not, then is getting the ball back the only reasonable evidence in this case?

[Farzin]

Why do you want to halt the game? Why do you need an immediate ruling?

Invoke Rule 3-3 (Doubt as to Procedure). Play one ball from that spot and play another ball using stroke and distance. Get a ruling at the end of the round.

The Committee's ruling is always valid and they are obviously much better equipped to make that ruling.

Ok; Gary agreed if you actually have a committee and suppose that you "Gary" is the member of the committee and you are actually a rule official. What is the ruling other than I don't know.
And what if it's not an official event with any committee. How do you proceed other than following the consciences of the group? Thanks Gary,

[Gary Hill]

Dan -

Yes. That is reasonable evidence.

The ball was SEEN sitting on the fairway at rest and sometime later it was not there.
It is reasonable to conclude that the ball has been moved by an outside agency (whether a player or a squirrel).

This case is significally different from the ones previously discussed where the ball MAY be in the area being searched or just as likely MAY be actually lost.

[Gary Hill]

if you actually have a committee

There is ALWAYS a Committee in charge of the course.

If you don't know who that is, just go into the pro shop and ask.

What is the ruling other than I don't know.

I would easily be able to make a ruling:

1. If I could see the area in question.
2. If I could talk to the parties involved.

My refusal to make a ruling on the original specific question is based on the lack of the above facts. The ruling is much more dependant on the area in question than the "conscience" of the group.

My "generic only" descriptions are based on the principal of "reasonable evidence" which states that EACH ruling must be made on the specific facts in EACH case.

[Deep Woods]

This case is significally different from the ones previously discussed where the ball MAY be in the area being searched or just as likely MAY be actually lost.

Does the fact that a normal human being is REFUSING to show the ball affect a committee's decision at all? Or would something like that not be part of the rules decision.

[broken27]

“Me thinks thou doth protest too much.”
I find Broken27’s comments confusing. On one hand he agrees with me, “Statistics will show (almost certainly) that greens fee players make more damage, but that's also likely because there's far more of them. If you looked at it in terms of "per capita", you're likely looking at a much smaller disparity,” and on the other, he craps all over me.

I am not one of those, but, as your mind is made up that I am a boor, childish, a manipulator, insulting, a snob and a troll, (BC MIST)I will not confuse you with the facts.

I don't see what's confusing about my post BC MIST, nor where I "crapped all over you" as you so succinctly put it. I agreed with you that the sheer number of greens fee players compared to members would result in more total damage. Then I suggested looking at it in terms of per capita, like using the completely arbitrary figure of 2/3 are green fee players and 1/3 are members, so how much damage is being caused when using pro-ration. I don't think members are all that more careful or more etiquette prone than the greens fee players.

Your second comment is a tad confusing to me, however. Saying "I will not confuse you with the facts" is pretty much a direct antagonism, and a very elitist statement as it implies that you're either more intelligent, or at least more knowledgable (in my case the latter is likely true) than the rest of us.

I certainly wasn't trying to insult or offend you in my initial post. I was just sticking up for those of us who would love to be members but for financial reasons can't be. I play as a greens fee player, but most would say my etiquette and course repair is of a fairly high standard. I'm constantly fixing other peoples' divots or ball marks, mainly because I respect the course I play on. I hate missing a putt because some jackass wore his baseball cleats on the green. That would likely be a greens fee player. Conversely, as we were told at Trillium Wood or Perth this weekend, many of their members go out off the first tee with soft spikes, then as soon as they're out of sight, they switch to metal spikes. The blade cuts both ways.

I suppose that perhaps I took the knock on greens fee players a tad too sensitively, but it's likely because I yearn to become a member somewhere and generally act as I'd expect to act when I finally do become one (although I'll still drink my fill of beers).

No hard feelings. Cheers.
Dan

[Gary Hill]

Does the fact that a normal human being is REFUSING to show the ball affect a committee's decision at all? Or would something like that not be part of the rules decision.

Yes. One would always have to question why the human didn't just show the ball if it was his ball or a provisional ball.

That fact is taken into account, but it is not the sole determining element.