A Top Secret Committee gathered to determine what actions could and should be taken moving ahead. No one knew for certain who sat on this Committee, as it was a Top Secret Committee, but all appreciated the weight and magnitude of the decision to be made, as it’s influence would have great bearing on the sports community locally and, of course, across the entire State of Tennessee.

In fact, no one had seen this coming. All had expected a close and competitive contest, not a total knockout. The players were devastated. “This will be a real character test,” one said. “Sure we were a slight underdog”‘he added. “But this was totally unexpected. And the funny thing is, the other team played like Dogs”, he noted. “We need to figure out a way to put out this fire!”

Facts

In an important elimination Match Play Competition on the banks of lovely Brush Creek at the Fernvale Country Club, Players DT and VP escaped their hard-fought match with a 2 -Up victory. A couple of days later, they received a letter from the Committee advising that a protest had been lodged, and that upon review, they were disqualified, with their victory vacated. The Committee advised that they had passed along this decision to the opponents who could agree to a rematch, at their option. No such offer was forthcoming.

The disqualification arose from the indisputable fact that Player VP played as a zero handicap, as he had for time eternal, when unbeknownst to him, his handicap had moved to a plus one. The Committee had filled out the scorecards prior to the match, and failed to note the change. The Committee cited R6-2 and Dec 6-2b/3.5 as authority for this disqualification. This Rule states that a Player is responsible for knowing his own handicap, subject to disqualification if lower than stated. The Dec cited stated a player should be DQ’d, even if the Committee filled out the scorecards in error, which is what happened in this situation.

Foremost was advised of this incident as a matter of general interest. Upon hasty review of the facts and citations, F responded that he was not convinced this Committee ruling was correct, as it cited R6-2b which referenced Stroke Play, when the competition was Match Play governed by R6-2a.

F offered Dec 6-2a/5 for consideration. In this case, where a competitor unknowingly gave a wrong handicap and the error was discovered after the result of the match was officially announced, the match was allowed to stand, as played.

Further, F cited Dec 33-1/12 where the wrong handicap was due to Committee misinformation. The Dec stated that the Committee should take action “most equitable”, with possible results including replaying the match, or letting the match stand.

DT and VP asked the Committee to reconsider. The Committee ruled that their original disqualification verdict would stand.

Certainly one  of the interesting facets of this case was the initial  decision by the Committee noting the disqualification, but suggesting a replay of the match at the opponent’s option. Further  to this line of inquiry, in the spirit of sportsmanship,  should the opponents have  pursued the suggestion of the replay? After all, they did get beat.  Was it reasonable of the Committee to shift this burden to the opponents rather than the Committee making the decision directly?

On the subject of sportsmanship (courtesy of Reader JM)…most Reader’s are probably aware of Jordan Spieth’s disqualification for a hole at the President’s Cup. He raked a ball in motion struck by opponent, Louis Oosthuizen in four-ball competition, even though Oosthuizen was out of the hole, as his partner, Jason Day, was already in with a birdie. The result of Spieth’s disqualification was that he didn’t get the opportunity to make a birdie putt to tie the hole for the American team. Even Tiger couldn’t talk the rules official out of this decision. As a result of the DQ, the International team went one up.

Oosthuizen and Day felt bad about the DQ and, as gentlemen and true sporstmen,  offered to concede the next hole  to square  the match. Spieth  refused their noble offer.

Although the aftermath of a concession was never discussed, as it never happened, F is glad a concession was not accepted. In F’s opinion,  such an agreement (a concession as quid pro quo for an unpopular penalty) would have been, in effect,  an agreement to waive the rules (or a penalty) leaving the players of both Sides subject to disqualification under R1-3.

As usual, all comments are welcome! And now you know…you are responsible for that Committee scorecard!

Respectfully submitted,
F