South County League Board of Governors Meeting
Delaire Country Club
October 11, 2022
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 am by Pres. Jay Levine.
Roll call was taken and all the clubs were present.
Several new captains and a new governor were introduced.
Delaire and the Fountains were congratulated for being co - champions.
The meeting was turned over to Larry Stone, the Rules Chairman for presentation of rule changes for next year.
The following suggestions were:
Jeff Hamburger (the Fountains)-
Players age 70 and above with indexes from 14.0 through 15.9 may play from either the rear or forward tee. This was rejected, but the front tee cutoff for 2023 was set at 15.0. 15.0 and above qualify for the front tee.
Suggest creating a penalty for teams not submitting lineup by 5pm Friday. Denied
Suggest we increase the away fee to $60 due to rising food costs. Denied
Elliot Freiberg & Neil Schwartz (Stonebridge)-
Require ALL clubs to sign off on the rules, including minimum food and beverage service, yardage requirements, alternates allowed, etc. - All are required to abide by the rules.
Jay asked for volunteers for an ad hoc committee to set a minimum standard for food service. The volunteers were Stonebridge, Gleneagles, Wycliffe, and the Fountains.
2) Allow rain outs to be rescheduled if BOTH clubs agree and it can be done within the window of dates allowed. - This was approved as long as play has not started. If both governors do not agree or play has started, it is a rainout and a tie.
3) Eliminate the minimum number of players/teams on any given week if both governors agree. -Already possible
4) Push back the requirement for Thursday at 5pm to Friday at 5pm. Rushing to get a team together creates unnecessary stress and increased cancellations. - Approved
5) Instead of the 15.9 rule, create a buffer zone of 15-16 whereby anyone in this group can play either tee group. Covered by lower front tee cutoff to 15.0 above.
6) Have the Front Tee players play a Shamble, to help them with both
quality and speed of play. - Denied.
Bert Wellman (Boca West)-
We had a game scheduled against Stonebridge, here at Boca West, on June 8th, which was cancelled the night before by our Director of Golf. We had approximately 12 inches of rain on the Tuesday before the match, and he felt the course would be unplayable. In speaking to the Governor of Stonebridge, we decided to cancel the game and try to work out an alternate rain date.
We were told that the rules did not allow us to set up an alternate date to replay the match. Since this was a decision by our director of Golf we felt, and still feel, that an alternate date should have been allowed due to the very unusual weather conditions as described above. There were alternate dates available.
I would like to suggest a re-wording of the rule to take into effect such extreme weather conditions. - Covered by change in rainout rule above.
Jay Levine (Aberdeen)-
Suggests a new scoring system.
All matches count for all 18 holes – Keeps people engaged.
There have been times where a single putt can determine the overall results of the match. A team can play well and lose everything based on 1 match.
Good play is not rewarded under the current system. If a team plays and wins all matches, they still only get 3 points.
This keeps every team engaged deep into the season. Under the current system, when a team gets behind by mid-season, there is little motivation to play and makes fielding teams more difficult.
Teams are playing for a total of 19 points.
Both teams can win points for the week
Season standings are the cumulative points a team has earned
Each individual match is also 19 points – 1 point for each hole won, plus 1 for the overall match
Each week teams will have the (fourball – 2 man teams) matches as we have always had. The number of individual matches will be determined by the governors as they always have.
Each match is worth 19 points.
All of the matches are added and then divided by the number of matches to achieve the average for the day. That is the result of the day’s event.
Any matches not completed, the incomplete holes are halved
For example, Team A is playing Team B. There are 3 forward tee matches and 3 back tee.
Match 1 – Team A wins 11 holes, Team B 7 – The score for that match is 12-7
Match 2 – Team A wins 5 holes, Team B 13 – The score for that match is 5-14
Match 3 – Team A wins 9 holes, Team B 9 – The score for the match is 9.5 – 9.5
Match 4 – Team A wins 7 holes, Team B 11 – The score for the match is 7-12
Match 5 – Team A wins 3 holes, Team B 15 – The score for the match is 3-16
Match 6 – Team A wins 18 holes, Team B 0 – The score for the match is 19-0
Total of all matches Team A 55.5 Team B 58.5
Divide those by the number of matches – 6
The submitted results are:
Team A 9.25 Team B 9.8
Since finding a club to host the championship match seems to be extremely difficult, I suggest that we schedule the championship match well ahead of time at Osprey Point. - Voted to eliminate playoffs now that we have one division.
Larry Stone (Broken Sound)-
During the year, I have had the opportunity to speak with Directors of Golf at various clubs. There is a common concern that keeps coming up. With our current two division system, clubs are limited to playing mostly within their division. They don’t get to experience all of the clubs in the league.
I can tell you for a fact that that is the reason that Mizner left the league, and I’m fairly sure that it played a role in Woodfield’s decision. I have also been made aware of this concern on the part of teams still in the league. Mizner’s director of golf expressed a willingness to discuss returning if the league went to one division.
By going back to one division, everyone will play everyone else in the league at home or away. That means at the end of two years, everyone will have played at every other club in the league.
It is my opinion that this move is critical for the future of the league.
A reminder that the yardages specified in the rules are not a suggestion they are a requirement.
2. Of all the rules, I believe that the rule pertaining to split tees is the most confusing and actually unfair.
The rules state, “If a club does not have enough forward tee players to accommodate the forward tee requirement, they must match up all existing forward tee players before creating split tee teams.”
Additionally, “If a front tee qualifying player plays from the back tees by rule or choice, he is no longer considered a front tee player as it applies to the rules for that match, therefore, if he is needed to fulfill front tee requirements, he must play from the front tees, i.e. in that situation, in a split tee match, the front tee player must play from the front tees.
Theses two rules together mean that if Club A doesn’t have enough front tee players to satisfy the minimum requirement, Club B, who has the required minimum, is required to allow a split tee match, but Club B must play their front tee players from the front tees playing against two back tee players as the rule is currently written.
In a split tee match, there can be a difference of 4 shots between a person playing from the back vs what he would be playing at from the front.
That’s 4 shots for a distance differential that can be as little as 300 yds or 17 yds per hole. This usually results in the back tee player(s) receiving shots from a front tee player. I understand that the handicap system is supposed to adjust for that, but this does not seem like a fair exchange. Are we punishing the team that has enough front tee players by requiring them to have a split tee match, because the other team can’t muster enough front tee players? Why should the offending team get to use back tee players, but the complying team can’t.
“If a front tee qualifying player plays from the back tees by rule or choice, he is no longer considered a front tee player as it applies to the rules for that match, therefore, if he is needed to fulfill front tee requirements, he must play from the front tees, i.e. in that situation, in a split tee match, the front tee player must play from the front tees. Not withstanding the previous statement, if team A has the minimum number of back tee players, but has to play a split tee match due to team B not having enough front tee players, team A can move one or both front tee players to the back tee to match the number of back tee players of team B in that match to avoid a perceived or real handicap disadvantage, or team A can use a back tee player to match the number of team B. In this situation, those player(s) would still qualify as fulfilling the front tee requirement.
Theoretically, if one team has 16 back tee players and no front tee players available, they could play four matches with two back tee players against two front tee players. Should we limit the number of split tee matches in this situation?
“If a club does not have enough forward tee players to accommodate the forward tee requirement, they must match up all existing forward tee players then they can create one split tee match to comply. If there is an additional shortfall, they would either have to forfeit those matches or play one vs two players to comply.
Another, simpler and probably the right solution would be to not allow split tee matches to fulfill the front tee requirement. I would venture to say that most if not all clubs in the league have more players at 15.9 and above in their membership than below, but we are always looking for the “best” players. If clubs with few front tee players needed to look for more, they would find them. The split tee option doesn’t make it an imperative.
An alternate suggestion:
If a front tee qualifying player plays from the back tees by rule or choice, he is no longer considered a front tee player as it applies to the rules for that match, therefore, if he is needed to fulfill front tee requirements, he must play from the front tees, i.e. in that situation, in a split tee match, the front tee player must play from the front tees. Not withstanding the previous statement, if team A has the minimum number of back tee players, but has to play a split tee match with back tee players due to team B not having enough front tee players, team A can move one or both front tee players to the back tee to match the number of back tee players of team B in that match, team A can require team B to move their back tee players to the front tee, or if both teams have one back tee player, they all play at their respective tees. Adopted
Revisit the “1Covid” Clause
The resolution of the Aberdeen / Gleneagles issue would suggest the following changes.
“if a club is experiencing a public health issue which both either governor agree believes could put the safety of the participants of a match in jeopardy, it can will be rescheduled if possible without regard to the 30 day rule mentioned above. If the match is can not be rescheduled, it would be considered a tie.” - Tabled
The rules state that in the playoffs, “the two division champions play at a neutral course for the league championship?” add the following words. For the purpose of setting up the lineups, the team with the better record will be considered the home team. If it is a tie, a coin flip will decide. - Moot due to the elimination of the playoffs.
By Law Change
It currently states, “A grievance committee shall be formed to hear and act upon any differences that may occur between member clubs. Membership of this committee shall be limited to former league presidents, who are still actively attending Board of Governors meetings, the current president and vice-president. The chairman shall be the most senior ex-president. No committee members may vote on any matter concerning his own club. Decisions of this committee are binding on all parties concerned and may not be appealed.”
Currently, we have no past presidents that are still actively attending meetings. I suggest the following change:
“Membership of this committee shall consist of the league officers. The chairman shall be the league president. No committee members may vote on any matter concerning his own club. If an officer needs to recuse himself, a governor chosen by lottery would replace him. - Approved
The next meeting will hopefully be at Boca west on December 13. Bert Wellman to confirm.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:22 am.