GUI Statement - Mod warning #1

Walter Alright

Ollieboy wrote: »

So from 8 to 4 pm midweek that only allows 103 people out to play.

Weekend is 7 to 4 so will allow 115. Some clubs will really struggle with access.

Where did you see this information? That will be a right pain if people can't get out in the evenings.

Makes no sense to me. There is no restriction on the number of people allowed through a supermarket door during the day, only on the amount in at the same time.

Ollieboy

Walter Alright wrote: »

Where did you see this information? That will be a right pain if people can't get out in the evenings.

Makes no sense to me. There is no restriction on the number of people allowed through a supermarket door during the day, only on the amount in at the same time.

Where it states the distance between groups, 3 balls is 14 mins apart. Course don’t need to close at the times I gave, that was just to illustrate the lack of tee times in any club at peak times.

Golfgraffix

Ollieboy wrote: »

Just a comment, no club can or will enforce the 5k s or 70’s. Any club that does, will have a legal issue.

What issues do you foresee ? Genuine question

Ollieboy

Golfgraffix wrote: »

What issues do you foresee ? Genuine question

In members club they are shareholders in the business so the rules of the club are clear and you can’t ban people. So if a club refused access to a member they will have a claim, how much for and would the member do it, is a different question.

Clubs are a business and upsetting your customer is just stupid.

Other type of clubs will have to give members refunds if they refuse access so they won’t do that either.

Membership is a contract between club and member and clubs won’t want to break that trust or agreement.

Anyway, it’s up to the Garda to enforce the law not clubs.

artanevilla

What happens in the case of privately owned courses, ie, Deer Park. The course and club based there are separate so would the course be bound by these guidelines?

Also hotel golf courses would be similar situation, owned by the hotel rather than a club, so would hotel guests be allowed play.

the.red.baron

Walter Alright wrote: »

Where did you see this information? That will be a right pain if people can't get out in the evenings.

Makes no sense to me. There is no restriction on the number of people allowed through a supermarket door during the day, only on the amount in at the same time.

There's no restriction on how many can play in a day only in how many can play at one time

No different

Does it need to be 14 mins, I don't think so

But it's no different

Walter Alright

the.red.baron wrote: »

There's no restriction on how many can play in a day only in how many can play at one time

No different

Does it need to be 14 mins, I don't think so

But it's no different

I picked it up wrong, thought clubs opening hours were being restricted.

I also think the 14 mins is crazy.

My local Tesco leave about 10 seconds between customers entering the shop (until it reaches its allowed capacity) and there is no one stopping you from handling items in store unlike the golf course with the flag pole, rake,etc.

blindside88

The golf club is 4.7km from my house. Looks like I’ll be able to play half way down the first hole and back up along the 9th

FixdePitchmark

Walter Alright wrote: »

I picked it up wrong, thought clubs opening hours were being restricted.

I also think the 14 mins is crazy.

My local Tesco leave about 10 seconds between customers entering the shop (until it reaches its allowed capacity) and there is no one stopping you from handling items in store unlike the golf course with the flag pole, rake,etc.

14 mins makes no sense at all - someone would have been thinking about the restriction at start - but people hardly meet other groups at all before the first tee when 5 to 8 mins gaps

I'd genuinely be on the 3rd tee in 14 mins.

Ollieboy

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

14 mins makes no sense at all - someone would have been thinking about the restriction at start - but people hardly meet other groups at all before the first tee when 5 to 8 mins gaps

I'd genuinely be on the 3rd tee in 14 mins.

The 14 mins was never the issue for the course, it’s about managing the numbers at the club and preventing overcrowded car parks.

I believe a early request was a parking space on each side of every vehicles. Some clubs have restricted space. Similar issue with toilets and pro shop. So they wanted to reduce the capacity at clubs by 50% and this was the solution. so that’s the reason for this restriction.

Personally, 12 mins I think is fine in 3 balls and it moves to this on the 29th June.

But the clubs were willing to agree to just get open and these issues can be readdress afterwards. Been shut is the worse outcome.

Clubs can change the rule if the want by the way, but risk getting the industry shut down if they do.

Roger_007

The guidelines are simply a formal restatement of the measures which were in place immediately before the lockdown. They carefully avoid any mention of what will be the most contentious issues, the travel limit and the age limit. The clubs themselves will have to police these restrictions, (or not, as the case may be). They will not be able to point to the GUI guidelines to justify whatever measures they put in place in relation to these issues.
I think the GUI have chickened out.

prawnsambo

Roger_007 wrote: »

The guidelines are simply a formal restatement of the measures which were in place immediately before the lockdown. They carefully avoid any mention of what will be the most contentious issues, the travel limit and the age limit. The clubs themselves will have to police these restrictions, (or not, as the case may be). They will not be able to point to the GUI guidelines to justify whatever measures they put in place in relation to these issues.
I think the GUI have chickened out.

Looks that way to me too. Very vague on the legal aspects. The closest they come is this statement on page 2. And it's very much open to interpretation.

Members will need to be aware of the limited basis on which they have the opportunity to play in the initial months.

GreeBo

Roger_007 wrote: »

The guidelines are simply a formal restatement of the measures which were in place immediately before the lockdown. They carefully avoid any mention of what will be the most contentious issues, the travel limit and the age limit. The clubs themselves will have to police these restrictions, (or not, as the case may be). They will not be able to point to the GUI guidelines to justify whatever measures they put in place in relation to these issues.
I think the GUI have chickened out.

Do they not just point to the government guidelines?

Hoboo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

14 mins makes no sense at all - someone would have been thinking about the restriction at start - but people hardly meet other groups at all before the first tee when 5 to 8 mins gaps

I'd genuinely be on the 3rd tee in 14 mins.

Id imagine it's to avoid crowding/maintain distance in the carpark, toilets, pro shop. I know our place is like a hive from 7-12 every Saturday. You've to pass a crowd to get to the tee box.

Ollieboy

Roger_007 wrote: »

The guidelines are simply a formal restatement of the measures which were in place immediately before the lockdown. They carefully avoid any mention of what will be the most contentious issues, the travel limit and the age limit. The clubs themselves will have to police these restrictions, (or not, as the case may be). They will not be able to point to the GUI guidelines to justify whatever measures they put in place in relation to these issues.
I think the GUI have chickened out.

The GUI do not set the law or can legally tell anyone what to do and thank God. They are a sports body.

They can tell you what the restrictions are but it’s up to you to decide if you want to obey them and then that’s a Garda issue.

And you are only breaking this rule by traveling to the club, not actually been at the club! This is really important point to understand and I don’t get this confusion.

Euphoriasean

prawnsambo wrote: »

Looks that way to me too. Very vague on the legal aspects. The closest they come is this statement on page 2. And it's very much open to interpretation.

They don't specially call out restrictions on travel or over 70 but do cover themselves with the statement below:

"Rules for Golfers in Phase 1
This Protocol sets out the basis on which golf can be played in a safe manner, during Phase 1 of the Government’s Roadmap for Reopening Society and Business. Golfers are expected to observe the underlying public health guidance set out at: www.hse.ie/coronavirus/ and www.gov.ie. These rules are subject to change and golfers are asked to check www.golfnet.ie regularly for updates."

Kiith

It's not the golf clubs responsibility to enforce any sort of travel restrictions. Do Tesco and other stores check where you live before entering? If you move outside the 5km zone, you are responsible if anything happens.

It's going to be a nightmare to get a game i'd say, but any game will do me at this stage.

Hoboo

Ollieboy wrote: »

Just a comment, no club can or will enforce the 5k s or 70’s. Any club that does, will have a legal issue.

And any member should have a membership issue next year. Membership is a privilege not a right.

Roger_007

Hoboo wrote: »

And any member should have a membership issue next year. Membership is a privilege not a right.

Next year golf clubs will be doing everything they can to hang on to their membership. They will not be in the business of banning members. That world ended about 10 years ago.

Just Saying

Roger_007 wrote: »

The guidelines are simply a formal restatement of the measures which were in place immediately before the lockdown. They carefully avoid any mention of what will be the most contentious issues, the travel limit and the age limit. The clubs themselves will have to police these restrictions, (or not, as the case may be). They will not be able to point to the GUI guidelines to justify whatever measures they put in place in relation to these issues.
I think the GUI have chickened out.

Absolutely.They make lots of vague references to the responsibilities placed on golf by allowing it to be one of the first sports to open.They want clubs to sign up to protocols some of which are ridiculous or childish.Yet they fail to specifically address the two key issues that could result in the game getting negative publicity.

Imagine the headlines if golfers are stopped travelling 50km to play or players clearly over 70 are pictured playing.I actually think that neither of the above scenarios carry much risk at all but the will be plenty outside the game only too willing to highlight golfers non compliance with public health guidelines.

Mantis Toboggan

I'd imagine normal government restrictions should apply ie over 70's still have to cocoon and nobody to travel over the 5km. Not having the over 70's should keep them safe and free up slots on the course for everyone else.

Just Saying

Kiith wrote: »

It's not the golf clubs responsibility to enforce any sort of travel restrictions. Do Tesco and other stores check where you live before entering? If you move outside the 5km zone, you are responsible if anything happens.

It's going to be a nightmare to get a game i'd say, but any game will do me at this stage.

Shopping was always an essential activity and the 5km rule does not apply to it.

I would be more concerned about clubs getting grief both from members who are rigidly sticking to the rules and see names on the timesheet that should not be playing and also from non golfing people who see neighbours heading off to play who they know are rule breaking..

It takes very little in this country to get people to pick up the phone to report others.

downthemiddle

Ollieboy wrote: »

Just a comment, no club can or will enforce the 5k s or 70’s. Any club that does, will have a legal issue.

You cannot sue a club you’re a member of. What other legal issue would you foresee?

CalamariFritti

downthemiddle wrote: »

You cannot sue a club you’re a member of. What other legal issue would you foresee?

Why couldn't you sue a club you're a member of?

I'd say anyone who ever sued a golf club its quite likely it would have been the club they were a member of. Not that that's really worth debating. Just confused by that statement.

Roger_007

Just Saying wrote: »

Absolutely.They make lots of vague references to the responsibilities placed on golf by allowing it to be one of the first sports to open.They want clubs to sign up to protocols some of which are ridiculous or childish.Yet they fail to specifically address the two key issues that could result in the game getting negative publicity.

Imagine the headlines if golfers are stopped travelling 50km to play or players clearly over 70 are pictured playing.I actually think that neither of the above scenarios carry much risk at all but the will be plenty outside the game only too willing to highlight golfers non compliance with public health guidelines.

I think the reason that they make no specific reference to the travel restriction is because they know that there are many clubs who have hardly any members living within the 5km limit. One of my neighbours is a member in Co Louth, (Baltray), and he told me that he doesn’t know personally any member living within the travel limit. (He himself lives 25km from the club).
I can think of clubs where there is very few people at all living within 5km. Clubs like Ballyliffen, Carne and Connemara spring to mind.
If the recommendations are strictly adhered to, there will be so few people eligible to play, there will be no problem with getting a time slot. Those who are eligible play can play all day every day if they want to.

fred funk }{

How will clubs set up their time sheets to reflect the different times for 1, 2 and 3 balls?

Will they all just allocate to 14 mins and leave it at that even if there are only 2 golfers?

downthemiddle

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Why couldn't you sue a club you're a member of?

I'd say anyone who ever sued a golf club its quite likely it would have been the club they were a member of. Not that that's really worth debating. Just confused by that statement.

It is the legal equivalent of suing yourself.


http://www.hassettconsidine.ie/published-articles/36-february-2010-sports-clubs-and-the-law.html
The first important point to note is that a member of any sports club who voluntarily participates in club activities accepts the risks that are inherent in the sport or activity itself. There is no legal obligation on the club to provide insurance cover, so the responsibility of ensuring that cover is in place rests with the individual member. Therefore, if a member is registered on a team and participates in training or games then he or she does so at his or her own risk.

The club rules/ constitution will contain sections on membership and in the vast majority of cases there will be a requirement that a subscription be paid annually in order to qualify as a full member. Although it is every club's ambition to ensure that all of its members are fully paid up members, this is often not the case. If an unregistered member is allowed onto club property, he or she will be a member of the Public. In the event of any such person sustaining an injury on club property, he or she will most likely identify the club trustees and executive as Defendants because in most cases they are the legal owners of the club property.

Just Saying

Roger_007 wrote: »

I think the reason that they make no specific reference to the travel restriction is because they know that there are many clubs who have hardly any members living within the 5km limit. One of my neighbours is a member in Co Louth, (Baltray), and he told me that he doesn’t know personally any member living within the travel limit. (He himself lives 25km from the club).
I can think of clubs where there is very few people at all living within 5km. Clubs like Ballyliffen, Carne and Connemara spring to mind.
If the recommendations are strictly adhered to, there will be so few people eligible to play, there will be no problem with getting a time slot. Those who are eligible play can play all day every day if they want to.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out.I would think there will by quite a few who intend to follow regulations but if they see others not following them they might change their mind by week 2!!

prawnsambo

Ollieboy wrote: »

The GUI do not set the law or can legally tell anyone what to do and thank God. They are a sports body.

They can tell you what the restrictions are but it’s up to you to decide if you want to obey them and then that’s a Garda issue.

And you are only breaking this rule by traveling to the club, not actually been at the club! This is really important point to understand and I don’t get this confusion.

It's actually the law, not a rule. But I do like your chicken and egg interpretation of it.

CalamariFritti

I do have an issue with the group sizes and the intervals. And the sentiment and the tone of the statement.

Its like they took the worst case scenario from the most crowded club in the country added some safety space and then applied that as a blanket rule to everyone. Handed down to us from heaven by the generous mercy of our gracious government. And you better be compliant or else. You bold little children who'd still be soiling yourselves if we didn't tell you how to get out of bed in the morning.

Or maybe cabin fever is getting to me and I'm easily triggered. I will not deny that that's a possibility.

Surely any private enterprise (which most golf clubs are) can do as they see fit as long they don't flout the lockdown rules?

HighLine

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

I'd imagine normal government restrictions should apply ie over 70's still have to cocoon and nobody to travel over the 5km. Not having the over 70's should keep them safe and free up slots on the course for everyone else.

But where exactly in the government restrictions do they recommend that over 70s don't choose golf as their exercise? Do they state in an unambiguous fashion the duration of exercise?

They don't. Hence why golf clubs can't prevent over 70s playing.

As for the 5km restrictions.. well that will be up to the Gardaí to police and not golf clubs.

Just Saying

HighLine wrote: »

But where exactly in the government restrictions do they recommend that over 70s don't choose golf as their exercise? Do they state in an unambiguous fashion the duration of exercise?

They don't. Hence why golf clubs can't prevent over 70s playing.

As for the 5km restrictions.. well that will be up to the Gardaí to police and not golf clubs.

They do specifically recommend that the exercise is solitary for over 70s.

Mantis Toboggan

HighLine wrote: »

But where exactly in the government restrictions do they recommend that over 70s don't choose golf as their exercise? Do they state in an unambiguous fashion the duration of exercise?

They don't. Hence why golf clubs can't prevent over 70s playing.

As for the 5km restrictions.. well that will be up to the Gardaí to police and not golf clubs.

Well the over 70's are in the very high risk category and have to cocoon. They advise on the HSE website is

"You need to cocoon.

Stay at home at all times. Avoid face-to-face contact. Minimise all non-essential contact with other members of your household"

I'd imagine this won't be amended allow them off to of play a round of golf.

Ollieboy

downthemiddle wrote: »

It is the legal equivalent of suing yourself.


http://www.hassettconsidine.ie/published-articles/36-february-2010-sports-clubs-and-the-law.html
The first important point to note is that a member of any sports club who voluntarily participates in club activities accepts the risks that are inherent in the sport or activity itself. There is no legal obligation on the club to provide insurance cover, so the responsibility of ensuring that cover is in place rests with the individual member. Therefore, if a member is registered on a team and participates in training or games then he or she does so at his or her own risk.

The club rules/ constitution will contain sections on membership and in the vast majority of cases there will be a requirement that a subscription be paid annually in order to qualify as a full member. Although it is every club's ambition to ensure that all of its members are fully paid up members, this is often not the case. If an unregistered member is allowed onto club property, he or she will be a member of the Public. In the event of any such person sustaining an injury on club property, he or she will most likely identify the club trustees and executive as Defendants because in most cases they are the legal owners of the club property.

I’m aware and involved in loads of members that took legal action against there own club for a very wide range of reasons and won damages.

Examples, injury, defamation.

But as you can already see no clubs is going to enforce it because been at the club is not against the law.

CalamariFritti

downthemiddle wrote: »

It is the legal equivalent of suing yourself.


http://www.hassettconsidine.ie/published-articles/36-february-2010-sports-clubs-and-the-law.html
The first important point to note is that a member of any sports club who voluntarily participates in club activities accepts the risks that are inherent in the sport or activity itself. There is no legal obligation on the club to provide insurance cover, so the responsibility of ensuring that cover is in place rests with the individual member. Therefore, if a member is registered on a team and participates in training or games then he or she does so at his or her own risk.

The club rules/ constitution will contain sections on membership and in the vast majority of cases there will be a requirement that a subscription be paid annually in order to qualify as a full member. Although it is every club's ambition to ensure that all of its members are fully paid up members, this is often not the case. If an unregistered member is allowed onto club property, he or she will be a member of the Public. In the event of any such person sustaining an injury on club property, he or she will most likely identify the club trustees and executive as Defendants because in most cases they are the legal owners of the club property.

Ok thats for accidents. But I do remember cleerly someone sueing their club over other things. Wasn't there this slander case where someone thought him getting an extra handicap cut was akin to the club calling him a cheat?

prawnsambo

Kevin Markham not particularly impressed.

CalamariFritti

I don't see where people get this over 70s thing from. Everything regarding over 70s is advisory.

Carazy

Roger_007 wrote: »

The guidelines are simply a formal restatement of the measures which were in place immediately before the lockdown. They carefully avoid any mention of what will be the most contentious issues, the travel limit and the age limit. The clubs themselves will have to police these restrictions, (or not, as the case may be). They will not be able to point to the GUI guidelines to justify whatever measures they put in place in relation to these issues.
I think the GUI have chickened out.

Having read through the protocol it looks like the GUI bawked at including the government restrictions or at least a clear reference to them.

Benicetomonty

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Ok thats for accidents. But I do remember cleerly someone sueing their club over other things. Wasn't there this slander case where someone thought him getting an extra handicap cut was akin to the club calling him a cheat?

You are correct. A member of a renowned parkland in Dublin's southwest took a case against the club, whom he accused of blackening his name by reviewing his handicap. Case was eventually dismissed.

Roger_007

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Ok thats for accidents. But I do remember cleerly someone sueing their club over other things. Wasn't there this slander case where someone thought him getting an extra handicap cut was akin to the club calling him a cheat?

Yes, I remember that case. I think the guy who sued lost in the end. I also remember another case where someone who was hit by a golf ball sued the guy who hit the shot. The case revolved around whether a warning of FORE was called or not. It eventually ended up in the High Court where it was thrown out.
It would be a strange turn of events if someone claimed that they were infected by another player who should not have been playing, (according to the recommendations)..............but stranger things have happened!

prawnsambo

And here's a reply from the GUI to that very question on Twitter last night.

prawnsambo

Roger_007 wrote: »

Yes, I remember that case. I think the guy who sued lost in the end. I also remember another case where someone who was hit by a golf ball sued the guy who hit the shot. The case revolved around whether a warning of FORE was called or not. It eventually ended up in the High Court where it was thrown out.
It would be a strange turn of events if someone claimed that they were infected by another player who should not have been playing, (according to the recommendations)..............but stranger things have happened!

It wasn't thrown out. She was awarded €275,000 in damages.

Roger_007

prawnsambo wrote: »

It wasn't thrown out. She was awarded €275,000 in damages.

That must have been a different case.
The one I was thinking of involved two male players.

CalamariFritti

prawnsambo wrote: »

And here's a reply from the GUI to that very question on Twitter last night.

And thats where I have an issue with it.

So is distancing (government policy applicable to society generally). And it is deemed within your personal responsibility to ensure that happens. Like it is in the tesco car park for example or down at the beach car park where people do their 5km exercise.

But apparently in the golf club it isn't. Here we have to control the numbers in the car park by by introducing mad group sizes and intervals. But on other equally relevant restrictions (5km for example) we chicken out.

prawnsambo

Roger_007 wrote: »

That must have been a different case.
The one I was thinking of involved two male players.

Well the circumstances were exactly as you described. Hit on the head by a golf ball and no call of fore.

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

And thats where I have an issue with it.

So is distancing (government policy applicable to society generally). And it is deemed within your personal responsibility to ensure that happens. Like it is in the tesco car park for example or down at the beach car park where people do their 5km exercise.

But apparently in the golf club it isn't. Here we have to control the numbers in the car park by by introducing mad group sizes and intervals. But on other equally relevant restrictions (5km for example) we chicken out.

Yeah, don't disagree with you. You can park beside another car in Tesco's car park. But I would note that you are controlled entering and leaving the shop and there's a limit to how many people can be in it at one time. Which I suspect is the rationale behind the longer tee time intervals. Literally specifying the number of people who can be on the course at the same time.

But the 5Km thing is (as Kevin Markham said), the elephant in the room that has everyone perplexed. And even that reply above is very wishy-washy. It's not government 'policy'. It's the actual law of the land.

Just Saying

prawnsambo wrote: »

And here's a reply from the GUI to that very question on Twitter last night.

It's an interesting response from the GUi.

It is worth noting that if golfers in general flout Govt. regulations then it is entirely possible that the right to play golf will be withdrawn or else become incumbent on clubs to ensure adherence.

Before anyone gives me grief I am not getting into the rights and wrongs of the Govt. guidelines/recommendations I am merely pointing out the possible consequences for playing if they are being widely ignored by golfers.

Mac_Lad71

Just go and enjoy your game and let the Gardai deal with the legal side of things.

Euphoriasean

GUI not getting drawn on this as expected:

Carazy

The GUI would have known that this would be the big question (along with the over 70s).
It's still the elephant in the room.