GUI Statement - Mod warning #1

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.

ShivasIrons

CalamariFritti wrote: »

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?

You are not very clear on why the time is an issue? Is it because not enough people can play?

At the moment you can play up to 9:30, which means golfers can tee off at 6 or later and get 18. First time at 8, 7 at the weekend last time at 6, that’s 10 or 11 hours of times which is 130-140 golfers. Or 900-1000 golfers a week. That is a very busy golf course.

Too many golfer focus on when they start as opposed to when they finished, with increased space between groups slow play won’t be an issue, golfers will be finished much quicker, even with teeing off 30-60 minutes later they’ll finish close to the time they would have.

Tee times that are too close together with busy golf courses are the main reason behind slow play, tee times that are too close together on the 18th would lead to groups gathering around the first tee, putting green, in the car park and bunching up on the course.

It’s sensible and well thought out.

prawnsambo

For those interested, this is a link to the law under which the current (and past) restrictions are based. The various limits and exceptions have been set under Statutory Instruments 120, 121, 128 and 153 (which extends the 2Km to 5km).

Hoboo

Roger_007 wrote: »

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.

Not in my club, there's a waiting list

GreeBo

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 pretty sure that only applies to member owned clubs.
If its a private entity then you can sue it just as you could sue a gym.

GreeBo

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.

But they arent chickening out!
The government has them covered.
Are golf clubs also chickening out ny not reminding you that killing people is bad?

GreeBo

prawnsambo wrote: »

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.

How is the law in any way wishy-washy around this?

If the GUI came out and said they restricted members from travelling more than 2KM would you obey it or would you defer to the government restrcitions?
Equally if the GUI said 10KM, would you ignore the government and defer to the GUI? What if the GUI also said that you couldnt travel faster tham 10km/h to get there? I'm guessing you would ignore that one too.

There is zero need for confusion on this one lads, you are all just looking for some magical excuse to play before the restrictions are lifted.

thecomedian

GreeBo wrote: »

But they arent chickening out!
The government has them covered.
Are golf clubs also chickening out ny not reminding you that killing people is bad?

That’s a ridiculous post.
Are you just trying to stir things up again??

GreeBo

thecomedian wrote: »

That’s a ridiculous post.
Are you just trying to stir things up again??

Explain how its ridiculous though? You cant just rant away if you cant explain your reasoning!

People are up in arms that the GUI hasnt reminded people to obey one specific law, even though that is not and has never been their remit.

Why would the laws around covid-19 be any different to any other laws, like killing someone?

thecomedian

The GUI don’t need to mention anything about the 5km distance as it’s none of their business.

For over 70s there is no law against them staying cocooned. That was only advice form the government.
They can go out if they want to.

Carazy

The GUI's protocol could have been a great document with guidelines that it was either Black or White as to who was permitted to play golf on the 18th of May.

The announcement was structured to include a Grey area.
They purposely omitted the government details relating to distance travelled and age which has left members with the same questions as they had last week.

The rest of the protocol is very much common sense and a lot of which was being undertaken by clubs prior to the closure order

thecomedian

GreeBo wrote: »

Explain how its ridiculous though? You cant just rant away if you cant explain your reasoning!

People are up in arms that the GUI hasnt reminded people to obey one specific law, even though that is not and has never been their remit.

Why would the laws around covid-19 be any different to any other laws, like killing someone?

Apologies then.
I thought you were relating travelling over the 5km distance to killing someone.

GreeBo

Carazy wrote: »

The GUI's protocol could have been a great document with guidelines that it was either Black or White as to who was permitted to play golf on the 18th of May.

The announcement was structured to include a Grey area.
They purposely omitted the government details relating to distance travelled and age which has left members with the same questions as they had last week.

The rest of the protocol is very much common sense and a lot of which was being undertaken by clubs prior to the closure order

The GUI document clearly outlines a return to play protocol, in pretty fine detail to be honest.
Which bit of "within 5km" is a grey area for you exactly? Between us all I reckon we can clear it up for you.

The only question a member has is "do I live within 5km of the club?"
Nothing else matters, if this answer to this is "no" then you cant play.

Carazy

GreeBo wrote: »

The GUI document clearly outlines a return to play protocol, in pretty fine detail to be honest.
Which bit of "within 5km" is a grey area for you exactly? Between us all I reckon we can clear it up for you.

The only question a member has is "do I live within 5km of the club?"
Nothing else matters, if this answer to this is "no" then you cant play.

The bit I'm missing is where are the current restrictions on travel mentioned in the protocol?

I see the absence of such to be purposely ambiguous.

The phase diagram is formatted similar to the government's phasing but lacks one of the foremost restrictions, that being of travel for non essential sport or social activities.

GreeBo

Carazy wrote: »

The bit I'm missing is where are the current restrictions on travel mentioned in the protocol?

I see the absence of such to be purposely ambiguous.

The phase diagram is formatted similar to the government's phasing but lacks one of the foremost restrictions, that being of travel for non essential sport or social activities.

The GUI have no control over the current 5km law that exists within Ireland...why would they reference something that they have no control over?

Whats the ambiguty? Do you think that if the GUI said 10Km that you could travel 10KM to play golf and ignore the current laws of the country?

Carazy

GreeBo wrote: »

The GUI have no control over the current 5km law that exists within Ireland...why would they reference something that they have no control over?

Whats the ambiguty? Do you think that if the GUI said 10Km that you could travel 10KM to play golf and ignore the current laws of the country?

The current restrictions are unprecedented and I would have thought that they would have at least got mentioned once in the protocol. The fact that they didn't and it has been a big question for golfers over the past week is disappointing.

I think supplementary memo with a FAQ sheet would be welcomed before next week.

thecomedian

Carazy wrote: »

The bit I'm missing is where are the current restrictions on travel mentioned in the protocol?

I see the absence of such to be purposely ambiguous.

The phase diagram is formatted similar to the government's phasing but lacks one of the foremost restrictions, that being of travel for non essential sport or social activities.

The GUI can only govern matters on golf.
Travelling to and from a golf course is none of their business.

GreeBo

Carazy wrote: »

The current restrictions are unprecedented and I would have thought that they would have at least got mentioned once in the protocol. The fact that they didn't and it has been a big question for golfers over the past week is disappointing.

I think supplementary memo with a FAQ sheet would be welcomed before next week.

Again you arent answering my question regarding what is the "big question for golfers over the past week"?

What is it that the GUI could tell them that the government hasnt already?

Carazy

thecomedian wrote: »

The GUI can only govern matters on golf.
Travelling to and from a golf course is none of their business.

The current unprecedented protocol was developed as part of this unprecedented event.
The current government restrictions brought in as part of this is of everyones business.
As golf being one of the first sports to reopen their courses I personally felt that it should have been included, but it wasn't.

Do members think that no reference to the emergency restrictions was omitted intentionally?

prawnsambo

GreeBo wrote: »

How is the law in any way wishy-washy around this?

If the GUI came out and said they restricted members from travelling more than 2KM would you obey it or would you defer to the government restrcitions?
Equally if the GUI said 10KM, would you ignore the government and defer to the GUI? What if the GUI also said that you couldnt travel faster tham 10km/h to get there? I'm guessing you would ignore that one too.

There is zero need for confusion on this one lads, you are all just looking for some magical excuse to play before the restrictions are lifted.

I think you misread me, judging by your very first sentence. The rest of your post derived from that and although it was wonderfully written and fascinating in itself, it doesn't apply to my post.


The GUI response to the question was wishy-washy imo.They just can't seem to bring themselves to actually quote the law.

Just Saying

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think you misread me, judging by your very first sentence. The rest of your post derived from that and although it was wonderfully written and fascinating in itself, it doesn't apply to my post.


The GUI response to the question was wishy-washy imo.They just can't seem to bring themselves to actually quote the law.

That is absolutely correct.Many people will glance through it and see no reference to 5km or over 70s and assume that restrictions don't apply.