143 replies to this topic

[Vindog]

Awful OP,  seriously dude.  And the fact that you came in basically gloating about it is even worse.

LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jnradioactive, on 03 August 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

closetoscratch, on 02 August 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

In honesty OP I think i would have done the same thing.  Don't let the god boys fool you! I bet a few of these guys would have as well.

This^^^

it is easy to be holier than thou in a blog. Not so easy sitting on the Tee while some d-bag with no consideration for anyone but himself does as he pleases as you wait. I would have screamed FORE and done the same thing.

Inconsiderate people rule the world because considerate people let them get away with it, betcha he thinks twice before taking a call in the middle of a hole again...

  So the answer to inconsideration is to potentially seriously injure someone?   Awesome.

And no I bet he doesn't think twice, because people like that don't change their ways.

[darius1213]

jlh1508, on 02 August 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

The simple solution seems to be skip #1 and start on 2 and tell the starter you will finish #1 after the round.  If he has a problem with that then tell him he needs to get the fool off his phone

Hitting into someone doesn't seem like the intelligent choice

+1, skip the hole and play #1 last. i would have definitely yelled at him first though. this is necessary more often than it should be playing public courses, but sometimes you gotta do it.

I kinda get it though, i'm not twitching in anger like everyone else. i can see myself doing the same thing, probably not now, but at ages 18-24...not impossible.

but if you did hit a thin faded heel shot into the back of his head that would really suck, for both parties.

[nfinch10]

The thread that won't die!  You guys that posted in the last day or so realize this was started in August right?  While I don't agree with the OP's actions, he has already been roasted for 5 pages.  Yes, he likes to call attention to himself (same guy who posted the "shot a 28 on the front nine, making the turn now" thread) but can't we let this one go?

Edited by nfinch10, 15 November 2012 - 04:35 PM.

[sheldonjhacker]

OP...are you NUTZ ?!!??   I saw a girl on the ladies tee get brained once by some dude on the first hole.  She was rushed to the hospital and it took her about a month to feel better again.  

[wobgon]

nfinch10, on 15 November 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

The thread that won't die!  You guys that posted in the last day or so realize this was started in August right?  While I don't agree with the OP's actions, he has already been roasted for 5 pages.  Yes, he likes to call attention to himself (same guy who posted the "shot a 28 on the front nine, making the turn now" thread) but can't we let this one go?

I saw you just posted. Are you aware that this thread started in  August.  Give it a rest.

[Bingo1976]

Is it not beyond the realms of common sense to have done the following should the same happen again:

1. Shout 'fore'
2. Assuming no response, ask the starter to have a word (who cares if he is friends with the guy, get him to move). If the starter refuses then go to the pro shop and complain about the starter and the cell phone guy
3. You had buggies, you can drive 200 yards in 20 seconds - go and have a chat with CPG
4. Drive to 2 and carry on

The fact that hitting into someone was your first response is a bit sad to be honest.

[360_CS]

Yea don't ever hit into somebody, you should of asked to go in front of them or complained to someone else. We have had people cut in front of us and some groups of slow people that don't let us through, we just usually start moaning to each other. If they don't let us through we just skip a hole and get in front of them, sometimes we ask the starter to ask them if they could let us through.

Have had a group hit into me before. I was in the right rough and waiting for the green to clear next minute a ball bounces and comes whizzing by my head, I look back and put my arms up at the group behind then another comes crawling to my feet. Ended up chucking those guys balls back at them (thinking about it now I should of hit their ball away).

[offapex]

There was no gross negligence, IMO. People are making it out to be too serious of an incident. The cell phone guy wasn't in the middle of the fairway, he's to the side. He's also 220 yards out. It's the equivalent of playing through or hitting while another golfer on another hole is 220 yards out/not on your target line. If the OP had hit a bad ball, there would have been plenty of time to yell fore. There was no gross negligence here. Golfers assume a certain level of risk when they step on the golf course (similar to how spectators at tournaments can get hit by Tiger and can't sue him). Now, let's say it was a short par 3 and the cell phone guy was 50 yards out, right in the middle of the target line. If the OP decided to hit a 6 iron and thins one into the cell phone guy's skull, that would be gross negligence. There would have been no time for the OP to yell fore or for the cell phone guy to take cover. You can definitely go to jail for that. All said and done, it's not worth all the complications. Be more patient next time.

[offapex]

incidentally, here's a lawsuit in NY about gross negligence when a friend hit a friend in the eye (blinding him). http://www.nytimes.c...olf/22golf.html

"The court, which sided with several lower courts, ruled that Anand assumed the risk that he could be hit by an errant ball when he decided to play golf. And Kapoor was responsible for yelling fore only to golfers in the ball’s intended path."

The cell phone guy assumes risks when he plays. The cell phone guy was not in the ball's intended path.  

[KYMAR]

offapex, on 16 November 2012 - 03:23 AM, said:

incidentally, here's a lawsuit in NY about gross negligence when a friend hit a friend in the eye (blinding him). http://www.nytimes.c...olf/22golf.html

"The court, which sided with several lower courts, ruled that Anand assumed the risk that he could be hit by an errant ball when he decided to play golf. And Kapoor was responsible for yelling fore only to golfers in the ball’s intended path."

The cell phone guy assumes risks when he plays. The cell phone guy was not in the ball's intended path.  

This is about the dumbest post in the whole thread. Quoting legal minutia in a thread that was started by a guy who admitted to, in anger and frustration "intentionally" hitting into some one is beyond absurd. This is nothing but pure Dbaggery on the part of all involved.

[lander215]

KYMAR, on 16 November 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

offapex, on 16 November 2012 - 03:23 AM, said:

incidentally, here's a lawsuit in NY about gross negligence when a friend hit a friend in the eye (blinding him). http://www.nytimes.c...olf/22golf.html

"The court, which sided with several lower courts, ruled that Anand assumed the risk that he could be hit by an errant ball when he decided to play golf. And Kapoor was responsible for yelling fore only to golfers in the ball’s intended path."

The cell phone guy assumes risks when he plays. The cell phone guy was not in the ball's intended path.  

This is about the dumbest post in the whole thread. Quoting legal minutia in a thread that was started by a guy who admitted to, in anger and frustration "intentionally" hitting into some one is beyond absurd. This is nothing but pure Dbaggery on the part of all involved.

I don't know about that...either of his posts might qualify for the dumbest. There's definitely a tight race for that moniker.

[Dire Wolf]

offapex, on 16 November 2012 - 03:23 AM, said:

incidentally, here's a lawsuit in NY about gross negligence when a friend hit a friend in the eye (blinding him). http://www.nytimes.c...olf/22golf.html

"The court, which sided with several lower courts, ruled that Anand assumed the risk that he could be hit by an errant ball when he decided to play golf. And Kapoor was responsible for yelling fore only to golfers in the ball’s intended path."

The cell phone guy assumes risks when he plays. The cell phone guy was not in the ball's intended path.  

You should have read the article you posted:

Dalton B. Floyd, a lawyer in Surfside Beach, S.C., who specializes in golf-related litigation, said courts had traditionally found that golfers are not liable for hitting those golfers not in their intended path.

“There is an inherent risk in golf that not everybody is going to hit a straight shot,” he said. “It’s different, however, if you are driving the ball and you normally hit 200 yards and there is a person 150 yards out and you hit them and don’t yell fore. In that case you have to warn them and if you don’t you are liable.”

[offapex]

Dire Wolf, on 16 November 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

offapex, on 16 November 2012 - 03:23 AM, said:

incidentally, here's a lawsuit in NY about gross negligence when a friend hit a friend in the eye (blinding him). http://www.nytimes.c...olf/22golf.html

"The court, which sided with several lower courts, ruled that Anand assumed the risk that he could be hit by an errant ball when he decided to play golf. And Kapoor was responsible for yelling fore only to golfers in the ball’s intended path."

The cell phone guy assumes risks when he plays. The cell phone guy was not in the ball's intended path.  

You should have read the article you posted:

Dalton B. Floyd, a lawyer in Surfside Beach, S.C., who specializes in golf-related litigation, said courts had traditionally found that golfers are not liable for hitting those golfers not in their intended path.

“There is an inherent risk in golf that not everybody is going to hit a straight shot,” he said. “It’s different, however, if you are driving the ball and you normally hit 200 yards and there is a person 150 yards out and you hit them and don’t yell fore. In that case you have to warn them and if you don’t you are liable.”

Yes, I read that part. I just don't think the situation is the same here because of the intended path. From what I've gathered, the cell phone guy was 220 to the right side of the fairway, not in the intended line. The OP hits it 300 yards and his intended line was well left of the cell phone guy. The cell phone guy at that point was essentially a spectator since he wasn't playing, talking on the phone. It is not gross negligence and perfectly reasonable for the the OP to play through/hit up. It's the equivalent of me trying to find my lost ball and the group behind hitting up. Now, if the OP shanks one 220 to the right, then it would be his responsibility to yell fore. That's where we everybody agrees. I assume the OP is not a killer, and if he had mishit his drive to the right, he would have yelled fore. But the OP hit a beauty, so there is no issue. Just think too many people make it out that the OP was grossly negligent. Hot headed, maybe. Impatient, maybe. But not negligent, IMHO.

[wobgon]

KYMAR, on 16 November 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

offapex, on 16 November 2012 - 03:23 AM, said:

incidentally, here's a lawsuit in NY about gross negligence when a friend hit a friend in the eye (blinding him). http://www.nytimes.c...olf/22golf.html

"The court, which sided with several lower courts, ruled that Anand assumed the risk that he could be hit by an errant ball when he decided to play golf. And Kapoor was responsible for yelling fore only to golfers in the ball’s intended path."

The cell phone guy assumes risks when he plays. The cell phone guy was not in the ball's intended path.  

This is about the dumbest post in the whole thread. Quoting legal minutia in a thread that was started by a guy who admitted to, in anger and frustration "intentionally" hitting into some one is beyond absurd. This is nothing but pure Dbaggery on the part of all involved.

Not about the bumbest.

[wobgon]

offapex, on 16 November 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Dire Wolf, on 16 November 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

offapex, on 16 November 2012 - 03:23 AM, said:

incidentally, here's a lawsuit in NY about gross negligence when a friend hit a friend in the eye (blinding him). http://www.nytimes.c...olf/22golf.html

"The court, which sided with several lower courts, ruled that Anand assumed the risk that he could be hit by an errant ball when he decided to play golf. And Kapoor was responsible for yelling fore only to golfers in the ball’s intended path."

The cell phone guy assumes risks when he plays. The cell phone guy was not in the ball's intended path.  

You should have read the article you posted:

Dalton B. Floyd, a lawyer in Surfside Beach, S.C., who specializes in golf-related litigation, said courts had traditionally found that golfers are not liable for hitting those golfers not in their intended path.

“There is an inherent risk in golf that not everybody is going to hit a straight shot,” he said. “It’s different, however, if you are driving the ball and you normally hit 200 yards and there is a person 150 yards out and you hit them and don’t yell fore. In that case you have to warn them and if you don’t you are liable.”

Yes, I read that part. I just don't think the situation is the same here because of the intended path. From what I've gathered, the cell phone guy was 220 to the right side of the fairway, not in the intended line. The OP hits it 300 yards and his intended line was well left of the cell phone guy. The cell phone guy at that point was essentially a spectator since he wasn't playing, talking on the phone. It is not gross negligence and perfectly reasonable for the the OP to play through/hit up. It's the equivalent of me trying to find my lost ball and the group behind hitting up. Now, if the OP shanks one 220 to the right, then it would be his responsibility to yell fore. That's where we everybody agrees. I assume the OP is not a killer, and if he had mishit his drive to the right, he would have yelled fore. But the OP hit a beauty, so there is no issue. Just think too many people make it out that the OP was grossly negligent. Hot headed, maybe. Impatient, maybe. But not negligent, IMHO.

That would all be good info. to give to the guys family if the ball hits him in the head and kills him.

[proguy]

Good for you.

[lander215]

offapex, on 16 November 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Dire Wolf, on 16 November 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

offapex, on 16 November 2012 - 03:23 AM, said:

incidentally, here's a lawsuit in NY about gross negligence when a friend hit a friend in the eye (blinding him). http://www.nytimes.c...olf/22golf.html

"The court, which sided with several lower courts, ruled that Anand assumed the risk that he could be hit by an errant ball when he decided to play golf. And Kapoor was responsible for yelling fore only to golfers in the ball’s intended path."

The cell phone guy assumes risks when he plays. The cell phone guy was not in the ball's intended path.  

You should have read the article you posted:

Dalton B. Floyd, a lawyer in Surfside Beach, S.C., who specializes in golf-related litigation, said courts had traditionally found that golfers are not liable for hitting those golfers not in their intended path.

“There is an inherent risk in golf that not everybody is going to hit a straight shot,” he said. “It’s different, however, if you are driving the ball and you normally hit 200 yards and there is a person 150 yards out and you hit them and don’t yell fore. In that case you have to warn them and if you don’t you are liable.”

Yes, I read that part. I just don't think the situation is the same here because of the intended path. From what I've gathered, the cell phone guy was 220 to the right side of the fairway, not in the intended line. The OP hits it 300 yards and his intended line was well left of the cell phone guy. The cell phone guy at that point was essentially a spectator since he wasn't playing, talking on the phone. It is not gross negligence and perfectly reasonable for the the OP to play through/hit up. It's the equivalent of me trying to find my lost ball and the group behind hitting up. Now, if the OP shanks one 220 to the right, then it would be his responsibility to yell fore. That's where we everybody agrees. I assume the OP is not a killer, and if he had mishit his drive to the right, he would have yelled fore. But the OP hit a beauty, so there is no issue. Just think too many people make it out that the OP was grossly negligent. Hot headed, maybe. Impatient, maybe. But not negligent, IMHO.

Yes, because we all hit 300 yard tee shots every time.

The stupidityof that comment is immense.

[KYMAR]

This is one of those threads that makes me just lose faith in my fellow man.

[Sean2]

I wonder how that kind of "logic" would apply to a shooting range? Wow, just wow.

[Pepperturbo]

Hitting into any group can have   dire consequences.  If frustration is that high, wait and hit when safe... then hurry up to catch up to the problem guy and bust him   in the chops hard enough to put him down.  Least then there's less of a likelihood of life threatening ball busting someone in the head.  Course the outcome is likely to be the same.

Officers are called and the one with no control gets hauled off to spend a pleasant night or two in jail with low lifes.  Lets call it a break till when the bills (Figure 50k-1M+) show up for the lack of self-control, and you start thinking wow, am   and stupid and you start blaming others.

Edited by Pepperturbo, 16 November 2012 - 02:17 PM.

[MattTheTaff]

I want to make love to this thread and I want it to have my babies. Then, a few years down the line when this thread has put on a bit of weight and looking a bit ropey, I'm going to cheat on this thread with the Ask Thrillhouse thread.

Eventually the Ask Thrillhouse thread will leave me because I tried to stick it in the MtlJeff Action Movies Thread and then tried to drag it across the top lip of the GolfMeme thread. Then, after a brief consultation with my doctor, I had to phone up all the other threads that I've violated with my posts and explain that I've got the "shanks" and maybe they should get themselves checked out too.

What has the above got to do with this thread? Nothing. I just wanted to disgust as many of you on here the same way the original post has disgusted me.

[tembolo1284]

MattTheTaff, on 16 November 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

I want to make love to this thread and I want it to have my babies. Then, a few years down the line when this thread has put on a bit of weight and looking a bit ropey, I'm going to cheat on this thread with the Ask Thrillhouse thread.

Eventually the Ask Thrillhouse thread will leave me because I tried to stick it in the MtlJeff Action Movies Thread and then tried to drag it across the top lip of the GolfMeme thread. Then, after a brief consultation with my doctor, I had to phone up all the other threads that I've violated with my posts and explain that I've got the "shanks" and maybe they should get themselves checked out too.

What has the above got to do with this thread? Nothing. I just wanted to disgust as many of you on here the same way the original post has disgusted me.

matt that was hawwwwwwwt.

[lander215]

KYMAR, on 16 November 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

This is one of those threads that makes me just lose faith in my fellow man.

Not me. I like to print threads like this out, tuck them into my wallet, and when I do something immensely stupid, take it out, read it, and feel good about not being the biggest idiot on the planet.

[Golfjunki71]

KYMAR, on 16 November 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

This is one of those threads that makes me just lose faith in my fellow man.

+1