1-A "call and a second" are a group majority decision. The group is three or four in a tournament. Three are required so there is majority for decisions. ((Okay, there are some tournaments where there are five on a card - but that is rare)).
2-The player who has the possible infraction is not counted in the decision.
A player called on a decision can always take it up with an official. Just make it known at the time and if necessary play a provisional throw.
It is always a call and confirm....3-you make a throw, I say it is out-of-bounds...all I need is one to confirm it (second it). If our third player disagrees...it is still OB. You can say you disagree and are going to ask an official...if we can do it then - okay...if not, play one set of throws as though it is OB and one set as though it isn't. The final score on the hole would depend upon the official's ruling.
Now, 4-if I call you OB, player 3 says it is inbounds or doesn't know, and player 4 says they don't know. -that means we cannot reach a majority and the decision becomes what is most beneficial to you.
Uh, Bill, that is 180 degrees opposite from what the rules say (each thing in red), as I understand them and have for a few years. I am gonna ask Cgkdisc , JC and a couple others to double check me on these.
#1 -- a call and confirm is not a majority group decision, unless it is a three-person group. (See the next answer/response). A call and confirm (second) is only required for certain rules violations, not the majority of the group. (stance violations, courtesy violations, and excessive timing violations, Maybe something else -- only the ones that confer a stroke penalty)
#2 -- ALL PLAYERS have a "vote" in the decision specifically any judgement calls, like OB/IB, Missed/Made Mando, Hazard/inbounds, etc. This includes the player who may possibly be subject to the violation; they get one vote as well. Two players making a call one way doesn't automatically constitute the majority.
#3 -- On a four-player group, if I make a throw and you Bill rule it OB, and Player 3 also rules it OB, I dispute and say it is IB. I still have a chance. If Player 4 rules it definitively IB, the group is split evenly 2-2. THEN 801.03 A is applied and I, the thrower, gets the ruling most beneficial to me. That's how it works.
On the other hand if Player 4 says they can't tell or doesn't make a ruling at all (they shouldn't but I've seen it happen), THEN, Bill you have a 2-1 majority.
AND #4 -- I won't go into too much detail on your last one, but the players saying "they can't tell" are giving away their vote (like an abstention). If I say I can't tell, and you Bill rule it OB. Players 3 & 4 also say they can't tell, then we have a 1-0 majority decision. You win. Unlikely that would happen in reality but that's the rules as I understand them.
I think Bill is incorrect about that.
Can you appeal violations that require a call & a second - as opposed to violations that are a group majority decision? Eg Can you appeal a stance violation, or a courtesy violation? Or is it that once they are called, that's it, you're done?
Reading through 801.03 it says
With the context of Clause A, the use of the phrase 'group decision' in Clause B seems to suggest that you can only appeal decisions made by the group as a whole. And therefore not decisions, which are just called & confirmed.
And a second question on this topic of group calls vs call&confirm violations. What differentiates the rules that require a group decision, from the rules that require a caller & a confirmation? Is there a philosophical(?), principled, or logical difference?
And how are they differentiated in the rule book? I could tell you which rules are which - but I couldn't pinpoint why or how I know that.:\
I answered Bill above first to make this one easier. The "appeal" you speak of is the one where all four players have "voted" or chosen not to vote. But they are ones which require all the players in the group for the decision to be made, even if they do use a abstention.
