Furyk disqualified - Who came last ?

[efgee]

I noticed tha Bettingmad and Nomad were discussing who came last in The Nedbank Million Dollar. I backed Clarke to come last with Surrey and they say they will be paying out on Furyk. I would be interested to see what other people on this forum think of the matter. Here are a few point I made to Surrey in a letter to them,

I have contacted the Rules Committee on Golfweb, and received this reply:
He did not come in last.
He did not come in at all - he was outside the event.

I myself cannot believe that in any sport a participant that is disqualified can count as a winner in any market. Surely any bet placed on Jim Furyk is a losing one the moment he was disqualified.

Interested to read any responses forum members might have

 

[bettingmad]

efgee,
I did not place a bet but agree with you and was disappointed that Surrey did not reply to an email I sent them about the matter.
Does anyone else know which bookmakers were quoting on the event and what their rulings were.
Efgee if I were you I would ask Surrey to show you were in their rules it says a disqualified player is a winner.
Perhaps the way to decide it is this.... presumably there was a prize for each finishing position.... did Furyk get the 12th prize or was the total fund re-distributed amongst the 11 finishers?
If Furyk did not get the 12th prize he did not come 12th and last.
The onus is on bookmakers to clarify their rules and in 'grey cases' they should pay both ways.

 

[Ian]

Bet365 and Coral both quoted on this

 

[bettingmad]

efgee,
I have emailed Surrey again.
I have also asked Bet365 and Coral who they declared the winner and why.
Going to try the Racing Post next.
Will let you know if they reply.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Is a grey area but had there been a 72 hole match bet available of Clarke vs Furyk, Clarke would have been deemed the winner by completeing most holes.

 

[bettingmad]

efgee,

Coral replied:
Regarding the Nedbank Golf Challenge, for betting purposes Darren Clarke was
deemed to have finished last.
In order to 'qualify' for this bet the player had to complete 72 holes and
although Jim Furyk was disqualified and 'technically' placed last, he obviously
did not complete the 72 holes and was therefore out of the running for the
'wooden spoon'

Bet365 replied:
To answer your query, our market was "Who will record the worst 72 hole
score" and NOT who will finish last. We hope this answers your query.

It seems to me that Surrey were at fault in how they termed their bet and are penalising customers for their own inadequacies...
Was Furyk the lesser liability?