yandabrown
Newbie
Not sure that I understand why playing with a yellow ball or having a team, restricts the likelyhood of someone having access to to a database of player handicaps (i.e. access to the EG app or the club system) via a mobile phone?
2023 Rules with change notes
- Thread starter rulefan
- Start date
wjemather
Well-known member
Competitions that are not run through a connected management system would be a good reason for putting the responsibility back on the player - it would be incredibly onerous for the committee to manually lookup and apply handicaps for these.
Also, not all competitions are run by a committee with access to the handicap databases of all entrants, e.g. different jurisdictions, societies, 3rd parties, etc.
Last edited:
Ian_George
Active member
Yellow Ball is a team competition! I've only played it once, many years ago, in a works weekend trip to Hardelot. Each group has a (Yellow) Ball that is used in rotation by team members until lost. The sum of each member's scores with the yellow ball is the team's 'Yellow Ball' score. YB can be played at the same time (using the same round) as another, singles say, comp.
yandabrown
Newbie
3offTheTee
Tour Rookie
In the photo it quotes stroke play only. Is this on the basis that Stableford is classed as a form of Stokeplay?
wjemather
Well-known member
Yes, Stableford is stroke play.
fenwayrich
Assistant Pro
Does anyone have knowledge about the following. It appears that there is a new Model Local Rule (L-1) which if implemented changes the penalty for failing to sign a scorecard from disqualification to a 2 stroke penalty (added to the score on the final hole).
If the Local Rule is implemented, does this give the Committee any discretion about the appropriate penalty, i.e DQ OR a 2 stroke penalty? Also, if the penalty is imposed, does this increase the score submitted for WHS?, As I understand disqualification would be purely for competition purposes and the score would still stand for WHS.
If the Local Rule is implemented, does this give the Committee any discretion about the appropriate penalty, i.e DQ OR a 2 stroke penalty? Also, if the penalty is imposed, does this increase the score submitted for WHS?, As I understand disqualification would be purely for competition purposes and the score would still stand for WHS.
Old Skier
Tour Winner
See #39
Colin L
Tour Winner
If MLR L-1 is implemented, it modifies the DQ penalty in Rule 3.3b(2) for failing to certify a score to two strokes but it doesn't give the Committee any discretion as to which penalty to apply. You either leave 3.3b(2) as the applicable rule with a DQ penalty or you implement MLR L-1 and change the penalty to two strokes.
Colin L
Tour Winner
LizAig
Active member
He’ll get DQ’d! Rule is for 2023I will do! Got my old man doing it on Wednesday
Swango1980
Well-known member
Just got an email from my club today. They explained the change in the rules, and decided they'd adopt the local rule, clarifying players must continue to ensure the correct handicap index is shown on the card. It goes on to clarify the various penalties that a player is DQ'ed for no handicap, or if it is too high and gives them more shots, but there is no penalty of too low, but the score of the lower handicap stands.
It is intriguing how exactly this will be monitored? Firstly, for about 80% of competitions the person at the pro shop gives the player a printed card, with Index, Course and Playing HC already on it. So, it'll only be when they forget to get the labels printed, or some less formal comps, that a player will have to put their index on the card anyway. And, even if they get it wrong, the computer will process their score based on the correct Index anyway. So, even if they put an Index too low, the computer will give them a higher score than they expected, but the correct score. So, I'm wondering if the comp sec will go into the computer and manually reduce their playing handicap based on the Index on their card? Is that even easy to do in the various ISVs (we use Club V1)?
I guess the club will still have to decide what constitutes the Index being shown or not, for example if a player put the Index in the wrong box. For example, have they got the right number in the wrong box, or have they put the wrong number in the box they intended?
LizAig
Active member
Hopefully the player realises as they are inputting their score that they put their wrong handicap down and can then change it before they put their card in the comp box!
wjemather
Well-known member
No, amending handicaps per the rules is not possible in ClubV1 (last I checked, at least - at which point I was further dismayed by the ignorance of the software provider when they explained why they wouldn't/couldn't provide such a function).
Interested to know why your club is defying the advice of the unions and retaining this archaic, frankly unnecessary, and onerous requirement (that should have been stripped out in 2019) for players and committees (who have to check it's correct) when they presumably have WHS integrated software that eliminates the need? And not only that, why are they diverging from the stipulation of handicap on card meaning Course Handicap (not index)?
Last edited:
Swango1980
Well-known member
I'm curious as to how they came up to that decision. Can't immediately see any benefit to it, so perhaps I'll find out over time. The e-mail was sent out to all members, so perhaps that will generate discussion amongst some in the club house.
doublebogey7
Head Pro
Before the rule change it was the course handicap that had to be shown on the card. If your club are now saying they need the HI, then that would I believe be an unauthorsied LR.
As for the last paragraph, as long as it was clear that the CH was written on the card then it didn't matter where it was.
NearHull
Well-known member
Why would a club wish to bring in the LR at all? What benefit is there? I foresee some disgruntled members.
Colin L
Tour Winner
I think the LR is made available largely for clubs which do not have the means to do electronic scoring or for any club if there is a temporary problem with it. It would be an enormous amount of work for a Committee to look up and enter handicaps on physical cards.
wjemather
Well-known member
Surely it's purpose is simply (and solely) to accommodate situations when the competition committee does not have (readily available) access to the current handicaps of all players and so require the player to provide the information?
Colin L
Tour Winner
L-2
Making Player Responsible for Handicap on Scorecard
Purpose. Rule 3.3b(4) states that there is no requirement for a player’s handicap to be shown on the scorecard and that it is the Committee’s responsibility to calculate the player’s handicap strokes for the competition in order to calculate the player’s net score.But in some circumstances, it can be difficult for the Committee to calculate players’ handicaps, for example, where the Committee does not have a computer system to help with the administration of the competition or where they do not have access to a database of player handicaps. In such situations, the Committee may choose to modify Rule 3.3b(4) to require players to show their handicap on the scorecard......
Making Player Responsible for Handicap on Scorecard
Purpose. Rule 3.3b(4) states that there is no requirement for a player’s handicap to be shown on the scorecard and that it is the Committee’s responsibility to calculate the player’s handicap strokes for the competition in order to calculate the player’s net score.But in some circumstances, it can be difficult for the Committee to calculate players’ handicaps, for example, where the Committee does not have a computer system to help with the administration of the competition or where they do not have access to a database of player handicaps. In such situations, the Committee may choose to modify Rule 3.3b(4) to require players to show their handicap on the scorecard......
