Attesting a Score for Handicap

[rulie]

The Rules expect the players to act with integrity and are written that way. Thankfully, the vast majority of players do so. Yet the focus of this thread (and some others) seems to be on how the Rules should deal with the miscreants.

 

[Deleted member 25172]

The Rules expect the players to act with integrity and are written that way. Thankfully, the vast majority of players do so. Yet the focus of this thread (and some others) seems to be on how the Rules should deal with the miscreants.

I don't believe at all that is what the thread has transpired into. At least not for me. For me, it's the definition of what a markers responsibility is. I've been told that it only requires a person who can count to 9, but as I'm reading the rules that doesn't sit right as it states that a score needs to be certified by the marker in accordance with the rules of golf. So even though this is a theoretical exercise, I'm just wondering how something can be certified by someone who doesn't know anything. Perhaps it's a language barrier in my case as English isn't my first language, but to me - certifying something means that you can conclude that something is correct and/or authentic with some sort of authority. Counting to 9 doesn't cut it for me.

It's not like I'm ever gonna have to encounter it myself anyway, but I don't like not understanding things.

 

[rulie]

As explained earlier, "in accordance with the Rules" for a marker means Rule 3.3b(1) "Marker's Responsibility".
Markers are not referees.

 

[Swango1980]

The Rules expect the players to act with integrity and are written that way. Thankfully, the vast majority of players do so. Yet the focus of this thread (and some others) seems to be on how the Rules should deal with the miscreants.

Not at all, and I think Lilyhawk pretty much summed it up. What was being discussed is who should a marker be, and what "skills" do they need to be able to do that responsibly? On one hand rulefan provided details directly out of the Rules of Handicapping, I guess so there could be no confusion (Post 7). Then in Post 11, simply said a marker doesn't need to know the rules and just be able to count to 9.

In the Rules of Golf, it is up to the Committee to decide who is responsible for marking the scorecard. The Rules of Handicapping simply reiterate this point.

Therefore, it isn't true to simply say a marker does NOT need to know the rules or only needs to count to 9. It is up to the Committee to decide, hence why they would probably not accept a 6-year old child being a marker. I know some clubs will have policies such as only allowing another member of that club as a marker, or a person who holds a golf handicap. Presumably policies like this are to help ensure that the marker is more likely to have some knowledge on the rules and the game of golf.

That all being said, with so many social scores coming in, I'm sure most clubs are very flexible on who can mark a score, and this probably include groups of mates who are all ignorant of some of the most basic rules.

 

[rosecott]

That all being said, with so many social scores coming in, I'm sure most clubs are very flexible on who can mark a score, and this probably include groups of mates who are all ignorant of some of the most basic rules.

Another breathtaking sweeping generalisation.

 

[rulie]

I don't believe at all that is what the thread has transpired into. At least not for me. For me, it's the definition of what a markers responsibility is. I've been told that it only requires a person who can count to 9, but as I'm reading the rules that doesn't sit right as it states that a score needs to be certified by the marker in accordance with the rules of golf. So even though this is a theoretical exercise, I'm just wondering how something can be certified by someone who doesn't know anything. Perhaps it's a language barrier in my case as English isn't my first language, but to me - certifying something means that you can conclude that something is correct and/or authentic with some sort of authority. Counting to 9 doesn't cut it for me.

It's not like I'm ever gonna have to encounter it myself anyway, but I don't like not understanding things.

I suspect that "counting to 9" was just as facetious as "a six year old".

 

[rulefan]

Clearly not.

But it is the integrity of others I'd worry about. I'm guessing if it could safely be assumed that 100% of golfers acted with integrity, then there would be no need to have anybody attest their score in the first place.

Do you not trust your or any other club's committee to make the right judgement as to the attester's suitability?

 

[rulefan]

Therefore, it isn't true to simply say a marker does NOT need to know the rules or only needs to count to 9. I

The first part is what the rules imply. The second was in the context of your rather fatuous suggestion that the committee may accept 6 year old

 

[Swango1980]

Another breathtaking sweeping generalisation.

What was my generalisation? I didn't say all groups of mates didn't know the rules.

But I'm also not naive enough to think that all general scores that are submitted, from players who never play in a comp but only with the same 1 or 2 people, may have a few more limitations in knowing the rules. After all, I'm sure most golfers in competitions have gradually become aware of the rules by playing with many other golfers in comps.

Before I moved to England, I played golf for about 3 years with a mate. I wouldn't have had a clue about stroke and distance, where to drop a ball when hitting it in the water or that I couldn't just drop a ball if it was OB. I probably didn't even know white sticks defined OB and would have just hit the ball from where it was if I could. Had I been able to submit scores for handicap, undoubtedly there would have been rule infringements by the dozen.

 

[IanM]

@Lilyhawk 's point seemed clear enough to me.

I'm sure it's an issue sometimes. Speaks to another topic about whether or not folk should have a certain level of savvy before they can play in comps. (Goodness know what cobblers proliferate in SOME general play cards!

 

[Swango1980]

The first part is what the rules imply. The second was in the context of your rather fatuous suggestion that the committee may accept 6 year old

Are you trying to rewrite history here??????

Post 11 you said: "They are not required to know the rules, just be able to count to 9." I had not even commented by this point.

I then responded to this post in Post 35, mentioning was it OK for a 6 year old to mark a card, as this fitted your criteria in Post 11. So why would your comment about counting to 9 be in the context of my 6-year old statement?

Perhaps you were only joking. However, when you are often careful in the words you use in such forums, such as quoting Chapter and Verse at times (e.g. Post 7), then if you make such humorous statements thereafter, the humour doesn't come out in text format. Therefore, one might assume you were making a serious point in Post 11.

 

[Swango1980]

Do you not trust your or any other club's committee to make the right judgement as to the attester's suitability?

I do, when did I say I didn't? The whole point in the conversation was who the Committee are likely to consider acceptable. At absolutely no point at all was my arguing that the Committee at my club, or any other specific Committee were making a poor judgment. Rather, discussing how they come up with this decision, and what sort of people they would find as inappropriate as a marker.

 

[BiMGuy]

@Lilyhawk 's point seemed clear enough to me.

I'm sure it's an issue sometimes. Speaks to another topic about whether or not folk should have a certain level of savvy before they can play in comps. (Goodness know what cobblers proliferate in SOME general play cards!

Absolutely, most definitely, 100% without a doubt they should.

The cobblers isn’t just in some general play cards, it’s in some competition card too. If I could be bothered I’d list some of the things I’ve seen people try to get away with this year in comps.

And I’m not talking about new golfers, but experience players, some of whom have been playing golf longer than I have been alive. Some of which are from a group at my club who all play together and have their names on a lot of the board in the clubhouse.

I dread to think what they get up to when they are playing together, or against people who won’t call them out.

 

[rulie]

What "committee" is being referred to here?

 

[D-S]

Out of interest, can a HC find out who attested a GP card on EG?
Also on physical cards how does the committee know who the marker is and their ‘bona fides’? Normally all they see is a squiggle in a box.
I have never been asked who my attester has been for any of the hundreds/thousands of cards I have put in over the years nor have been asked if I was the attester for anyone else.

 

[rosecott]

Out of interest, can a HC find out who attested a GP card on EG?
Also on physical cards how does the committee know who the marker is and their ‘bona fides’? Normally all they see is a squiggle in a box.
I have never been asked who my attester has been for any of the hundreds/thousands of cards I have put in over the years nor have been asked if I was the attester for anyone else.

Yes, the CDH ID is shown.

 

[Swango1980]

Out of interest, can a HC find out who attested a GP card on EG?
Also on physical cards how does the committee know who the marker is and their ‘bona fides’? Normally all they see is a squiggle in a box.
I have never been asked who my attester has been for any of the hundreds/thousands of cards I have put in over the years nor have been asked if I was the attester for anyone else.

In regards to second question, they probably don't know. They can set out who they expect to mark the card, but the squiggle in the box won't tell them anything, so they'll usually just trust it is all above board

 

[rulefan]

In regards to second question, they probably don't know. They can set out who they expect to mark the card, but the squiggle in the box won't tell them anything, so they'll usually just trust it is all above board

Are all h'cap committees really so sloppy?

 

[Swango1980]

Are all h'cap committees really so sloppy?

What ARE you talking about??????

 

[rulefan]

What ARE you talking about??????

" .....so they'll usually just trust it is all above board.~ - presumably including for unusually high (and low) scores