Competition Closed

[duncan mackie]

OK I think I have the answer in rule 33-5/2

It's the reverse of what happened as regards winning a prise (they put us down as winning and I don't think we are the winners), but it does state the committee should correct it's error.


http://www.randa.org/en/Rules-and-A...cisionId=6C9972D2-96F2-4A35-9F64-15E565C6A65F

40 posts and you have to answer your own question!

6-2b/3 is better, but both give you the correct action for the committee to take to resolve their administrative error.

 

[Pro Zach]

As the comp is a combination of your best gross score the handicap allowance should be ¾ of your combined handicap.

Would this give you the extra shot?

 

[pbrown7582]

As the comp is a combination of your best gross score the handicap allowance should be ¾ of your combined handicap.

Would this give you the extra shot?

No it's s nett comp not gross. The best nett score for each hole counts.

 

[rulefan]

As the comp is a combination of your best gross score the handicap allowance should be ¾ of your combined handicap.

Would this give you the extra shot?

As it's a handicap better ball, each player plays off 3/4 of his own handicap. The better nett score of the pair is the score for the side.

 

[Pro Zach]

Ah, I see. When he described it as a better ball Medal, I was thinking it was the best gross minus ¾ combined handicap at the end.

Also my question was pointless, as thinking about it, ¾ difference would never add an extra shot combined.

I'll try and engage brain before posting again.

 

[Old Skier]

Quick Q to OP. Why do you think the comp was run through computer. Granted it can be done but most pairs comps at a lot of clubs are just done manually therefore whoever was checking the cards would have done it with the info supplied on the card although they would have checked the h/c.

 

[Old Skier]

Nope, Medal does not mean it's a handicap qualifier. You can have winter Medals that are non qualifiers. A Medal is a stroke play comp rather than a stableford.

This interest me. Are you playing a normal measured course, if so, I would have though it should always be considered to be a Q comp.

 

[Fish]

Quick Q to OP. Why do you think the comp was run through computer.

Maybe because he in putted the scores into the computer as we do/did, even with pairs.

 

[Fish]

This interest me. Are you playing a normal measured course, if so, I would have though it should always be considered to be a Q comp.

BB's can't be qualifiers!

 

[rulefan]

This interest me. Are you playing a normal measured course, if so, I would have though it should always be considered to be a Q comp.

See post #19

The CONGU regulations state:
17.2 The following returns are not acceptable as Qualifying Scores:
(a) Scores returned in any better ball four-ball competition.

 

[Twire]

Quick Q to OP. Why do you think the comp was run through computer. Granted it can be done but most pairs comps at a lot of clubs are just done manually therefore whoever was checking the cards would have done it with the info supplied on the card although they would have checked the h/c.

We never used to enter pairs comps on the computer, but since the software upgrade (in the last couple of months) all comps are entered on the system. Maybe the cards were not checked, hopefully I'll find out soon.

 

[Twire]

This interest me. Are you playing a normal measured course, if so, I would have though it should always be considered to be a Q comp.

At our course we play qualifiers all year round, I was just trying to make a point, as in, just because a comp is a Medal it doesn't have to be a qualifier.

 

[duncan mackie]

We never used to enter pairs comps on the computer, but since the software upgrade (in the last couple of months) all comps are entered on the system. Maybe the cards were not checked, hopefully I'll find out soon.

the 'pairs' thing, and even the Q/NQ status, are both red herrings in this thread (not your's - others!)

the issue, and you aren't alone in having one, is in running any competitions on a computer system that can have out of date handicap (or membership as another potential issue) on it.

as pointed out earlier, and previously, it is incumbent on the committee to check cards/results rather than rely on the system and they clearly failed in this instance (as others do) and they have to resolve the situation, as the rules set out.

it's important to note that if you had left 14 on your card, honestly believing that this was you handicap (for whatever reason) then if that was established to be too high before the competition closed you are DQ, after the competition closes the result would stand. If you knew it was too high a handicap and thought you would take advantage of the system error you would be DQ'd either way.

here you played of the correct handicap and a committee error meant that the wrong score and, possibly position, resulted - the committee must correct their error.

 

[3offTheTee]

When you say the committee must correct their error what are their options and realistically what should happen please.

 

[palindromicbob]

When you say the committee must correct their error what are their options and realistically what should happen please.

They should correct your score to 65 and then tie break using what ever predetermined method they use.

 

[duncan mackie]

When you say the committee must correct their error what are their options and realistically what should happen please.

no options

action required as per the rules already quoted -

Q.In a stroke-play competition, A returns a card showing the handicap to which he is entitled and the Committee applies the wrong handicap or miscalculates the correct net score. This results in another competitor receiving a prize to which A was entitled. The error is discovered after the competition has closed. What is the ruling?

A.The Committee should correct its error by retrieving the prize and awarding it to A. There is no time limit for correcting such an error. Rule 34-1b is not applicable since it deals with penalties and not with Committee errors.