Competition Rules/Walking off the Course

[Deleted member 16999]

Some guidance please.
Today at our Club is an Individual Stableford Comp, Max Handicap 18.
Also running along side is the standard 2's Comp. just before 11 the heavens opened and about 20-30 guys walked off the course, most had played between 8-15 holes.
Back in the clubhouse a discussion/argument began about whether those who had walked off should enter there cards into the computer and simply NR for the holes not played, the other side were saying they should not NR because it will effect the CSS, plus they should be DQ'd anyway as they "failed to complete" the course and NR should only be used when you pick up your ball after at least attempting the hole.
Advice please.
Second point was then that anyone who had got a 2 and walked off should be DQ'd and the 2 not count.
I left, they're probably still arguing,
Further point, we checked the Comp Rules and as it is a Comp for a Trophy in memory of a previous member, it states " to be played under normal stabledord rules"

 

[Colin L]

I think you have three different matters here; the competition in terms of the rules of golf, the qualifying round in terms of handicapping; and club rules regarding your 2s sweepstake. I'll answer the first and last and leave the CONGU one for someone else.

In terms of Rule 6-8, the players who walked off because of the rain should be disqualified from the competition. Although the Committee has the discretion not to DQ a player who had to discontinue play for a good reason, bad weather is explicitly stated not to be a good enough reason.

The position of a player who has a 2 on his card before discontinuing play is entirely down to the club and will depend on what is in the conditions of competition, if anything. My personal reaction is that a player who is disqualified should not be eligible for any prizes such as 2s, longest drive, nearest the pin etc but that should be written into your COC in my view.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Cheers Colin, that to me is common sense, too many ego's and experts at the Club for me to join in.

 

[rulefan]

CONGU states that unless the reason for discontinuance is acceptable to Committee, the score is not acceptable.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

CONGU states that unless the reason for discontinuance is acceptable to Committee, the score is not acceptable.

With over 100 in the Comp it was a minority that walked in, thank you,
Should they marked there card as " walked in" or something similar or just bin it, how would the club actually know who should be DQ'd

 

[rulefan]

how would the club actually know who should be DQ'd

They should speak to the players.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Update, Raised this query through the Club and today got answer's some which I am sure are still wrong.
First, Club 2's fund does state that if a player gets a 2 and is DQ'd the 2 is not paid out. Solved

I was then told that you can miss holes out in a Stableford Comp and you don't even have to play the 18 holes in the correct order so putting NR when missing a hole is fine, I replied using references in thread and quoted "stipulated round" definition, and as comp was 18 hole comp, 18 holes must be attempted. Fell on deaf ears as far as club was concerned walking in, skipping holes and playing Par 3's only then putting NR for missed holes is OK.
Will continue to argue, but feel like I'm wasting my time

 

[Old Skier]

Update, Raised this query through the Club and today got answer's some which I am sure are still wrong.
First, Club 2's fund does state that if a player gets a 2 and is DQ'd the 2 is not paid out. Solved

I was then told that you can miss holes out in a Stableford Comp and you don't even have to play the 18 holes in the correct order so putting NR when missing a hole is fine, I replied using references in thread and quoted "stipulated round" definition, and as comp was 18 hole comp, 18 holes must be attempted. Fell on deaf ears as far as club was concerned walking in, skipping holes and playing Par 3's only then putting NR for missed holes is OK.
Will continue to argue, but feel like I'm wasting my time

Your club has this wrong and the facts should be reported to your county.

Twos sweep is an completely different matter as it's not covered by CONGU and it is up to the club to make a policy, yours sounds rather harsh and I would ask to see where the information about this is written down.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Your club has this wrong and the facts should be reported to your county.

Twos sweep is an completely different matter as it's not covered by CONGU and it is up to the club to make a policy, yours sounds rather harsh and I would ask to see where the information about this is written down.

The rules for the 2's Sweep are clearly displayed in the Pro Shop

 

[duncan mackie]

Update, Raised this query through the Club and today got answer's some which I am sure are still wrong.
First, Club 2's fund does state that if a player gets a 2 and is DQ'd the 2 is not paid out. Solved

I was then told that you can miss holes out in a Stableford Comp and you don't even have to play the 18 holes in the correct order so putting NR when missing a hole is fine, I replied using references in thread and quoted "stipulated round" definition, and as comp was 18 hole comp, 18 holes must be attempted. Fell on deaf ears as far as club was concerned walking in, skipping holes and playing Par 3's only then putting NR for missed holes is OK.
Will continue to argue, but feel like I'm wasting my time

As I understanding what you are saying I agree with the club.
6-8 is a red herring. The player's aren't discontinuing / recommence ng play - they are finishing their round. They are DQ from the holes they didn't play but not from the event (if they return their card for the holes they did complete). The rules are quite clear about this.

As said the 2S pot is another issue outside the rules of golf (unless relying on the rules to DQ them of course).

 

[Colin L]

Update, Raised this query through the Club and today got answer's some which I am sure are still wrong.
First, Club 2's fund does state that if a player gets a 2 and is DQ'd the 2 is not paid out. Solved

I was then told that you can miss holes out in a Stableford Comp and you don't even have to play the 18 holes in the correct order so putting NR when missing a hole is fine, I replied using references in thread and quoted "stipulated round" definition, and as comp was 18 hole comp, 18 holes must be attempted. Fell on deaf ears as far as club was concerned walking in, skipping holes and playing Par 3's only then putting NR for missed holes is OK.
Will continue to argue, but feel like I'm wasting my time

What a mess!

As far as a stableford competition is concerned, you can of course record NR for a hole (and at my club we actively encourage picking up when you can no longer win any points at a hole for the sake of pace of play). But failing to score at some of the 18 holes you play is one thing when you make an honest attempt to score points; it is quite another to stop playing and walk in because of the weather. The former is within the rules; the latter is a breach of Rule 6-8, leading to disqualification.

Not playing holes in the correct order is a failure to complete the stipulated round since the Definition includes both the number of holes and the sequence in which they must be played. If your Committee allows players to change the order of holes, they are waiving a rule which it is not permitted to do. If it ignores players who walk off because it is raining heavily, it is breaching another rule. CONGU requires that Qualifying Competitions are played in accordance with the Rules of Golf. Regarding the players who miss out holes, CONGU requires players to attempt every hole. The Club has its responsibilities to act with the spirit and rules of CONGU and is clearly not meeting those responsibilities.

I could have saved a good amount of writing if I had simply stated what was right in all of this!

What you describe is very slack indeed.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

As I understanding what you are saying I agree with the club.
6-8 is a red herring. The player's aren't discontinuing / recommence ng play - they are finishing their round. They are DQ from the holes they didn't play but not from the event (if they return their card for the holes they did complete). The rules are quite clear about this.

As said the 2S pot is another issue outside the rules of golf (unless relying on the rules to DQ them of course).

I'm confused, if the comp was an 18 hole comp, surely you must play 18 holes, for example if somebody in the last group of a comp had 40 points after 16 holes and they knew that was a winning score are you saying it would be ok for them not to play the last 2 holes and submit their card?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

What a mess!

As far as a stableford competition is concerned, you can of course record NR for a hole (and at my club we actively encourage picking up when you can no longer win any points at a hole for the sake of pace of play). But failing to score at some of the 18 holes you play is one thing when you make an honest attempt to score points; it is quite another to stop playing and walk in because of the weather. The former is within the rules; the latter is a breach of Rule 6-8, leading to disqualification.

Not playing holes in the correct order is a failure to complete the stipulated round since the Definition includes both the number of holes and the sequence in which they must be played. If your Committee allows players to change the order of holes, they are waiving a rule which it is not permitted to do. If it ignores players who walk off because it is raining heavily, it is breaching another rule. CONGU requires that Qualifying Competitions are played in accordance with the Rules of Golf. Regarding the players who miss out holes, CONGU requires players to attempt every hole. The Club has its responsibilities to act with the spirit and rules of CONGU and is clearly not meeting those responsibilities.

I could have saved a good amount of writing if I had simply stated what was right in all of this!

What you describe is very slack indeed.

It is a mess and I think they're getting confused with the wording of a rule and the word omit,

 

[Colin L]

As I understanding what you are saying I agree with the club.
6-8 is a red herring. The player's aren't discontinuing / recommence ng play - they are finishing their round. They are DQ from the holes they didn't play but not from the event (if they return their card for the holes they did complete). The rules are quite clear about this.

As said the 2S pot is another issue outside the rules of golf (unless relying on the rules to DQ them of course).

It is of course permitted to omit holes in Stableford (Decision 32-1/2) but I'm reluctant at the moment to let go of a DQ under 6-8 for players who simply walk off the course because of bad weather. My difficulty is, however, that D32-1/2 does not specify what are acceptable reasons for omitting a hole or two. I just don't think the Decision contemplates such an action but have no means of supporting that notion. Hmmm. Will think more about it.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

It is of course permitted to omit holes in Stableford (Decision 32-1/2) but I'm reluctant at the moment to let go of a DQ under 6-8 for players who simply walk off the course because of bad weather. My difficulty is, however, that D32-1/2 does not specify what are acceptable reasons for omitting a hole or two. I just don't think the Decision contemplates such an action but have no means of supporting that notion. Hmmm. Will think more about it.

Found this link of Golfwrx discussing same issue
http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/969011-missing-out-holes-in-stableford/

 

[Colin L]

Thanks, Paul. I had forgotten about that thread and didn't contribute to it probably because I would have been away from home at that time. Re-reading it - possibly too quickly - it doesn't seem conclusive does it?

Here's a hypothetical situation that points up an anomaly in my view.

Two groups in a stableford competition, A and B, stop playing on the 15th and take shelter from a sudden downpour. After 10 minutes, group A decide to call it a day and walk in, thereby omitting 3 holes. Bob in that group has already gained 35 points. Group B decide to wait a few more minutes as it looks as if the squall is passing over and recommence play, completing the 15th and playing the remaining 3 holes. Fred in that group finishes with 36 points.

In the end, a score of 35 points is enough for 2nd prize.

If we say that Group A simply "finished its round" and omitted holes with the blessing of Decision 32-1/2, the players are not disqualified and Bob wins 2nd prize. If we say that the players in Group B must be disqualified under 6-8 because they discontinued play for 15 minutes without authority and without an acceptable reason, Fred does not share the 2nd prize.

Both Bob and Fred stopped playing and took shelter for the same reason. Bob wins 2nd prize because he then gave up and walked in. Fred is denied 2nd prize because he then continued play and completed his stipulated round with a higher points total than Bob.

I'm uncomfortable with that outcome. Being rewarded for giving up in adversity and penalised for persevering is, to me, the wrong way round.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Thanks, Paul. I had forgotten about that thread and didn't contribute to it probably because I would have been away from home at that time. Re-reading it - possibly too quickly - it doesn't seem conclusive does it?

Here's a hypothetical situation that points up an anomaly in my view.

Two groups in a stableford competition, A and B, stop playing on the 15th and take shelter from a sudden downpour. After 10 minutes, group A decide to call it a day and walk in, thereby omitting 3 holes. Bob in that group has already gained 35 points. Group B decide to wait a few more minutes as it looks as if the squall is passing over and recommence play, completing the 15th and playing the remaining 3 holes. Fred in that group finishes with 36 points.

In the end, a score of 35 points is enough for 2nd prize.

If we say that Group A simply "finished its round" and omitted holes with the blessing of Decision 32-1/2, the players are not disqualified and Bob wins 2nd prize. If we say that the players in Group B must be disqualified under 6-8 because they discontinued play for 15 minutes without authority and without an acceptable reason, Fred does not share the 2nd prize.

Both Bob and Fred stopped playing and took shelter for the same reason. Bob wins 2nd prize because he then gave up and walked in. Fred is denied 2nd prize because he then continued play and completed his stipulated round with a higher points total than Bob.

I'm uncomfortable with that outcome. Being rewarded for giving up in adversity and penalised for persevering is, to me, the wrong way round.

It's exactly that, surely in any competition you should play as per comp rules, so for 18 holes, you play or at least attempt 18 holes.
Consciously missing holes for whatever reason you have failed to meet the criteria, even if they tee a ball up on a Par 4 and hit the ball 10 times a few inches with a club, at least by the rules they have attempted the hole(even though not within the spirit of the game) and pick up and put NR for it,
Our 2nd is a Par 3, in theory my Club is saying someone coukd get a hole-in-one then pack his round in, go back to the clubhouse, put his card in with 16 NR's and the HIO counts for the pay out or expect HDID to sent them a watch, it can't be right.

 

[MashieNiblick]

Thanks, Paul. I had forgotten about that thread and didn't contribute to it probably because I would have been away from home at that time. Re-reading it - possibly too quickly - it doesn't seem conclusive does it?

Here's a hypothetical situation that points up an anomaly in my view.

Two groups in a stableford competition, A and B, stop playing on the 15th and take shelter from a sudden downpour. After 10 minutes, group A decide to call it a day and walk in, thereby omitting 3 holes. Bob in that group has already gained 35 points. Group B decide to wait a few more minutes as it looks as if the squall is passing over and recommence play, completing the 15th and playing the remaining 3 holes. Fred in that group finishes with 36 points.

In the end, a score of 35 points is enough for 2nd prize.

If we say that Group A simply "finished its round" and omitted holes with the blessing of Decision 32-1/2, the players are not disqualified and Bob wins 2nd prize. If we say that the players in Group B must be disqualified under 6-8 because they discontinued play for 15 minutes without authority and without an acceptable reason, Fred does not share the 2nd prize.

Both Bob and Fred stopped playing and took shelter for the same reason. Bob wins 2nd prize because he then gave up and walked in. Fred is denied 2nd prize because he then continued play and completed his stipulated round with a higher points total than Bob.

I'm uncomfortable with that outcome. Being rewarded for giving up in adversity and penalised for persevering is, to me, the wrong way round.

Interesting.

As I see it Bob accepted his score as it stood and omitted the holes. Fair enough, score stands. Fred had a break because of the weather and then tried to use the advantage he gained that way to add to his score, so not fair and DQ seems justified.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Interesting.

As I see it Bob accepted his score as it stood and omitted the holes. Fair enough, score stands. Fred had a break because of the weather and then tried to use the advantage he gained that way to add to his score, so not fair and DQ seems justified.

In the link it seems the R&A stated "omit" means the score from the hole, not the hole itself and says that it's a DQ, so in Colin's post Bob is DQ'd (I think)

 

[duncan mackie]

In the link it seems the R&A stated "omit" means the score from the hole, not the hole itself and says that it's a DQ, so in Colin's post Bob is DQ'd (I think)

Did you actually get to the last post in the thread linked?

To paraphrase it it says "it would appear that my fist post, based on hearsay, didn't have any basis in fact and the R&A have confirmed that you can omit holes, not just scores, as set out in the decision.

However, and as ever, that post is of course as much hearsay as the story referenced (by the same person) but at least they seemed happy with the clarity of the answer.

The inclusion of such cards for handicapping, inc CSS calculation, and any external HIO or 2s pots are subject to other rules and shouldn't be confused.

I'm still slightly surprised at Colin's comments - but he seems to be heading (reluctantly) towards this conclusion. Time will tell. I could pose the following for his consideration:
A catches a tree root with his club playing to the 13th green and hurts his wrist. Although he completes the hole he is concerned about the injury and decides not to tee off on the long par 5 14th and walks the hole. He feels better and decides he can continue from the 15th, and completes his round. Ruling?(obviously these are stableford!)
B gets caught by an urgent call of nature playing the 13th. He advises his fellow competitors that he is going to have to return to the club house and will catch them up as soon as he can, asking A to mark Cs card while he is absent. He rejoins them on the 15th tee. Ruling?