count back in a stableford comp?

[patricks148]

How does stableford count back work?

the reason i ask is; My mate (4)had 38 points yesterday and came 2nd the player taking first place a 9 HC with 3 less points on the b9 and same on the points/score on the last 3. on the 15th Dave had a 3 where the other guy had a 7.

he is a little confused how is is 2nd

Thanks

 

[rosecott]

Appendix 1 recommends back 9, back 6, back 3, last hole but it is only a recommendation, although it is almost always used. The committee should lay down the procedure in advance.

 

[patricks148]

Appendix 1 recommends back 9, back 6, back 3, last hole but it is only a recommendation, although it is almost always used. The committee should lay down the procedure in advance.

thats what he thought, but he had a better score on all those.

 

[rosecott]

thats what he thought, but he had a better score on all those.

The committee needs to come up with an answer.

 

[clubchamp98]

thats what he thought, but he had a better score on all those.

I had this last year !
Go ask for an explanation before the “ cards go missing “ that’s what happened to me!,,

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

I played at a club for a couple of years where I was told the count back was on the front 9 as that was deemed to be the hardest 9.

 

[Green Man]

I have seen some clubs using the front 9 for count back as the stroke index 1 was on that 9.

 

[moogie]

I have seen some clubs using the front 9 for count back as the stroke index 1 was on that 9.

My old club used to use this too.
The 9 with the stroke index 1 hole on it.

 

[duncan mackie]

Never ceases to amaze me as to the complexities some committees manage to bring to a simple process that, in principle, requires clarity and communication to do it's job!

Do these clubs that use the front 9 for stableford because of a SI anomaly revert to the back 9 for medal competitions (where the calculation is SI agnostic?)

Anyhow, look forward to hearing what happened at the event/club that triggered the question in due course.

 

[patricks148]

Never ceases to amaze me as to the complexities some committees manage to bring to a simple process that, in principle, requires clarity and communication to do it's job!

Do these clubs that use the front 9 for stableford because of a SI anomaly revert to the back 9 for medal competitions (where the calculation is SI agnostic?)

Anyhow, look forward to hearing what happened at the event/club that triggered the question in due course.

he's emailed the club sec again to ask for clarification so will report back

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Appendix 1 recommends back 9, back 6, back 3, last hole but it is only a recommendation, although it is almost always used. The committee should lay down the procedure in advance.

I presume in a stableford competition you use points rather than net scores?

 

[LincolnShep]

I presume in a stableford competition you use points rather than net scores?

Yes, well that's certainly how it works at my club.

 

[duncan mackie]

I presume in a stableford competition you use points rather than net scores?

Be careful of the concept of net scores, it implies a net score per hole which isn't how medal countback should be considered (although for an 18 handicap, or 36, that would apply).

You apply the exact proportion of the handicap to the proportion of a round being considered e.g. for an 8 & 9 handicappers situation you would normally start with the back 9 and reduce the gross score by 4 shots for the 8 and 4.5 shots for the 9.

So yes it's net score, but it's the proportional net rather than considering any concept of net scores on holes.

Hope I haven't confused things; but it's something that crops up over and over partly due to the prevalence of stableford and consideration of SIs.

 

[patricks148]

Update... Decision reversed and he won after all, so wrong count back used originally

 

[duncan mackie]

Update... Decision reversed and he won after all, so wrong count back used originally

Thanks for the update - which leaves the supplemental question of why wasn't the computer left to do the job in the first place 👍

A touch tic as I've lost count of the number of incidents like this where people have changed a computers results in this respect from correct, to wrong, for many many reasons (mostly related to confusing and a lack of understanding).

 

[rulie]

Thanks for the update - which leaves the supplemental question of why wasn't the computer left to do the job in the first place 

A touch tic as I've lost count of the number of incidents like this where people have changed a computers results in this respect from correct, to wrong, for many many reasons (mostly related to confusing and a lack of understanding).

Imo, part of this "lack of understanding" is caused by relying on the "computer" to do the Committee's work. Wrt computers - GIGO often applies - garbage in, gospel out.

 

[duncan mackie]

Imo, part of this "lack of understanding" is caused by relying on the "computer" to do the Committee's work. Wrt computers - GIGO often applies - garbage in, gospel out.

Certainly a factor - with computerisation many became lax in terms of maintaining associated documentation. However, whilst gigo is obviously true I find many are all to quick to assume the computer is wrong/wrongly programmed set up etc and manually override it on the basis they remember, or otherwise believe, to be correct. To date the computer was correct each time in the situations I've been involved (although in one memorable case whilst it was correctly programmed to the specification, they hadn't written their rules down the way they intended).

But I agree your general premise - the printing, or displaying, computer produced results doesn't help with any understanding of how it's doing it.