Countback/tiebreak query

[garyo]

Morning folks, been a lurker on here for a while but this is my first post, so please be gentle!

I have a query about a countback/tiebreak scenario at our club last week and cannot for the life of me work out how it was decided! I'll try to keep this as succinct as possible, but obviously want to include as much detail for you guys to hopefully advise...

There were three of us tied for a gross prize; Player A (myself), Player B and Player C. I had a back nine one stroke better than the other two players, so I was listed in the competition results on howdidido (and subsequently on the printed results displayed on the clubhouse noticeboard, which I'm assuming are generated from the same software anyway) above the other two guys. But the prize was given to Player B.

All three of us were the same playing h/c. Player B was 0.2 lower than me. Player C was 0.5 lower than me.

I parred S.I.1, Player B took bogey, Player C took double.

Player B had 3 birdies (S.I.13, 17 and 18), myself (S.I.2) and Player C (S.I.10) only had 1 each. (Don't know if this has any relevance but it's the only reason I've come up with so far that would possibly present Player B with the prize!)

I contacted the Comp Sec out of curiosity and was just told that gross tiebreak doesn't go on back 9 countback, "the computer just generates it". I'm at the point now where I don't mind the prize (even though it was a memorial comp for a close friend of my father's, so would have been nice), and the last thing I want to do is get a rep around the club for being difficult or coming across as a sore loser. I would just like to know the process for if/when it happens again.

Has anyone any similar experience to this or any insight on what process they used or is this likely to be club-specific and the only way to clarify is to pester the Sec? An uncle of mine is a past Comp and H/C Sec and he was stumped when we went through the three cards.

Unfortunately I don't know what results software the club uses, but if any other info I can provide would help clarify anything then just let me know.

Thanks for reading...if you made it this far!

 

[DCB]

Do the Club not have a published account of what "countback" will consist of under their rules of competition?

E.G. "ties will be decided by the best inward score and, in the event of these tying, by the best for the last six holes; failing that, the last three holes, last hole and then at the discretion of the Competitions Committee."

 

[louise_a]

It is normally decided on last 9, then 6, then 3 then 1 holes.

Maybe your club has a strange rule, but it ought be displayed before hand. I don't see how the stroke index of holes should affect a gross prize.

 

[garyo]

Thanks for the replies guys.

Only reason I mention indexes is because I was beaten out of a prize last year (albeit a nett prize) where myself and another guy had identical back 9s, and was eventually told that it went to Index 1, 2, 3 etc after that. The 3rd is our Index 1 and on that day he made par when I took bogey. I had to do a bit of digging then too, but was happy enough with the outcome as at least I had a black and white answer. But this time round I'm completely stumped!

Our standard tiebreaks are decided by back 9/6/3 countback, which has me baffled why the gross wouldn't just do the same.

As mentioned, I'm a bit tentative to go back again looking like I'm making a big deal so was just hoping that someone on here may have experience of the exact same scenario.

The main frustration is that anyone who I have discreetly raised it with is also baffled!

 

[Colin L]

A computer doesn't "just generate" a count back: it calculates it on the basis of whatever rules are put into to it. You might want to ask on what basis the computer calculation was made.

For the standard last 9, last 6, last 3 countback in a gross competition, handicaps are irrelevant.

 

[duncan mackie]

Members shouldn't be baffled, and such decisions should always be the result of the application of existing published rules rather than any subsequent consideration.

As post #2 points out it is the responsibility of the committee to publish the basis for the resolution of ties in a CoC, so you should simply ask to see it (if it's not already on a noticeboard somewhere). Committees won't want confusion, or ill feeling, so should welcome the matter being brought to their attention.

My only other comment is that as it's a gross competition the application of anything handicap related would be inappropriate - although the performance on specific holes, which may be SI, related, would be OK (even if a little unusual). Back 9, 6, 3, 1 then hole by hole going back may not have any logic to it but, in the absence of a play off you have to do something and doing what everyone knows and understands is always the best route for committees!

 

[rulefan]

CONGU - RESOLUTION OF TIESRule 33-6 of the Rules of Golf empowers the Committee to determine the method for deciding the
result of ties in both stroke play and match play. Further guidance and recommendations are given in
Appendix I Part B 10 of the Rules of Golf.
The most practicable way to decide ties in club and open handicap stroke play competitions is a card
count-back with the winner determined on the basis of the better inward half, last six holes, last three
holes etc. Appendix I Part B sets out in 10 (c) this method. In handicap stroke play competitions the
fractions of the applicable handicaps are deducted from the gross scores for the applicable holes. In
this context CONGU® directs that the exact fractions i.e. one-half, one-third, one-sixth etc. or
commonly accepted decimal equivalents are deducted. The fractional or decimal allowances should
not be rounded to a whole number.

 

[backwoodsman]

They can't have a system where "the computer just generates it". There must be some system under which the computer is programmed to calculate a winner (Whether that's a valid or fair system is another question though). I think you need to ask on what basis the computer system is supposed to generate a result in case of equal gross scores. Someone must know - as someone must have set it up (or at least must have bought it)

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The "software" will be Club Systems and it looks like it has already worked out the countback on the back 9 as you say that HDID has you at the top

The club it seems have ignored the system and deemed someone else the winner using some unknown system.

You need to take a copy of the results on HDID and then ask them to explain why when the software as sorted you out as winner why you haven't got the prize.

 

[garyo]

Again, thanks for replies folks, agree and understand with what you're all saying. I had a slim hope that someone on here had a similar experience and maybe knew some process that I'm not aware of, but it would seem there's no apparent logic behind it.

I completely agree that the computer can't just decide for itself who to pick at random, that it has to have some kind of programming to determine a winner, but that was the initial response I received and I just accepted it as I didn't want to cause a fuss. I'm aware of the general countback rules, which just leaves me even more confused as to how it was decided on this occasion!

I'm gonna go back to the Comp Sec over the next couple of days about it I think and ask him to do a bit more digging...I'm happy enough to take it on the chin this time, and I'm sure you can appreciate that in certain corners of certain clubs it's not hard to get a bad name for yourself when whispers start spreading about someone who can't let something go! So it just requires a bit of tact. I'm just struggling to let it rest as I haven't been offered any logic as to the process (yet, at least!) and would hate for it to happen again and still be none the wiser!

I'm 99.99% sure it's nothing personal (despite some of the ribbing I'm getting about that possibility!), so is it looking like it's just a bad error rather than some unique irrational system?!

 

[rulefan]

The process used by Club2000 or ClubV1 will be in the 'Help' section of the system.
HDID simply reports the information from those systems. It does no processing.

 

[Old Skier]

The process used by Club2000 or ClubV1 will be in the 'Help' section of the system.
HDID simply reports the information from those systems. It does no processing.

It doesn't process it but it does publish the result as per the result on the system so it is very strange that the result published on HDID is not the result of the comp.

 

[Three]

I hate deceit, secrecy and corruption and I'm getting wound up on behalf of the OP 😃

Get it out in the open mate, good luck.

 

[garyo]

Haha, cheers for the concern mate! To be honest, I would never accuse them of such. I'll admit that I did have a brief bout of paranoia that it was something personal! But I'd be pretty friendly with the Sec, and Player C would be really tight with him, so I quickly ruled that out!

I imagine I'll see him tomorrow evening anyway so I'll casually bring it up to see if he looked into it anymore and hopefully make a bit of progress, fingers crossed.

 

[Hosel Fade]

Abroad (Germany) I have had a countback that wasn't the last 9 holes but a collection of holes of certain stroke indexes before.

Think it was something like 1,18,3,16,5,14,7,12,9 and the reason it was like that was that it was a shotgun so it didn't favour someone who went into the "back nine" already warmed up.


Might be your club is using something similar

 

[garyo]

That's interesting to hear another alternative from abroad Hosel Fade, thanks!

Now we didn't have a shotgun start, but, having looked at the three cards this morning and applying the logic mentioned above (if I have picked it up correctly)...

Player B (who won the prize) outscored myself by one stroke (and Player C by two strokes) over a 'back 9' made up of Indexes 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18...so we may be getting somewhere!

At least it gives me a talking point for a possible suggestion when I'm at the club this evening.

 

[rulefan]

That's interesting to hear another alternative from abroad Hosel Fade, thanks!

Now we didn't have a shotgun start, but, having looked at the three cards this morning and applying the logic mentioned above (if I have picked it up correctly)...

Player B (who won the prize) outscored myself by one stroke (and Player C by two strokes) over a 'back 9' made up of Indexes 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18...so we may be getting somewhere!

At least it gives me a talking point for a possible suggestion when I'm at the club this evening.

What is wrong with the CONGU/R&A/USGA recommendation?

If a play-off of any type is not feasible, matching score cards is recommended. The method of matching cards should be announced in advance and should also provide what will happen if this procedure does not produce a winner. An acceptable method of matching cards is to determine the winner on the basis of the best score for the last nine holes. If the tying players have the same score for the last nine, determine the winner on the basis of the last six holes, last three holes and finally the 18th hole. If this method is used in a competition with a multiple tee start, it is recommended that the "last nine holes, last six holes, etc." is considered to be holes 10-18, 13-18, etc.

For competitions where the handicap stroke table is not relevant, such as individual stroke play, if the last nine, last six, last three holes scenario is used, one-half, one-third, one-sixth, etc. of the handicaps should be deducted from the score for those holes. In terms of the use of fractions in such deductions, the Committee should act in accordance with the recommendations of the relevant handicapping authority.

 

[garyo]

What is wrong with the CONGU/R&A/USGA recommendation?

I don't think there's anything wrong with it to be honest mate (especially in this instance as it would/should have easily declared me the winner on the first count with a better back 9! )

But this is the crux of my query really...the standard and widely accepted process wasn't followed, and I've been at a loss as to what other process might have been used. I appreciate the issue probably just needs raised further with the Comp Sec directly, but it has been good to get the opinions/advice on here before taking it any further.

HF's logic is the only process suggested so far that would present Player B as the winner...and it has more substance than the only possibility I could come up with (that he had more birdies! )

PS For a guy not wanting to make a scene or come across as a sore loser, I'm doing some job of it!
:whoo:

 

[garyo]

What is wrong with the CONGU/R&A/USGA recommendation?

I don't think there's anything wrong with it to be honest mate (especially in this instance as it would/should have easily declared me the winner on the first count with a better back 9! )

But this is the crux of my query really...the standard and widely accepted process wasn't followed, and I've been at a loss as to what other process might have been used. I appreciate the issue probably just needs raised further with the Comp Sec directly, but it has been good to get the opinions/advice on here before taking it any further.

HF's logic is the only process suggested so far that would present Player B as the winner...and it has more substance than the only possibility I could come up with (that he had more birdies! )

PS For a guy not wanting to make a scene or come across as a sore loser, I'm doing some job of it!
:whoo:

 

[rulie]

What is wrong with the CONGU/R&A/USGA recommendation?

If a play-off of any type is not feasible, matching score cards is recommended. The method of matching cards should be announced in advance and should also provide what will happen if this procedure does not produce a winner. An acceptable method of matching cards is to determine the winner on the basis of the best score for the last nine holes. If the tying players have the same score for the last nine, determine the winner on the basis of the last six holes, last three holes and finally the 18th hole. If this method is used in a competition with a multiple tee start, it is recommended that the "last nine holes, last six holes, etc." is considered to be holes 10-18, 13-18, etc.

For competitions where the handicap stroke table is not relevant, such as individual stroke play, if the last nine, last six, last three holes scenario is used, one-half, one-third, one-sixth, etc. of the handicaps should be deducted from the score for those holes. In terms of the use of fractions in such deductions, the Committee should act in accordance with the recommendations of the relevant handicapping authority.

Further, from Appendix I, Part B, 10:
"In both match play and stroke play, a tie can be an acceptable result. However, when it is desired to have a sole winner, the Committee has the authority, under Rule 33-6, to determine how and when a tie is decided. The decision should be published in advance."

I would go further and say the Committee has the responsibility to determine how ties are to be broken and it must be published in advance.