Countback

[WGCRider]

When a competition is decided on countback to break a tie is the criteria always the same? ie. Score on back 9, if still tied score on last 6, still tied score on last 3 etc. or could the organiser decide to vary it and say for example it's the score on specific holes that break the tie.
As a follow up question, if the competition is a stableford comp is there any difference between submitting a score of NR on a hole vs a triple bogey which would score no points? (so the submitted scorecard says X rather than 7)

 

[Orikoru]

My one win this year was on countback, even though we started on the 13th. So I'm guessing it's always the same holes. In Stableford I'd assume it's just done by points and a blob is a blob, no matter how it was 'achieved' so to speak.

 

[backwoodsman]

When a competition is decided on countback to break a tie is the criteria always the same? ie. Score on back 9, if still tied score on last 6, still tied score on last 3 etc. or could the organiser decide to vary it and say for example it's the score on specific holes that break the tie.
As a follow up question, if the competition is a stableford comp is there any difference between submitting a score of NR on a hole vs a triple bogey which would score no points? (so the submitted scorecard says X rather than 7)

In stableford format it's 'points scored' that are counted in countback - so a NR and a 7 will rank the same if they both generate zero points

 

[wjemather]

When a competition is decided on countback to break a tie is the criteria always the same? ie. Score on back 9, if still tied score on last 6, still tied score on last 3 etc. or could the organiser decide to vary it and say for example it's the score on specific holes that break the tie.
As a follow up question, if the competition is a stableford comp is there any difference between submitting a score of NR on a hole vs a triple bogey which would score no points? (so the submitted scorecard says X rather than 7)

The competition committee can decide to break ties however they like; countback using the last 9, 6, 3, 1, etc. is the usual/recommended method.
No difference - any score of nett double-bogey or higher counts the same as an NR, i.e. zero points.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The competition committee can decide to break ties however they like; countback using the last 9, 6, 3, 1, etc. is the usual/recommended method.
No difference - any score of nett double-bogey or higher counts the same as an NR, i.e. zero points.

So for instance a committee could make the tie-breaker to be the best aggregate nett or Stableford on the par 3s - if they wanted?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

So for instance a committee could make the tie-breaker to be the best aggregate nett or Stableford on the par 3s - if they wanted?

Not sure that's correct, from 5A https://www.randa.org/en/rog/committee-procedures/5a

If the tying players have the same score for the last round or if the competition consisted of a single round, determine the winner based on the score for the last nine holes, last six holes, last three holes and finally the 18th hole. If there is still a tie, then the last six holes, three holes and final hole of the first nine holes will be considered in turn. If the round is less than 18 holes, the number of holes used in matching scores may be adjusted.

 

[Backsticks]

Its a convenient way of randomly allocating places. An improvement is beingissed though, with WHS now giving us the chance to resolve them using the decimal place hc. Havent heard of any cluba doing this. Anyone know of it ?

 

[rosecott]

Not sure that's correct, from 5A https://www.randa.org/en/rog/committee-procedures/5a

If the tying players have the same score for the last round or if the competition consisted of a single round, determine the winner based on the score for the last nine holes, last six holes, last three holes and finally the 18th hole. If there is still a tie, then the last six holes, three holes and final hole of the first nine holes will be considered in turn. If the round is less than 18 holes, the number of holes used in matching scores may be adjusted.

But not laid down as mandatory.

 

[Slab]

Not sure that's correct, from 5A https://www.randa.org/en/rog/committee-procedures/5a

If the tying players have the same score for the last round or if the competition consisted of a single round, determine the winner based on the score for the last nine holes, last six holes, last three holes and finally the 18th hole. If there is still a tie, then the last six holes, three holes and final hole of the first nine holes will be considered in turn. If the round is less than 18 holes, the number of holes used in matching scores may be adjusted.

Although the sentence before your quote says "One method of matching scorecards...." and goes into your ref above
There's no 'must' or other wording to suggest a comp committee has to do it this way, so I guess providing its clear for entrants then the comp committee can use other methods of "matching scorecards" to decide a tie score

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Although the sentence before your quote says "One method of matching scorecards...." and goes into your ref above
There's no 'must' or other wording to suggest a comp committee has to do it this way, so I guess providing its clear for entrants then the comp committee can use other methods of "matching scorecards" to decide a tie score

But not laid down as mandatory.

Very true both. It would seem strange to pick another way when that's always been the accepted method, likely to cause more arguments than it solves

 

[rulefan]

Very true both. It would seem strange to pick another way when that's always been the accepted method, likely to cause more arguments than it solves

I'm not sure it's the only accepted method. In my experience it is certainly the most common but I have occasionally encountered a 'reverse' countback. Counting cumulatively from the last hole backwards. Bizarre!

 

[wjemather]

Its a convenient way of randomly allocating places. An improvement is beingissed though, with WHS now giving us the chance to resolve them using the decimal place hc. Havent heard of any cluba doing this. Anyone know of it ?

Draw lots/toss a coin?
Using handicap decimals to break ties puts more stock in the accuracy of any handicap system than they can ever be capable of. Maybe it's best to simply not break ties unless extra holes can be played?

 

[jim8flog]

If the scores are being input on a clubs Personal Score Input computer the software is already set up to decide winners on countback.

The only time we do not use it is The Club Championship, we use a play off in that but only for deciding the club champion not for any other placings.

 

[HampshireHog]

Its a convenient way of randomly allocating places. An improvement is beingissed though, with WHS now giving us the chance to resolve them using the decimal place hc. Havent heard of any cluba doing this. Anyone know of it ?

It’s not random though is it, there is a clear methodology which we all should be aware of. Arbitrary certainly but any method will be, including playoffs.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I only asked about using the par 3s as a tie-break because, once a new tee is built on one of them, my tracks par 3s could be set up to be 135, 160, 185 and 210 yds. And so together they present a challenge across a wide range of shots.

 

[Backsticks]

It’s not random though is it, there is a clear methodology which we all should be aware of. Arbitrary certainly but any method will be, including playoffs.

As far as breaking the golf performance it is random, the methodology having no relationship to the performance. Alphabetical order, or timesheet order would be a method, but just as divorced from the golf. There is a least some logic in a 9.6 hc with 40pts being deemed not quite as good a net round as a 10.2 hcspper with 40 pts.

 

[upsidedown]

Our County Seniors end of season pairs comp saw 3 teams tied on 40 points and had to go to back 14 to split them

 

[HampshireHog]

As far as breaking the golf performance it is random, the methodology having no relationship to the performance. Alphabetical order, or timesheet order would be a method, but just as divorced from the golf. There is a least some logic in a 9.6 hc with 40pts being deemed not quite as good a net round as a 10.2 hcspper with 40 pts.

Sounds pretty arbitrary to me, and as mentioned in previous threads does the 9.2 hcapper then trump the 10.2 or do we jump to another methodology?

Ultimately, there is a 1 in 10 chance of having 2 players tied on the same decimal of their hcap so that alone makes is a pretty crappy tie-breaker to me.

 

[Backsticks]

Sounds pretty arbitrary to me, and as mentioned in previous threads does the 9.2 hcapper then trump the 10.2 or do we jump to another methodology?

Ultimately, there is a 1 in 10 chance of having 2 players tied on the same decimal of their hcap so that alone makes is a pretty crappy tie-breaker to me.

No, the 10.2 trumps the 9.2, obviously. Not sure what your question is though.
With the same score, a tie break that is in some way related to their relative score. If 9 in 10 tie breaks are solved this way, then however crappy, it is less crappy that the countback system which makes no distinction whatsoever on golf performance.

 

[Voyager EMH]

For a club comp, I've always thought there is only a need for a tie-break for 1st place and the last place for which a prize is given.
ie
One player in clear first position, 3 players tied 2nd with prizes only allocated to 4th.
Add the value of prizes for 2nd, 3rd, 4th and divide by 3 for 3 players to remain tied 2nd place.
Seems a lot fairer to me. I've never successfully persuaded a H&C committee or chairman though.