CSS

[inthecup]

The standard scratch at our place is normally 70 obviously depending on scores.

We played in a Sunday stroke competition last week. 6 greens had been cored so was a reduction only. 3 players were 1 better than the CSS, 2 on it, 2 1 shot worse and the rest way above it out of a field of around 120. The computer leaderboard on the day said it was estimated at 72 which would have been fair but looked at the sheet today and it remained at 70.

How can this be?

 

[HawkeyeMS]

The standard scratch at our place is normally 70 obviously depending on scores.

We played in a Sunday stroke competition last week. 6 greens had been cored so was a reduction only. 3 players were 1 better than the CSS, 2 on it, 2 1 shot worse and the rest way above it out of a field of around 120. The computer leaderboard on the day said it was estimated at 72 which would have been fair but looked at the sheet today and it remained at 70.

How can this be?

Firstly, you can't declare a comp reductions only, it becomes RO as a result of CSS going to +3(RO). Second, CSS is based on the number of people who hit the buffer, not who shoot SSS.

 

[Foxholer]

I agree with Hawkeye re R/O. It may be deemed NQ because of the significant difference to the standard course.

Until all cards are in, the estimated CSS is exactly that - an estimate. It doesn't take more than a few reasonable cards to get make a difference to CSS. CSS is calc-ed from the percentage who play within or better than buffer, so no need to have loads beating nett Par. Equally, someone shooting way under Par only counts the same as someone just sneaking into buffer.

 

[Imurg]

Firstly, you can't declare a comp reductions only, it becomes RO as a result of CSS going to +3(RO). Second, CSS is based on the number of people who hit the buffer, not who shoot SSS.

It is also the figment of a deranged imagination.........:rofl::rofl::ears:

 

[fundy]

It is also the figment of a deranged imagination.........:rofl::rofl::ears:

a whole hour to post on a CSS thread - your alarm not work Ian lol :whoo:

 

[Imurg]

a whole hour to post on a CSS thread - your alarm not work Ian lol :whoo:

Trying to resist as usual Steve - failed again.......:cheers:

 

[pbrown7582]

We had a medal declared RO early in the season after a rain delay and resultant casual water. Obviously some commitees don't follow rules/guidelines as they should. :mmm:

 

[BTatHome]

From congu ....

Q.1 Are there any circumstances under which our club can run stroke play competitions where Handicaps can be reduced but not increased? Examples would be a Five-Club competition and Winter Medals.
A.1 Absolutely not. A club committee has the authority to deprive certain competitions of their status as Qualifying Competitions provided they do so before play commences. When a competition is declared Non-Qualifying Handicaps can neither be reduced or increased. Competitors should be aware of this before play commences.
There are only two situations when Handicaps can be reduced but not increased. These are: - A competition where application of the CSS calculation determines that the competition is Reduction Only (R/O)
- When a competition has been abandoned for any valid reason, reductions of handicap are made on the basis that the CSS is equal to the SSS.
It should be noted that a Five-Club competition is Non-Qualifying as it does not conform to the Rules of Golf.

 

[Imurg]

Why doesn't a 5 club competition conform to the rules....?
Is it so obvious that I'm over-thinking it...?

 

[Foxholer]

Why doesn't a 5 club competition conform to the rules....?
Is it so obvious that I'm over-thinking it...?

Indeed it is!

First sentence of 4-4 (a) allows a player to add clubs up to the maximum of 14, but the Conds of Comp of a 5 Club comp prevents it.

'The player must not start a stipulated round with more than fourteen clubs. He is limited to the clubs thus selected for that round, except that if he started with fewer than fourteen clubs, he may add any number, provided his total number does not exceed fourteen.'

 

[BTatHome]

I seem to remember it was something to do with imposing a limitation on the number of clubs that a competitor may use.

Edit. See above

 

[Stuey01]

There was an odd one at my place in a midweek comp this week. I saw the howdidido email alert, didn't play in it.
The SSS off the whites is 70, par 70. The CSS for the comp was 68. Nothing strange about that you might think...
The winning score was 69.

I thought it was odd anyway.

 

[Foxholer]

There was an odd one at my place in a midweek comp this week. I saw the howdidido email alert, didn't play in it.
The SSS off the whites is 70, par 70. The CSS for the comp was 68. Nothing strange about that you might think...
The winning score was 69.

I thought it was odd anyway.

Not off the Whites in that case - CSS can only go down 1.

As stated, it's bout percentages in buffer or better. I've seen that a couple of times elsewhere.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

There was an odd one at my place in a midweek comp this week. I saw the howdidido email alert, didn't play in it.
The SSS off the whites is 70, par 70. The CSS for the comp was 68. Nothing strange about that you might think...
The winning score was 69.

I thought it was odd anyway.

As Foxholer says, if SSS is 70, CSS can't be 68, it can only go down by 1.

 

[JezzE]

Food for thought for the CSS naysayers...

A couple of weeks ago at Crowborough we finally had a wind-free round for about the first time this year, with greens reasonably receptive and fairways running nicely without being ludicrously bouncy as they can sometimes be.

It was without doubt the easiest playing conditions we've had this year, and I happened to play well, but that isn't the point. The point is that CSS went down one to 70 which it very rarely does, and that for me was spot on because the reason so many people played well that day was not that they had suddenly become better golfers overnight en masse, but that conditions on the day had allowed them to outperform their normal standard.

Without CSS, or something similar, there would be no way to take such things into account.

[sits back and waits for barrage of counter arguments from the CSS doubters...!]

 

[Imurg]

Looks like we have something to chat about tomorrow Jezz......:clap:

 

[JezzE]

Looks like we have something to chat about tomorrow Jezz......:clap:

I've gone deaf in one ear so make sure you get my good side...!

 

[Imurg]

Pardon?