DQ or not - part 3

[sawtooth]

Stableford comp.

Player A signs for a 7 but he got more than a 7. He marked himself on the other scorecard where he is marker with "-" indicating a blob. When I checked with player he confirmed that yes it was more than a 7.

DQ ? And if so 6-6 (d) wrong gross score recorded?

 

[Hosel Fade]

Doesn't matter what he marked himself as on the other card, that is on him for failing to check his scores (the entire point of the markers column), all that matters is the card with his name on it. The rules don't deal with Stableford scoring, they revolve around gross scores, hence why they are the only record required on the card.

DQ from comp 6-6d as you say, but I believe the score remains valid for handicapping

 

[rulie]

Stableford comp.

Player A signs for a 7 but he got more than a 7. He marked himself on the other scorecard where he is marker with "-" indicating a blob. When I checked with player he confirmed that yes it was more than a 7.

DQ ? And if so 6-6 (d) wrong gross score recorded?

What he marked on any other card but his own is irrelevant.

32-2. Disqualification Penalties

a. From the Competition

A competitor is disqualified from the competition if he incurs a penalty of disqualification under any of the following:
...
- Rule 6-6d Wrong Score for Hole, i.e., when the recorded score is lower than actually taken, except that no penalty is incurred when a breach of this Rule does not affect the result of the hole

 

[Fish]

If it was a par 4 I wonder if he put in a 7 even though he got greater than that causing it to be blob (no score) and was only highlighting it as a nett double bogey for handicap purposes?

If it was stableford whether he placed a 7, 9 or 12 on his card assuming it was a par 4 and a shot hole is kind of irrelevant, he didn't score on that hole and it couldn't affect anything!

 

[Colin L]

If it was a par 4 I wonder if he put in a 7 even though he got greater than that causing it to be blob (no score) and was only highlighting it as a nett double bogey for handicap purposes?

If it was stableford whether he placed a 7, 9 or 12 on his card assuming it was a par 4 and a shot hole is kind of irrelevant, he didn't score on that hole and it couldn't affect anything!

More than just kind of irrelevant.

The OP stated it was a Stableford and so the exception in Rule 32-2 quoted above is applicable. If a gross score of 7 did not earn any points, there is no penalty for recording the 7 when in fact he took more strokes.

(It's not quite the case, by the way, that a 7 wouldn't earn a point on a par 4. A player getting 2 strokes at the hole would.)

 

[Hosel Fade]

What he marked on any other card but his own is irrelevant.

32-2. Disqualification Penalties

a. From the Competition

A competitor is disqualified from the competition if he incurs a penalty of disqualification under any of the following:
...
- Rule 6-6d Wrong Score for Hole, i.e., when the recorded score is lower than actually taken, except that no penalty is incurred when a breach of this Rule does not affect the result of the hole

Well I learnt something

 

[Fish]

More than just kind of irrelevant.

The OP stated it was a Stableford and so the exception in Rule 32-2 quoted above is applicable. If a gross score of 7 did not earn any points, there is no penalty for recording the 7 when in fact he took more strokes.

(It's not quite the case, by the way, that a 7 wouldn't earn a point on a par 4. A player getting 2 strokes at the hole would.)

Yeah I know, but as he placed a "-" in his marker box he obviously didn't score, it was due to that entry and then his card entry (7) that I think he just put in his net double score.

 

[Colin L]

Yeah I know, but as he placed a "-" in his marker box he obviously didn't score, it was due to that entry and then his card entry (7) that I think he just put in his net double score.

You may well be right but you cannot make any inference from what is or isn't noted in the marker's column of the other card and must take the 7 as the gross score, deduct whatever strokes he received and determine whether the score gained him any points. If it did, he is disqualified; if it didn't there is no penalty.

 

[sawtooth]

You may well be right but you cannot make any inference from what is or isn't noted in the marker's column of the other card and must take the 7 as the gross score, deduct whatever strokes he received and determine whether the score gained him any points. If it did, he is disqualified; if it didn't there is no penalty.

This actually happened with 2 players in our recent competition and I ended up DQing both because they both would have gained a point with a 7 for 1. Infact they were proper blobs but that's not what they had signed for.

I think that was the right call.

 

[Colin L]

This actually happened with 2 players in our recent competition and I ended up DQing both because they both would have gained a point with a 7 for 1. Infact they were proper blobs but that's not what they had signed for.

I think that was the right call.

:thup:

 

[pogle]

This actually happened with 2 players in our recent competition and I ended up DQing both because they both would have gained a point with a 7 for 1. Infact they were proper blobs but that's not what they had signed for.

I think that was the right call.

It depends why the score was wrong. If it's a counting failure then you're correct, but if it's a result of failing to include a penalty the player didn't know they had incurred, then you should apply the relevant penalty and also deduct a further two points from the total score in stableford. So in your example, their score would be reduced by three points.

 

[fundy]

sounds like your membership could do with some education, youll have dq'ed half of them before long!!!!

 

[sawtooth]

sounds like your membership could do with some education, youll have dq'ed half of them before long!!!!

Hopefully they get the bloody message soon!!!

To be honest I think it might have been very lax in the past so is taking some by surprise. I don't mean to be a jobs worth trust me.

 

[rulefan]

Hopefully they get the bloody message soon!!!

To be honest I think it might have been very lax in the past so is taking some by surprise. I don't mean to be a jobs worth trust me.

To protect the other members, someone has to be.

 

[fundy]

Hopefully they get the bloody message soon!!!

To be honest I think it might have been very lax in the past so is taking some by surprise. I don't mean to be a jobs worth trust me.

tough balance to find for sure but they have to take on some of the responsibility too or they leave you with little choice!