DQ'd from Competition under rule 3.3b

[Banchory Buddha]

I have to day I have quite a lot of sympathy with Orikorus complaint.
In my view rules should at least be comprehensible from the rule book.
Most terms are clearly defined in the rules of golf handicap is not one of them.
If you go to the R&A handicapping guide it still does not tell you what you should enter.
If you then go to the guide on WHS in both the English and Scottish golf union websites it does not tell you what to enter.
Rules should be clear and unambiguous and easy to find.
The rule on handicapping certainly is not.

I don't doubt that it's somewhere on the website but if you go to the obvious place like the guide to handicaps and then onto player's guide to WHS it is not there .

Seems pretty clear to me, even a pretty picture included

 

[Colin L]

Seems pretty clear to me, even a pretty picture included.....

The Rule does not specify which you should enter, course or playing handicap, which was the question being addressed.

 

[wjemather]

The Rule does not specify which you should enter, course or playing handicap, which was the question being addressed.

Nor can it, since there are many possible handicap systems with very different terminology. The rule must use generic terminology to accommodate any possible handicap system. The rules were also written prior to WHS but even ignoring that, not all jurisdictions who operate WHS use the term 'Course Handicap'; in Australia, for example, 'Daily Handicap' is used.

 

[Swango1980]

The Rule does not specify which you should enter, course or playing handicap, which was the question being addressed.

I guess he won't see this, as it appears he has anyone he has disagreed with on Ignore. Says it all that he seems to have Users who are pretty knowledgeable on the rules on Ignore.

Mind you, I presume this could backfire on him? Whilst he thinks he has become the forums No. 1 Rules guru (as he cannot see anyone who challenges his views), everyone else can see the counter arguments when they're made.

Possibly a good reason not to get too fond of the Ignore button (which to this point I've never used, as far as I remember)

 

[Banchory Buddha]

The Rule does not specify which you should enter, course or playing handicap, which was the question being addressed.

It can't, because as you'll see from the eg, it's from 2019.

However scorecards have handily got boxes where you can enter your handicap, and notify which figure they are looking for. Under your gross score if you put your PH, you're not going to go wrong, likewise if your scorecards aren't updated yet, then enter your HI at the top, again you're not going to be wrong putting that at the top.

 

[wjemather]

However scorecards have handily got boxes where you can enter your handicap, and notify which figure they are looking for. Under your gross score if you put your PH, you're not going to go wrong, likewise if your scorecards aren't updated yet, then enter your HI at the top, again you're not going to be wrong putting that at the top.

What the...?! Course Handicap is the requirement; enter anything else (anywhere) and omit Course Handicap and you are going to be wrong.

 

[Foxholer]

It can't, because as you'll see from the eg, it's from 2019.

However scorecards have handily got boxes where you can enter your handicap, and notify which figure they are looking for. Under your gross score if you put your PH, you're not going to go wrong, likewise if your scorecards aren't updated yet, then enter your HI at the top, again you're not going to be wrong putting that at the top.

 

[Foxholer]

Nor can it, since there are many possible handicap systems with very different terminology. The rule must use generic terminology to accommodate any possible handicap system. The rules were also written prior to WHS but even ignoring that, not all jurisdictions who operate WHS use the term 'Course Handicap'; in Australia, for example, 'Daily Handicap' is used.

But Golf Scotland and/or England Golf etc (or Golf Australia) are the ones that provide the definitive requirement in their jurisdiction. So no need to be generic in those documents.
Here for Englnd's https://www.englandgolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHS-Rules-Reference-Guide.pdf

 

[wjemather]

But Golf Scotland and/or England Golf etc (or Golf Australia) are the ones that provide the definitive requirement in their jurisdiction. So no need to be generic in those documents.
Here for Englnd's https://www.englandgolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHS-Rules-Reference-Guide.pdf

And they aren't; the requirement is explicit in G2.1b/1.

 

[Foxholer]

And they aren't; the requirement is explicit in G2.1b/1.

Er...That was my point! As opposed to Post 163 where you stated that they had to be generic.

 

[jim8flog]

I have to day I have quite a lot of sympathy with Orikorus complaint.
In my view rules should at least be comprehensible from the rule book.
Most terms are clearly defined in the rules of golf handicap is not one of them.
If you go to the R&A handicapping guide it still does not tell you what you should enter.
If you then go to the guide on WHS in both the English and Scottish golf union websites it does not tell you what to enter.
Rules should be clear and unambiguous and easy to find.
The rule on handicapping certainly is not.

This is simply because the Rules of Golf are devised by the R&A and the USGA and cover most countries in the world.

In the UK and Ireland Handicapping Rules are covered by CONGU.

 

[Swango1980]

Er...That was my point! As opposed to Post 163 where you stated that they had to be generic.

To clarify, his text seemed to imply the Rules of Golf had to be generic, not the National Handicap Authorities? That makes sense.

 

[jim8flog]

Seems pretty clear to me, even a pretty picture included


View attachment 42562

One of the problems with that diagram in the Rules book is it is what was produced for the 2019 rules changes which obviously is pre WHS.

To avoid the uncertainty we have a specimen new card (which includes H.I, CH and PH) posted on our competitions notice board detailing everything that needs to be done.

 

[Colin L]

It can't, because as you'll see from the eg, it's from 2019.

However scorecards have handily got boxes where you can enter your handicap, and notify which figure they are looking for. Under your gross score if you put your PH, you're not going to go wrong, likewise if your scorecards aren't updated yet, then enter your HI at the top, again you're not going to be wrong putting that at the top.

Considering the hours I spent studying the 2019 Rules before they went active, the additional training from SG , the assessment I had to take again under the new rules and the amount of information I passed on to members of my club, I think you could give me credit for at least knowing that the current Rules were implemented in 2019.

The reason for my comment was that you appeared to be saying that the Rules seemed pretty clear to you regarding specifying what handicap you had to put on your card as that was the context of the thread. It's clear now that you weren't addressing the question under discussion.

Your second paragraph is demonstrably and breathtakingly wrong.

 

[Foxholer]

To clarify, his text seemed to imply the Rules of Golf had to be generic, not the National Handicap Authorities? That makes sense.

Having just checked RsofG and found the pic that BB showed, I agree. It's of no real consequence. There's too many docs being non-specifically 'quoted' imo - and BB's involvement has been pointless/wrong again.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

https://www.golfmonthly.com/feature...8dQiUsHPa3A9ub1YC-M6_Wn5M#l322gk1eqpvwfv5qj8j

 

[tobybarker]

It really astonishes me that this is not a requirement (yes I do know it's not a requirement), but how did the rule makers ever think that putting your name on the card wasn't a necessity. It's bonkers.

How is the sec (me) supposed to work out whose card it is of they haven't put their name on it? I had a card the other day with the names on it..daz, kas and nob. Or something equally hard to fathom......I was all for DQ on the grounds of diminished responsibilities....

 

[Colin L]

How is the sec (me) supposed to work out whose card it is of they haven't put their name on it? I had a card the other day with the names on it..daz, kas and nob. Or something equally hard to fathom......I was all for DQ on the grounds of diminished responsibilities....

The uncomfortable truth is that you should know whose card it is because the Committee (you?) had issued it with the player's name on it.

 

[tobybarker]

The uncomfortable truth is that you should know whose card it is because the Committee (you?) had issued it with the player's name on it.

That is not a requirement, surely

 

[Foxholer]

That is not a requirement, surely

Check the designation of responsibilities diagram (in post 161) out. That diagram is in current Rules of Golf doc.