Guidelines to resolve ties in medal play (with handicap)

[Esteban_M]

I'm part of the tournaments committee in my local club, and we're looking for guidelines about how to resolve ties in medal play tournaments when two or more players have the same same net score (and might or might not have different handicap indices).

E.g.
Player A, 10 HCP shoots 81 gross, 71 net.
Player B, 8 HCP shoots 79 gross, 71 net.

(HCP is playing handicap)


We currently have a criteria to untie these cases, but I'm looking for official recommendations from the USGA / R&A so we do it in a "compliant" way, but couldn't find anything in the Rules of Handicapping nor any other official document.

So any pointer will be appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[wjemather]

The R&A/USGA's committee procedures 5A(6) offers advice.

 

[rulefan]

Rules & Interpretations

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/h...letype=cp&section=rule&rulenum=5&subrulenum=1

 

[Banchory Buddha]

You decide by the best net score over the last 9, 6, 3 & 1 hole until a winner is arrived at https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/the-game/golf-countback-work-66195

 

[Deleted member 29109]

IMO It should be the lowest gross, then net count back.

 

[rulefan]

You decide by the best net score over the last 9, 6, 3 & 1 hole until a winner is arrived at https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/the-game/golf-countback-work-66195

But that may not be the end of the story.

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.

If this process does not result in a winner, the Committee could consider the competition a tie, or alternatively could decide the winner by chance (such as tossing a coin).

 

[rulefan]

IMO It should be the lowest gross, then net count back.

For a net competition?

 

[jim8flog]

When it goes all the way using countback this is what we use

In stroke play if there is still a tie it will be decided by using the players exact handicaps. In Stableford the respective committee will offer a method acceptable to both players. E.G by lot, Stroke play playoff if there is a trophy involved. Where there is no trophy involved the prize money could be shared equally.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

IMO It should be the lowest gross, then net count back.

utter nonsense

 

[IanMcC]

IMO It should be the lowest gross, then net count back.

Thank heavens you are on no committee that matters, my loony friend.

 

[Esteban_M]

Thanks for the pointers and advice. I've seen the rule 5(a) before, but couldn't find it afterwards.

We used to use "count back" gross to untie cards, but it's exactly the point that doesn't seem fair to untie based on gross for a competition that uses handicap. We still use it for scratch categories.

We settled to untie using count-back of the net by hole (as in Stableford points), of the last 9, 6, 3, 1 and if the tie remains (unlikely), start from the first hole and the first hole that has a difference breaks the tie.

 

[Ethan]

The most logical way is to use exact handicap. All the count back stuff is essentially just making a random choice. Lowest gross is patently unfair in a handicap competition.

 

[wjemather]

The most logical way is to use exact handicap. All the count back stuff is essentially just making a random choice.

Aside from the impracticality of using exact handicaps, golf isn't played in fractions of a stroke (and handicaps just aren't that accurate).

 

[Ethan]

Aside from the impracticality of using exact handicaps, golf isn't played in fractions of a stroke (and handicaps just aren't that accurate).

Handicaps are stated to one decimal place, and 0.1 of a decimal place can add or take away a whole shot on your playing handicap. So two players could have their handicaps the same or two shots separate based on 0.2 in their index.

Accurate doesn't mean the same as precise, the handicap index is precise. But you think a random toss a coin method is more accurate than using precise handicaps?

It isn't impractical at all. The computer can deal with it in nanoseconds and anybody with a secondary school education in seconds.

 

[wjemather]

Handicaps are stated to one decimal place, and 0.1 of a decimal place can add or take away a whole shot on your playing handicap. So two players could have their handicaps the same or two shots separate based on 0.2 in their index.

Accurate doesn't mean the same as precise, the handicap index is precise. But you think a random toss a coin method is more accurate than using precise handicaps?

It isn't impractical at all. The computer can deal with it in nanoseconds and anybody with a secondary school education in seconds.

There are countless factors that prevent handicaps from being sufficiently accurate to use as a satisfactory means of breaking ties. Additionally, in GB&I (ex. Scotland), Playing Handicaps are subject to rounding of the Course Handicap so even your (claimed) precision is lost.

 

[Esteban_M]

There are countless factors that prevent handicaps from being sufficiently accurate to use as a satisfactory means of breaking ties. Additionally, in GB&I (ex. Scotland), Playing Handicaps are subject to rounding of the Course Handicap so even your (claimed) precision is lost.

That's what I don't like about using exact handicaps, because that means that a 0.1 difference in the index of two players, in the 9/6/3 holes fraction, might lead to extra strokes assigned.
Explaining that to players is even harder than explaining that ties are resolved by using countback based on a "net score per hole" (it is, gross strokes minus handicap strokes).

I've seen different ways of breaking ties, I like that the lowest gross unties (you reward the better player), but as said before, it's unfair in some broad handicap competitions.

 

[rulefan]

That's what I don't like about using exact handicaps, because that means that a 0.1 difference in the index of two players, in the 9/6/3 holes fraction, might lead to extra strokes assigned.
Explaining that to players is even harder than explaining that ties are resolved by using countback based on a "net score per hole" (it is, gross strokes minus handicap strokes).

I've seen different ways of breaking ties, I like that the lowest gross unties (you reward the better player), but as said before, it's unfair in some broad handicap competitions.

Why should the 'better player' be rewarded. The 'worse player' was just as good on the day in relation to their handicaps. And it is after all a Handicap Competition.

 

[Esteban_M]

Why should the 'better player' be rewarded. The 'worse player' was just as good on the day in relation to their handicaps. And it is after all a Handicap Competition.

We're both saying the same thing, and that's the intent that started this thread.

But as a general thing, I like to reward the best player, and the gross untie is the simplest to explain.

Handicap is a way to level the game, but in a single category competition it always favors the highest handicap, it's a statistical fact.

 

[Swango1980]

We're both saying the same thing, and that's the intent that started this thread.

But as a general thing, I like to reward the best player, and the gross untie is the simplest to explain.

Handicap is a way to level the game, but in a single category competition it always favors the highest handicap, it's a statistical fact.

Why not just run gross competitions then? It just seems strange only want to reward the best player once 2 nett scores are tied, but not be worried about it until that point. Using gross scores for resolving ties pretty much means that a high handicapper will almost never win when they get a tied best score in the competition, unless they are lucky enough to tie with a fellow high handicapper. That seems to be a seriously flawed and unfair way to resolve a tie in a handicapped competition.

It almost similar to the suggestion, by some, that if a match goes to extra holes, the higher handicapper should never receive any more shots.

 

[Esteban_M]

Why not just run gross competitions then? It just seems strange only want to reward the best player once 2 nett scores are tied, but not be worried about it until that point. Using gross scores for resolving ties pretty much means that a high handicapper will almost never win when they get a tied best score in the competition, unless they are lucky enough to tie with a fellow high handicapper. That seems to be a seriously flawed and unfair way to resolve a tie in a handicapped competition.

It almost similar to the suggestion, by some, that if a match goes to extra holes, the higher handicapper should never receive any more shots.

I'm not advocating to use gross score to break the ties. My initial post was about guidelines, as official as possible, on how to break ties using handicap.

I've been pointed to read Committee Procedures 5(a), which is abstract, but provides a good guideline.

If anybody has a better way to break ties other than counting back (as in Stableford) or using exact-handicap, I'll be happy to read it.