Holes closed and match to play - what to do?

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Got a winter singles KO match coming up and I think we have a few holes currently closed due to flooding (maybe just greens are out of play - not sure) Anyway - assume holes closed. What to do? Can me and opponent agree to play the match over the shorter course - and if so what do we do about shots given/taken calc and then deciding the holes where shot is to be given if some low SIs are not in play.

 

[louise_a]

I would imagine you can do what you like as long as you both agree before you start.

If you know which hole are out of action, then work out the stroke indexes for the remaining ones and then pro rata the shots.

 

[Colin L]

You can't normally agree to miss out any holes in a match (see Decision 2-1/4) but if the holes are actually closed to play it seems to me a different matter. I suggest it is a Committee matter either to change what constitutes the "stipulated round" - perhaps accepting fewer than the normal 18 holes though I would go for continuing play on the 1st until you have played 18 holes.

An alternative might be that the Committee grants an extension of time for your tie if it is thought that the holes will be open again in time.

You need to ask!

 

[rulefan]

You should contact the committee and agree that the stipulated round is to be played over the open holes. You cannot unilaterally change the stipulated round. Dec 2-1/4.

If the committee agree to the change, I suggest you adjust the number of strokes given/taken in proportion to the number of holes to be played and give/take strokes as indicated by the stroke index. But no doubt a better mathematician will have a better suggestion.

 

[duncan mackie]

it's a shame when committee's fail to connect the dots - once the holes are closed they should set out the relevance to the stipulated round so that everyone knows where they stand. in the abscence of this you clearly need to ask....

as to handicaps - it's normal to play the full allowance against the remaining stroke indicices; and without alternative rules this should be done. it's mathematically fair but can lose the finer points of spread SIs etc :thup:

 

[Region3]

I had to play a match just over a year ago when we had 2 holes closed, and was told to play 1 and 2 again (if necessary) after playing the 16 holes that were in play. The SI's of the 2 closed holes meant no shots were lost, but if they were I'd have thought receiving them on one or both of the extra holes would be fairest.

As someone else pointed out, you can't agree to change the rules of the competition between you, but as far as I know there is nothing to stop you deciding between you a method to decide which one of you will concede the match. Whether that is heads/tails or a modified round of golf is up to you.

 

[doublebogey7]

I had to play a match just over a year ago when we had 2 holes closed, and was told to play 1 and 2 again (if necessary) after playing the 16 holes that were in play. The SI's of the 2 closed holes meant no shots were lost, but if they were I'd have thought receiving them on one or both of the extra holes would be fairest.

As someone else pointed out, you can't agree to change the rules of the competition between you, but as far as I know there is nothing to stop you deciding between you a method to decide which one of you will concede the match. Whether that is heads/tails or a modified round of golf is up to you.

Yes there is, you won't have played a stipulated round.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I would have thought the sensible option would be to grant an extension if that is possible.

Failing that, you should both be kicked out the comp for leaving it so late to play your tie :ears:

 

[Region3]

Yes there is, you won't have played a stipulated round.

I've never seen a rule in a matchplay comp that prohibited one side from conceding the tie.

What if circumstances arise so that the match cannot be played by the deadline? Better one player concede than both get kicked out.

If that happens, the players can decide between them how to choose who concedes and who goes through.

 

[duncan mackie]

I've never seen a rule in a matchplay comp that prohibited one side from conceding the tie.

What if circumstances arise so that the match cannot be played by the deadline? Better one player concede than both get kicked out.

If that happens, the players can decide between them how to choose who concedes and who goes through.

you are quite correct in that you can decide the basis upon which a match will be conceded in any way you choose; however, as I know you know, you can't agree to play the match over any course and/or number of holes you decide between you - you have to comply with the conditions of competition.

doublebogey7 clearly missed the sublety of the differences between these, and in this he's not alone based on many discussions at every level on this!

 

[chrisd]

Rule 2-4 in Matchplay says that a game can be conceded at any time before or during a match so should cover you

 

[doublebogey7]

you are quite correct in that you can decide the basis upon which a match will be conceded in any way you choose; however, as I know you know, you can't agree to play the match over any course and/or number of holes you decide between you - you have to comply with the conditions of competition.

doublebogey7 clearly missed the sublety of the differences between these, and in this he's not alone based on many discussions at every level on this!

Thanks Duncan after reading the relevant decision I now know I was wrong. Although usually I can see why a rule is as it is I am struggling to understand why it is ok to agree to have a putting competition to decide who concedes and agreeing to play over a shorter course to decide the same.

 

[duncan mackie]

Thanks Duncan after reading the relevant decision I now know I was wrong. Although usually I can see why a rule is as it is I am struggling to understand why it is ok to agree to have a putting competition to decide who concedes and agreeing to play over a shorter course to decide the same.

you are not alone!

fundamentally the difference is that the rules, committee etc all have a role to play in the determination of a match but that a concession stands alone.

an example may help (or it may confuse but I'll risk it )

A&B are unable to schedule their match within the due date but rather than toss a coin they are seperately scheduled out in a medal competition that weekend and agree that the player with the higher nett score will concede to the lower. they play and meet up in the bar afterwards where A shows B his card with a lower nett score, B concedes the match and writes A's name on the matchplay sheet against their match. Subsequently A is DQ'd for failing to sign his card (he was busy showing it to B!) and B claims the matchplay tie......basically whilst it's an interesting story the committee aren't interested in anything except 'did B concede the match in a valid manner?' - and the same thing would have applied if B's concession above was based on an error in the addition of A's score etc etc

Hope this helps.

 

[doublebogey7]

you are not alone!

fundamentally the difference is that the rules, committee etc all have a role to play in the determination of a match but that a concession stands alone.

an example may help (or it may confuse but I'll risk it )

A&B are unable to schedule their match within the due date but rather than toss a coin they are seperately scheduled out in a medal competition that weekend and agree that the player with the higher nett score will concede to the lower. they play and meet up in the bar afterwards where A shows B his card with a lower nett score, B concedes the match and writes A's name on the matchplay sheet against their match. Subsequently A is DQ'd for failing to sign his card (he was busy showing it to B!) and B claims the matchplay tie......basically whilst it's an interesting story the committee aren't interested in anything except 'did B concede the match in a valid manner?' - and the same thing would have applied if B's concession above was based on an error in the addition of A's score etc etc

Hope this helps.

So Duncan, if I have this right, the committee would also not be interested if B refused to concede to A following the medal. They would then have to determine who went through to the next phase using some other criteria.

But what I don't understand from Decision 2-4/21 is that they can't agree a singles match play to determine who concedes, but they can have a putting competition. I don't see any principled difference between the 2, particularly if you are saying that your example would be ok.

 

[davidy233]

The first round of matchplay in the British Girls Championship in 2008 at my place was played over 16 holes after the Ashludie Burn overflowed closing the 6th and 7th holes http://ercn86.gilliankirkwood.co.uk/2008/08/ashludie-burn-bursts-its-banks-at.htm

 

[doublebogey7]

The first round of matchplay in the British Girls Championship in 2008 at my place was played over 16 holes after the Ashludie Burn overflowed closing the 6th and 7th holes http://ercn86.gilliankirkwood.co.uk/2008/08/ashludie-burn-bursts-its-banks-at.htm

The committee will have ruled that 16 holes constituted a stipulated round.