Incomplete round wrt WHS

[YandaB]

OK. I see what you are getting at. But by the time your score has been de-sloped the impact on your Index will be minimal if at all.

I wasn't sure so I did myself a worked example (let's hope that I have it right!):

I took the Carnoustie Championship Course, White tees. CR 75.2 and Par of 72. There are 2 holes on the back 9 (15,16) which could be a stroke higher given their length so a possible Par 74.

If we take a scratch player who happens to par all of the first 10 holes before the storm, they will then get a bogie plus 7 pars. 9 holes = 36, 10th = 4 so 40 actual shots. Add the remaining holes = 32 + 1 (for the bogie) gives an adjusted gross score of 73.
Score Differential = 113/139 x 73-75.2 = -1.8
Now pretend that the same course had added an extra shot to 15/16 to make par for the back 9 = 38. This would give an adjusted gross score of 75.
Score Differential = 113/139 x 75-75.3 = -0.2
This is a delta of 1.6 which likely changes the handicap by an extra -0.2 - as you say fairly minimal.

I also did the exercise for a 15 handicapper (as that would be 1 shot per hole CH) and that gave differentials of 13.7 and 15.3, so the same 1.6 delta.

Apologies to those for whom this is obvious, it helps me to see it all worked out

The number of times that this will happen is also pretty small so the impact overall is miniscule.

 

[rulefan]

Haven't you missed the final step? Was this score in the best 8 from the last 20? If so how would the his Index be affected?

 

[backwoodsman]

Your software has worked as it should. Provided 10 holes have been played the rules of WHS say that you should be awarded a net par for for all holes not played except the first where you should be awarded a net bogey.

That's exactly what's supposed to happen...as long as you've played 10 holes
It assumes you get nett par on the remaining holes except 1 and gives you a nett bogey for it..
The way I'm playing it's quite a generous "gift".....need to try this myself

OK, so that the way it works, but why? Why only a nett bogey for the first unplayed hole but nett par for the rest. Anyone know what's the rationale?

 

[IanM]

Seems illogical to me. I think it stems from the fanatics wanting everything to count.

I guess it stops someone having a mare from walking off to protect their handicap.

As we speak, they are measuring Pirate Pete's Adventure Mini Golf for slope and course ratings. Maybe under 5s get extra shots?

 

[rulefan]

OK, so that the way it works, but why? Why only a nett bogey for the first unplayed hole but nett par for the rest. Anyone know what's the rationale?

That's for a minimum of 10 holes played. For 14 played all the rest are net par.
Rule 3.2

 

[rulefan]

Seems illogical to me. I think it stems from the fanatics wanting everything to count.

It is simply recording a player's attempt to get a qualifying round in.

 

[YandaB]

Haven't you missed the final step? Was this score in the best 8 from the last 20? If so how would the his Index be affected?

My curiosity was satisfied at that point, had I gone further then my working assumption would be that the scratch golfer would have 8 rounds with a score differential of 0 and the Golfer with the HI of 15 had 8 rounds with a score differential of 15. Thus for the pair of them, they would both have had their HI's reduced by 0.2. I think that I did do that in my head anyway, hence the comment about "likely changes the handicap by an extra -0.2" (though I dont know why I said "extra"). It's all helping bed my understanding

 

[wjemather]

Seems illogical to me. I think it stems from the fanatics wanting everything to count.

I guess it stops someone having a mare from walking off to protect their handicap.

Nothing to do with it. It is simply a provision for situations when holes are closed, or rounds are legitimately abandoned (e.g. injury, illness, emergency, danger, darkness, etc.). The assigned score for the unplayed holes (nett par with/without a nett bogey for the first hole not played) has been calculated to be "neutral".

There is a different mechanism for dealing with players abandoning rounds for invalid reasons, such as protecting their handicap.

 

[Colin L]

Seems illogical to me. I think it stems from the fanatics wanting everything to count.

I guess it stops someone having a mare from walking off to protect their handicap.

As we speak, they are measuring Pirate Pete's Adventure Mini Golf for slope and course ratings. Maybe under 5s get extra shots?

You're obviously unaware that for the holes not played to be scaled up in the net par way, there has to be an acceptable reason for not playing them. Heavy rain, playing rubbish, slow play ahead, and the like are not acceptable reasons. Illness, injury, lightning, family emergences and the like are. Spot the difference. The ways of dealing with unacceptable failures to play a hole or holes include double net bogey score entry (automatic) and optionally, penalty scores, suspension of handicap and club discipline.

 

[cliveb]

You're obviously unaware that for the holes not played to be scaled up in the net par way, there has to be an acceptable reason for not playing them. Heavy rain, playing rubbish, slow play ahead, and the like are not acceptable reasons. Illness, injury, lightning, family emergences and the like are. Spot the difference.

How heavy must rain be in order to qualify as an acceptable reason to stop playing? In my case there was no lightning but rain so heavy that within a few minutes the greens were covered in standing water and unplayable. Everyone on the course chose to walk in, even though the hooter was not sounded.

 

[jim8flog]

You're obviously unaware that for the holes not played to be scaled up in the net par way, there has to be an acceptable reason for not playing them. Heavy rain, playing rubbish, slow play ahead, and the like are not acceptable reasons. Illness, injury, lightning, family emergences and the like are. Spot the difference. The ways of dealing with unacceptable failures to play a hole or holes include double net bogey score entry (automatic) and optionally, penalty scores, suspension of handicap and club discipline.

One of the problems with this is that we live in the computer age and all scores will probably have been submitted that way. It is only where cards are still going to the 'committee' for verification is this likely to happen.

 

[Steven Rules]

How heavy must rain be in order to qualify as an acceptable reason to stop playing? In my case there was no lightning but rain so heavy that within a few minutes the greens were covered in standing water and unplayable. Everyone on the course chose to walk in, even though the hooter was not sounded.

Stopping because the course is unplayable is different from stopping because of heavy rain. Hopefully players reported to the Committee in accordance with Rule 5.7a and the Committee determined the way ahead in accordance with Committee Procedures 6E

 

[cliveb]

Stopping because the course is unplayable is different from stopping because of heavy rain. Hopefully players reported to the Committee in accordance with Rule 5.7a and the Committee determined the way ahead in accordance with Committee Procedures 6E

I guess in a perfect world that's what should happen. But we live in the real world where people don't really think much about following correct procedures.
I very much doubt that all the players "reported to the committee". I personally asked the pro what to do, but I'd put money on lots of others just going home feeling like drowned rats.
(And to be honest, the reason I asked the pro what to do is because I was having a stonking round and was keen to get the score on my record if that was allowed).

 

[Imurg]

Obviously a hypothetical scenario but ..
A player walks off the 9th green with 21 points on a course where CR = Par...he's had a good front 9
He birdies the 10th so now has 24 points.
The world ends and they have to abandon the round.
How safe is it to assume he will "only" get 15 points from the last 8 holes?
About as safe as assuming he'll get another 20 or another 10.?
I can see why they make it a "neutral" score but assuming anything in golf is dangerous.
I don't know what alternative I would put forward and I guess it doesn't happen often but it somehow doesn't sit well for me...

 

[wjemather]

Obviously a hypothetical scenario but ..
A player walks off the 9th green with 21 points on a course where CR = Par...he's had a good front 9
He birdies the 10th so now has 24 points.
The world ends and they have to abandon the round.
How safe is it to assume he will "only" get 15 points from the last 8 holes?
About as safe as assuming he'll get another 20 or another 10.?
I can see why they make it a "neutral" score but assuming anything in golf is dangerous.
I don't know what alternative I would put forward and I guess it doesn't happen often but it somehow doesn't sit well for me...

As you say, the round is simply being scaled up to 18 holes by the addition of neutral hole scores; it should not be regarded as an assumption.

 

[Imurg]

As you say, the round is simply being scaled up to 18 holes by the addition of neutral hole scores; it should not be regarded as an assumption.

It's nothing but an assumption.
Call it what you like it's assuming he will do no better or worse than nett par on 12-18 and nett bogey on 11.
It might be a neutral score but it's still using scores that haven't been made to, potentially, affect Index..

 

[wjemather]

It's nothing but an assumption.
Call it what you like it's assuming he will do no better or worse than nett par on 12-18 and nett bogey on 11.
It might be a neutral score but it's still using scores that haven't been made to, potentially, affect Index..

You are redefining the word "assumption".

 

[Imurg]

I, genuinely, don't know what to say to that......

 

[Colin L]

It's nothing but an assumption.
Call it what you like it's assuming he will do no better or worse than nett par on 12-18 and nett bogey on 11.
It might be a neutral score but it's still using scores that haven't been made to, potentially, affect Index..

Look at it from a different perspective: he completed 11 holes and performed well. His handicap should reflect those 11 holes of good play.

 

[cliveb]

Obviously a hypothetical scenario but ..
A player walks off the 9th green with 21 points on a course where CR = Par...he's had a good front 9
He birdies the 10th so now has 24 points.
The world ends and they have to abandon the round.
How safe is it to assume he will "only" get 15 points from the last 8 holes?
About as safe as assuming he'll get another 20 or another 10.?
I can see why they make it a "neutral" score but assuming anything in golf is dangerous.
I don't know what alternative I would put forward and I guess it doesn't happen often but it somehow doesn't sit well for me...

It's not hypothetical at all. I had 22 points on the front nine, another 3 on hole 10, then the course became unplayable.
What might I have scored on the last 8 holes? It's anyone's guess. (Past performance is no guarantee of future results, as the financial institutions would say). Perhaps I'd have continued in the same vein and ended up on 44 points. Or perhaps I would have crashed and burned.

On balance I'd say "awarding" me net pars with one bogey thrown in is about the best compromise. Got cut 0.7 as a result. The alternative would be to just forget what I'd done so far, and you could argue that not cutting me would be equally wrong.