Minimum Holes

[Colin L]

Let's remember that there are two possible outcomes of not playing a hole or holes and neither is based on "imaginary" scores; they're not just plucked out of the imagination. With an acceptable reason for not playing a hole or holes, the net par figure is neutral. It has no impact on the handicap calculation as it is as if you played them to your handicap. On the other hand, holes not played or completed without an acceptable reason are scored as worst case, net double bogey being the maximum counting for handicap had you played them. The process has been thought through with intended outcomes.

 

[rosecott]

Hi, we do play a mixture of 13 and 18 hole competitions. we are a group of seniors with our oldest member being 93 years of age. 13 holes suits quite a number of our members where 18 holes is too much for them physically. The 13th green is adjacent to the par 3 18th so just a short walk back in.
Thanks for the welcome, just trying to build up some evidence to support our case.

Would it not be possible to open 2 qualifier comps labelled, say, Seniors Stableford 13 and Seniors Stableford 18 with those playing in the former instructed to enter Not Started for the missing 5 holes? No need then to involve County Union or EG.

 

[Swango1980]

Let's remember that there are two possible outcomes of not playing a hole or holes and neither is based on "imaginary" scores; they're not just plucked out of the imagination. With an acceptable reason for not playing a hole or holes, the net par figure is neutral. It has no impact on the handicap calculation as it is as if you played them to your handicap. On the other hand, holes not played or completed without an acceptable reason are scored as worst case, net double bogey being the maximum counting for handicap had you played them. The process has been thought through with intended outcomes.

Thanks. Just to be clear, I just chose the word "imaginary" as it was early in the morning and it was the first word my brain thought of. I'm aware they are not just plucked from someone's imagination

Obviously, the key part of my comment though was asking for confirmation whether the the scores should be acceptable or not (i.e. is there a definitive answer to the OP's question, or are we all just sharing opinions and unwilling to confidently 100% commit either way)

 

[D-S]

I’m amazed that the County Union seem to be taking such a firm stance. At the first pushback from the club involved with seemingly well reasoned arguments, most sensible officials would take the opportunity to check with their regional advisor or higher contact within EG to back up their stance. I know we would.

 

[Swango1980]

Just as a thought, is AlanD getting full disclosure of the communication between his club and the County Union? After all, the Club seem to be the ones initially saying that these scores cannot be submitted for handicap, disagreeing with members. Then it appears the County Union agrees with them.

However, not that I like conspiracy theories, but maybe the club have NOT actually contacted the County Union and have just said they did? Or, maybe they framed their question in such a way that meant the County Union gave a response to a question that isn't really being asked by the members?

Only suggesting that because, like D-S says, I'm struggling to see why the County Union would take such a firm stance when fairly educated golfers in here seem to disagree with them?

 

[Colin L]

Thanks. Just to be clear, I just chose the word "imaginary" as it was early in the morning and it was the first word my brain thought of. I'm aware they are not just plucked from someone's imagination

Obviously, the key part of my comment though was asking for confirmation whether the the scores should be acceptable or not (i.e. is there a definitive answer to the OP's question, or are we all just sharing opinions and unwilling to confidently 100% commit either way)

I knew you knew but didn’t know if others knew and wanted to know they knew. If you know what I mean.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I can't offer the OP any practical help but if moral support helps.........This is such an eminently sensible suggestion. Nicklaus himself has said in the past if he was inventing golf now he would make it 14 holes, not 18. The thinking behind the OP's suggestion is very logical and is looking to keep many older players involved and playing comps, having an up to date h/c. Hopefully his county will change their mind and compromise.

 

[Colin L]

I can't offer the OP any practical help but if moral support helps.........This is such an eminently sensible suggestion. Nicklaus himself has said in the past if he was inventing golf now he would make it 14 holes, not 18. The thinking behind the OP's suggestion is very logical and is looking to keep many older players involved and playing comps, having an up to date h/c. Hopefully his county will change their mind and compromise.

The Rules of Golf allow the number of holes in a round to be determined by the Committee; the CONGU guidance on WHS Rules states that 10 or more holes are sufficient for an acceptable score. What compromise is necessary?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The Rules of Golf allow the number of holes in a round to be determined by the Committee; the CONGU guidance on WHS Rules states that 10 or more holes are sufficient for an acceptable score. What compromise is necessary?

Unless I have missed the whole point of this thread, the OP wants 13 to be acceptable, to set up the comp for 13. They are saying no.

 

[Swango1980]

Unless I have missed the whole point of this thread, the OP wants 13 to be acceptable, to set up the comp for 13. They are saying no.

And, I suspect the general answers to the OP are that the County Union are wrong to say no...

 

[Colin L]

Unless I have missed the whole point of this thread, the OP wants 13 to be acceptable, to set up the comp for 13. They are saying no.

Indeed. But accepting that you are wrong and changing no to yes isn’t a compromise

 

[Imurg]

An acceptable score has to be over 9 or 18 holes doesn't it..?
The only time you can use the minimum requirement of 10 completed holes is when there's an acceptable reason to discontinue play - Lightning, course waterlogged, illness etc.
I don't see just wanting to play a comp over 13 holes as a valid reason...the answer would be to play it over 9 if you didn't want to do 18...

 

[wjemather]

This is the final sentence of Rule 3.2:
"If the outcome of a competition has been decided before all holes have been completed and the player decides to play any of the remaining holes, the actual scores for those remaining holes must be recorded."

There would be no need for this if scores from comps run over 10-17 holes were not acceptable (accepting that the rule also applies to scores in other jurisdictions where different formats are acceptable).

 

[wjemather]

An acceptable score has to be over 9 or 18 holes doesn't it..?
The only time you can use the minimum requirement of 10 completed holes is when there's an acceptable reason to discontinue play - Lightning, course waterlogged, illness etc.
I don't see just wanting to play a comp over 13 holes as a valid reason...the answer would be to play it over 9 if you didn't want to do 18...

No.

From Rule 2.1:
"A score is acceptable for handicap purposes if the round has been played:
In an authorized format of play (see Rule 2.1a) over at least the minimum number of holes required for either a 9-hole or an 18-hole score to be acceptable (see Rule 2.2)."

And from Rule 2.2a:
"For an 18-hole score to be acceptable for handicap purposes, a minimum of 10 holes must be played." (Note: 'played', not 'completed')

Rule 3.2 advises when incomplete scores may be acceptable as reasonable evidence of the player's ability. Valid reasons for submitting an incomplete score can be summarised as forced or committee decisions, and includes "a match finishing before the final hole". It's hard to argue that a 13-hole comp doesn't come under that umbrella; i.e. "a competition finishing before the final hole".

 

[Colin L]

An acceptable score has to be over 9 or 18 holes doesn't it..?
The only time you can use the minimum requirement of 10 completed holes is when there's an acceptable reason to discontinue play - Lightning, course waterlogged, illness etc.
I don't see just wanting to play a comp over 13 holes as a valid reason...the answer would be to play it over 9 if you didn't want to do 18...

Have you never had a blow up at a hole and picked up? You’ve completed only 17 holes but your score goes in for handicapping.

 

[Backsticks]

Basic mathematics.

I presume. Could you explain it though so that we can understand your case ?

 

[wjemather]

I presume. Could you explain it though so that we can understand your case ?

More data is better than less data.

 

[Backsticks]

Take an imaginary example (assuming the below was permitted), where 2 players submit scores for handicap. Player A only plays one hole, and the score differential is made up of that hole score +17 imaginary hole scores. Player B plays 17 holes, and the score differential is made up of his 17 scores +1 imaginary hole score. My logic tells me that the score differential for Player B is likely to be more reflective?

So, if that's the case, then if I extend that to Player A playing 9 holes (+9 imaginary scores) and Player B playing 13 holes (+5 imaginary scores), then I still think the Score Diff is more likely to be reflective for Player B

Not necessarily.
The single hole example does not perforce extend to 13 being statistically more accurate than 9, within the error of a HI. It may be the case, but does not follow automatically in the linear manner you are assuming. But the op may have stats that show that to be the case.

Additionally, the added holes are also based on net-1 for 9 holes which distorts as a factor if you have more or less than 9 holes. Net-1 I presume has been modelled to show that it keeps the HI within an acceptable band despite, and allowing for either corrections for 5 or 6 holes or whatever may have been considered a complication too far.

 

[Swango1980]

Not necessarily.
The single hole example does not perforce extend to 13 being statistically more accurate than 9, within the error of a HI. It may be the case, but does not follow automatically in the linear manner you are assuming. But the op may have stats that show that to be the case.

Additionally, the added holes are also based on net-1 for 9 holes which distorts as a factor if you have more or less than 9 holes. Net-1 I presume has been modelled to show that it keeps the HI within an acceptable band despite, and allowing for ither corrections for 5 ir 6 holes or whatever may have been considered a complication too far.

You are basically arguing against basic mathematics, as was simply put by wjemather. This seems to be very much a case of you arguing black is white?

18 holes is better than 9 holes. 17 holes is better than 9 holes. 16 holes is better than 9 holes.....you see where I am going with this?

 

[YandaB]

The Rules of Golf allow the number of holes in a round to be determined by the Committee; the CONGU guidance on WHS Rules states that 10 or more holes are sufficient for an acceptable score. What compromise is necessary?

I guess because the rules of hanidcapping say for a handicap counting round it must be 9 or 18. 10 is only allowed with an acceptable reason. There is nothing documented (and perhaps this shouldn't be required but clearly is) that an acceptable reason for not completing 18 is that we were playing to the rules of golf (i.e. # of holes determined by committee).