MLR L-1 Modification of DQ penalty for failure to sign card

[Neilds]

Frankly, in this modern age, once you have inputted the score via the computer and it has been confirmed and vetted by your pp, that should be the end of it. A frequently illegible scribble on a card should not be required.

When you say confirmed and vetted by your partner - how do they do this? On our screen (no idea what sort it is but club uses IG for everything else) there is no way for a partner to certify/vet/confirm your score. It is only the person inputting the score who declares the score is correct so we still put a signed card in the box.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Frankly, in this modern age, once you have inputted the score via the computer and it has been confirmed and vetted by your pp, that should be the end of it. A frequently illegible scribble on a card should not be required.

You would just need the ISV to update the electronic entry to included two signatures in the same way EG App does

 

[Lord Tyrion]

When you say confirmed and vetted by your partner - how do they do this? On our screen (no idea what sort it is but club uses IG for everything else) there is no way for a partner to certify/vet/confirm your score. It is only the person inputting the score who declares the score is correct so we still put a signed card in the box.

On our screen I have to confirm who's card I marked, who marked my card. The others have to confirm the same.

 

[wjemather]

We're not using the MLR and have no plans to. As far as I can tell the only demand for it came from the pro tour(s) and elite amateur events - all multi-round tournaments - where there are prizes and ranking points going down the field and not just to the top few places. Only the top few places win prizes in our club comps and a 2 stroke penalty will almost always change a prize-winner to a non-prize winner anyway. Should The R&A/USGA decide to reverse the state of play (i.e. make DQ the MLR) we may look at using that, and thereby avoid the extra admin and handicap implications of applying penalty strokes.

Checking all scorecards are certified is literally a 2 minute job. There is no excuse for committees not doing it, and club members should be demanding it, not quietly accepting laziness/incompetence.

Simple score entry systems (touchscreens/PSIs, and apps without full attestation/certification enabled) are not electronic scorecards, and necessitate the traditional use of actual scorecards in order to meet the requirements of the rules. It's astonishing that some committees seem unaware of this, or worse, are disregarding it.

The convenience and reliability of pencil and paper/card will always beat badly designed, unreliable and cumbersome electronic scorecards. The advantages of not requiring a compatible device, power & internet access cannot be overstated; plus pencils also work when wearing gloves.

 

[wjemather]

On our screen I have to confirm who's card I marked, who marked my card. The others have to confirm the same.

That only confirms who the player and marker were (to enable committees to more easily find the relevant physical scorecards for checking); it does nothing to certify the scores - which is what is required by the rules.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

That only confirms who the player and marker were (to enable committees to more easily find the relevant physical scorecards for checking); it does nothing to certify the scores - which is what is required by the rules.

There is nothing stopping them from changing things to allow an electronic scorecard acceptable

 

[wjemather]

There is nothing stopping them from changing things to allow an electronic scorecard acceptable

There is no way of making a PSI touchscreen into an electronic scorecard.

 

[jim8flog]

No. A "hard card" is terminology for what are "standard Local Rules" put in place for all competitions run by that organization (in this case, Golf Canada). You can view it at this link...

https://d34oo5x54o72bd.cloudfront.net/app/uploads/2025/04/2025-Golf-Canada-Local-Rules-and-Terms-of-the-Competition-FINAL-1745437240.pdf?x79165&x79165&x79165

When we hold County events all players will hand their card in to the recorder who is present to represent the county so the recorder can check the basics on the card as it is handed to them so it makes sense for them to have it as the question can be asked on the spot.

The only times a similar occurrence happens where I play is for Opens and major comps such as club champs so it may be worth considering for those events.

When I have had responsibility for cards as such events I always ask the players before taking the card or been able to see it before it is physically handed to me.

When it comes to ordinary club comps the cards are placed in a box and it may be a couple of days before they get dealt with, the committee view is we do not have the time to chase around the players to sort out reasons days after the event with the inevitable extra delay to results being published.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Of course there is - it just needs some

There is no way of making a PSI touchscreen into an electronic scorecard.

development

 

[wjemather]

Of course there is - it just needs some

development

Maybe have a think about how a scorecard needs to be used, and how a touchscreen fixed to a wall in the clubhouse can be used.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Maybe have a think about how a scorecard needs to be used, and how a touchscreen fixed to a wall in the clubhouse can be used.

Sorry you are being a bit random - what is it you think is stopping electronic scorecards

 

[Rlburnside]

I suggested that we adopt it but ret of committee didn’t want it. Same with suggestion I learnt off here to define returning card as leaving the club (to get round the ‘I’ve just put my card in the box but I didn’t sign it’ problem).
But everyone moans when people get DQed for card bureaucracy.

That was the same as me, I informed 3 of the committee about the new local rule but they showed no interest