NR, Rule 19 and Effect on CSS - Medal Play

[EuanRoss]

I've asked this question a few times and never had a definitive answer. Is CSS in a medal stroke play competition based on stableford adjusted score or medal score. For example. If you have an NR but you enter your score into the computer having completed your round and you would have registered a score in the buffer zone, does this count in the percentage of people in the buffer zone when calculating the CSS. I'm aware that under these circumstances you would not go up .1 under current handicapping rules.

Obviously the same idea applies if scoring nett 77 (assuming CSS 72) with an 8 on a par 4. Are you considered within or outwith the buffer zone for CSS calculating purposes.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

CSS is always based on stableford adjustments and as such a medal score with a pick up (or several) can achieve a cut or buffer depending on the number of points scored on the rest of the holes.

You should think of the competition and the handicap calculations as two separate things. The NR is only for the competition .i.e. you can't win a medal if you NR. Your score can and will however be adjusted using stableford adjustments and your handicap will be calculated accordingly and your score will affect the CSS.

With your last example, all hole score are rounded down to Nett double bogey for the purposes of handicaps and CSS so your 8 on a par 4 will count as either an 8, a 7 or a 6 depending on how many shots you receive on that hole.

So assuming you shoot +8 with an 8 on a par 4 that you get a shot, the score for the purposes of the competition will be +8, but for the purposes of your handicap will be +7.

 

[EuanRoss]

Yeah I totally understand how the handicapping system works and as I've said, I'm well aware that you can be cut in a medal for an NR or a score outwith buffer due to stableford adjustments. I was just never sure if those stableford adjustments affected the CSS calculation in a stroke play medal competition.

I know this is a far fetched example but you could have a medal competition where say every competitor shoots nett 77 (SSS 72), all have stableford adjustments that would bring them to within their normal buffer zone and CSS would come down to 71.

Is that correct??

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Yeah I totally understand how the handicapping system works and as I've said, I'm well aware that you can be cut in a medal for an NR or a score outwith buffer due to stableford adjustments. I was just never sure if those stableford adjustments affected the CSS calculation in a stroke play medal competition.

I know this is a far fetched example but you could have a medal competition where say every competitor shoots nett 77 (SSS 72), all have stableford adjustments that would bring them to within their normal buffer zone and CSS would come down to 71.

Is that correct??

Yes

 

[EuanRoss]

Ok. Thank you for clearing that up for me. Was the only part of the CONGU system I was unsure about. Appreciate you clearing it up.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

No problem. It is a very misunderstood thing. The number of people I play with who don't realise they can still make the buffer or get cut if they pick up on a hole in a medal is astounding.

 

[EuanRoss]

Yeah I've always known that. I'm forever telling my (especially higher handicapped friends who are the ones most susceptible to running up high numbers on 1 hole) friends to treat every single round as a stableford. I've had a good few cuts or buffer saves in medals myself with 8 or 9 on the card.

Was just never sure if the NR's counted as such for CSS calculation. Makes sense now though.

 

[Foxholer]

Yes

Er. Wrong!

See Appendix B (CSS Procedure) para 1.3 on page 53 of the UHS. http://www.englandgolf.org/e-brochure/index.html

The number 'in buffer' for CSS calc is 'before application of Clause 19'.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Er. I don't think so!

See para 1.3 on page 53 of the UHS. http://www.englandgolf.org/e-brochure/index.html

The number 'in buffer' for CSS calc excludes Clause 19 adjustments.

Well that's told me

 

[Foxholer]

Well that's told me

Yep. Carborundum is Us - when there's no doubt!

 

[EuanRoss]

Yep. Carborundum is Us - when I'm certain!

So in the above example with the nett 77's and the SSS of 72. It would be CSS 75 reductions only due to 0% of competitors making buffer.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Yep. Carborundum is Us - when there's no doubt!

All that little bit of info does is make me even more confused about the need for CSS, but that's another thread

 

[Foxholer]

All that little bit of info does is make me even more confused about the need for CSS, but that's another thread

And there's a further subtle-ish circumstance that I don't know the answer to yet - but which doesn't alter whether Clause 19 applies.

Carborundum - Rather Abrasive!

 

[Foxholer]

And there's a further subtle-ish circumstance that I don't know the answer to yet - but which doesn't alter whether Clause 19 applies.

Carborundum - Rather Abrasive!

Ha. There may be more to this!

I'm unsure exactly whether there'd be any difference, for CSS calc, if a player who scored a 12 on a Par 3 (persistent sod!), or even a score sufficient to trigger a Clause 19 adjustment, would be treated if he:

1) Entered his score.
or
2) Didn't enter a score and was DQ-ed.

The other clause (17.1c) mentioned in the CSS calc would mean that a score according to Clause 19 would be applied for the un-entered one! So, effectively, Clause 19 MAY be applied - inconsistently - perhaps!

Something I will check out with 'higher powers'!

I'm pretty certain that Stableford comps means that Clause 19 is effectively applied as part of the scoring and it's Stableford Score vs Stableford of CSS + Buffer, though the CSS calc doesn't differentiate. If it didn't, then many comps would only have a few folk in Buffer!

Apologies for clouding the waters!

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Ha. There may be more to this!

I'm unsure exactly whether there'd be any difference, for CSS calc, if a player who scored a 12 on a Par 3 (persistent sod!), or even a score sufficient to trigger a Clause 19 adjustment, would be treated if he:

1) Entered his score.
or
2) Didn't enter a score and was DQ-ed.

The other clause (17.1c) mentioned in the CSS calc would mean that a score according to Clause 19 would be applied for the un-entered one! So, effectively, Clause 19 MAY be applied - inconsistently - perhaps!

Something I will check out with 'higher powers'!

I'm pretty certain that Stableford comps means that Clause 19 is effectively applied as part of the scoring and it's Stableford Score vs Stableford of CSS + Buffer, though the CSS calc doesn't differentiate. If it didn't, then many comps would only have a few folk in Buffer!

Apologies for clouding the waters!

I've read this 5 times and I don't understand what you're getting at - sorry for being dim

 

[Foxholer]

I've read this 5 times and I don't understand what you're getting at - sorry for being dim

I made an initial query and it took a bit of explaining there too. I'm going to email my contact who will pass it on to even higher authorities.

Perhaps you need the UHS Manual as a reference, but the essence is that, when calculating CSS and numbers who make Buffer or better, DQ details (17-1c) are considered/applied but Clause 19 is not.

Consider this...

In a Medal, you make a hash of your first hole - a Par 3. Say an 8! You decide that's your Medal done and don't enter a score for that hole. After that, you relax and finish with a score where you only miss Buffer by 1, even with that 8!

Now, for CSS calculation purposes, the missing score is still an acceptable card and Appendix P states that the Clause 19 score (5 or 6 in your case) should be used. And that would mean that the card would be counted as 'in or better than Buffer' (Box E). Had the 8 been entered on the scorecard, Buffer would have been missed. It is then possible that that 1 card difference could tip the balance (toward a lower CSS).

Of course, once the CSS is calculated, Clause 19 is applied and you would be deemed to be in buffer, but others might miss it where they 'shouldn't have'.

It's a fairly unlikely situation, but such 'anomolies' ring my pedantry bell, so I'll query it. Initial thoughts of my contact were that it did appear to be an anomoly.

 

[EuanRoss]

Maybe this is why I never got a definitive answer

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Thanks, it will be interesting to see what your contact says.