Player signs-in but doesn't start round

[2blue]

Other than being DQ'd for being late on the tee & presumably 0.1 back, I am unable to find any other reference..... Help :whoo: please

 

[Deleted member 17920]

Did you find out why the player didn't start.

If it was a medical reason I would treat it as a withdrawal and the player wouldn't get a 0.1 increase.

 

[2blue]

Did you find out why the player didn't start.

If it was a medical reason I would treat it as a withdrawal and the player wouldn't get a 0.1 increase.

Yeah Glyn, I get that one.... but other than that it’s 0.1 back, eh? Doesn’t matter how many holes completed or not even started?

 

[FairwayDodger]

Yeah Glyn, I get that one.... but other than that it’s 0.1 back, eh? Doesn’t matter how many holes completed or not even started?

I've signed in and PP hasn't shown up. Fortunately managed to organise a different partner but, failing that, 0.1 would have been harsh.

 

[2blue]

I've signed in and PP hasn't shown up. Fortunately managed to organise a different partner but, failing that, 0.1 would have been harsh.

Ah, yes Karen. Yet another scenario. Gonna be no easy answer to this I can see. Thanks for your inputs 👍👍

 

[Colin L]

Other than being DQ'd for being late on the tee & presumably 0.1 back, I am unable to find any other reference..... Help :whoo: please

What more are you looking for? Something with a little boiling oil in it, perhaps?

The 0.1 increase is mandatory unless the CSS is 3 above the SSS. See Appendix P of the CONGU Manual (pp 91-92)

 

[2blue]

What more are you looking for? Something with a little boiling oil in it, perhaps?

The 0.1 increase is mandatory unless the CSS is 3 above the SSS. See Appendix P of the CONGU Manual (pp 91-92)

Colin... I think you have the old copy as it's pp 94-95 now...... allows use of 'cat 'o nine-tails' for repeat offenders :rofl:

 

[jim8flog]

I would have thought that the player should not get a 0.1 increase

Note 1:
Incomplete cards and ‘no returns’ have an effect on a player’s handicap. The Handicap Committee would be justified in:

1. (a) refusing to accept a card or record a ‘no return’ when the player has walked in after playing only a few holes;

I would have thought the first sentence in Part P would apply.
Clause 17.1(c) of the
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]UHS [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT][/FONT]provides that a Player Handicap Record must include [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Disqualified Scores [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT][/FONT]which, when corrected, may be acceptable for handicap purposes.
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[2blue]

I would have thought that the player should not get a 0.1 increase

Note 1:
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Incomplete cards and ‘no returns’ have an effect on a player’s handicap. The [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Handicap Committee [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]would be justified in: [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

1. (a) refusing to accept a card or record a ‘no return’ when the player has walked in after playing only a few holes;

[/FONT][/FONT]

Where's this from Jim??... interesting.
It doesn't seem right that someone can avoid 0.1 back simply by walking off after making a poor start ....... not in the 'spirit of the game ' I'd say really

 

[rulefan]

Where's this from Jim??... interesting.
It doesn't seem right that someone can avoid 0.1 back simply by walking off after making a poor start ....... not in the 'spirit of the game ' I'd say really

Affiliated Clubs have the discretion under Clauses 23 and 24 of the UHS to deal with a player who persistently submits incomplete cards or makes ‘no returns’.

 

[moogie]

Where's this from Jim??... interesting.
It doesn't seem right that someone can avoid 0.1 back simply by walking off after making a poor start ....... not in the 'spirit of the game ' I'd say really

Also stops somebody manipulating their handicap by doing this too......

 

[jim8flog]

Where's this from Jim??... interesting.
It doesn't seem right that someone can avoid 0.1 back simply by walking off after making a poor start ....... not in the 'spirit of the game ' I'd say really

CONGU Part 7 Note 1

 

[2blue]

CONGU Part 7 Note 1

Jim... there is no Part 7 in the current CONGU Handbook.. please clarify

 

[rulefan]

Jim... there is no Part 7 in the current CONGU Handbook.. please clarify

Clause 7

Clause 7.8
at the bottom of page 24

 

[2blue]

Clause 7

Clause 7.8
at the bottom of page 24

Aaah... thanks for that :thup:

 

[jim8flog]

Sorry wrong word used (Part)

 

[2blue]

Sorry wrong word used (Part)

understood 👍