Resolving Ties in Medals

[fenwayrich]

I am wondering if there is a difference between the methods used by clubs to resolve ties in medals where there is no playoff. I am sure everyone uses the back 9,6,3,2,1 etc system, but it is possible to use either a percentage of handicap, or alternatively apply stroke index.

I believe that the R&A/CONGU recommendation is to use a percentage of handicap, but it is up to the Committee whether they go along with this. I have been discussing this with a few people (yes, I know, we are a boring bunch!!), and wondered if others have any views.

 

[patricks148]

i didn't think you were allowed to play a match play tie during a stroke play medal?

 

[Foxholer]

i didn't think you were allowed to play a match play tie during a stroke play medal?

Playoff doesn't mean it's Matchplay! In fact, that term is the one normally associated with Strokeplay, whereas 'Extra Holes' is the one associated with Matchplay.

As for the question in the OP...It's up to The Committee (to publish in the Conditions of Competition) how a winner is decided if there is a tie for 1st.

 

[rosecott]

I am wondering if there is a difference between the methods used by clubs to resolve ties in medals where there is no playoff. I am sure everyone uses the back 9,6,3,2,1 etc system, but it is possible to use either a percentage of handicap, or alternatively apply stroke index.

I believe that the R&A/CONGU recommendation is to use a percentage of handicap, but it is up to the Committee whether they go along with this. I have been discussing this with a few people (yes, I know, we are a boring bunch!!), and wondered if others have any views.

Both CONGU and R&A recommend using the back 9,6,3,2,1 etc system if a play-off is not a practicable option.

 

[fenwayrich]

i didn't think you were allowed to play a match play tie during a stroke play medal?

You are not, the question relates to deciding the finishing order if two or more competitors have the same net score in a medal. Sorry if my wording didn't make that clear.

 

[cliveb]

At my club we have a multi-tee start (1, 8, 13). That means for 2/3rds of the field, the last 9 holes they play are NOT 10 to 18. Because of this, until a couple of years ago (when we reverted to the Congu-recommended countback method), ties were resolved by applying exact handicap.

Example:
Player A's exact HCP is 14.4 and he scores 80.
Player B's exact HCP is 16.6 and he scores 83.
Both have a net 66, but player A wins because his exact net is 65.6, while B's exact net is 66.4

AFAIK, this method is still legal under Congu rules. (Someone please correct me if I have that wrong). I never agreed with my club switching away from it - exact HCP seems much fairer.

 

[williamalex1]

Isn't the stroke index used in count back situations ??

 

[patricks148]

You are not, the question relates to deciding the finishing order if two or more competitors have the same net score in a medal. Sorry if my wording didn't make that clear.

ah i misunderstood

 

[fundy]

never understood why the exact handicap isnt used in this situation, would resolve 90% of ties based on peoples actual handicap (rather than playing handicap). Obviously still need an arbitrary method for the remaining 10% or even call it a tie and award 2 winners

 

[rosecott]

Isn't the stroke index used in count back situations ??

Why would that be?

 

[fenwayrich]

Both CONGU and R&A recommend using the back 9,6,3,2,1 etc system if a play-off is not a practicable option.

I appreciate that. My question is whether you use percentage of handicap or apply stroke indices as you would do in a Stableford.


R&A/CONGU recommend the handicap percentage method, with no rounding. To me this seems eminently sensible as stroke indices are irrelevant in a medal, but others disagree with me. I was just interested to know how other folk perceive it.

 

[rosecott]

I appreciate that. My question is whether you use percentage of handicap or apply stroke indices as you would do in a Stableford.


R&A/CONGU recommend the handicap percentage method, with no rounding. To me this seems eminently sensible as stroke indices are irrelevant in a medal, but others disagree with me. I was just interested to know how other folk perceive it.

Do you have a reference for this R&A/CONGU recommendation?

 

[fenwayrich]

Do you have a reference for this R&A/CONGU recommendation?

CONGU Appendix N


'Rule 33-6 of the Rules of Golf empowers the Committee to determine the method for deciding the result of ties in both stroke play and match play. Further guidance and recommendations are given in Appendix I Part B 10 of the Rules of Golf.


The most practicable way to decide ties in club and open handicap stroke play competitions is a card count-back with the winner determined on the basis of the better inward half, last six holes, last three holes etc. Appendix I Part B sets out in 10 (c) this method. In handicap stroke play competitions the fractions of the applicable handicaps are deducted from the gross scores for the applicable holes. In this context CONGU® directs that the exact fractions i.e. one-half, one-third, one-sixth etc. or commonly accepted decimal equivalents are deducted. The fractional or decimal allowances should not be rounded to a whole number.'

 

[rosecott]

CONGU Appendix N


'Rule 33-6 of the Rules of Golf empowers the Committee to determine the method for deciding the result of ties in both stroke play and match play. Further guidance and recommendations are given in Appendix I Part B 10 of the Rules of Golf.


The most practicable way to decide ties in club and open handicap stroke play competitions is a card count-back with the winner determined on the basis of the better inward half, last six holes, last three holes etc. Appendix I Part B sets out in 10 (c) this method. In handicap stroke play competitions the fractions of the applicable handicaps are deducted from the gross scores for the applicable holes. In this context CONGU® directs that the exact fractions i.e. one-half, one-third, one-sixth etc. or commonly accepted decimal equivalents are deducted. The fractional or decimal allowances should not be rounded to a whole number.'

I know that reference very well, but I don't read it as a recommendation for the handicap percentage method you mentioned - or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

 

[williamalex1]

Why would that be?

On a count back if both players had 4s at say the last , but only one player had a net 3 using the stroke index .

 

[rosecott]

On a count back if both players had 4s at say the last , but only one player had a net 3 using the stroke index .

But, in medal play, unlike stableford, strokes are not allocated to particular holes according to SI. They are allocated to the round as a whole.

 

[williamalex1]

But, in medal play, unlike stableford, strokes are not allocated to particular holes according to SI. They are allocated to the round as a whole.

But SIs are used for handicap purposes and in stableford , so why not use them to help decide stroke play ties.
You can explain in person when we're TOFS in June:thup:

 

[rosecott]

But SIs are used for handicap purposes and in stableford , so why not use them to help decide stroke play ties.
You can explain in person when we're TOFS in June:thup:

You'll have forgotten all about it by then.

 

[williamalex1]

You'll have forgotten all about it by then.

What

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Sorry to be dull but does this mean the order is as follows:

A). Best score over last 9 holes wins - using net score based on playing handicap.
B). If still equal - as above but last 6 holes.
C). If still equal - as above but last 3 holes
D). If still equal net score using exact handicap over 18 holes.

If still equal then 6 irons at dawn!