Scorecard swapping question

[Dan24]

Quote Originally Posted by rulefan

I though the words did preclude it.

2(d)
Q. Can a person, other than a fellow competitor, appointed to act as a marker return a Qualifying Score for
handicap purposes?
A. A person appointed by an organising Committee to act as a marker cannot return a Qualifying Score
for handicap purposes and his score must not be included in the Competition Scratch Score calculation.
Subject to the provisions of Clause 2 and with permission from the Committee in charge of the
competition the marker may return a Supplementary Score.

Are those that say they trust everyone saying that the above should be ignored and are happy with the whole field doing this. Just trying to get my head around this.

I think this decision has been miss-interpreted by Rulefan and yourself and is not relevant to this discussion.

I believe this is a Congu decision and not a rule of golf and refers to a person who has not entered a competition but is marking a competitor's card, not being able to submit his own card for handicap purposes.

 

[Colin L]

I though the words did preclude it.

2(d)
Q. Can a person, other than a fellow competitor, appointed to act as a marker return a Qualifying Score for
handicap purposes?
A. A person appointed by an organising Committee to act as a marker cannot return a Qualifying Score
for handicap purposes and his score must not be included in the Competition Scratch Score calculation.
Subject to the provisions of Clause 2 and with permission from the Committee in charge of the
competition the marker may return a Supplementary Score.

I was thinking only of the wording of the Definition and the Rules -and none too seriously. Decision 6-6a/2 is entirely based on the premise that the marker is a separate person but I remain mildly puzzled - or at least slightly curious - why it is not explicit in the Definition.
http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-06,d6-6a-2
There is an argument that the rules do not have to be explicit about the blindingly obvious, of course.

As an aside, the USGA till now has obviously accepted a player as his own marker for handicap purposes.

 

[rulefan]

Quote Originally Posted by rulefan

2(d)
Q. Can a person, other than a fellow competitor, appointed to act as a marker return a Qualifying Score for
handicap purposes?
A. A person appointed by an organising Committee to act as a marker cannot return a Qualifying Score
for handicap purposes and his score must not be included in the Competition Scratch Score calculation.
Subject to the provisions of Clause 2 and with permission from the Committee in charge of the
competition the marker may return a Supplementary Score.

I think this decision has been miss-interpreted by Rulefan and yourself and is not relevant to this discussion.

I believe this is a Congu decision and not a rule of golf and refers to a person who has not entered a competition but is marking a competitor's card, not being able to submit his own card for handicap purposes.

As I made clear in post #17

CONGU Decision 2(d) would prevent the player/marker returning a score in a qualifying competition.

However the wording refers to someone who is not a fellow competitor. Clearly the player is not. What the intention of the drafter was not the point. It's what the decision says and I cannot believe CONGU would accept a player acting as his own marker. So the literal meaning makes sense.

 

[Dan24]

As I made clear in post #17

CONGU Decision 2(d) would prevent the player/marker returning a score in a qualifying competition.

However the wording refers to someone who is not a fellow competitor. Clearly the player is not. What the intention of the drafter was not the point. It's what the decision says and I cannot believe CONGU would accept a player acting as his own marker. So the literal meaning makes sense.

My apologies Rulefan, it was clearly not miss-interpreted by you. I had not noticed your initial post and only referred to you as your later post was quoted by Old Skier.

However I feel my post was was still relevant as the quoted decision has clearly been miss-interpreted by others on this thread (albeit I shouldn't have incorrectly included you).

 

[rulefan]

No problem

 

[Old Skier]

Sorry for the confusion. I've now got it clear in my head - I think.