Should .1 be added?

[Colin L]

I think that the CONGU rules are actually more concerned with the possibility of players building a handicap than with someone who genuinely doesn't want to have an increase as a result of an unfortunate mishap. Another reason for being sympathetic to your request.

 

[Imurg]

Chris can't play without his trolley
Chris's trolley was broken by a FC
Chris couldn't continue
Chris should have his 0.1 rescinded

What's difficult about this?
If this needs more than 5 seconds consideration then some people are taking things waaaaaay to seriously.

 

[chellie]

Chris can't play without his trolley
Chris's trolley was broken by a FC
Chris couldn't continue
Chris should have his 0.1 rescinded

What's difficult about this?
If this needs more than 5 seconds consideration then some people are taking things waaaaaay to seriously.

Was what I thought as well.

 

[rulefan]

I don't think that CONGU say that the non return of a card is an automatic .1 addition but I do think that it's entirely possible that the Secretaries assistant may have put the cards through and therefore not have seen my email, or that the Secretary may wish to speak to the Committee and deduct the .1 if they agree

The non-return of a card is DQ under the Rules of Golf. That is an automatic 0.1 under CONGU.
The same would apply for an incomplete round when the card is returned, 0.1 is applied.

However, Decision 2(c) applies in both situations. See rosecott's post above.

 

[Slab]

Chris can't play without his trolley
Chris's trolley was broken by a FC
Chris couldn't continue
Chris should have his 0.1 rescinded

What's difficult about this?
If this needs more than 5 seconds consideration then some people are taking things waaaaaay to seriously.

Every golf forum is littered with threads showing the absolute opposite applies to the game of golf

 

[atticusfinch]

Rule 2(c) says:

(a) All cards must be returned in Qualifying Competitions, whether complete or not.

The forgiveness rule concerns incomplete rounds and the reasons therefore. Failure to return a card is different and I do not think the forgiveness rule applies.

But I have not heard all the facts of the case. Did he return an incomplete card or no card?

 

[atticusfinch]

Chris can't play without his trolley
Chris's trolley was broken by a FC
Chris couldn't continue
Chris should have his 0.1 rescinded

What's difficult about this?
If this needs more than 5 seconds consideration then some people are taking things waaaaaay to seriously.

Did chris return a card for the round?

 

[duncan mackie]

Chris can't play without his trolley
Chris's trolley was broken by a FC
Chris couldn't continue
Chris should have his 0.1 rescinded

What's difficult about this?
If this needs more than 5 seconds consideration then some people are taking things waaaaaay to seriously.

I'm obviously that person; and I would also suggest that everyone who's posted to the thread takes things seriously.

As a logical argument your 4th line is flawed. It should read...

"Chris's handicap committee should look sympathetically at the application of the 0.1 increase."

Looking sympathetically in such a case might be along the lines -

happens at the first/second hole of a stableford; anything could have happened so rescind.
happens on the 17th when the player has only scored 12 points so far; don't rescind.

anything in the middle - look sympathetically at it ie give the player the benefit of any reasonable doubt

in the abscence of a partially completed card it's hard to see how the committee can have given it any thought yet - and on the basis of his indicated progress to that point (13 pts front 9?) it probably not cut and dried either way. I would probably look at Chris's l;ast couple of rounds to see if there's anything to support the supposition that he is at all likely to shoot 22-23 points on the back 9 (they were 17 and 16 against a CSS of 19 pts) in order to form an opinion on the underlying question

Was the 0.1 already earned on the holes played before the unfortunate incident that prevented his completion of the round or was there a glimmer of hope that buffer could be met through performance over the closing holes.

Put another way, the looked at sympathetically moves the consideration from 'would he on the balance of probabilities?' to ' realistically, could he?'

 

[atticusfinch]

Do people post here to learn the rules or to show their sympathy? Sometimes the rules are not sympathetic to a player but they must be applied nonetheless.

 

[chrisd]

Do people post here to learn the rules or to show their sympathy? Sometimes the rules are not sympathetic to a player but they must be applied nonetheless.

on this matter the CONGU book says its a matter of sympathy to the situation and we are not talking about the Rules of Golf but the CONGU handbook which is quite a different matter.

When I had a similar situation and was injured whilst playing I contacted Golf England and without asking any questions they said their advice was always in such circumstances, not to put the card into the system. Therefore, no question as to how I'd played up to the incident, who's fault was it or anything - just don't enter the card.

I could not carry on through no fault of my own, no one could have known the outcome of the round had I completed it, and it clearly isn't governed by a hard and fast rule.

 

[rulefan]

The committee should simply look at why he discontinued play. His score to that point is irrelevant. If his reason was honest and justified, the committee has the discretion to exclude the round from the competition and his record. All the clauses in 2(c) are independent of each other.

Coincidentally, I had to rule on an incident yesterday when a player tore a ligament in his knee. He neither signed nor returned his card as he was in hospital overnight. The committee have not increased his handicap 0.1. I spoke to a fellow England Golf Handicap Advisor this morning to ratify my ruling.

 

[clubchamp98]

Colin, I understand exactly everything you said. I am not unsympathetic to Chris's situation, but I am trying to express that this is a situation that should be decided on the HC rules, not the sympathies of the committee.

To me the situation is that equipment of the player that he needs to play with was damaged. This means he cannot play thereafter. Ultimately that comes down to the question: is that an exceptional circumstance that would justify an exception.

I mentioned the casey martin case because there are similarities. He could not play without a cart. Is that a situation that should be overlooked so he can compete against able bodied people? The case was decided on a law that favored martin, but the decision of the golfing world employing only considerations of golf was that he should be allowed to play only if he could compete under the same conditions as the other players.

I guess I do come across as harsh. I come from a school of rules enthusiasts known as hardliners. We believe the clear text or reasonable inferences should be all there is when applying golf rules. Otherwise decisions based on the feelings or sympathies of officials reduces the game to a level of unpredictability that leads to inconsistent result and damages the game.

I'm a coward though. and would probably vote to rescind Chris's point. :blah:

This is surely only a Profesional golfer ruling as they all play off scratch .== If every golfer competed to the same conditions as the other players there would be NO handicap provision and we should all play off scratch.

 

[atticusfinch]

The committee should simply look at why he discontinued play. His score to that point is irrelevant. If his reason was honest and justified, the committee has the discretion to exclude the round from the competition and his record. All the clauses in 2(c) are independent of each other.

Coincidentally, I had to rule on an incident yesterday when a player tore a ligament in his knee. He neither signed nor returned his card as he was in hospital overnight. The committee have not increased his handicap 0.1. I spoke to a fellow England Golf Handicap Advisor this morning to ratify my ruling.

If I understand you, an excusable reason for not completing a round can also excuse not returning a score card?

 

[atticusfinch]

This is surely only a Profesional golfer ruling as they all play off scratch .== If every golfer competed to the same conditions as the other players there would be NO handicap provision and we should all play off scratch.

That's true and I agree. I mention martin only to illustrate how rules should take precedence over sympathy.

 

[clubchamp98]

The committee should simply look at why he discontinued play. His score to that point is irrelevant. If his reason was honest and justified, the committee has the discretion to exclude the round from the competition and his record. All the clauses in 2(c) are independent of each other.

Coincidentally, I had to rule on an incident yesterday when a player tore a ligament in his knee. He neither signed nor returned his card as he was in hospital overnight. The committee have not increased his handicap 0.1. I spoke to a fellow England Golf Handicap Advisor this morning to ratify my ruling.

The problem is not all clubs think like this . If a player is injured I cant for the life of me understand why people think he should go up .1 . clubs have a default setting that all golfers are trying it on, and you have to prove why you left the course without finishing the stipulated round I think that's fair enough but when the reason is somebodys broken your trolley or you are in Hospital that's reason enough for me. Lets be honest its only .1 its not the end of the world.

 

[Colin L]

If I understand you, an excusable reason for not completing a round can also excuse not returning a score card?

Of course it is. Do you have such a rigid view that you would not excuse a player for failing to return a card if his reason for not completing the round was sudden illness or an injury that required his immediately being taken to A&E?

 

[atticusfinch]

Of course it is. Do you have such a rigid view that you would not excuse a player for failing to return a card if his reason for not completing the round was sudden illness or an injury that required his immediately being taken to A&E?

Do you have such a loose view that you have a blanket rule that an excuse for not completing a round is also an excuse for not returning a card without consideration for the facts of each case? What if you get sick and cannot continue to play, but could make it to the clubhouse to return a card.

(I hope you under stand i am just exploring the rules and not passing judgment on Chris' case.)

 

[rulefan]

If I understand you, an excusable reason for not completing a round can also excuse not returning a score card?

Not exactly. An excusable reason for not returning a card may be considered in the same way as an excusable reason for not completing a round. It doesn't have to be the same reason but it may be. eg a player may have a serious accident or heart attack on the way to the clubhouse after completing his round and exchanging cards on leaving the the 18th green. In the ensuing confusion a card may easily get lost.

In effect: Sympathetic consideration should be given to players who have been unable to return their card for any cause considered to be reasonable by the organising Committee.

 

[atticusfinch]

Not exactly. An excusable reason for not returning a card may be considered in the same way as an excusable reason for not completing a round. It doesn't have to be the same reason but it may be. eg a player may have a serious accident or heart attack on the way to the clubhouse after completing his round and exchanging cards on leaving the the 18th green. In the ensuing confusion a card may easily get lost.

In effect: Sympathetic consideration should be given to players who have been unable to return their card for any cause considered to be reasonable by the organising Committee.

So it's possible or the reason for discontinuing play can receive sympathetic consideration but not the reason for failing to return the card? Separate cases.

 

[AmandaJR]

I'm obviously that person; and I would also suggest that everyone who's posted to the thread takes things seriously.

As a logical argument your 4th line is flawed. It should read...

"Chris's handicap committee should look sympathetically at the application of the 0.1 increase."

Looking sympathetically in such a case might be along the lines -

happens at the first/second hole of a stableford; anything could have happened so rescind.
happens on the 17th when the player has only scored 12 points so far; don't rescind.

anything in the middle - look sympathetically at it ie give the player the benefit of any reasonable doubt

in the abscence of a partially completed card it's hard to see how the committee can have given it any thought yet - and on the basis of his indicated progress to that point (13 pts front 9?) it probably not cut and dried either way. I would probably look at Chris's l;ast couple of rounds to see if there's anything to support the supposition that he is at all likely to shoot 22-23 points on the back 9 (they were 17 and 16 against a CSS of 19 pts) in order to form an opinion on the underlying question

Was the 0.1 already earned on the holes played before the unfortunate incident that prevented his completion of the round or was there a glimmer of hope that buffer could be met through performance over the closing holes.

Put another way, the looked at sympathetically moves the consideration from 'would he on the balance of probabilities?' to ' realistically, could he?'

Sounds a reasonable way of looking at such a case imo.