Old Skier
Tour Winner
I presume the final sentence has been missed off to fit the argument. Perhaps an email to the R&A might get the correct context. 2 more days of golf and then I might give them a ping.
Signing and Returning scorecard Rule 6-6b
- Thread starter 3offTheTee
- Start date
I presume the final sentence has been missed off to fit the argument. Perhaps an email to the R&A might get the correct context. 2 more days of golf and then I might give them a ping.
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
So, according to interpretation, you can get your marker to sign your card, you can sign your card and hand it to the Committee before getting to the first tee.......completely illogical.
6-6b is a complete "section". It starts with the words "After completion of the round".
Am I the only person in the World who thinks those words apply to the whole "section"?
I can read the rule 100 times and come up with the same interpretation that all those actions mentioned in 6-6b should be done after completing the round. The order is "negotiable" I agree but not that they can be done at any other time.
ger147
Tour Winner
No, not the only one. I share your interpretation of the stated rule i.e. ALL of those events must take place after the completion of the round. I also share your logic that it seems obvious that signing something before you know what your signing seems ridiculous.
But that's just my opinion so not interested in trying to convince anyone else as that seems pretty futile on here.
rosecott
Money List Winner
Cut to the chase - here's the bottom line.
The marker's job is to record the gross scores and sign as marker after reaching agreement with the player. It's nothing to do with the marker if the player has already signed or not, his job is already done. The player then has to ensure that his handicap has been entered on the card, check that both he and the marker have signed, then submit the card - after entering the scores on the computer if that is how his club works. Is his committee going to ask every competitor "can you tell me exactly when you signed this card?". I think not.
The marker's job is to record the gross scores and sign as marker after reaching agreement with the player. It's nothing to do with the marker if the player has already signed or not, his job is already done. The player then has to ensure that his handicap has been entered on the card, check that both he and the marker have signed, then submit the card - after entering the scores on the computer if that is how his club works. Is his committee going to ask every competitor "can you tell me exactly when you signed this card?". I think not.
williamalex1
Money List Winner
6-6b/8 ?
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
I don't know where you get this interpretation from - 6-6a includes "On completion of the round the marker must sign the score card and hand it to the competitor." which would make the above procedure a breach.
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
Old Skier
Tour Winner
No, but some FC who comes second behind someone he/she knows has pre signed their card comes to the committee for a decision, and then it really starts to get interesting depending on who from this forum is on the committee.
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
shouldn't matter who's on the committee - this is exactly what the procedures are in place for.
either the winner, or the person who came second and raised the issue, should request that the committee refer the matter to the R&A for a ruling (obviously depending on the committee's initial ruling!). They are required to refer and you have your ruling....job done.
unfortunately there are some restrictions on the publication of such rulings - but at least in the case of your situation you have a definitive ruling.
williamalex1
Money List Winner
My response was to Rosie's post. Did I get it wrong AGAIN
rule 6-6b / 8, no penalty for not using computer to enter your score.OOPS
Old Skier
Tour Winner
The committee may decide that they already have a ruling from the rule book and decide to go with there reading of 6-6b - jobs jobbed
Colin L
Tour Winner
Yes, but once that decision is reached by the Committee, the player has the right to ask for it to be referred to the R&A/USGA for a ruling on its correctness or otherwise. Duncan was pointing to Rule
34-3:
If the dispute or doubtful point has not been referred to the Rules of Golf Committee, the player or players may request that an agreed statement be referred through a duly authorized representative of the Committee to the Rules of Golf Committee for an opinion as to the correctness of the decision given
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
My response was to Rosie's post. Did I get it wrong AGAIN
my apologies, re-reading Rosecott's post it did include the potentially misleading "The player then has to ensure that his handicap has been entered on the card, check that both he and the marker have signed, then submit the card - after entering the scores on the computer if that is how his club works."
as you point out, via the ruling, the entering the scores on the computer if that's the how the club works is not a requirement in the same way as handicap/gross hole scores and a pair of paw marks all timely returned to the committee
rosecott
Money List Winner
my apologies, re-reading Rosecott's post it did include the potentially misleading "The player then has to ensure that his handicap has been entered on the card, check that both he and the marker have signed, then submit the card - after entering the scores on the computer if that is how his club works."
as you point out, via the ruling, the entering the scores on the computer if that's the how the club works is not a requirement in the same way as handicap/gross hole scores and a pair of paw marks all timely returned to the committee
In the context of the discussion, I was merely pointing out that there might be an intermediate stage before the physical submission of the scorecard.
Old Skier
Tour Winner
Lucky me, I happen to be playing golf on Thursday with a fully trained up R&A rules official. If the excitement of the day does'nt over come me I will ask his opinion/ruling.
3offTheTee
Tour Rookie
Having posted the OP it just shows what a wide variance there is. there is a guy at our place who is a referee and well respected and was not aware of the rule.
Think Kevin Barker at R and A should be contacted
Think Kevin Barker at R and A should be contacted
williamalex1
Money List Winner
Trompement.:thup:
Colin L
Tour Winner
I've come to this thread rather well on in the discussion, but my here is my tuppence worth anyway.
I've little doubt that there is a presumed sequence of events in 6-6b, the last of which being the player signing the card. But I have equally little doubt that the second sentence of the rule is not qualified by "After the completion of the round ...." in the preceding one. There are no words to link the two in that way. The second sentence simply places a requirement on the player to ensure the card is signed by the marker and that he signs it too. The wording of a rule has to be very precise before you penalise a player: if you want to argue for disqualification for signing a card in advance you would have to find the words which precisely allow that. The words aren't there in this instance. The implication of a sequence is not enough.
I just don't go along with the idea that the player who signs his card before the round is not confirming his score with his signature. He submits the card with scores and signature on it: that is the moment when the signature confirms his scores, not when he put the signature on the card. At the time he signs the card, he is not confirming anything to anyone whether it is at the start or at the end of the round.
I've little doubt that there is a presumed sequence of events in 6-6b, the last of which being the player signing the card. But I have equally little doubt that the second sentence of the rule is not qualified by "After the completion of the round ...." in the preceding one. There are no words to link the two in that way. The second sentence simply places a requirement on the player to ensure the card is signed by the marker and that he signs it too. The wording of a rule has to be very precise before you penalise a player: if you want to argue for disqualification for signing a card in advance you would have to find the words which precisely allow that. The words aren't there in this instance. The implication of a sequence is not enough.
I just don't go along with the idea that the player who signs his card before the round is not confirming his score with his signature. He submits the card with scores and signature on it: that is the moment when the signature confirms his scores, not when he put the signature on the card. At the time he signs the card, he is not confirming anything to anyone whether it is at the start or at the end of the round.
Last edited:
Old Skier
Tour Winner
Don’t get me wrong. Iam not advocating a DQ for what may be interpreted as a breach of the rules buthighlighting the problem that could result if the rule was challenged. Perhaps at the next re-write the R&Acould word it in the way that it is meant and not in a way that seems to beopen to different interpretations.
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
you seem to be concluding that this is not the case currently.......
as written the player is not required to sign at a particular point between receiving the card and returning it
if the ruling bodies require that signature at a particular point then yes, I would agree with you that it needs re-wording :thup:
