• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Signing Card

It would be an interesting one for the committee if they became aware of cards being signed in advance and there was no evidence of certification after the round.
There are two distinct matters here. Card signed before the round was finished - no issue. No confirmation of the scores at the end of the round by marker with player - a failure by the marker to meet his responsibilities as detailed in Rule 3.3b(1).
 
There are two distinct matters here. Card signed before the round was finished - no issue. No confirmation of the scores at the end of the round by marker with player - a failure by the marker to meet his responsibilities as detailed in Rule 3.3b(1).
Surely you mean failure of player to certify their scores. The signing of the card beforehand is nothing more than an irrelevant doodle.
 
Surely you mean failure of player to certify their scores. The signing of the card beforehand is nothing more than an irrelevant doodle.

I did mean a failure of the marker to meet his/her responsibilities by not certifying the scores at the end of the round, but you can certainly add a third issue - the failure of the player to meet his/her responsibilities by not ensuring that the marker had certified the scores.
 
I did mean a failure of the marker to meet his/her responsibilities by not certifying the scores at the end of the round, but you can certainly add a third issue - the failure of the player to meet his/her responsibilities by not ensuring that the marker had certified the scores.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the player has not certified their scores?
 
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the player has not certified their scores?
To repeat: if a marker signed the player's card prior to the game and then when the game is completed checks and affirms that the scores they have recorded are 100 per cent consistent with what the player has recorded before handing the card over, then the marker has fully completed all certification requirements of 3.3b(1). If you don't believe that to be the case, I can only suggest you send in your question so you can hear the same answer from the ruling body.
 
To repeat: if a marker signed the player's card prior to the game and then when the game is completed checks and affirms that the scores they have recorded are 100 per cent consistent with what the player has recorded before handing the card over, then the marker has fully completed all certification requirements of 3.3b(1). If you don't believe that to be the case, I can only suggest you send in your question so you can hear the same answer from the ruling body.
In the scenario I put forward, this has not been done - the reason for this specific scenario is that many players go on blind faith or only ever verify gross/nett/Stableford totals.

Sorry, I'm losing track of what point you're trying to make.
You seem to be suggesting that signing the card (player and/or marker) in advance is acceptable; I am saying that while that is technically true, it is also a meaningless action (not just bad practice) as it does not constitute certifying the scores.
 
I don't think there is any disagreement that just signing before a round is NOT certifying a score. In my experience, no players go on blind faith after the round. Also in my experience, if player and marker are completely agreed on the total gross and nett or the Stableford, they would rarely check individual holes after the round - and I don't see a problem with that. Indeed, if they don't find any obvious need to repeat individual hole scores after the round is completed, because the totals are correct, I don't see that the 'certification' quality is any better in that circumstance regardless of whether the marker signed the card before or after the round.
 
I don't think there is any disagreement that just signing before a round is NOT certifying a score. In my experience, no players go on blind faith after the round. Also in my experience, if player and marker are completely agreed on the total gross and nett or the Stableford, they would rarely check individual holes after the round - and I don't see a problem with that. Indeed, if they don't find any obvious need to repeat individual hole scores after the round is completed, because the totals are correct, I don't see that the 'certification' quality is any better in that circumstance regardless of whether the marker signed the card before or after the round.
This is the problem. Checking and certifying the gross hole scores are the requirement; verifying anything else is superfluous, but not verifying the hole scores is asking for trouble, especially in Stableford when people often say how many points they achieved on each hole.

It is not uncommon for players agree on a wrong total which does not match the recorded hole scores, and later query the results - indeed we had exactly this situation yesterday with a scorecard that had a higher gross score on 2 holes than recorded by their markers, but both had somehow managed to get to the same Stableford total!
 
Last edited:
This is the problem. Checking and certifying the gross hole scores are the requirement; verifying anything else is superfluous, but not verifying the hole scores is asking for trouble, especially in Stableford when people often say how many points they achieved on each hole.

It is not uncommon for players agree on a wrong total which does not match the recorded hole scores, and later query the results - indeed we had exactly this situation yesterday with a scorecard that had a higher gross score on 2 holes than recorded by their markers, but both had somehow managed to get to the same Stableford total!
I haven't personally seen this issue but agree people can find multiple ways to submit a score card incorrectly. But your example is not a failure to certify - it is about incorrectly filling in a card. And that failure has nothing to do with whether the marker signed the card before or after the round.
For what it is worth, I agree with you that too many people playing Stableford lose sight of the fact - or are not even aware - that getting the points right is the Committee responsibility, not the player's.
 
There seems to be a lot of fussiness about signing and certifying a scorecard and much less about having the gross scores correct, which is what the Rules require. A returned scorecard requires the player's handicap, 18 correct gross scores and signatures of the player and marker, nothing more. The Rules outline what to do if there are errors/omissions in these requirements. The Committee is responsible for everything else.
 
There seems to be a lot of fussiness about signing and certifying a scorecard and much less about having the gross scores correct, which is what the Rules require. A returned scorecard requires the player's handicap, 18 correct gross scores and signatures of the player and marker, nothing more. The Rules outline what to do if there are errors/omissions in these requirements. The Committee is responsible for everything else.

Correct but incorrect for another 8 days (at least)……
 
I, if player and marker are completely agreed on the total gross and nett or the Stableford, they would rarely check individual holes after the round - and I don't see a problem with that. Indeed, if they don't find any obvious need to repeat individual hole scores after the round is completed, because the totals are correct,


Aside form what this thread is about woe betide them , I have seen many a player lose out because they had not checked individual holes with their marker and just gone by Stableford points (in particular) or nett score. One mate in particular missed out on winning a major club open because his marker had put the wrong gross but right stableford points on one hole and they only agreed the stableford points.
 
Aside form what this thread is about woe betide them , I have seen many a player lose out because they had not checked individual holes with their marker and just gone by Stableford points (in particular) or nett score. One mate in particular missed out on winning a major club open because his marker had put the wrong gross but right stableford points on one hole and they only agreed the stableford points.
Remember, it's the Committee's responsibility to total the 18 gross hole scores and to determine the Stableford points. Player and marker are only certifying the 18 individual gross hole scores. How many time has a marker put the correct score in for the wrong hole(s) and the total ends up the same, or the player/marker just adds up the numbers incorrectly? My advice - keep it simple and do what the Rules require.
 
Remember, it's the Committee's responsibility to total the 18 gross hole scores and to determine the Stableford points. Player and marker are only certifying the 18 individual gross hole scores. How many time has a marker put the correct score in for the wrong hole(s) and the total ends up the same, or the player/marker just adds up the numbers incorrectly? My advice - keep it simple and do what the Rules require.
Is that not pretty much confirm the point jim was making. In other words, the player did not do what the rules require (certify the 18 individual scores), thus losing out in winning the competition due to entry of the wrong gross scores?

My experience is the same btw, nearly every player seems to only confirm the front, back and full 18 nett scores / gross scores. They only ever start checking individual holes if they don't agree the same total scores with their marker. The only time players did it properly was, when I entered an England Golf run event, and they had a proper scorer who sat the players down after the round and went through a proper process of verifying each score (the scorecards also had tear strips, so it was easier to compare your scores with the marker)
 
Is that not pretty much confirm the point jim was making. In other words, the player did not do what the rules require (certify the 18 individual scores), thus losing out in winning the competition due to entry of the wrong gross scores?

My experience is the same btw, nearly every player seems to only confirm the front, back and full 18 nett scores / gross scores. They only ever start checking individual holes if they don't agree the same total scores with their marker. The only time players did it properly was, when I entered an England Golf run event, and they had a proper scorer who sat the players down after the round and went through a proper process of verifying each score (the scorecards also had tear strips, so it was easier to compare your scores with the marker)

Maybe we are out of kilter with other clubs but I am fairly certain that the vast majority of our players spend just around a minute behind the 18th going through the gross scores - hole by hole. Over the years most of us have known occasions where there is a DQ resulting from failure to do this check which takes so little time. This may have something to do with having all our competitions drawn - the message gets around quickly.
 
Maybe we are out of kilter with other clubs but I am fairly certain that the vast majority of our players spend just around a minute behind the 18th going through the gross scores - hole by hole. Over the years most of us have known occasions where there is a DQ resulting from failure to do this check which takes so little time. This may have something to do with having all our competitions drawn - the message gets around quickly.

Our competitions aren't drawn, apart from a couple, but it's the same at ours. Thought it would be the norm everywhere.
 
Top