Stableford Disqualification

[Colin L]

And it doesn't matter that play was discontinued? That to me is different to just not entering a score for some holes.

It is indeed different. If you miss out some holes in a Stableford round you are not discontinuing play which the Rules do not allow but simply omitting the holes which the Rules (in the Decision cited above) do allow. If the holes you omit are the final ones - whether just the 18th or the 10th to the 18th - that is no different from the missing holes being the 8th or the 15th to 17th or whatever.

Discontinuing play (legitimately or otherwise) means stopping play when you are required to keep on playing. If you choose to omit the 18th in a Stableford, you are entitled to do so i.e. there is no requirement to play it.

You will not find any justification in the Rules for disqualifying the player who played only holes 1-9. That was the realisation I came to which showed I had been mistaken in arguing for a DQ.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I can't see anything wrong with that or why he should be DQ'd for it.

As much as it's within the ROG, The rules also say a stipulated round of golf is 18 holes and if you enter a 18 hole comp, surely your intent should be to attempt 18 holes, if they walk in without playing 18 then surely they have failed to complete the stipulated round (only my thoughts)

 

[Crow]

As much as it's within the ROG, The rules also say a stipulated round of golf is 18 holes and if you enter a 18 hole comp, surely your intent should be to attempt 18 holes, if they walk in without playing 18 then surely they have failed to complete the stipulated round (only my thoughts)

That's certainly the case in a medal round and you could not submit a card without playing and scoring all 18 holes.

The Stableford card will also have 18 holes to be played but they don't all have to have a score for the card to be valid and by that measure I'd guess that you don't actually have to play them all.

 

[Canfordhacker]

What if he's in the last group and he knows he's got the winning score after 15-16 holes, he could NR the remaining and walk in and win!

Surely that is handicap manipulation and the word "bandit" would quickly emerge?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Surely that is handicap manipulation and the word "bandit" would quickly emerge?

But still allowed😃

 

[Deleted member 16999]

That's certainly the case in a medal round and you could not submit a card without playing and scoring all 18 holes.

The Stableford card will also have 18 holes to be played but they don't all have to have a score for the card to be valid and by that measure I'd guess that you don't actually have to play them all.

Absolutely, just don't think that's the way the game is meant to be, to give an example I used on another thread, our 2nd is a Par 3, someone could get a hole-in-one, walk off the course enter 16 NR's order the whiskey, claim the watch and the money from the pot, and all is OK, just doesn't sit right, not having a score and not playing the hole are 2 completely different things to me.

 

[Colin L]

Surely that is handicap manipulation and the word "bandit" would quickly emerge?

Not having to complete all the holes in a stableford competition is a rules matter and it is allowed. If you choose to do so you put yourself at a disadvantage over the rest of the field as you are denying yourself points-earning opportunities.

As far as handicapping is concerned, how can missing out holes in a stableford be manipulation? You miss out a hole and your adjusted scored for handicapping purposes is a nett double bogey. You play that hole and your maximum possible score for handicapping is going to be a nett double bogey.
Play it or miss it out, it makes no difference. Put in a card in a medal with no score at a hole and it's the same thing. You are out of the comp but any handicap changes will be based on a nett double bogey for that hole. You can achieve a handicap reduction with an incomplete card.

 

[Crow]

Absolutely, just don't think that's the way the game is meant to be, to give an example I used on another thread, our 2nd is a Par 3, someone could get a hole-in-one, walk off the course enter 16 NR's order the whiskey, claim the watch and the money from the pot, and all is OK, just doesn't sit right, not having a score and not playing the hole are 2 completely different things to me.

I agree wholeheartedly but the OP's question was about if it would result in a DQ or not.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I agree wholeheartedly but the OP's question was about if it would result in a DQ or not.

True, thought he had been answered and we'd inadvertently moved on

 

[sawtooth]

Not having to complete all the holes in a stableford competition is a rules matter and it is allowed. If you choose to do so you put yourself at a disadvantage over the rest of the field as you are denying yourself points-earning opportunities.

As far as handicapping is concerned, how can missing out holes in a stableford be manipulation? You miss out a hole and your adjusted scored for handicapping purposes is a nett double bogey. You play that hole and your maximum possible score for handicapping is going to be a nett double bogey.
Play it or miss it out, it makes no difference. Put in a card in a medal with no score at a hole and it's the same thing. You are out of the comp but any handicap changes will be based on a nett double bogey for that hole. You can achieve a handicap reduction with an incomplete card.

Are we saying that rule 6-8 discontinuation of play (without Committee approval) is not grounds for DQ in a stableford?

BTW me and the competitor are cool with the whole thing, it doesn't matter a jot but we are both curious to know what the letter of the law is. Its obvious that a DQ can result in a medal if you walk off ie failure to hole out, wrong/missing gross score recorded, etc.

I think its valid not to DQ the player as it does seem pointless in a stableford but what is the proper ruling? Or is there no right or wrong solution to this?

 

[rulie]

Perhaps he withdrew?

 

[Colin L]

Are we saying that rule 6-8 discontinuation of play (without Committee approval) is not grounds for DQ in a stableford?

I'm saying that omitting holes in a stableford is allowed and that if these holes happen to be the last one(s) of a round you are not discontinuing play in terms of 6-8. You reach hole 16 in a stableford and decide to finish there for whatever reason. That is allowed; you are not required to continue play. You reach hole 16 in a medal and you are required to continue play. If you don't, that's discontinuing play.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

I'm saying that omitting holes in a stableford is allowed and that if these holes happen to be the last one(s) of a round you are not discontinuing play in terms of 6-8. You reach hole 16 in a stableford and decide to finish there for whatever reason. That is allowed; you are not required to continue play. You reach hole 16 in a medal and you are required to continue play. If you don't, that's discontinuing play.

Seems to be one of those strange but true scenarios.

I can't see what the difference is really, particularly given that the handicap system is based on stableford.

For example, you could NR the 18th in a medal and still receive a handicap cut, but if you walked off the course after 17 holes you would be DQd. Whereas take the same action in a stableford (and so long as your card is signed) that is ok.

To me, it would make sense that the omitting holes allowance for stableford simply means that it's still a valid score if not all holes are completed, however, I think that is distinct from stopping playing (discountinuing) the round altogether.

I appreciate there isn't guidance to that effect, but that would seem to me to be the better reading of the rules, but from what you're saying probably not the correct one due to the ambiguious drafting of the section around omitting holes from a stableford.

 

[Colin L]

Seems to be one of those strange but true scenarios.

I can't see what the difference is really, particularly given that the handicap system is based on stableford.

For example, you could NR the 18th in a medal and still receive a handicap cut, but if you walked off the course after 17 holes you would be DQd. Whereas take the same action in a stableford (and so long as your card is signed) that is ok.

To me, it would make sense that the omitting holes allowance for stableford simply means that it's still a valid score if not all holes are completed, however, I think that is distinct from stopping playing (discountinuing) the round altogether.

If I decide legitimately to omit the 17th and 18th, you agree that this is permitted in stableford. How can I do that without stopping playing after the 16th which you want to say is not permitted?

I appreciate there isn't guidance to that effect, but that would seem to me to be the better reading of the rules, but from what you're saying probably not the correct one due to the ambiguious drafting of the section around omitting holes from a stableford.

What could be less ambiguous than Decision 32-1/2?

Q.In a bogey, par or Stableford competition, may a player omit, for example, two holes for the round and return a score for 16 holes?
A.Yes

 

[Deleted member 16999]

If I decide legitimately to omit the 17th and 18th, you agree that this is permitted in stableford. How can I do that without stopping playing after the 16th which you want to say is not permitted?




What could be less ambiguous than Decision 32-1/2?

Q.In a bogey, par or Stableford competition, may a player omit, for example, two holes for the round and return a score for 16 holes?
A.Yes

I get what your putting Colin and totally accept it (no choice) I read that though as someone has "done" 18 holes and omitted 2 holes(maybe as part of a 2/3/4 ball), i just get confused with this and the discontinuance of play, I get your example but surely for example the rules wouldn't accept omitting 8/10/12 holes.
Maybe the question has never been asked.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

I think there could be some ambiguity to the meaning of "omit", but in the context and without further guidance to the contrary it probably does include not playing the hole at all.

So I agree then that it could be any hole that is "omitted".

What I was driving at, which seems strange to me, is that in a medal, if you record a NR for any hole you are effectively disqualified from the competition but so long as you complete the round it counts for handicap purposes. However, if you were to discontinue the round, this would be a DQ under 6-8 and not a round that counts for handicap purposes (other than a plus .1).

In a stableford comp, you can omit holes and that could include leaving the course without completing the round and still have your score be included in the competition results, be included for handicap purposes and presumably influence CSS, even if you omitted 17 holes.

So, to me it would make sense that there should be a distinction between omission of holes and discontinuance of a round of golf, but in a stableford context I agree there doesn't seem to be based on the wording of Decision 32-1/2.

 

[duncan mackie]

I think there could be some ambiguity to the meaning of "omit", but in the context and without further guidance to the contrary it probably does include not playing the hole at all.

So I agree then that it could be any hole that is "omitted".

What I was driving at, which seems strange to me, is that in a medal, if you record a NR for any hole you are effectively disqualified from the competition but so long as you complete the round it counts for handicap purposes. However, if you were to discontinue the round, this would be a DQ under 6-8 and not a round that counts for handicap purposes (other than a plus .1).

In a stableford comp, you can omit holes and that could include leaving the course without completing the round and still have your score be included in the competition results, be included for handicap purposes and presumably influence CSS, even if you omitted 17 holes.

So, to me it would make sense that there should be a distinction between omission of holes and discontinuance of a round of golf, but in a stableford context I agree there doesn't seem to be based on the wording of Decision 32-1/2.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick regarding 'discontinuance' in this context. 6-8 covers discontinuance and resumption; discontinuance in this context is temporary, and the rules cover when you can, can't etc

The player discontinuing a medal round isn't DQ'd under 6-8 but for failing to return a score for all the holes.

I hope this helps.

 

[Crow]

And, correct me if I'm wrong please, you can still get a handicap cut even if you've been DQ'd.

I would guess that if the DQ was for an incorrect score or non applied penalty then the card would have to be adjusted to show the correct score before any handicap adjustment was calculated.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

Thanks Duncan. Makes sense and does clear it up I think. I realised that's what the provisions on discontinuance were considering in particular, but not that they were limited to it.

 

[rosecott]

And, correct me if I'm wrong please, you can still get a handicap cut even if you've been DQ'd.

I would guess that if the DQ was for an incorrect score or non applied penalty then the card would have to be adjusted to show the correct score before any handicap adjustment was calculated.

The CONGU manual contains a list of DQ reasons where the scorecard must not be accepted as a correct score and could therefore not lead to a handicap reduction. It also contains a list of DQ reasons where the score can be accepted.