williamalex1
Money List Winner
My club have set a maximum team handicap of 7.5 for a 3 man texas scramble
Last edited:
That's a massive handicap in a scramble, why the angry face?My club have set a maximum team handicap of 7.5 for a 3 man texas scramble
You told us that a couple of weeks agoMy club have set a maximum team handicap of 7.5 for a 3 man texas scramble
My team handicap would've been about 13 if they'd stuck to the guidelines . It favours low handicap players.That's a massive handicap in a scramble, why the angry face?
There are no guidelines on maximum handicaps. Also there are no guidelines for 3 man scrambles, only 2 or 4 man teamsMy team handicap would've been about 13 if they'd stuck to the guidelines . It favours low handicap players.
Indeed it isn't, but the authorities in their "wisdom" decided to regulate it anyway
I wonder if there is no guidance on maximum handicaps because there was no perception of a need for them. I'm pretty well neutral on the matter simply because I don't know the reasons for imposing them. Any ideas/information/statistics to help my understanding?There are no guidelines on maximum handicaps. Also there are no guidelines for 3 man scrambles, only 2 or 4 man teams
I feel it would be helpful if the authorities did give us the three ball allowance and not let committees interpolate one, no great difficulty (for the authorities) surely? three ball is not a rare format by any means.As I indicated above, though the Buddha won't have read it, there are two separate aspects of regulation - the regulation of how the game is played and the regulation of how handicapping works. As I see it, the R&A and USGA are signalling that a scramble is too much of a distortion of the game as defined in the Rules to regulate (3 mulligans for every shot ?) but given how commonly it is played and how popular it is, are supporting the playing of it by regulating and as a result helping with its handicapping. A support that could be appreciated rather than implicitly denigrated? But perhaps I am reading too much into it.
I wonder if there is no guidance on maximum handicaps because there was no perception of a need for them. I'm pretty well neutral on the matter simply because I don't know the reasons for imposing them. Any ideas/information/statistics to help my understanding?
And a further thought: can you interpolate a 3 person handicap from the percentages for 2 and 4?
I feel it would be helpful if the authorities did give us the three ball allowance and not let committees interpolate one, no great difficulty (for the authorities) surely? three ball is not a rare format by any means.
Also, guidelines, if nothing more, on the rules would be useful to achieve some sort of uniformity (especially as they are insisting on specific allowances). For example drop or place on fairway or rough or bunker. Who plays first, always the person whose ball you are choosing or maybe someone else, thereby affording the person whose original shot you are taking the opportunity to place. Can playing partners stand behind others who are putting etc. etc. I have played with many variations on these points, some sort of standardisation or guideline at least would be of use.
I agree with the 1st paragraph but although I agree with second in principle I believe it would be better if the committee set the detailed 'rules'.I feel it would be helpful if the authorities did give us the three ball allowance and not let committees interpolate one, no great difficulty (for the authorities) surely? three ball is not a rare format by any means.
Also, guidelines, if nothing more, on the rules would be useful to achieve some sort of uniformity (especially as they are insisting on specific allowances). For example drop or place on fairway or rough or bunker. Who plays first, always the person whose ball you are choosing or maybe someone else, thereby affording the person whose original shot you are taking the opportunity to place. Can playing partners stand behind others who are putting etc. etc. I have played with many variations on these points, some sort of standardisation or guideline at least would be of use.
I agree with what you say; the difficulties arise when committees do not set out clear rules as they assume what they do (and have done for years) must be the norm - then without clear rules visitors then revert to their own club’s ‘rules’, strangely enough usually to their own benefit.I agree with the 1st paragraph but although I agree with second in principle I believe it would be better if the committee set the detailed 'rules'.
As there are so many variations (as you indicated above), I would suggest there would never be common ground for one set to be accepted.
However, I would prefer that the RBs set out the potential variant headings (handicaps, rounding, order of play, proximity to spot etc) together with recommended actions. Organising committees could then make their choice and stick to it year to year. My impression is that most scrambles (Texas or Florida) in the UK are played within Clubs and members would soon get familiar with their club's 'rules' and recognise that if they are playing 'away' certain 'local rules' may differ.
As I indicated above, though the Buddha won't have read it, there are two separate aspects of regulation - the regulation of how the game is played and the regulation of how handicapping works. As I see it, the R&A and USGA are signalling that a scramble is too much of a distortion of the game as defined in the Rules to regulate (3 mulligans for every shot ?) but given how commonly it is played and how popular it is, are supporting the playing of it by regulating and as a result helping with its handicapping. A support that could be appreciated rather than implicitly denigrated? But perhaps I am reading too much into it.
I wonder if there is no guidance on maximum handicaps because there was no perception of a need for them. I'm pretty well neutral on the matter simply because I don't know the reasons for imposing them. Any ideas/information/statistics to help my understanding?
And a further thought: can you interpolate a 3 person handicap from the percentages for 2 and 4?
Very interesting information.This thread has stirred a memory of a query I raised with England Golf which suggests that there was, at the start of WHS, a recommendation for handicaps for a 3-person scramble which somehow disappeared.
Not in Scotland, near every club now has at least one Open scramble per yearI agree with the 1st paragraph but although I agree with second in principle I believe it would be better if the committee set the detailed 'rules'.
As there are so many variations (as you indicated above), I would suggest there would never be common ground for one set to be accepted.
However, I would prefer that the RBs set out the potential variant headings (handicaps, rounding, order of play, proximity to spot etc) together with recommended actions. Organising committees could then make their choice and stick to it year to year. My impression is that most scrambles (Texas or Florida) in the UK are played within Clubs and members would soon get familiar with their club's 'rules' and recognise that if they are playing 'away' certain 'local rules' may differ.
Recommendations for 3-person scrambles are given in CONGU's guidance on WHS (p.45 in England/Wales/Ireland; p.46 in Scotland):
"For a 3-player team CONGU recommends 30%/20%/10%."
It would seem sensible to add this to the table as well as 2 out of 3 Stableford and medal as this is an extremely common Club and Open format in this part of the world at least.Mentioned in the examples of calculations but, strangely, missing from the table of mandatory allowances.
See Rules 22, 23 and 24 (in forms of play involving partners, a player's partner and the partner's caddie may take the same actions (with the same limitations) as the player's caddie may take under Rules 10.2b(2) and (4).Probably up to The Committee but take it other players in the team are not supposed to stand behind when a player is putting.