Texas Scramble Allowance

[williamalex1]

My club have set a maximum team handicap of 7.5 for a 3 man texas scramble

 

[Banchory Buddha]

My club have set a maximum team handicap of 7.5 for a 3 man texas scramble

That's a massive handicap in a scramble, why the angry face?

 

[rulefan]

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 ago

 

[williamalex1]

That's a massive handicap in a scramble, why the angry face?

My team handicap would've been about 13 if they'd stuck to the guidelines . It favours low handicap players.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

My team handicap would've been about 13 if they'd stuck to the guidelines . It favours low handicap players.

There are no guidelines on maximum handicaps. Also there are no guidelines for 3 man scrambles, only 2 or 4 man teams

 

[Colin L]

Indeed it isn't, but the authorities in their "wisdom" decided to regulate it anyway

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.

There are no guidelines on maximum handicaps. Also there are no guidelines for 3 man scrambles, only 2 or 4 man teams

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?

 

[D-S]

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.

 

[Colin L]

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.

As far as I can see, 3 players is much more common than 2. Given that the norm is 4, that's hardly surprising.

While my own club has a set of rules for where a scramble takes you outside the regular Rules, I could probably go to a club down the road for an Open Scramble and find a very different set and then to a club up the road and find none at all. Standardisation could indeed be helpful.

Maybe I should polish mine up and sell them for a donation to charity. ?. And if anyone suggests I had Colin's Beer Fund in mind, I''ll consult my lawyer.

 

[rulefan]

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'.
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.

 

[D-S]

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.

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.

 

[williamalex1]

I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the h/c allowances for a 3-ball scramble were 30% of the lowest h/c player, 20% of the next lowest, and 10% of the highest h/c player .
So why introduce a maximum team h/c limit, ,
The answer, low h/c players don't like losing to high h/c players .
Setting a maximum h/c of 7.5 only affects/lowers the high h/c players, 10h/c and under players stay the same.

 

[rosecott]

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?

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. This is the text of the email I sent to England Golf in May 2021:

"I am having trouble making sense of the CONGU allowances recommended for Texas Scrambles. My understanding is as follows:

Texas Scramble The formula for a 4-player team scramble allowance is 25%/20%/15%/10% from lowest to highest Course Handicap. For a 2-player team it is 35%/15%. For a 3-player team CONGU recommends 30%/20%/10%

A team of 4 players of CH 12/18/24/30 would play with a team handicap of around 13.2.

A team of 3 players of CH 12/18/24 would play with a team handicap of around 9.6.

This defies logic. The 4-man team has the advantage over a 3-man team of one additional player for every shot but it also gets the advantage of having a team handicap which is 3.6 more than the 3-man team.

Can EG or CONGU explain the logic?"

My query was referred to our County Handicap Adviser who telephoned me with a long explanation that boiled down to this - CONGU never intended for them to be used in scrambles with a mixture of 3 and 4-person teams, only all 3-person teams or all 4-person teams. I suspect that this is why there is now no recommendation for 3-person teams.

 

[rulefan]

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.

Very interesting information.

 

[rulie]

I don't support that the "authorities" should be providing the "rules" for scrambles. It would only lead to chaos as each club has their own ideas, goals and objectives. Let the club committee in charge set the rules. And if they don't, let them suffer the consequences and hardships - maybe they will learn to do it better next time. An old saying, "experience is what you get right after you needed it."
The handicap issue likely originates from NA, where it sounds like most scrambles are unashamably won by the team with the sharpest pencil. It's a mug's game.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

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.

Not in Scotland, near every club now has at least one Open scramble per year

 

[wjemather]

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%."​

 

[rosecott]

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%."​

Mentioned in the examples of calculations but, strangely, missing from the table of mandatory allowances.

 

[D-S]

Mentioned in the examples of calculations but, strangely, missing from the table of mandatory allowances.

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.

 

[3offTheTee]

Probably up to The Committee but take it other players in the team are not supposed to stand behind when a player is putting.

it happens all the time

 

[rulefan]

Probably up to The Committee but take it other players in the team are not supposed to stand behind when a player is putting.

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).