Tie resolution

badgergm

Newbie
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Messages
247
Visit site
Updating our Terms of Comp. It specified card countback and referred to R&A Committee Procedures for that but on examination it doesn't say what I was expecting, on two counts:

1. I had always thought that last 9, 6, 3, 2, 1 holes was the norm. But those procedures talk of last 9, 6, 3, 1. I think that is what ClubV1 also uses when it suggests order (although you can change the order manually if you wish).

2. It seems to suggest using 'fractional' handicaps for individual strokeplay:

"where the stroke index allocation as set by the Committee is not used, such as individual stroke play, if the last nine, last six, last three holes scenario is used, one-half, one-third, one-sixth, etc. of the handicaps should be deducted from the score for those holes."

I'm not entirely sure what that means - is it suggesting that (with odd indexes on back nine) that with equal net scores on front and back 9 that a PH of 18 would beat a PH of 17? On countback we have always used stroke indexes on countback.

I realise that we can define how we want (and will go with 9, 6, 3, 1 and use of stroke indexes I think), but what do others do?
 
I can answer point 1, we use 9, 6, 3, 1 and this is always the back 9, irrespective of which tee was used to start the round.

As for point 2, no idea.
 
Updating our Terms of Comp. It specified card countback and referred to R&A Committee Procedures for that but on examination it doesn't say what I was expecting, on two counts:

1. I had always thought that last 9, 6, 3, 2, 1 holes was the norm. But those procedures talk of last 9, 6, 3, 1. I think that is what ClubV1 also uses when it suggests order (although you can change the order manually if you wish).

2. It seems to suggest using 'fractional' handicaps for individual strokeplay:

"where the stroke index allocation as set by the Committee is not used, such as individual stroke play, if the last nine, last six, last three holes scenario is used, one-half, one-third, one-sixth, etc. of the handicaps should be deducted from the score for those holes."

I'm not entirely sure what that means
- is it suggesting that (with odd indexes on back nine) that with equal net scores on front and back 9 that a PH of 18 would beat a PH of 17? On countback we have always used stroke indexes on countback.

I realise that we can define how we want (and will go with 9, 6, 3, 1 and use of stroke indexes I think), but what do others do?
What it means is that for a medal comp (as opposed to a stableford, where you DO use the Stroke Indexes to determine nett score) you use fractional handicaps to determine the nett score.

So if you have got a handicap of 16 then you take...

1) 16/2 = 8 shots off the back 9 gross score
2) 16/3 = 5.33 shots off the back 6 gross score
3) 16/6 = 2.67 shots off the back 3 gross score
4) 16/18 = 0.89 shots off the back 1 hole gross score

...to arrive at the nett scores for comparison

(Unfortunately the wording used is a bit clumsy as stableford and medal are both forms of strokeplay....you just use different methodologies to determine nett score in countback scenarios)
 
I do not know what IG is set up for.

This is what we have specified

In the event of two or more competitors returning the same score in a stroke play event, the result shall be determined by the lower net score on the last nine holes on the scorecard, with further countbacks on the last six; last three, or last hole as necessary. If a tied score still results, countback will commence from the front nine; holes 1-6; holes 6-9; hole 9 etc

I think it was a cut a paste from what the R&A suggested but it is many years since I wrote the comps book for the club.
 
I do not know what IG is set up for.

This is what we have specified

In the event of two or more competitors returning the same score in a stroke play event, the result shall be determined by the lower net score on the last nine holes on the scorecard, with further countbacks on the last six; last three, or last hole as necessary. If a tied score still results, countback will commence from the front nine; holes 1-6; holes 6-9; hole 9 etc

I think it was a cut a paste from what the R&A suggested but it is many years since I wrote the comps book for the club.
I'm guessing though that "nett score" can be determined in two different ways...

1) a simple application of where a player gets his strokes based on the Stroke Index of each hole
2) a mathematical pro-rata fractional distribution of a players shots

If you are a nine handicapper and use method 1, and your course has odd SI's on the front nine and even SI's on 9-18, then you will only get 4 strokes on the back nine for consideration in countback. Using method 2, the same player would get 4.5 strokes.

I guess it is up to the committee to decide which way they want to go. I personally have never been a member of a club that does anything other than use method 1 in stableford comps and method 2 in medal comps.
 
I'm guessing though that "nett score" can be determined in two different ways...

1) a simple application of where a player gets his strokes based on the Stroke Index of each hole
2) a mathematical pro-rata fractional distribution of a players shots

If you are a nine handicapper and use method 1, and your course has odd SI's on the front nine and even SI's on 9-18, then you will only get 4 strokes on the back nine for consideration in countback. Using method 2, the same player would get 4.5 strokes.

I guess it is up to the committee to decide which way they want to go. I personally have never been a member of a club that does anything other than use method 1 in stableford comps and method 2 in medal comps.

I have not been involved for some years but I am pretty sure we now would just accept what the computer says.

I do remember the days of sitting at the recorders desk and doing it by hand, many a time in team games it went to front nine.
 
Updating our Terms of Comp. It specified card countback and referred to R&A Committee Procedures for that but on examination it doesn't say what I was expecting, on two counts:

1. I had always thought that last 9, 6, 3, 2, 1 holes was the norm. But those procedures talk of last 9, 6, 3, 1. I think that is what ClubV1 also uses when it suggests order (although you can change the order manually if you wish).

2. It seems to suggest using 'fractional' handicaps for individual strokeplay:

"where the stroke index allocation as set by the Committee is not used, such as individual stroke play, if the last nine, last six, last three holes scenario is used, one-half, one-third, one-sixth, etc. of the handicaps should be deducted from the score for those holes."

I'm not entirely sure what that means - is it suggesting that (with odd indexes on back nine) that with equal net scores on front and back 9 that a PH of 18 would beat a PH of 17? On countback we have always used stroke indexes on countback.

I realise that we can define how we want (and will go with 9, 6, 3, 1 and use of stroke indexes I think), but what do others do?
ClubV1, if still a tie using back 9/6/3/1, uses the front 9/6/3/1. This is what we do also. Twice in my tenure this has still resulted in a tie. Both 9 hole comps. We share the prizemoney then. I think Club Systems then goes alphabetically.
 
I have not been involved for some years but I am pretty sure we now would just accept what the computer says.
Indeed but...reading between the lines, it may now be possible, on the ISV software, for committees to be able to select which method of countback is utilized, for whatever type of competition is being played.

Been so long since i was actively involved I've forgotten...plus we have changed ISV in the meantime as well!!
 
I'm guessing though that "nett score" can be determined in two different ways...

1) a simple application of where a player gets his strokes based on the Stroke Index of each hole
2) a mathematical pro-rata fractional distribution of a players shots

If you are a nine handicapper and use method 1, and your course has odd SI's on the front nine and even SI's on 9-18, then you will only get 4 strokes on the back nine for consideration in countback. Using method 2, the same player would get 4.5 strokes.

I guess it is up to the committee to decide which way they want to go. I personally have never been a member of a club that does anything other than use method 1 in stableford comps and method 2 in medal
ClubV1, if still a tie using back 9/6/3/1, uses the front 9/6/3/1. This is what we do also. Twice in my tenure this has still resulted in a tie. Both 9 hole comps. We share the prizemoney then. I think Club Systems then goes alphabetically.
We are specifying to go hole by hole back from 18th in that scenario. But that would need to be manual…
 
Indeed but...reading between the lines, it may now be possible, on the ISV software, for committees to be able to select which method of countback is utilized, for whatever type of competition is being played.

Been so long since i was actively involved I've forgotten...plus we have changed ISV in the meantime as well!!
I think you can choose fractional method on ClubV1.
 
I have not been involved for some years but I am pretty sure we now would just accept what the computer says.

I do remember the days of sitting at the recorders desk and doing it by hand, many a time in team games it went to front nine.
Is that what it says in the T of C? Seems strange that the Committee wouldn't set the policy and make sure the computer does it according to the policy.
 
I would much prefer if it is a tie that the prize and recognition is shared.
That's the only fair way if you can't have a play-off and is in accordance with Rule 3.3a - which matching scorecards is not, a matter not addressed (obviously) in the Committee Procedure which allows it. [5.6d]
 
Is that what it says in the T of C? Seems strange that the Committee wouldn't set the policy and make sure the computer does it according to the policy.

As already said I am no longer involved in setting up comps so I do not know what the Admin guys set it up as on IG.
 
That's the only fair way if you can't have a play-off and is in accordance with Rule 3.3a - which matching scorecards is not, a matter not addressed (obviously) in the Committee Procedure which allows it. [5.6d]
We have play-offs for board comps. Agree that matching scorecards is effectively random.
 
Top