wjemather
Well-known member
If you think Rule 1.3 is not being broken by someone who is refusing to "submit acceptable scores to provide reasonable evidence of their demonstrated ability", you are clearly not understanding the rule.Rule 1.3 isn't really being broken. There are many many players who never submit social scores, yet play a lot of social golf by the rules. I've never heard of a handicap committee suspending their handicaps because they are not submitting those scores, and thus not providing reasonable evidence of their ability. I'm sure many of these players don't have an accurate handicap. Some might be too high, maybe some too low. But I suspect it is rare that the people they play with report them to Committee, especially if they thought the action of the Committee would be to suspend their friends handicap altogether.
I've seen plenty of people rush shots, and often felt they could have done better had they taken more care. But I've never know a Committee to suspend a players handicap for rushing and missing a short putt, because they ruled they didn't attempt to make the best possible score?
Maybe I'm in a minority. But, if you are saying Committees regularly suspend player handicaps because it was reported to them that a player was shooting good social scores, it confirms I've done the right thing in not reporting to Committee. Instead, by speaking to the guy we play with, and encouraging him to submit more scores, has saved everyone the grief of the law
The vast majority of players who are not submitting scores are not then knowingly using their false handicap to cheat others out of prizes, money (or coffee).
Suspended handicaps are restored when sufficient scores have been submitted to provide an accurate index.
And again with whataboutery and the distraction of dreaming up entirely different scenarios that are of zero relevance to the one under discussion.
As you have said several times, your encouragement has failed.