Winter Comp decision

[IanMcC]

If the handicap is not on the card, he does not receive any strokes. He is eligible in the gross competition playing as a scratch. You're saying that he received 15 stokes, that is more than he was entitled to and he is therefore disqualified from the handicap competition.

I agree that something is amiss with the decision that anyone can leave the handicap off of their scorecard and, as long as they can count correctly, will not be disqualified. I think the hole in your specific argument lies in the fact that 3.3b(3) highlighted section specifically states handicap competitions. There would, indeed, be no need for the written handicap in a gross comp. With this interpretation, I cannot see how you can read it other than no penalty. Still does not seem right, I agree.

 

[doublebogey7]

I agree that something is amiss with the decision that anyone can leave the handicap off of their scorecard and, as long as they can count correctly, will not be disqualified. I think the hole in your specific argument lies in the fact that 3.3b(3) highlighted section specifically states handicap competitions. There would, indeed, be no need for the written handicap in a gross comp. With this interpretation, I cannot see how you can read it other than no penalty. Still does not seem right, I agree.

The number of shots received refers to the number of shots you would get from the handicap shown. If no handicap shown then you would receive no strokes. So perhaps you are right, rather than disqualification, the player's net score should equal their gross.

 

[rulie]

I agree that something is amiss with the decision that anyone can leave the handicap off of their scorecard and, as long as they can count correctly, will not be disqualified. I think the hole in your specific argument lies in the fact that 3.3b(3) highlighted section specifically states handicap competitions. There would, indeed, be no need for the written handicap in a gross comp. With this interpretation, I cannot see how you can read it other than no penalty. Still does not seem right, I agree.

And I don't understand how it can read as "no penalty". The Rule clearly says he is disqualified from the handicap competition if he does not record his handicap on the scorecard (and this affects the number of strokes received). Without his handicap being recorded on the card, he is not entitled to any strokes, yet your Committee is giving him 15? How does that equate to not affecting the number of strokes received?

 

[IanMcC]

The number of shots received refers to the number of shots you would get from the handicap shown. If no handicap shown then you would receive no strokes. So perhaps you are right, rather than disqualification, the player's net score should equal their gross.

Again, this all seems quite logical. I cant find your first sentence clarified in the rulebook after an all be it quick scan. I did however come across rule 3.3b (4), which at its end states:

(5) Player Not Responsible for Adding Up Scores or Applying Handicap. The Committee is responsible for adding up the player’s hole scores and, in a handicap competition, applying the player’s handicap strokes.

That would seem to infer that, similar to not writing down Stableford scores, if the handicap is not written down then it is up to M&H to apply it correctly. i.e. if all is OK, fine.

 

[IanMcC]

I suppose we need clarification if a 'player's handicap' is what his CDH says it is, or if it is some other definition. Handicap is unlisted under Definitions.

 

[upsidedown]

Again, this all seems quite logical. I cant find your first sentence clarified in the rulebook after an all be it quick scan. I did however come across rule 3.3b (4), which at its end states:

(5) Player Not Responsible for Adding Up Scores or Applying Handicap. The Committee is responsible for adding up the player’s hole scores and, in a handicap competition, applying the player’s handicap strokes.

That would seem to infer that, similar to not writing down Stableford scores, if the handicap is not written down then it is up to M&H to apply it correctly. i.e. if all is OK, fine.

Playing devil's advocate , how would you feel if all cards were returned with no handicaps shown ? No DQ but his score should be off scratch is my answer .

 

[rulefan]

Incidentally, when I posted the rule originally I was of the opinion that 'The handicap must always be on the card', contrary to Ian's reading. My observations since are reflecting my literal reading. But I haven't convinced myself yet.

 

[Crow]

Playing devil's advocate , how would you feel if all cards were returned with no handicaps shown ? No DQ but his score should be off scratch is my answer .

But what if a +5 player had entered and hadn't put his handicap down, it would be wrong to give him a scratch handicap.

 

[rulie]

3.3b(4)/1 – Meaning of “Handicap” Player Must Show on Scorecard
In net-score stroke-play competitions, it is the player’s responsibility to ensure that his or her handicap is shown on the scorecard. “Handicap” means the handicap for the course and tees being played, excluding any handicap allowances as set out within the Terms of the Competition. The Committee is responsible for applying any handicap allowances and adjustments.

Note that it says MUST Show on the Scorecard. Did the player in question show his handicap on his scorecard?

 

[DickInShorts]

If you are playing in a handicap competition and you fail to write your handicap on the scorecard you must be disqualified
this applies if your handicap is +5. Zero. Or 25.
you obviously can’t play off scratch if you leave it blank

 

[rulefan]

3.3b(4)/1 – Meaning of “Handicap” Player Must Show on Scorecard
In net-score stroke-play competitions, it is the player’s responsibility to ensure that his or her handicap is shown on the scorecard. “Handicap” means the handicap for the course and tees being played, excluding any handicap allowances as set out within the Terms of the Competition. The Committee is responsible for applying any handicap allowances and adjustments.

Thank you. That has convinced me.

 

[Kellfire]

The OP is very confusing. Says he thinks he did something wrong by the rules but thought he was doing the right thing by the spirit of the game. Has rules posted that show his assertion of doing the wrong thing by the rules was correct but then weirdly takes this as the cue to flip his opinion and claim he was right by the rules. Baffling!

 

[duncan mackie]

All a little confusing when you come to it in one hit....

I think Ian's confusion stems from the application of the players handicap by the player in determining his net (stableford) score on the card.
The wording of the rule also seems to be another example of something trying to cover a range of possible circumstances, but within a tighter reference point (handicap competitions). I believe it's actually designed to cover the situation where a different (incorrect) handicap doesn't result in a different handicap allowance, and therefore no advantage was gained.
The relevant area here is no handicap shown - rule breached and penalty applies.

 

[rulie]

All a little confusing when you come to it in one hit....

I think Ian's confusion stems from the application of the players handicap by the player in determining his net (stableford) score on the card.
The wording of the rule also seems to be another example of something trying to cover a range of possible circumstances, but within a tighter reference point (handicap competitions). I believe it's actually designed to cover the situation where a different (incorrect) handicap doesn't result in a different handicap allowance, and therefore no advantage was gained.
The relevant area here is no handicap shown - rule breached and penalty applies.

Agree, Rule breached and penalty applies. The player MUST record his handicap on the card in an handicap competition. If he or she fails to do this simple task, regardless of what else he or she might put on the card, it's dq from that handicap competition

 

[rulefan]

I can see why Ian took the view he did. As Duncan suggests, in attempting to cover the situation where a wrong handicap doesn't affect the strokes received, the RBS had to resort to an Interpretation in order to distinguish between that and an omitted handicap. The Interpretation makes it clear that it is separate offence and nothing to do with strokes received per se.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Would a sensible compromise be not to close the competition and ask the player to complete the card?

 

[doublebogey7]

Would a sensible compromise be not to close the competition and ask the player to complete the card?

Simply no, unless he has yet to submit his card to the committee in the way laid down in the terms of competition.

 

[TheJezster]

Perhaps he didn't write his handicap down as it was only 15 holes?

Anyway, he clearly shot the score he did and won the comp. I think, in this instance, the correct decision was made. Well done on applying a bit common sense I say!

 

[rulefan]

Well done on applying a bit common sense I say!

One problem with common sense is that it is not defined. Which other situations covered by the rules do you think you should ignore because of your definition of common sense. And is everyone bound by your definition? If so, do the Rules need rewriting. If not, anarchy?

 

[IanMcC]

Firstly can I thank all the posters who took the trouble replying to my query.


After much deliberation, and a couple of change of minds after being led astray with a couple of postings, rulie’s #29 post is a clincher for me. It is a DQ, as I originally thought.


Regarding my post at #24, The Committee obviously only applies the handicap, which has been written at the top by the player, if the final deduction has not been applied by the player/marker before submission. That seems fine.


I know that DQ is correct, but there is no other way to read rulefan’s posting at #6 other than ‘player not penalised’. I will just have to put that down to poor syntax by CONGU, or me being too dense to understand the whole phrase. I can live with either. Lets face it, if someone as experienced as rulefan can be confused for a while, then the text cannot be as plain as it could be.


Would I DQ the guy if I marked the cards tomorrow? Of course not. As stated in my original post, if it was a qualifier I would not hesitate to DQ the player, as I have had to do in a number of comps this summer. In this instance, the greater good of golf is served by letting a guy have his first win, with a minor slap on the wrists to be more vigilant next time. I know that will not sit well with most on here, but I stand by it.


I thought it was an interesting topic, and has proved to be so. I really like the forum.