Wrong Handicaps in Matchplay.

[dazzler]

Foursomes Match Play

Team 1 have stated handicaps where one player stated a handicap a shot higher than he should have been getting by accident.
Team 2 have played off their correct handicaps.

Team 2 thought it wasn't right, but didn't verify it and agreed to tee off and completed the match.

Team 1 won the match and written the match result on our score sheet.


Team 2 have later re-checked the handicaps and found the match was played off wrong handicaps.

They've therefore pointed out Rule 3.2c which states the player should be DQ'd.

However, 5.a(7) states the Match is Final once posted.

Rule 20 also states the player can only request a ruling if both a) They did not know about the wrong handicap - which the player has admitted he *thought* it was right. and b) the opponent did not know they had given the wrong handicap.

We believe the match has been finalised and should stand, but understand their point about the wrong handicaps.

Has anyone encountered this and what was the outcome?

 

[Bdill93]

Happened at our club this year a few times actually - final result on the day stood.

How can you rectify in arrears? Whole match could have been played differently and its both pairing responsibility to know handicaps etc before a ball is hit.

I check all opponents handicaps on the day of the match and work from there.

 

[Swango1980]

I'm sure someone will end up posting something more definitive.

But, I'd have thought it would depend on when Team 2 officially raised the point about the wrong handicap (once they confirmed this to be the case) and how the official result is posted? Because, if all it took was for a team to write their name down on the board as the winners and finalise the result, then that would never give the opponents enough time to check a handicap they were unsure of, and raise it to Committee after the match. The (potentially) guilty party would only need to quickly write their name down as winners immediately after the match and not worry about any queries regarding handicaps or other rulings.

Also, I know a team needs to identify any ruling concerns that they will query during the game, asap? Does this also apply to handicaps? The opponent might be fully oblivious that they've been told the wrong handicap, or even unsure what has been given is incorrect, and so this might only ever come out after the match

 

[dazzler]

I'm sure someone will end up posting something more definitive.

But, I'd have thought it would depend on when Team 2 officially raised the point about the wrong handicap (once they confirmed this to be the case) and how the official result is posted? Because, if all it took was for a team to write their name down on the board as the winners and finalise the result, then that would never give the opponents enough time to check a handicap they were unsure of, and raise it to Committee after the match. The (potentially) guilty party would only need to quickly write their name down as winners immediately after the match and not worry about any queries regarding handicaps or other rulings.

Also, I know a team needs to identify any ruling concerns that they will query during the game, asap? Does this also apply to handicaps? The opponent might be fully oblivious that they've been told the wrong handicap, or even unsure what has been given is incorrect, and so this might only ever come out after the match

It's a weird one. The R&A actually state this in Rule 5(a)7.

When a match is determined to be final once the result is recorded on an official scoreboard, the Committee may take responsibility for recording the winner's name on the scoreboard or it may pass that responsibility to the players. In some cases the official scoreboard will be a prominent structure and in other cases it might be a sheet of paper in the golf shop or locker room.

 

[Colin L]

Team 2 have later re-checked the handicaps and found the match was played off wrong handicaps.
They've therefore pointed out Rule 3.2c which states the player should be DQ'd.

As a general piece of information on handicaps (which makes no difference to the situation described by dazzler), you will see from 3.2c(1) that a player/side is disqualified for declaring too high a handicap only if it affects the number of strokes received. But I can't see it as possible in foursomes for a side's stroke allowance to be the same if one of the partners declares his handicap to be a stroke higher than it should be since the combined handicaps of the two partners divided by two will always result in a whole integer or in .5 which will be rounded up.

 

[Steven Rules]

I would be taking this to the Committee and testing it.

3.2c(1) is clear that if a player declares a handicap that is too high and this affects the number of strokes the player gives or gets, and does not correct the mistake before the opponent makes their next stroke, the player is disqualified. The match was over as soon as Team 2 teed off on the first hole - it's just that nobody realised it at the time.

 

[Colin L]

I would be taking this to the Committee and testing it.

3.2c(1) is clear that if a player declares a handicap that is too high and this affects the number of strokes the player gives or gets, and does not correct the mistake before the opponent makes their next stroke, the player is disqualified. The match was over as soon as Team 2 teed off on the first hole - it's just that nobody realised it at the time.

And nobody realised it until it was too late? I'm not at the moment seeing any difference between this situation and the breach of any other rule. It does not come under the very limited breaches which would allow the Committee to DQ after the result had been posted.

 

[Steven Rules]

Yes. I guess I would be appealing to the Committee under Rule 20.3 on the basis of what is reasonable and fair.

Team 1 has committed an act that carries a penalty of (instant) disqualification. I was thinking along the parallel lines of a situation where a ball is holed but the player doesn't realise it at the time, presumes it lost, and does lots of other things with a second ball only to discover later in the play of the hole that the original ball was holed. The outcome with the second ball is irrelevant.

Team 2 is not blameless. They had suspicions of wrongdoing but failed to query it before the result was posted. A key tenet of match play is that players should protect their own rights and interests.

 

[Steven Rules]

As an additional thought for the OP - does the score sheet have a spot to write handicaps on it? Ours does.

The act of writing the (correct) handicaps on the score sheet would have triggered an awareness that the wrong handicap was provided earlier and hence an awareness that they incurred a disqualification penalty. The writing of handicaps on the score sheet clearly happens (a few seconds) before the result is posted and final and thus would permit 20.1b(3) to be invoked in relation to the disqualification penalty that the opponent knew of but did not declare before the result was final.

 

[Colin L]

I don't follow that - probably because I don't know what a "score sheet" for match play is.

 

[Steven Rules]

The OP called it a 'score sheet'. I am assuming it is what we call at our place a 'result sheet'. It is a form we fill out at the end of the match - name of players, membership numbers, handicaps, date of match, result, signature of both players then lodge it in the scorecard return box. The Committee then transcribes the result onto their master draw and posts the result.

 

[clubchamp98]

Going through on a technicality dosnt seem right.

I always thought Players are responsible for how many shots they claim in a match.
Play off a higher handicap DQ regardless imo.

Bit suprized the rules let this happen!

 

[Colin L]

The OP called it a 'score sheet'. I am assuming it is what we call at our place a 'result sheet'. It is a form we fill out at the end of the match - name of players, membership numbers, handicaps, date of match, result, signature of both players then lodge it in the scorecard return box. The Committee then transcribes the result onto their master draw and posts the result.

Thanks Steven. That's hugely bureaucratic and I'm not sure why it should be necessary. The result is, for example, X won 3 & 2. What more is needed - or required? It could be said that even the 3 & 2 is superfluous, All that needs to be said is that X won. Is that extra information ever made use of? If so, for what purpose; if not, why ask for it?

That's not the point of the discussion but I'm curious.

 

[Steven Rules]

I guess it's confirmation that both sides agree the result (and indeed that the match took place at all) and that one party hasn't just made it all up.

Maybe other clubs do it differently, or not at all, but it is how our club does it.

 

[dazzler]

As an additional thought for the OP - does the score sheet have a spot to write handicaps on it? Ours does.

The act of writing the (correct) handicaps on the score sheet would have triggered an awareness that the wrong handicap was provided earlier and hence an awareness that they incurred a disqualification penalty. The writing of handicaps on the score sheet clearly happens (a few seconds) before the result is posted and final and thus would permit 20.1b(3) to be invoked in relation to the disqualification penalty that the opponent knew of but did not declare before the result was final.

No, it's a knockout format, so we just write the name of the winner through into the next round.

I guess it's confirmation that both sides agree the result (and indeed that the match took place at all) and that one party hasn't just made it all up.

Maybe other clubs do it differently, or not at all, but it is how our club does it.

Yes, we've spoken to the 2 groups and both explanations match.
Both parties agree it's an honest mistake.
We're torn between confirming a DQ or confirming the match has been finalised as we are not sure which takes precedent.

Rule 3 states declaring a wrong handicap before or during. Which seems to open the possibility of the match being finalised regardless, once players have shook hands etc.

We may ask the union for clarity.

 

[salfordlad]

I, too, see nothing in the Rules that authorises a Committee to overturn the submitted result. Once a match result is final, it's all over red rover unless there was awareness of the breach by the transgressing party. Please report back if you get a response from sending it upstairs.

 

[backwoodsman]

There's one thing I'm not clear on from the OP - which may (but equally, may not) affect what the more knowledgable have said..

The OP said that Team 1 stated a handicap of 'X' (which as it happens, was 1 too many). OP also stated that Team 2 ' ... thought it wasn't right but didn't verify it ...' What's not clear to me, is whether Team 2, in any way, said anything or otherwise took it up with Team 1 before the match started? (ie did Team 1 know that Team 2 had doubts - and consequently did Team 1 have any inkling that they may have declared a wrong handicap?)

 

[Slab]

There's one thing I'm not clear on from the OP - which may (but equally, may not) affect what the more knowledgable have said..

The OP said that Team 1 stated a handicap of 'X' (which as it happens, was 1 too many). OP also stated that Team 2 ' ... thought it wasn't right but didn't verify it ...' What's not clear to me, is whether Team 2, in any way, said anything or otherwise took it up with Team 1 before the match started? (ie did Team 1 know that Team 2 had doubts - and consequently did Team 1 have any inkling that they may have declared a wrong handicap?)

Yeah if I’d been in Team 2 and suspected Team 1 handicap wasn’t right (even honest mistake) I’d like to think I’d say something before kick off. Even if for some reason it couldn’t be checked before play, at least its out there/mentioned and can be factored into the match

 

[Colin L]

It very easy to look up your opponents' handicaps in advance and to check first thing on the morning of a match in case of any changes.

 

[nickjdavis]

What hasn't been determined is whether the incorrect declaration made any difference to the number of strokes received/given. If there is no difference then the argument is moot anyway.