England: Player in Stableford competition skips holes without teeing off - Is that a DQ?

[smeech8000]

On 3/13/2024 at 12:50 PM, jholz said:

So, from what I am reading here, and what some folks are suggesting...

 

The next time my club has a Stableford tournament, I can choose to just play some of the holes? Like, I could make up my own little mini course, choosing just the holes that I might perform well on and just taking zeros on the rest?

 

That would result in an "legitimate" score for the competition?

 

If you wanted to force every competitor to officially complete every hole, would a committee need to create a specific rule?

 

Why weren't the pros doing this a Castle Pines for all those years? 

 

 

 

Do you know how Stableford scoring works?  0 points is literally the worst you can do on a hole... so if you want to pay your entry fee and play just the holes you want to go right ahead.  I'm sure the field would thank you for self-imposing a limitation upon yourself!

 

This was not allowed in the International because that was a Modified Stableford format, where the max score (double bogey or worse) actually incurs negative points.  Even if they scored using standard Stableford I'm sure a score of 0 points probably would not even make the cut.

[Augster]

What happened in this thread? In before the lock?

 

Question asked, correct answer in the SECOND POST. 

 

What, on EARTH, is confusing about the golf term “for ANY reason”?

[naval2006]

I'd never heard that skipping holes deliberately in a stableford tourney was not DQ.  Not finishing a hole and the corresponding zero is the norm in this type of competition. 

 

This means that I could show up, pay up, and leave without hitting one shot.  I'd sign my scorecard with 0 points before leaving and it would be valid for the tournament.  And if there was a scorecard-raffle after, my card would be in the box and I'd be as entitled as the rest to win a weekend at a golf resort.   

[davep043]

3 minutes ago, naval2006 said:

I'd never heard that skipping holes deliberately in a stableford tourney was not DQ.  Not finishing a hole and the corresponding zero is the norm in this type of competition. 

 

This means that I could show up, pay up, and leave without hitting one shot.  I'd sign my scorecard with 0 points before leaving and it would be valid for the tournament.  And if there was a scorecard-raffle after, my card would be in the box and I'd be as entitled as the rest to win a weekend at a golf resort.   

I think most competitors would want to actually win the event, and ZERO points has absolutely no chance, its the worst score a player could possible have.  A Committee could certainly decide that skipping holes would disqualify a player from the kind of raffle you mention, but the Rules of Golf are pretty clear that the only "penalty" for not playing a hole is a blob.  And as others have said, you must actually start at least 9 holes for handicap posting, and even then the Handicap Committee might disqualify your score (for handicap purposes) if you stop playing without an acceptable reason.

[Mr. Bean]

7 hours ago, naval2006 said:

1) I'd never heard that skipping holes deliberately in a stableford tourney was not DQ.

 

2)Not finishing a hole and the corresponding zero is the norm in this type of competition. 

 

1) I am rather sure there are millions of things you have never heard of but that does not make them untrue.

 

2) Aren't you nullifying your first statement with this second one..?

[Mr. Bean]

7 hours ago, naval2006 said:

This means that I could show up, pay up, and leave without hitting one shot.  I'd sign my scorecard with 0 points before leaving and it would be valid for the tournament.  And if there was a scorecard-raffle after, my card would be in the box and I'd be as entitled as the rest to win a weekend at a golf resort.   

 

No, that does not mean what you propose.

 

What you would have to do is to start your round and walk through the course with your group not playing any holes but not stopping play either. If you just paid the fee and stayed at the club you would not have played a round as you would never had started it. To start a round you need to tee off (Rule 5.3a).

 

But seriously, why would you want to pay for something you do not want to get?

 

No need to answer, you are just trying to make a point but with poor success.

 

[naval2006]

7 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

1) I am rather sure there are millions of things you have never heard of but that does not make them untrue.

 

2) Aren't you nullifying your first statement with this second one..?

In 2) I’ve always meant starting but not finishing. 

[st1800e]

@ParHunter, this is going in circles, time to lock this up?  

[ParHunter]

1 hour ago, st1800e said:

@ParHunter, this is going in circles, time to lock this up?  

I am waiting for a reply from England Golf. I will then post it here. 
 

no point for others to post unless they speak with authority 

[naval2006]

15 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

No, that does not mean what you propose.

 

What you would have to do is to start your round and walk through the course with your group not playing any holes but not stopping play either. If you just paid the fee and stayed at the club you would not have played a round as you would never had started it. To start a round you need to tee off (Rule 5.3a).

 

But seriously, why would you want to pay for something you do not want to get?

 

No need to answer, you are just trying to make a point but with poor success.

 

This was a real situation that took place at my club in the late 80s, when stableford comps were the in thing. This guy wanted to win the resort trip but couldn’t play because he had a bad shoulder. He never told anyone. He got his card, had it signed who knows by whom, posted it with all zeros and left. Back then he was DQ. When he showed up at the raffle and was told so there was a bit of a turmoil. The guy resigned next day and never showed up again. 

[Newby]

9 hours ago, ParHunter said:

I am waiting for a reply from England Golf. I will then post it here. 
 

no point for others to post unless they speak with authority 

I sent a message to my contact at the R&A on Thursday. No reply as yet.

[ParHunter]

I’ve got a reply from England Golf however the answer only relates to qualifying competitions IMHO. I will try to get an answer purely on the rules of golf. 
 

Unfortunately, it’s not the choice of the player not to start a hole/s, unless the club have closed hole/s for maintenance work, or wet ground for example. A golfer must play to the best of their ability under appendix A of the WHS™ rules of handicapping.

 

From the detail listed in the below email, this score should be recorded as a penalty score and the club is within their right to take further action if they wish. 

[Mr. Bean]

5 hours ago, naval2006 said:

This was a real situation that took place at my club in the late 80s, when stableford comps were the in thing. This guy wanted to win the resort trip but couldn’t play because he had a bad shoulder. He never told anyone. He got his card, had it signed who knows by whom, posted it with all zeros and left. Back then he was DQ. When he showed up at the raffle and was told so there was a bit of a turmoil. The guy resigned next day and never showed up again. 

 

Rulings from 1980's are hardly valid in 2024, especially as they involve 2-fold cheeting.

 

 

Edited March 16 by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

33 minutes ago, ParHunter said:

I’ve got a reply from England Golf however the answer only relates to qualifying competitions IMHO. I will try to get an answer purely on the rules of golf. 
 

Unfortunately, it’s not the choice of the player not to start a hole/s, unless the club have closed hole/s for maintenance work, or wet ground for example. A golfer must play to the best of their ability under appendix A of the WHS™ rules of handicapping.

 

From the detail listed in the below email, this score should be recorded as a penalty score and the club is within their right to take further action if they wish. 

 

Having read that answer I have a hard time figuring out what exactly did you ask from them...

[ParHunter]

Whether a player is allowed to skip holes in a Stableford competition. 

i know you don’t like the reply but that’s what I got from England Golf

Edited March 16 by ParHunter

[Ty_Webb]

1 hour ago, ParHunter said:

Whether a player is allowed to skip holes in a Stableford competition. 

i know you don’t like the reply but that’s what I got from England Golf

 

They're answering it from a "does this count for handicap purposes" point of view, not whether they get disqualified for it. Those are very different questions - I would agree that score shouldn't be counted for handicap - otherwise skipping a few holes would be a sandbagger's dream. They're answering the wrong question, which is why I think Mr. Bean was curious what you actually asked.

[ParHunter]

Please read my reply earlier in where I said that the reply was IMHO only for qualifying competitions. 

I will post here when they answer my questions regarding the ruling just on the rules of golf.

[Mr. Bean]

9 minutes ago, ParHunter said:

Please read my reply earlier in where I said that the reply was IMHO only for qualifying competitions. 
 

 

I must miss something here but even in qualifying competitions Rules of Golf tend to be in use 😉

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, ParHunter said:

Whether a player is allowed to skip holes in a Stableford competition.

 

That's IT ?

 

That's ALL you wrote ? If not, kindly post the emali as you wrote it.

 

It's seems pretty clear they're thinking in terms of posting a valid score for handicapping.

 

TIA.

[Imp]

On 3/13/2024 at 3:02 PM, ParHunter said:

From a Handicapping standpoint we are encouraged to come down hard on people that just walk off by applying Penalty scores.

 

But that has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf just the handicapping. 

OK, I'm getting the angle now, which switched/morphed from the original understanding of the question, from "is not playing holes in stableford and taking zeros on them legal for the competition" to "how is someone that doesn't play all holes in a stableford record their handicap properly, and what are the players/committees responsibilities?" We've beat the 1st one to death. Answer is zeros are perfectly legal. 

 

Thankfully, we also have this to see what is, is not allowed, for handicap purposes, when holes are skipped: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/3 2 When a Hole is not Played.htm 

 

Now, afterwards I agree, the committee is going to have to have a long discussion with the player regarding returning a score for handicap purposes with max net double (aka, zero) on their card for holes not played, (if there is a pattern of the player doing this) and how there may need to be some penalty adjustments to their handicap should the behavior continue.

 

Not playing holes and just taking max net double will inflate their handicap for the round(s) this happens on, and the committee is well within their right to a) add penalty adjustment to their handicap or b) disallow the player from playing any further events should the behavior continue.

 

It is also not as simple as saying "don't return a score for handicap purposes" as that is also a form of sandbagging. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 17 by Imp

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, Imp said:

Now, afterwards I agree, the committee is going to have to have a long discussion with the player regarding returning a score for handicap purposes with max net double (aka, zero) on their card for holes not played, (if there is a pattern of the player doing this) and how there may need to be some penalty adjustments to their handicap should the behavior continue.

 

The games I play in now either keep their own handicaps or don't use handicaps so realistically, my GHIN doesn't really come into play anymore. I may drop it next year.

 

Point being, I really don't keep (much) track of how the new handicapping rules work.

 

Isn't someone who plays a round and misses 1 or more holes required to post a hole-by-hole round ?

 

And in doing so, won't the software "fill-in" the missing holes using an algorithm based on the scores of the holes he DID play ?

 

I was under the impression NDB for holes not played is no longer a "thing".

 

So a sandbagging situation of having a really good round going and walking off after say, 14, no longer gets NDB for the last 4 holes. Not so ?

[Mr. Bean]

14 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

The games I play in now either keep their own handicaps or don't use handicaps so realistically, my GHIN doesn't really come into play anymore. I may drop it next year.

 

Point being, I really don't keep (much) track of how the new handicapping rules work.

 

Isn't someone who plays a round and misses 1 or more holes required to post a hole-by-hole round ?

 

And in doing so, won't the software "fill-in" the missing holes using an algorithm based on the scores of the holes he DID play ?

 

I have been told that this is not the case but the value is taken from average scores of a large group of players with similar handicap indeces. I do not know why this method has been chosen as it does not reflect that particular round at all nor does it reflect most expected score of players with same handicap index.

[Imp]

34 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I have been told that this is not the case but the value is taken from average scores of a large group of players with similar handicap indeces. I do not know why this method has been chosen as it does not reflect that particular round at all nor does it reflect most expected score of players with same handicap index.

And why it shouldn't be used. It makes it so they have a proprietary lock on handicapping over something that used to be entirely transparent.

 

It is not a good look.  They've made the process much less transparent and arguably is not equally applied from one person to the next due to the samples being different between players of differing handicaps. 

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I have been told that this is not the case but the value is taken from average scores of a large group of players with similar handicap indeces. I do not know why this method has been chosen as it does not reflect that particular round at all nor does it reflect most expected score of players with same handicap index.

 

Hmmmmm,,,,,,,, that sounds suspiciously close to the PCC adjustment. For full-round differential adjustments I can (mostly) "understand" the PCC concept.

 

But if I'm understanding the 2nd bolded part correctly I would totally agree. What difference does it make how anybody else played that day ? I guess I don't understand how what anybody else shot that day affects how that player "would have" played his missing holes ?

 

But thinking about it a little more, just as the PCC adjustment affects someone's differential for that round (most often) by a single stroke,,,,,, and therefore one's index by .125 of a stroke IF that round is one of the 8 best of the last 20, and even then may not change his playing handicap at all, for the most part it's seldom relevant.

 

Then again, it would be relevant to someone who did have to give up that single stroke in an important event.

[davep043]

7 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

nor does it reflect most expected score of players with same handicap index.

I think it actually DOES reflect the expected differential a large group of players with the identical Handicap Index, assuming the expectation is for something like an "average" score. 

[Newby]

On 3/16/2024 at 4:27 PM, Newby said:

I sent a message to my contact at the R&A on Thursday. No reply as yet.

I have now had a response from the R&A.

My question was - 

The situation relates to a player in a stableford competition who decided not to play a certain hole.

He did not tee off (and obviously didn't hole out). He then played the next few holes recording his score correctly. He then declined to play the last hole.

Should he be DQd or simply given zero points for the two holes not started?

Would the ruling have been different pre 2019?

 

The R&A's response is -

Under Rule 21.1c, there is no penalty for failing to hole out under Rule 3.3c. The nature of Stableford is that if you do not play a hole or fail to hole out, you are just disqualified from that hole (so no points) as you do not have a valid score for that hole. 

This has always been the case and no change from 2019.

Edited March 19 by Newby

[Imp]

I think we all knew that. The OP simply has an axe to grind with this other player because the other player won money via a skin on the hole and is trying anything within their power to not allow them to play anymore. The original question is no longer in play (which is the response you got) and it's all about "...but handicap... sandbagging". Which is more valid, but there still is a process linked above to handle scores when holes not played. 

 

At that, the new system should be handling the skipped holes better with the new algorithm, as long as they didn't enter a score. Again, the rules of handicapping enables this behavior, like it or not. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Newby said:

I have now had a response from the R&A.

My question was - 

The situation relates to a player in a stableford competition who decided not to play a certain hole.

He did not tee off (and obviously didn't hole out). He then played the next few holes recording his score correctly. He then declined to play the last hole.

Should he be DQd or simply given zero points for the two holes not started?

Would the ruling have been different pre 2019?

 

The R&A's response is -

Under Rule 21.1c, there is no penalty for failing to hole out under Rule 3.3c. The nature of Stableford is that if you do not play a hole or fail to hole out, you are just disqualified from that hole (so no points) as you do not have a valid score for that hole. 

This has always been the case and no change from 2019.

 

My talks with fellow USGA types yielded similar comments… as we said… Thank you for posting the question and the answer.

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, Newby said:

I have now had a response from the R&A.

My question was - 

The situation relates to a player in a stableford competition who decided not to play a certain hole.

He did not tee off (and obviously didn't hole out). He then played the next few holes recording his score correctly. He then declined to play the last hole.

Should he be DQd or simply given zero points for the two holes not started?

Would the ruling have been different pre 2019?

 

The R&A's response is -

Under Rule 21.1c, there is no penalty for failing to hole out under Rule 3.3c. The nature of Stableford is that if you do not play a hole or fail to hole out, you are just disqualified from that hole (so no points) as you do not have a valid score for that hole. 

This has always been the case and no change from 2019.

Goes to show what a good question looks like and how an appropriate response is returned.

 

Had a friend here several years ago email USGA. He gave them a leading question and got the answer he wanted. Another friend who is more rule savvy emailed them with a better question and a photo and got a better answer.

[antip]

2 hours ago, Newby said:

I have now had a response from the R&A.

My question was - 

The situation relates to a player in a stableford competition who decided not to play a certain hole.

He did not tee off (and obviously didn't hole out). He then played the next few holes recording his score correctly. He then declined to play the last hole.

Should he be DQd or simply given zero points for the two holes not started?

Would the ruling have been different pre 2019?

 

The R&A's response is -

Under Rule 21.1c, there is no penalty for failing to hole out under Rule 3.3c. The nature of Stableford is that if you do not play a hole or fail to hole out, you are just disqualified from that hole (so no points) as you do not have a valid score for that hole. 

This has always been the case and no change from 2019.

Thank you Newby. That is useful affirmation of the R&A approach in that scenario. It adds some helpful words that are not published in 21.1, namely "if you do not play a hole" has an equivalence to "failing to hole out". In my view, the Rule would be clearer if these words were added to the published version. My preference - ALWAYS - is the published words should be as clear as possible and currently they flunk that test.

 

But, valuable though it was, I point out the question you sent in is NOT the OP. That was a scenario of a player, lock, stock and barrel, ceasing play by the 9th hole, dumping their clubs in their car at that point and playing no more. However, Rule 5.7a states stopping play and failing to report to the Committee is a DQ penalty. And 21.1c says DQ penalties other than those listed in 21.1c still apply. So I believe it would be very helpful to have the R&A respond to the question whether the 5.7a DQ applies in Stableford to the player that genuinely stops play (as opposed to skipping the odd hole). Do you feel you can follow up with the R&A contact on this separate angle?