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

[Mr. Bean]

3 minutes ago, Imp said:

Again, why should it not count for handicap purposes when there are methods in place to fabricate scores for each hole not played, based on how others have played? The new system for putting in scores for holes not played *should* take care of this, yes? As long as the player in question is doing it properly, of course. 

 

This is R&A/USGAs bed they made. Now, 'scoring the best' doesn't matter, because some algorithm will just put in scores that are supposedly close... looking at calcs in other threads. And why I have been against it from the beginning, but coming to understand maybe this exact scenario is why they did it? The player shouldn't be inputting double net each hole, but letting the system calculate the strokes for holes missed, yet accept a zero for not playing in the actual comp: The holes not played for index purposes will more than likely be lower than double net.... and if not, capped at double net?  *lightbulb*

 

 

 

No handicapping system ever can be perfect, there will always be flaws, but I have never understood that "most probable score" or whatever it is. If you have no score for a hole then you have no score and the score for that hole is net double bogey for handicapping purposes. Period.

 

BUT when you deliberately play poorly or omit holes in order to affect your Handicap Index the Handicap Committee should give you a warning and refuse to take that particular round into the HI calculation. If that happens often enough you will be deprived of HI altogether.

 

Before this WHS nonsense around here one could only post scores for full 9 holes of full 18 holes. If you had to leave after 16 holes you did nto get that into teh HI calculations if you had annouced before hand that you are playing 18 holes. Although, even in that system you got an 0,1 increase if you did not post your card to the Committee, which some sandbaggers used to increase their HI.

 

As I said, there is and never will be a perfect handicap calculation system.

[jaffabell]

This is what is wrong with club golf (well a small part of it).

 

I would understand if this was some kind of county competition, or something serious but if its a normal club comp, why the need to find a reason to DQ? Have you actually asked the person why they didn't complete?

 

You have to understand that the majority of people play golf and comps just for fun. It doesn't sound like he was doing anything to effect his handicap.

 

This may have been mentioned or resolved but I was raging after reading the 1st page, it just feels like the OP is looking for a reason to DQ, even when reasonable arguments against a DQ were made.

Edited March 20 by jaffabell

[Ty_Webb]

9 hours ago, Augster said:

Should the player have a penalty score applied? Absolutely. He played like a complete clown. 

 

I really don't think it's appropriate to apply a penalty score for a player who is out of season. If he got 100 points it wouldn't count for his handicap (it might make the newspapers though). 

 

If this was in season (or qualifying for handicap purposes), and this had gone down exactly the same way, then yes penalty score is appropriate. It wasn't though. So his score stands, he gets his 2s money and nothing happens to his handicap (or anyone else's). 

[ParHunter]

42 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

I really don't think it's appropriate to apply a penalty score for a player who is out of season. If he got 100 points it wouldn't count for his handicap (it might make the newspapers though). 

 

If this was in season (or qualifying for handicap purposes), and this had gone down exactly the same way, then yes penalty score is appropriate. It wasn't though. So his score stands, he gets his 2s money and nothing happens to his handicap (or anyone else's). 

I think you misunderstood this. If it is a non-qualifying comp then there won't be a penalty score. Only if this would have been a qualifying competition.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, ParHunter said:

He did not really leave the course (that is just one example in 5.7a), he put his clubs in his car but continued to walk the course. It really comes down to what is the definition of stopping play. IMHO if you don't carry clubs with you and you have no intention of hitting another shot than that would qualify as 'stopping play'. But that is just my opinion. I don't get to make the rules I only get to apply them. I just need to know what the ruling would be.

 

I feel like it's been made clear that it's not a 5.7 issue.

[Ty_Webb]

26 minutes ago, ParHunter said:

I think you misunderstood this. If it is a non-qualifying comp then there won't be a penalty score. Only if this would have been a qualifying competition.

 

Yes that's what I was saying - maybe that's also what Augster was saying and I misunderstood

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, jaffabell said:

This is what is wrong with club golf (well a small part of it).

 

I would understand if this was some kind of county competition, or something serious but if its a normal club comp, why the need to find a reason to DQ? Have you actually asked the person why they didn't complete?

 

You have to understand that the majority of people play golf and comps just for fun. It doesn't sound like he was doing anything to effect his handicap.

 

This may have been mentioned or resolved but I was raging after reading the 1st page, it just feels like the OP is looking for a reason to DQ, even when reasonable arguments against a DQ were made.

 

My friend, you have to understand that this is a "Rules of Golf" forum.

 

There are plenty of places to express your consternation about whether the game should be taken so seriously or not.

 

The OP is a Committee chair(?) in his club. You either follow the rules in a comp or you don't.

 

Having walked in the same shoes myself I can assure you, when you "rule" one way in 1 comp and rule the opposite way in the next one, you will get some serious pushback - even if the comps ARE "for fun". 

[nsxguy]

[redacted - already covered]

Edited March 20 by nsxguy

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I believe that goes without saying as the WHS requires players to try to score their best. Not doing that is an attempt to manipulate player's HI and that score is not eligible. However, in a Stableford competition the score should stand BUT not be taken into HI calculations. Thus very much opposite from normal stroke play.

 

Not doing that may be an attempt to manipulate player's HI

 

 

4 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

No handicapping system ever can be perfect, there will always be flaws, but I have never understood that "most probable score" or whatever it is. If you have no score for a hole then you have no score and the score for that hole is net double bogey for handicapping purposes. Period.

 

BUT when you deliberately play poorly or omit holes in order to affect your Handicap Index the Handicap Committee should give you a warning and refuse to take that particular round into the HI calculation. If that happens often enough you will be deprived of HI altogether.

 

Before this WHS nonsense around here one could only post scores for full 9 holes of full 18 holes. If you had to leave after 16 holes you did nto get that into teh HI calculations if you had annouced before hand that you are playing 18 holes. Although, even in that system you got an 0,1 increase if you did not post your card to the Committee, which some sandbaggers used to increase their HI.

 

As I said, there is and never will be a perfect handicap calculation system.

 

These 2 posts are your "opinions" ? Or are you stating (what you believe to be) facts ?

 

The handicap system accounts, at least in part, for human nature; i.e. having a bad round and NOT trying quite so hard (if at all) for the final X holes. That's one reason why only 40% of one's last 20 rounds count.

 

Stableford is stroke play. Not(?) coincidentally, zero points on a hole IS net double bogey, is it not ? Exactly when strokes taken are tossed out for handicap purposes in a "normal" net play game.

 

So why shouldn't Stableford scores count ? And if they didn't, aiui, few players in the UK would be posting more than what, 10% of their rounds ?

 

And the WHS has concluded that MORE scores input to one's handicap = more accurate handicaps, hence the adding of scores of incomplete rounds.

 

A perfect example of sandbagging would be the guy who's having a great round, for no particular purpose (i.e. no comp or bets on the line) and walking off after 17; therefore having no qualms about not posting that round.

[jaffabell]

25 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

My friend, you have to understand that this is a "Rules of Golf" forum.

 

There are plenty of places to express your consternation about whether the game should be taken so seriously or not.

 

The OP is a Committee chair(?) in his club. You either follow the rules in a comp or you don't.

 

Having walked in the same shoes myself I can assure you, when you "rule" one way in 1 comp and rule the opposite way in the next one, you will get some serious pushback - even if the comps ARE "for fun". 

Totally fair, it was my 1st time in all my years of WRX that I have wandered in to this section 🙂

 

I guess my gripe was that the OP seemed hell bent on it being a DQ, when he had an obvious reason and arguments to show that it didn't need to be a DQ under the stableford rules. He maybe didn't mean to come across that way I suppose. It looks like someone else got it resolved by the R&A anyways so all good.

[nsxguy]

12 minutes ago, jaffabell said:

Totally fair, it was my 1st time in all my years of WRX that I have wandered in to this section 🙂

 

I guess my gripe was that the OP seemed hell bent on it being a DQ, when he had an obvious reason and arguments to show that it didn't need to be a DQ under the stableford rules. He maybe didn't mean to come across that way I suppose. It looks like someone else got it resolved by the R&A anyways so all good.

 

And maybe your last time ?

 

Just kidding. The Rules guys around here, often referees themselves and sometimes I believe at fairly high levels, who I refer to sometimes as "Rulies", are usually very tolerant, not to mention helpful, to those of us who "aren't quite up with the rules" (<-- how's that for understatement ? ).

 

So long as those of us who are less knowledgeable don't try their patience too much - you know, like when our 4th-grade teachers got testy with us for trying to "get" them.

 

This place is great, maybe my favorite place on the site. I learn a lot here and it's even fun (sometimes), especially if/when Mr Bean shows a sense of humor.

 

Welcome !!! Enjoy !!!

 

 

 

Edited March 20 by nsxguy

[ParHunter]

54 minutes ago, jaffabell said:

Totally fair, it was my 1st time in all my years of WRX that I have wandered in to this section 🙂

 

I guess my gripe was that the OP seemed hell bent on it being a DQ, when he had an obvious reason and arguments to show that it didn't need to be a DQ under the stableford rules. He maybe didn't mean to come across that way I suppose. It looks like someone else got it resolved by the R&A anyways so all good.

How about you read all my posts? It is not about this one player and one comp but how to ‘read’ the rules. There is ambiguity in the rules as in all regulations. That’s why you have rules officials in golf or judges in normal life. 
 

Do I think the player behaved wrong? Yes I do. If I wanted to DQ him I could have done it on the day but I wanted to know which rules apply or not apply here. 

[Imp]

Non-comp = no handicap submission = no harm, no foul. 

 

Quote

Qualifying Competitions under the WHS: Player can not chose to not Start a hole without a valid reason (injury, sickness are valid reasons!). Player is DQed and a penalty score might be applied as this could be an attempt to protect his handicap. This would normally be a decision of the committee.

 

Stableford 21.1.a... Your score or your side’s score for a hole is based on points awarded by comparing your number of strokes or your side’s number of strokes on the hole to a fixed score for the hole set by the Committee.

 

21.1.b To help pace of play, players are encouraged to stop playing a hole when their score will result in zero points.

 

Again, if I were the competitor and I were DQ because I took the max fixed score set by the Committee for holes not played, following the rules, AND I stopped play because my play was holding the groups pace back, especially if were out of position, or literally any other reason, there would be words.

 

The rules allow the player in stableford to not complete holes, because pace, and take the committees max score, zero, instead. It really does not get any simpler than that.  The reasons cited in rule 5 are irrelevant when the player stayed with the group, acted as marker, and complied with 21.1.a and 21.1.b. (which supersedes "regular" Strokeplay rules). Play wasn't stopped for the group. 

Edited March 20 by Imp

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, ParHunter said:

How about you read all my posts? It is not about this one player and one comp but how to ‘read’ the rules. There is ambiguity in the rules as in all regulations. That’s why you have rules officials in golf or judges in normal life. 
 

Do I think the player behaved wrong? Yes I do. If I wanted to DQ him I could have done it on the day but I wanted to know which rules apply or not apply here. 

 

Whoa. Easy there my friend. He "apologized" after all.

 

Anyway, the USGA answered me. Here's my QUESTION (don't believe my slight changes to the original situation affect the answer)

 

"Stableford competition.

 

A player plays the 1st 13 holes and stops (for whatever reason).

 

Rule 21.1 (Stableford) - 21.1c says "All penalties that apply in stroke play apply in Stableford, except that a player who breaches any of these five Rules is not disqualified but gets zero points for the hole where the breach happened"

 

Followed by 5 specific instances. And then "If the player breaches any other Rule with a penalty of disqualification, the player is disqualified. "

 

Rule 5.7a, NOT one of the Rules "overriden" says, after giving some reasons for "must NOT stop play" finally says " If a player stops play for any reason not allowed under this Rule or fails to report to the Committee when required to do so, the player is disqualified."

 

So, in the example in the beginning, Player A stopped playing after the 13th hole, walked the rest of the round and signed and turned in his scorecard with NS for the holes not played and his total points through 14 holes.

 

Is this player DQ'd under 5.7a ? Or does his total score up to the end of the 13th hole stand ?"

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Their answer is essentially the same as the R&A's answer newby posted earlier (<-- link) - although they cite a different point under - 21.1b(1) (under the "scoring chart"), accent on the words "any reason"

 

I think this is enough reason to NOT DQ the player who stopped after 9 since, especially since he properly completed and signed his card.

 

Now the WHS handicap questions ? It would seem that's up to the (Handicap ?) Committee's investigation.

 

Hope this helps. 👍

[Ty_Webb]

2 hours ago, ParHunter said:

Do I think the player behaved wrong? Yes I do. If I wanted to DQ him I could have done it on the day but I wanted to know which rules apply or not apply here. 

 

No rules appear to apply that you could have disqualified him under. He didn't do anything wrong (in the eyes of the rules anyway). To be honest I don't think he really did anything wrong either. It's fairly childish to quit playing because of a disagreement with a playing partner, but he stuck around, walked the rest of the holes, signed his card with nothing incorrect on it. He should not be disqualified for that. 

[antip]

3 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Whoa. Easy there my friend. He "apologized" after all.

 

Anyway, the USGA answered me. Here's my QUESTION (don't believe my slight changes to the original situation affect the answer)

 

"Stableford competition.

 

A player plays the 1st 13 holes and stops (for whatever reason).

 

Rule 21.1 (Stableford) - 21.1c says "All penalties that apply in stroke play apply in Stableford, except that a player who breaches any of these five Rules is not disqualified but gets zero points for the hole where the breach happened"

 

Followed by 5 specific instances. And then "If the player breaches any other Rule with a penalty of disqualification, the player is disqualified. "

 

Rule 5.7a, NOT one of the Rules "overriden" says, after giving some reasons for "must NOT stop play" finally says " If a player stops play for any reason not allowed under this Rule or fails to report to the Committee when required to do so, the player is disqualified."

 

So, in the example in the beginning, Player A stopped playing after the 13th hole, walked the rest of the round and signed and turned in his scorecard with NS for the holes not played and his total points through 14 holes.

 

Is this player DQ'd under 5.7a ? Or does his total score up to the end of the 13th hole stand ?"

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Their answer is essentially the same as the R&A's answer newby posted earlier (<-- link) - although they cite a different point under - 21.1b(1) (under the "scoring chart"), accent on the words "any reason"

 

I think this is enough reason to NOT DQ the player who stopped after 9 since, especially since he properly completed and signed his card.

 

Now the WHS handicap questions ? It would seem that's up to the (Handicap ?) Committee's investigation.

 

Hope this helps. 👍

Thank you for this. It works for me. It is a written USGA-sanctioned piece of advice that states categorically that stopping play during Stableford (your example was the 13th, the OP was the 9th but which hole wouldn't make a jot of difference) does not attract the Rule 5.7a penalty. And by extension, this answer would apply to Maximum Score and Par/Bogey events. 

Onward and upward! My preferred next version of the book would correct that inaccurate and misleading statement from 21.1c, 21.2c and 21.3c: "If the player breaches any other Rule with a penalty of disqualification, the player is disqualified." If left unchanged, another bunch of rules discussants down the track will be revisting this same issue.

 

Public scrutiny and discussion like this has often been a constructive catalyst for RBs to keep improving the book - many of the small, useful tweaks in the 2023 version reflect this. I thank ParHunter for bringing this scenario. 

[nsxguy]

39 minutes ago, antip said:

Thank you for this. It works for me. It is a written USGA-sanctioned piece of advice that states categorically that stopping play during Stableford (your example was the 13th, the OP was the 9th but which hole wouldn't make a jot of difference) does not attract the Rule 5.7a penalty. And by extension, this answer would apply to Maximum Score and Par/Bogey events. 

Onward and upward! My preferred next version of the book would correct that inaccurate and misleading statement from 21.1c, 21.2c and 21.3c: "If the player breaches any other Rule with a penalty of disqualification, the player is disqualified." If left unchanged, another bunch of rules discussants down the track will be revisting this same issue.

 

Public scrutiny and discussion like this has often been a constructive catalyst for RBs to keep improving the book - many of the small, useful tweaks in the 2023 version reflect this. I thank ParHunter for bringing this scenario. 

 

You're welcome. 👍

 

Frankly, @Newby was correct in the beginning as was Mr Bean and others, and newby posted the R&A version and I had no doubt they would be in lockstep with the USGA.

 

Thanks to @ParHunter as well for re-opening the topic to get full clarification.

[antip]

6 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

You're welcome. 👍

 

Frankly, @Newby was correct in the beginning as was Mr Bean and others, and newby posted the R&A version and I had no doubt they would be in lockstep with the USGA.

 

Thanks to @ParHunter as well for re-opening the topic to get full clarification.

Not the same things at all. What newby sent in (skip a hole, return and keep playing) is not in the same camp as player starts an 18 hole Stableford competition, gets say 6 holes in playing badly so says "hey guys, I'm going home to watch the football, this is just too painful for words. I'll pass Bill's card back to him signed for the holes I've seen for someone else to carry on with marking and if Fred can sign my card for the holes completed, I'll countersign and hand it in as I'm leaving."
That is a 5.7a scenario, quite unlike the skip a hole and play on scenario. 
So the USGA answer you have received, IMO, is significant and makes very clear that a particular sentence published in 21.1c, 21.2c and 21.3c is simply incorrect. 

Edited March 21 by antip
typo

[jaffabell]

17 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

And maybe your last time ?

 

Just kidding. The Rules guys around here, often referees themselves and sometimes I believe at fairly high levels, who I refer to sometimes as "Rulies", are usually very tolerant, not to mention helpful, to those of us who "aren't quite up with the rules" (<-- how's that for understatement ? ).

 

So long as those of us who are less knowledgeable don't try their patience too much - you know, like when our 4th-grade teachers got testy with us for trying to "get" them.

 

This place is great, maybe my favorite place on the site. I learn a lot here and it's even fun (sometimes), especially if/when Mr Bean shows a sense of humor.

 

Welcome !!! Enjoy !!!

 

 

 

Haha true, I kind of realised that when I read further in to the thread. I initially thought it was more light hearted, and obviously things can come across different on a screen. I apologise to @ParHunter for any offence, it wasn't meant as such

[Mr. Bean]

7 hours ago, antip said:

So the USGA answer you have received, IMO, is significant and makes very clear that a particular sentence published in 21.1c, 21.2c and 21.3c is simply incorrect. 

 

If you keep the sentence in context it is not incorrect, insufficient maybe. After all the Rule says "for the hole where the breach happened". In my mind that is clear and indicates towards isolated events, not stopping play.

 

I sure have no problem if 5.7a would be added but it cannot be included in the current list, it has to be separately mentioned as it has completely different nature than those five other Rules.

[antip]

8 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

If you keep the sentence in context it is not incorrect, insufficient maybe. After all the Rule says "for the hole where the breach happened". In my mind that is clear and indicates towards isolated events, not stopping play.

 

I sure have no problem if 5.7a would be added but it cannot be included in the current list, it has to be separately mentioned as it has completely different nature than those five other Rules.

I agree the context of the misleading paragraph ("If the player breaches any other rule ...") is unrelated to the previous paragraph - I wasn't suggesting it is. I absolutely agree that adding a 5.7a reference to the previous para is not a fix.

 

My point remains - the ruling NSX received is significant because it directly contradicts that sentence in  21.1c, 21.2c and 21.3c.

This is not something that concerns me - I'm always happy to learn about and make appropriate annotations in my book where we get official advice that we cannot rely on the words in the book. (I have a lot of annotations in my book.) But I continue to hope that when examples like this emerge, they get tidied up in a future version. And we agree that adding a 5.7a reference to the previous paragraph is not the way to tidy it up in this case.

I also think that this ruling has implications for where the line is drawn for other DQ penalties in Stableford/Maximum Score and Par/Bogey - but I'm going to take those issues up directly.

[nsxguy]

16 hours ago, antip said:

Not the same things at all. What newby sent in (skip a hole, return and keep playing) is not in the same camp as player starts an 18 hole Stableford competition, gets say 6 holes in playing badly so says "hey guys, I'm going home to watch the football, this is just too painful for words. I'll pass Bill's card back to him signed for the holes I've seen for someone else to carry on with marking and if Fred can sign my card for the holes completed, I'll countersign and hand it in as I'm leaving."
That is a 5.7a scenario, quite unlike the skip a hole and play on scenario. 
So the USGA answer you have received, IMO, is significant and makes very clear that a particular sentence published in 21.1c, 21.2c and 21.3c is simply incorrect. 

 

Sorry, the only difference I see is the response I got pointed to a slightly different solution as to why 5.7a isn't applicable.

 

Newby's question to R&A - "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"

 

Response -

 

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 question to USGA - "Stableford competition.

 

A player plays the 1st 13 holes and stops (for whatever reason)."

 

[snip]

 

Rule 5.7a, NOT one of the Rules "overriden" says, after giving some reasons for "must NOT stop play" finally says " If a player stops play for any reason not allowed under this Rule or fails to report to the Committee when required to do so, the player is disqualified.

 

[snip]

 

Is this player DQ'd under 5.7a ? Or does his total score up to the end of the 13th hole stand ?"

 

Answer - NO DQ under 5.7a. "for any reason" 21.1b(1) (under the chart) - A player who does not hole out under the Rules for any reason gets zero points for the hole.

 

 

The WHS, and possible penalty scores, apparently IS (was ?) concerned with players not handing in scorecards for incomplete rounds (Parhunter's link) - but that was in 2020. The more recent process of skipping holes and the WHS filling them in would seem to answer much of that concern.

[antip]

10 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Sorry, the only difference I see is the response I got pointed to a slightly different solution as to why 5.7a isn't applicable.

 

Newby's question to R&A - "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"

 

Response -

 

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 question to USGA - "Stableford competition.

 

A player plays the 1st 13 holes and stops (for whatever reason)."

 

[snip]

 

Rule 5.7a, NOT one of the Rules "overriden" says, after giving some reasons for "must NOT stop play" finally says " If a player stops play for any reason not allowed under this Rule or fails to report to the Committee when required to do so, the player is disqualified.

 

[snip]

 

Is this player DQ'd under 5.7a ? Or does his total score up to the end of the 13th hole stand ?"

 

Answer - NO DQ under 5.7a. "for any reason" 21.1b(1) (under the chart) - A player who does not hole out under the Rules for any reason gets zero points for the hole.

 

 

The WHS, and possible penalty scores, apparently IS (was ?) concerned with players not handing in scorecards for incomplete rounds (Parhunter's link) - but that was in 2020. The more recent process of skipping holes and the WHS filling them in would seem to answer much of that concern.

I would not treat Newby's scenario as a breach of 5.7a, your highlighted words here do not make it a 5.7a trigger, that person is simply skipping holes.

ParHunter's OP was different.
The reasoning the USGA used in your response is, not to put too fine a point on it, a crock. They are grasping at straws to override a mistake in the drafting of 21.1c, 21.2c and 21.3c. This is what regulators have no choice but to do when caught with their pants down. But don't misunderstand me - I completely support the outcome of their ruling and their reasoning for it - they don't want those (unfortunate) 21.1c, 21.2c and 21.3c words to apply. We are all consenting adults here, we don't need to pretend that the original published words got it right. 
There are examples like this in a number of places throughout the book and I am always happy to hear that RBs have recognised the issue and ruled appropriately. 
 

[nsxguy]

21 minutes ago, antip said:

I would not treat Newby's scenario as a breach of 5.7a, your highlighted words here do not make it a 5.7a trigger, that person is simply skipping holes.

 

ParHunter's OP was different.

The reasoning the USGA used in your response is, not to put too fine a point on it, a crock. They are grasping at straws to override a mistake in the drafting of 21.1c, 21.2c and 21.3c. This is what regulators have no choice but to do when caught with their pants down. But don't misunderstand me - I completely support the outcome of their ruling and their reasoning for it - they don't want those (unfortunate) 21.1c, 21.2c and 21.3c words to apply. We are all consenting adults here, we don't need to pretend that the original published words got it right. 
There are examples like this in a number of places throughout the book and I am always happy to hear that RBs have recognised the issue and ruled appropriately. 
 

 

You seem to be addressing 2 points here.

 

Firstly, I'm missing something again, am I not ? I don't see where the OP's issue is different.

 

The player played 5 holes, skipped 2, played the 8th and the stopped playing.

 

Newby has the player skipping a hole, continuing and stopping after 17.

 

I had the player play 13 holes and then stop.

 

The OP was concerned 5.7a applies as it is NOT listed as an exception in 21c, therefore should be enforced.

 

In all 3 cases, the player stopped before finishing the round, so I don't see any difference.

 

Now, if you want to say there's a "coverup" because they inadvertently omitted a rule 5.7 DQ for not finishing the round, as a 6th bullet point/reason in 21c for NOT DQ'ing a player in Stableford, I can certainly consider that a possibility. 👍

 

Conspiracy theories abound here in the States and "CYA" is a real thing,,,,,,,,,, in all sorts of cases.

[Augster]

On 3/20/2024 at 8:46 AM, Ty_Webb said:

 

I really don't think it's appropriate to apply a penalty score for a player who is out of season. If he got 100 points it wouldn't count for his handicap (it might make the newspapers though). 

 

If this was in season (or qualifying for handicap purposes), and this had gone down exactly the same way, then yes penalty score is appropriate. It wasn't though. So his score stands, he gets his 2s money and nothing happens to his handicap (or anyone else's). 

100% agree. 

 

If it’s out of season, let the guy do what he wants. It’s not being posted anyway. And it’s stableford. 
 

 

[antip]

4 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

You seem to be addressing 2 points here.

 

Firstly, I'm missing something again, am I not ? I don't see where the OP's issue is different.

 

The player played 5 holes, skipped 2, played the 8th and the stopped playing.

 

Newby has the player skipping a hole, continuing and stopping after 17.

 

I had the player play 13 holes and then stop.

 

The OP was concerned 5.7a applies as it is NOT listed as an exception in 21c, therefore should be enforced.

 

In all 3 cases, the player stopped before finishing the round, so I don't see any difference.

 

Now, if you want to say there's a "coverup" because they inadvertently omitted a rule 5.7 DQ for not finishing the round, as a 6th bullet point/reason in 21c for NOT DQ'ing a player in Stableford, I can certainly consider that a possibility. 👍

 

Conspiracy theories abound here in the States and "CYA" is a real thing,,,,,,,,,, in all sorts of cases.

I don't see the Newby scenario as a breach of 5.7a. The one you sent and the OP (and the even more robust version I included earlier) I do see as a breach of 5.7a. If that is not your view then we will agree to differ. 
I support the ruling you received but I don't believe it is consistent with the published words (which are flawed).
I don't think we have anything new to discuss at this stage.

[Ty_Webb]

4 hours ago, antip said:

I don't see the Newby scenario as a breach of 5.7a. The one you sent and the OP (and the even more robust version I included earlier) I do see as a breach of 5.7a. If that is not your view then we will agree to differ. 
I support the ruling you received but I don't believe it is consistent with the published words (which are flawed).
I don't think we have anything new to discuss at this stage.

 

How do you differentiate not playing the last hole from not playing the last two holes? Or 3 holes? Or 9 holes? Newby's question had the player decline to play the last hole and they said no DQ. Not sure how much clearer that could be.

[antip]

47 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

How do you differentiate not playing the last hole from not playing the last two holes? Or 3 holes? Or 9 holes? Newby's question had the player decline to play the last hole and they said no DQ. Not sure how much clearer that could be.

It's a matter of judgement, of degree. The black/white ones are easy: a person splits the scene completely after only a few holes or who leaves with multiple holes still to play - I see that as 5.7a. The other end of the spectrum is someone missing the odd hole here and there. Someone that misses one or two or three and one of those is the 18th, to me is simply missing the occasional hole, not picking up bat and ball and leaving in a way that qualifies for 5.7a. These are the kind of judgements referees are required to make from time to time under multiple rules - that zone in the middle is often subjective with no automatic answer unless RBs have provided specific examples that fit. But many of the interpretations where they do give examples only cover the extremes at either end - the decision maker is left to their own devices for the zone between the extremes. Welcome to the world of refereeing. And this is why, in the bigger events, there will likely be discussions among the Committee (effectively the panel of refs) before making the more contentious calls. 

Edited March 22 by antip
typo

[antip]

3 minutes ago, antip said:

unintentional repeat of previous post 

 

Edited March 22 by antip
tech glitch

[Ty_Webb]

2 minutes ago, antip said:

It's a matter of judgement, of decree. The black/white ones are easy: a person splits the scene completely after only a few holes or who leaves with multiple holes still to play - I see that as 5.7a. The other end of the spectrum is someone missing the odd hole here and there. Someone that misses one or two or three and one of those is the 18th, to me is simply missing the occasional hole, not picking up bat and ball and leaving in a way that qualifies for 5.7a. These are the kind of judgements referees are required to make from time to time under multiple rules - that zone in the middle is often subjective with no automatic answer unless RBs have provided specific examples that fit. But many of the interpretations where they do give examples only cover the extremes at either end - the decision maker is left to their own devices for the zone between the extremes. Welcome to the world of refereeing. And this is why, in the bigger events, there will likely be discussions among the Committee (effectively the panel of refs) before making the more contentious calls. 

 

So where is the example at the other extreme? Presumably there must be an example of someone playing one hole, signing their card with zeroes for the rest of the holes and being disqualified for stopping play. Because I haven't seen anything from any ruling body saying that any scenario like this warrants 5.7a.