Help! scorecard legibility vs. what committee entered

[ajueland]

Was in a tournament this past weekend that had a weird ending - 

 

After holing out on 18th hole, I went over hole by hole scores with my marker(other competitor) and we agreed and he signed as marker and I then went over the card and agreed and signed it.  When I looked at the results later, I saw my score was posted as a 77 when I had signed for a 74. After taking to the committee chair, the 16th hole was entered as a 7 rather than a 4.  After reviewing the signed card, the 4 is not very legible and could be interpreted as a 7 however my marker verbally stated that score when we went over it. The chair said they were protecting the field and not going to change it the next day. I asked if the marker could be contacted but this was not followed on by the chair. 
 

does anyone have any experience on where this would fall in the rules??  I cannot find anything on responsibility of legible score issues. Thanks for any help. 

[Newby]

See Committee Procedures Rule 7D

 

When the issue is due to an administrative error by the Committee, it should correct the error and issue new results. 

Administrative errors include:

     Miscalculating a player’s total score.

[iacas]

If it looks like a 7, they didn’t miscalculate anything.

 

Verbally confirming with your marker is pointless. Tear off the strip and visually compare. If one of the numbers is hard to read, have him write it more legibly.

 

The Committee just looks at what is written, not what you verbally say.

[Augster]

What Newby said. If you shot a 4, your marker attests to the 4, and the card looks like a 4, they should make the correction to the 4. 
 

That said, why are you handing in cards, that you care about, with numbers that are illegible? VERY clearly print every hole score so confusion like this can’t happen. If it did happen, and they brought out the card and it was VERY CLEARLY a 4 written in the box, they would simply change it. 
 

Yet another reason for electronic scoring. 

[Shilgy]

11 minutes ago, Augster said:

What Newby said. If you shot a 4, your marker attests to the 4, and the card looks like a 4, they should make the correction to the 4. 
 

That said, why are you handing in cards, that you care about, with numbers that are illegible? VERY clearly print every hole score so confusion like this can’t happen. If it did happen, and they brought out the card and it was VERY CLEARLY a 4 written in the box, they would simply change it. 
 

Yet another reason for electronic scoring. 

Agree..however, at least at my club, paper still rules.  We use Golf Genius scoring but what’s on the paper scorecard is official.

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, ajueland said:

Was in a tournament this past weekend that had a weird ending - 

 

After holing out on 18th hole, I went over hole by hole scores with my marker(other competitor) and we agreed and he signed as marker and I then went over the card and agreed and signed it.  When I looked at the results later, I saw my score was posted as a 77 when I had signed for a 74. After taking to the committee chair, the 16th hole was entered as a 7 rather than a 4.  After reviewing the signed card, the 4 is not very legible and could be interpreted as a 7 however my marker verbally stated that score when we went over it. The chair said they were protecting the field and not going to change it the next day. I asked if the marker could be contacted but this was not followed on by the chair. 
 

does anyone have any experience on where this would fall in the rules??  I cannot find anything on responsibility of legible score issues. Thanks for any help. 

 

If that hole was in question, shouldn't the committee have caught the math error ?

 

After all, with a "4" it totals 74. If that hole WAS a "7" the numbers wouldn't add up to 74.

 

Obviously you wrote the total as "74". Why on earth would the committee change it just because THEY thought the 4 was a 7 ?

 

And btw, since you signed for a score lower than you made (according to THEM) they should've DQ'd you, no ? 

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

After all, with a "4" it totals 74. If that hole WAS a "7" the numbers wouldn't add up to 74.

 

Obviously you wrote the total as "74". Why on earth would the committee change it just because THEY thought the 4 was a 7 ?

 

And btw, since you signed for a score lower than you made (according to THEM) they should've DQ'd you, no ? 

 

You're not responsible for the 74. I used to write "63" in the total score box as a joke — it's irrelevant. You're responsible for the 18 individual hole scores.

 

I once had a kid write "41" in the 18th hole box. He shot 40 on the front nine… and 78 on the back (given his 41 on the 18th) for a smooth 118.

[rogolf]

11 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

If that hole was in question, shouldn't the committee have caught the math error ?

 

After all, with a "4" it totals 74. If that hole WAS a "7" the numbers wouldn't add up to 74.

 

Obviously you wrote the total as "74". Why on earth would the committee change it just because THEY thought the 4 was a 7 ?

 

And btw, since you signed for a score lower than you made (according to THEM) they should've DQ'd you, no ? 

The player is not responsible for the addition of hole scores, only responsible for the correct individual hole scores. 

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

If that hole was in question, shouldn't the committee have caught the math error ?

 

After all, with a "4" it totals 74. If that hole WAS a "7" the numbers wouldn't add up to 74.

 

Obviously you wrote the total as "74". Why on earth would the committee change it just because THEY thought the 4 was a 7 ?

 

And btw, since you signed for a score lower than you made (according to THEM) they should've DQ'd you, no ? 

Why would he be DQ’d?  Doesn’t matter if he signed for a 74 or 77 total.  He signed for the hole by hole scores….total as added by marker is irrelevant.

 

Is that incorrect?

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Is that incorrect?

 

Did you read the two posts directly above yours? 🙂 

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

The player is not responsible for the addition of hole scores, only responsible for the correct individual hole scores. 

 

Ahhhhh, did not know that.

 

Thanks. 

 

But the committee still should've questioned the player before posting that 77, yes ?

[rogolf]

9 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Ahhhhh, did not know that.

 

Thanks. 

 

But the committee still should've questioned the player before posting that 77, yes ?

Yes, the Committee should check the scorecard while the player is in the scoring area and ask for any clarifications required.  This sounds like a Committee "failure to communicate".

Edited Thursday at 12:36 AM by rogolf

[Archimedes65]

How does a four look like a seven, unless it was written by a four year old?

[st1800e]

If the number is not clear, and could be interpreted 2 ways, the committee should verify with the player and marker what was the actual score.  In the scoring area, or after.  

This is not a De Vincenzo moment.    

It’s a cop out to say it might be a 4 or 7, so we’ll take it as a seven.  

[Shilgy]

12 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Did you read the two posts directly above yours? 🙂 

Of course not! I read until I saw a post I wanted to reply to.🙄

 

Geez….now we gotta read an entire thread before we can reply?

 

/s

Edited Thursday at 01:14 PM by Shilgy

[Newby]

5 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

How does a four look like a seven, unless it was written by a four year old?

If seven is written with a 'European' stroke through it it could look like a four. And could be seen the wrong way round. ie a 4 as a 7

[Colin L]

14 hours ago, iacas said:

If it looks like a 7, they didn’t miscalculate anything.

 

Verbally confirming with your marker is pointless. Tear off the strip and visually compare. If one of the numbers is hard to read, have him write it more legibly.

 

The Committee just looks at what is written, not what you verbally say.

The player is saying that it was a 4 although could be mistaken for a 7.  You would give no consideration to that?  No concern that a mistake might have been made?  No effort made to contact the marker who would surely remember clearly if a player of that calibre had damaged a decent card with a 7?  Above all, no sense of the importance of getting  things right?  Protecting the field includes protecting the individual player from a Committee error no matter how understandable that error might be. 

 

I recollect the time three of us  the Competitions Convener, the club manager I tried  to establish the correct score of a member who had foolishly corrected a mistake on his card by over-writing it, leaving his score looking like  a 6 or an 8.    After some scrutiny of the card, noting that the player's addition of his score supported a 6, and taking the opinion of any others who happened to drop into the office at the time, we were still undecided.  We couldn't get hold of the player but  the marker was phoned  and confirmed a 6.  Not difficult In the end, but we got it right for a member and that matters a lot.

[Socrates]

8 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Of course not! I read until I saw a post I wanted to reply to.🙄

 

Geez….now we gotta read an entire thread before we can reply?

Just common sense to read the whole thread.  Otherwise one can look like an Word not allowed when the answer has already been posted. 

 

And that includes correctly reading what was written.  I've been guilty of both.🤐

[iacas]

49 minutes ago, Colin L said:

The player is saying that it was a 4 although could be mistaken for a 7. You would give no consideration to that?

 

No, I'm saying if they thought it was a 7, they didn't "calculate" anything wrong. They didn't look at 18 scores that add up to 74 and write down 77, they seemingly looked at 18 scores that they thought added up to 77 and wrote down 77. The calculating (the addition) is not what they got wrong.

 

If the competitor or marker wrote down what to almost everyone would look like a 7, then that's the score for the hole and the score the player signed for.

 

When I've done scoring for players, we ask if there are any hole scores that are unclear. Maybe this score clearly looked like a 7 and they didn't prompt the player or marker. Maybe it was ambiguous and they should have asked, but didn't. But it seems like they never asked, which makes me lean toward "it looked like a clear 7."

 

49 minutes ago, Colin L said:

No concern that a mistake might have been made?  No effort made to contact the marker who would surely remember clearly if a player of that calibre had damaged a decent card with a 7?  Above all, no sense of the importance of getting  things right?  Protecting the field includes protecting the individual player from a Committee error no matter how understandable that error might be.

 

I didn't speak to any of that. I simply said that if they added a 7 to the score for what clearly looked like a 7, they didn't "miscalculate" anything. If a player writes down 18 4s that are pretty clearly 4s, but really got a 3 on one of the holes, the Committee didn't miscalculate anything if they post his score as a 72 instead of the 71 he shot.

 

49 minutes ago, Colin L said:

I recollect the time three of us  the Competitions Convener, the club manager I tried  to establish the correct score of a member who had foolishly corrected a mistake on his card by over-writing it, leaving his score looking like  a 6 or an 8. After some scrutiny of the card, noting that the player's addition of his score supported a 6, and taking the opinion of any others who happened to drop into the office at the time, we were still undecided.  We couldn't get hold of the player but  the marker was phoned  and confirmed a 6.  Not difficult In the end, but we got it right for a member and that matters a lot.

 

The OP even says the 4 was not "legible" and "could be interpreted as a 7". So:

• If it looks like a pretty clear 7, the Committee did the right thing, and the player signed for a 7.
• If it could reasonably be taken as a 4 or a 7, the Committee should likely corrected the score upon verification. It depends a bit when "later" is with regards to the timing and the competition schedule (i.e. is the competition closed, etc.).

The OP then also says "however my marker verbally stated that score" which I also point out is pretty much irrelevant to the Committee, and caution people to visually check their score, not just verbally do so.

[Shilgy]

46 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Just common sense to read the whole thread.  Otherwise one can look like an Word not allowed when the answer has already been posted. 

 

And that includes correctly reading what was written.  I've been guilty of both.🤐

Let me add the /s to my post.  I thought the sarcasm was clear.👍

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

The player is saying that it was a 4 although could be mistaken for a 7.

 

Especially if the total written by the player supports the 4.

 

And now that I re-read the OP (Thanks shilgster ) he didn't actually SAY he wrote in the total but *I* have never kept a scorecard where I didn't total the front 9, back 9 and the 18-hole overall.

 

But maybe that's just me.

 

Happy 4th (to those who celebrate it) 

[Newby]

34 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

Happy 4th (to those who celebrate it) 

Many over here won't be. It's election day.

[Colin L]

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

The OP even says the 4 was not "legible"

He didn't; he said  "the 4 is not very legible and could be interpreted as a 7".  That's quite different and the basis for my saying what I said.  

Edited Thursday at 02:41 PM by Colin L

[iacas]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

*I* have never kept a scorecard where I didn't total the front 9, back 9 and the 18-hole overall

 

And I almost never wrote the total down because that's not my responsibility. When I did, sometimes I'd write down "59" or "63" or something (but that's a bit of a tool move, so I only did that a few times when I knew the scorer and was poking at him a bit 😄). I've seen players put frowny or smiley faces in that space. One guy wrote "+3" once. It doesn't matter.

 

Heck, I've been at tournaments where they ask you at scoring not to fill in the final score, or they'll just write it down in Sharpie themselves, overwriting whatever you wrote in that space.

 

Anyway, and again, if it pretty clearly looks like a 7, then the player likely signed for a 7.

 

4 minutes ago, Colin L said:

Quote

The OP even says the 4 was not "legible"

He didn't; he said  "the 4 is not very legible and could be interpreted as a 7".  That's quite different and the basis for my saying what I said.  

 

That post of mine was over 325 words, and you're going to focus on me saying it wasn't "legible" when he said "not very legible"? Like I said immediately after:

• If it looks like a pretty clear 7, the Committee did the right thing, and the player signed for a 7.
• If it could reasonably be taken as a 4 or a 7, the Committee should likely corrected the score upon verification. It depends a bit when "later" is with regards to the timing and the competition schedule (i.e. is the competition closed, etc.).

 

Suffice to say unless we see a picture of the scorecard, we can't really know what the score for that hole looks like as written. Is it ambiguous? Does it look like a 7? Does it look like a mess that they should have clarified with the marker and player?

 

Edited Thursday at 02:47 PM by iacas
quotes messed up?

[naval2006]

Before handing in your card you are routinely careful to check hole by hole and make sure every number is clear. If you’re not you will be in the future because you’ll remember that time when I shot 4 and they took it as a 7, or the day I didn’t sign my card or that Saturday I shot 70 but forgot to drop the card in the box. You always learn the hard way in golf