We had a situation today at my club in the 4BBB Matchplay Championship.

There was a disagreement on how the handicaps should be distributed.
Player A was on 7 and his partner Player B was on 10
Player C was on 10 and his partner Player D was on 16.

When they got to the index 2 (matchplay index) hole, Player D claimed that not only did he get a shot from Player A, he was also entitled to a shot from Player B.
His contention was that he should get shots on index holes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 from player A and shots on index holes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 from player B.

Player A and B argued that Player A had his handicap reduced to scratch for this event, Player B thus was reduced to 3, therefore getting shots himself on index holes 1, 2 and 3, as was Player C and Player D was reduced to a 9 and therefore got shots on index holes 1 through 9.
This meant that by Players A and B's interpretation Players B, C and D all got shots on the index 2 hole.

This spawned an argument that lasted the whole round and probably affected the outcome.

So, who was right????

QUOTE: Veefore @ May 6 2007, 08:22 PM

We had a situation today at my club in the 4BBB Matchplay Championship.

There was a disagreement on how the handicaps should be distributed.
Player A was on 7 and his partner Player B was on 10
Player C was on 10 and his partner Player D was on 16.

When they got to the index 2 (matchplay index) hole, Player D claimed that not only did he get a shot from Player A, he was also entitled to a shot from Player B.
His contention was that he should get shots on index holes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 from player A and shots on index holes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 from player B.

Player A and B argued that Player A had his handicap reduced to scratch for this event, Player B thus was reduced to 3, therefore getting shots himself on index holes 1, 2 and 3, as was Player C and Player D was reduced to a 9 and therefore got shots on index holes 1 through 9.
This meant that by Players A and B's interpretation Players B, C and D all got shots on the index 2 hole.

This is correct. A goes to 0, B&C 3 and D 9. He gets shots on 1-9, A gets no shots and b&C get shots on 1-3.

QUOTE: Captain Scrambles @ May 6 2007, 01:34 PM

This is correct. A goes to 0, B&C 3 and D 9. He gets shots on 1-9, A gets no shots and b&C get shots on 1-3.

I agree

Veefore,

Your committee should have written Conditions of Competition that include and cover this aspect of how handicaps are applied - what the others have said is the norm, but it needs to be on paper to counter this exact situation - Decision 30-3a/3 refers to this in a form, in that in determining handicap allowances, the handicaps of other players are reduced by the handicap of the (lowest handicap) player.

The cat is out of the bag in this case. I would be asking the committee pronto to clarify this for further playing in this competition, and to get a bit more professional in their role, and write COC for all competitions.

I hope the tool off 16 wasn't on the winning side

QUOTE: trysil @ May 7 2007, 12:49 AM

Veefore,

Your committee should have written Conditions of Competition that include and cover this aspect of how handicaps are applied - what the others have said is the norm, but it needs to be on paper to counter this exact situation - Decision 30-3a/3 refers to this in a form, in that in determining handicap allowances, the handicaps of other players are reduced by the handicap of the (lowest handicap) player.

The cat is out of the bag in this case. I would be asking the committee pronto to clarify this for further playing in this competition, and to get a bit more professional in their role, and write COC for all competitions.

I hope the tool off 16 wasn't on the winning side

Unfortunately he was.
The entire competition was a disaster. The committee member who set up the draw stuffed it up and gave the eventual winners of the Championship a bye all the way through to the final. Then this screw up which affected the result. The worst part was that they asked me when they were on the 6th hole, but he didn't like my answer so they caught up with the Vice Captain and asked him. He apparently gave them the wrong ruling which he later denied. In the bar afterwards everyone told him that he was wrong. Instead of celebrating a hard fought championship he was forced to sit and defend his interpretation of the rule. In a way I feel sorry for him. He has won what has been a pretty prestigious championship in our club but everyone thinks that he doesn't deserve it. This caused outrage among the players and for a memorial championship it will be lucky to get more than a dozen entrants next year.

QUOTE: Veefore @ May 6 2007, 10:22 PM

So, who was right????

unless the dispute was resolved on the first hole that it came up, how the hell did the match continue?

I cant help thinking that unless one side gave into the other they should have been disqualified or the match abandoned.

QUOTE: marktheblake @ May 7 2007, 09:36 AM

unless the dispute was resolved on the first hole that it came up, how the hell did the match continue?

I cant help thinking that unless one side gave into the other they should have been disqualified or the match abandoned.

Apparently it came up on the second hole and it was the insistence of the incorrect party that led to the others giving in. It wasn't until they asked me for reassurance and I disagreed with them that it all flared up again.

Veefore,

There are several factors here that are relevant - however, I'm at work and haven't got my references...but I'll just point out a couple of things;

This whole incident highlights the committee's failure to do its job. Whether they are incompetent or lazy, or both, by not having written Conditions of Competition, they have let this farcical situation happen. They should be sacked or they should recuse themselves from office.

However, what I don't understand is your comment that the team had a bye the whole way to the final. Is this in a match-play knockout. How can this happen?

Then, there is the idea that the team that had the lowest marker should have stuck to their guns about their interpretation, made a claim under 2-5 and asked for a ruling from the committee immediately. As marktheblake pointed out, how can things continue if there is no idea under the format the match is being played under.

I am going to have a read after work and post again if I find anything to add about the result of the match, because the committee has erred and the match has not been played under proper conditions...however, theiftaker or AAA or anyone else can step in with their interpretation - but it is a pretty sad day for this thing to happen, and you commented upon that yourself...

It is a sad fact that many who sit on committees get there through prsonality, not through their knowledge or dedication to the game, it's about their ego.
You can put the rule book and all the details under there noses and it will be ignored, you can write to Golf Australia and they will do nothing.
Been there done that.
cheers peter
p.s. Cap S & AAA are correct

I agree with what trysil has stated about the importance of properly written CoC to take away any chance of ambiguity...however -
The Note to Rule 6-2 states: It is the player's responsibility to know the holes at which handicap strokes are to be given and received.
Throughout the rules it is reinforced that it is the player's responsibility to know the rules.
This seems to have been sadly missing in the match under scrutiny.
trysil has already referred to Dec. 30-3a/3 (a RoG) which indicates the manner in which handicap allowances should be determined in four ball MP:- ...In determining handicap allowances, the handicaps of the three players should be reduced by the handicap of the (player with the lowest handicap)... Properly written CoC would have clarified this fact.
Dec. 2-5/5 indicates that in MP if an invalid claim (eg on a rules issue) is not disputed then the result of the hole stands, this is reinforced by Dec. 2-4/12 and Dec. 2-5/10.
Although slightly different factually, but IMO somewhat relevant, Dec. 2-5/8 indicates that if players accept an wrong ruling from someone not on the committee : ...they in effect, settled the doubt themselves...and the Committee was no longer entitled to consider a claim...
The VC's wrong ruling (even though denied) stands - Dec. 34-3/3.
When A & B allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting the "rules" as stated by C & D, they boned themselves. There was no wrong information, the correct handicaps were stated at the start of the match, the format of the match was not changed - it remained four ball MP,all the facts were known, there was a lack of rules knowledge: 1. to know how to apply the handicap allowance, 2. knowing how to make a valid claim. There was also a lack of confidence in their own rules knowledge that allowed them to cave in and to be bulldozed into accepting an incorrect application of the rules, although given the denied incorrect ruling by the Vice Captain it seems that A & B had everything stacked against them even if they did stand their ground.

And, incidently how does a side get byes all the way through to a final, without concessions??

QUOTE: petergf @ May 7 2007, 07:39 PM

It is a sad fact that many who sit on committees get there through prsonality, not through their knowledge or dedication to the game, it's about their ego.
You can put the rule book and all the details under there noses and it will be ignored, you can write to Golf Australia and they will do nothing.
Been there done that.
cheers peter
p.s. Cap S & AAA are correct

Totally true. Interestingly, the club Captain has been actively discouraging me from attending the rules accreditation exam this year as he says we already have enough qualified people in the club.

QUOTE: Veefore @ May 8 2007, 08:10 AM

Totally true. Interestingly, the club Captain has been actively discouraging me from attending the rules accreditation exam this year as he says we already have enough qualified people in the club.

How many is "enough"? Ridiculous. I don't think you can ever have enough. The more people who know the rules thoroughly, the fewer incidents like this one occur, or the more incidents resolved quickly.

As one of the handful of accredited officials at my club, I'd be glad if there were lots of others who had passed the exam. Saves everybody trying to find me!

Just out of interest, in Victoria, Green Acres GC has

45

accredited rules officials, Box Hill GC has

35

. The ideal club would be one where

everybody

has passed the exam!

QUOTE: Veefore @ May 6 2007, 10:22 PM

We had a situation today at my club in the 4BBB Matchplay Championship.

There was a disagreement on how the handicaps should be distributed.

Player D is an idiot and his opinion goes beyond golf rules into complete stupidity.

You don't need rules accreditation to understand simple stuff like this.

Player D should have been asked where Player B should take his shots? Perhaps index holes 16 to 18? Some other group of holes like 7-9?? (He was actually asking for Player B to take his shots on index holes 4-6 ~ that makes sense??).

Seriously... this wasn't a group of women was it?

Wot about the idiot 16 h'crappers play in all this

This type of format has been played for bloody ages, and almost every time theres an arguement surrounding it, its the long chopper saying he/she is giving up the shotz

Other night the mrs gets home...same deal

''they took 10 shotz off Helen[42hcap], how is she ever gunna win''

Give me a break!

People should know how to score in these games before they waste committee time by entering.

I am astounded by the unanimity of opinion in an interpretation I have never heard advanced in 25 years of golf.

The concept that Bs handicap is effectively increased by his partner's lower handicap is ludicrous. A and B are partners - A is not giving strokes to B because he is not competing against him. To then take that a step further and conclude that A gives B a stroke, and that stroke somehow cancels out the stroke B should be giving D beggars belief.

Take a different example.

A 4
B 10
C 16
D 16

If we play the interpretation advanced in this thread B is playing C&D level. Guess which team wins. A might as well stay at home - his work is done before he swings a club.

This spawned an argument that lasted the whole round and probably affected the outcome.

Did the two 10 markers get 3 shots in the round and the 16 marker get 9 shots?

Even if the 16 marker took the shots at the wrong holes, how did it affect the outcome?

I have found the easiest way to explain this rule to those who don't understand is that player A (the lowest marker) is the only person who "gives shots" players, B, C and D all receive shots against player A (NO ONE ELSE) on the holes with stroke index equal to or lower than the difference between their handicaps and the handicap of player A.

Interesting Link

Even if the 16 marker took the shots at the wrong holes, how did it affect the outcome?

Dingo, in match play wouldnt you rather your 16 shots in the

first

16 holes as opposed to

last

16 holes as the card may dictate.

I know I would!

QUOTE: packard @ May 10 2007, 12:16 PM

The concept that Bs handicap is effectively increased by his partner's lower handicap is ludicrous. A and B are partners - A is not giving strokes to B because he is not competing against him.

This is a quote from Golf Australia's Competition and Course Management Procedures document:
Four-Ball
The number of strokes given is the full handicap difference.
The lowest marker

concedes strokes to the others including their partner

.
Example: Player A on a handicap of 10 receives nil, their partner ( B ) on a handicap of 24 receives 14 strokes, C on a handicap of 35 receives 25 strokes and D on a handicap of 40 receives 30 strokes. (Players will receive 2 or 3 strokes per hole where applicable.)
I'm missing something here, just read the thread again, the concensus seems to be in line with what is written above, the player's handicaps are reduced by Player A's handicap. Where was it written that B's handicap is increased?

QUOTE: packard @ May 10 2007, 12:16 PM

I am astounded by the unanimity of opinion in an interpretation I have never heard advanced in 25 years of golf.

The concept that Bs handicap is effectively increased by his partner's lower handicap is ludicrous. A and B are partners - A is not giving strokes to B because he is not competing against him. To then take that a step further and conclude that A gives B a stroke, and that stroke somehow cancels out the stroke B should be giving D beggars belief.

Take a different example.

A 4
B 10
C 16
D 16

If we play the interpretation advanced in this thread B is playing C&D level. Guess which team wins. A might as well stay at home - his work is done before he swings a club.

Packard,

I think you've got your wires crossed here.

Everyone is still playing off their normal handicaps, and you are using the matchplay index. The only difference is that instead of A getting his four shots on the four hardest holes, he gets nothing, nada, zip. In your case everyone goes back the corresponding four shots meaning that;

B - Gets a stroke on the holes rated 1-6 on the Match Index
C - Gets a stroke on the holes rated 1-12 on the Match Index
D - Gets a stroke on the holes rated 1-12 on the Match Index

i.e. On holes 7-12 only C&D get a shot

There is no

nett

change in handicaps, the difference is purely to simplify calculations on the golf course.

Does that help?

Dingo, in match play wouldnt you rather your 16 shots in the first 16 holes as opposed to last 16 holes as the card may dictate.

I don't really care where the strokes fall in a matchplay event. The matchplay index more or less spreads them out evenly.

It sounds like a good game spoiled!

My misread.

I don't really care where the strokes fall in a matchplay event. The matchplay index more or less spreads them out evenly.

The point is Dingo, if you dont get them early you might not get to use them at all...you loose 2/1 with a shot on the last. No good to you then.

The point is Dingo, if you dont get them early you might not get to use them at all...you loose 2/1 with a shot on the last. No good to you then.

...and if you are all square with a shot on the last it will carry you home. I don't care. It's just another game and I'm happy to give away shots wherever they fall.

Back on thread...

The point is what difference veefore feels it made in his match. What happened on the holes in dispute?

Dingo,

Veefore hopefully will give some info...

But the whole point is that the atmosphere of a good competitive match was completely ruined by the knob who didn't know the rules, and the opponents who yielded to his misinformed point of view.

Thus the game wasn't played as it should have been. What happened is actually superflous (sic) because it affected the whole thing so dramatically. That's the whole point