Disqualified - do you still get cut?

Woodgate

Hi lads,

A lady I know had a good score in a club competition but was disqualified because the person who marked the card , who was a fellow lady member, did not have a handicap? That's strange I think.

But she was also cut for the score she had aswell. I was under the impression that if you are disqualified your score goes too and you are not cut, I was told this recently by a member of the handicap committee. Does anyone know the rule on this for definate, so she can be sure b4 challenging the decision.

Thanks

Woody.

callaway92

No she wouldnt be cut,,

Woodgate

callaway92 wrote: »

No she wouldnt be cut,,

Thanks.

She was cut 3 shots, as she plays off 33 (???? I know:rolleyes:), so they made a boo boo there.

I wonder what the situation is with the marker aswell, she has been left play in a long handicap competition for the past 2 weeks, but seemingly isn't allowed mark a card in an 18 hole stableford competition, surely whoever she played with in the long handicap is disqualified as she would have signed their cards aswell over the past few weeks.

I think it's all very strange.;)

Golferx

callaway92 wrote: »

No she wouldnt be cut,,

That is incorrect.
The committee were right to cut the player and well within their rights.

(As for 33 handicap? Maybe she should stick to Par 3 courses)

Mister Sifter

Golferx wrote: »

That is incorrect.
The committee were right to cut the player and well within their rights.

I've heard of this before... people getting cut after being DQed. Seems they have the right to do it.

Golferx wrote: »

(As for 33 handicap? Maybe she should stick to Par 3 courses)

Are you saying that people with such a handicap shouldn't be playing? Poor form if so.

pistol_75

I was a handicap secretary for the last 3 years. I can confirm she should have been cut if she was disqualified (once the score was valid). You do not get .1 back if you are disqualified.

stooge

Golferx wrote: »

(As for 33 handicap? Maybe she should stick to Par 3 courses)

What a stupid comment. Just because you may have a lower handicap doesnt give you the right to say anyone with a higher one shouldnt be on a proper golf course. :rolleyes:

Matt Santos

pistol_75 wrote: »

I was a handicap secretary for the last 3 years. I can confirm she should have been cut if she was disqualified (once the score was valid). You do not get .1 back if you are disqualified.

Pistol is indeed correct. You are at the mercy of the handicap committee at all times. If they even feel like you had a score and "purposefully" scratched holes towards the end of your round you may be cut!
I think the rule goes like something like..
"If the Committee feels that you are capable of playing off a lower handicap than what you are currently it must place you on the handicap that it feels you are most suited".
Not sure of the correct wording but I am certain that the committee MUST take the action.

kenco

While I dont think it is the exact area there is a thing called 'observation' which does allow the committee to analyse scoring and adjust downwards appropriately. Its not done enough in my view and was brought in to address the folks who rarely play the qualifying events but use their high handicaps to win big prizes, opens, etc

As for the comment by Golferx - cop on! She is obviously not that bad if she is getting cut a few strokes and if encouraged is likely to be much better. Once she has a handicap she is fully entitled to play. I greatly enjoy playing regularly with a 28 handicapper I know who can play off lower but just blows up on at least 4 of the holes. His company is what I enjoy and I return it with encouragement for him.

Hobart

She will be cut, and correctly so. The incorrect signing disqualifies her from that particular competition, it does not negate the fact that she scored above CSS on the day.

As for people deliberately "holding back" on the last few holes because they may hit 36+ or break standard scratch, it should no longer matter. For the purposes of handicapping a player should be deemed to have scored no more than +2 nett on any hole.

Therefore if you score a 10 on a par 5 with a shot, you will be marked in (for handicapping purposes) as having scored an 8 with your cumulative score being taken into consideration for your handicap.

Woodgate

pistol_75 wrote: »

I was a handicap secretary for the last 3 years. I can confirm she should have been cut if she was disqualified (once the score was valid). You do not get .1 back if you are disqualified.

Thanks Pistol,

As a matter of interest what's your view on the other part of the post, i.e. the lady who marked the card?

Thanks.

kenco

Woodgate wrote: »

Thanks Pistol,

As a matter of interest what's your view on the other part of the post, i.e. the lady who marked the card?

Thanks.

I would guess human error, maybe she thought it was ok to sign the card?
She I assume was playing for her handicap? Maybe it was originally a three ball and the other 'handicap player' pulled out?

Golferx

stooge wrote: »

What a stupid comment. Just because you may have a lower handicap doesnt give you the right to say anyone with a higher one shouldnt be on a proper golf course. :rolleyes:

My comment was
1. partly tongue in cheek
and
2. not saying she shouldn't be on a proper golf course, but rather saying she would be better suited to a par 3 course.


On that topic. Is it right that a player who needs two extra shots (36 handicap) per hole should be playing the same course as someone who gets one shot per hole (18 h'cap)?
Someone with such an extraordinary high handicap has to be a very slow player, and slow play is the single biggest bugbear in golf today. Personally, I feel any man should not need any more than 18 handicap. If a man needs four shots to reach the green on a par 4 or five shots to reach a par 5 (both assuming two putts to hole out), then it's going to be a long day.


My most recent round was a matchplay, 17 holes, finished in 2 1/4 hours.

(All of the above was, of course, off course (off topic) , (every pun intended).

Hobart

Golferx wrote: »

On that topic. Is it right that a player who needs two extra shots (36 handicap) per hole should be playing the same course as someone who gets one shot per hole (18 h'cap)?

Why not? Do you think that because a player has a high handicap that ergo he/she is a slow player?

Someone with such an extraordinary high handicap has to be a very slow player,

What an absolutely extraordinary thing to say. Talk about generalisation. I have played with a lot of both high and low handicappers. It has been my experience, that high handicappers take a lot more time and care over a shot than low handicappers.

and slow play is the single biggest bugbear in golf today. Personally, I feel any man should not need any more than 18 handicap.

You should spend more effort in trying to get your motion passed (pun intended) by the GUI.

If a man needs four shots to reach the green on a par 4 or five shots to reach a par 5 (both assuming two putts to hole out), then it's going to be a long day.

It's a first for me anyhow... I've finally met a golfer who never took a 6 on a par 4. Go you :eek:

Golferx

Hobart wrote: »

Why not? Do you think that because a player has a high handicap that ergo he/she is a slow player?............

By definition, YES. They will have to take more shots to complete their round. Taking shots takes time.

Hobart wrote: »

.......
............. I have played with a lot of both high and low handicappers. It has been my experience, that high handicappers take a lot more time and care over a shot than low handicappers...........

Which is my point exactly. Higher handicap players taking more time than others, of lower handicap. You have pinpointed the problem, they are taking "a lot more time".

Hobart wrote: »

............... I've finally met a golfer who never took a 6 on a par 4. Go you :eek:

Fair play to you. Please identify him/her.


Do you honestly think it's fair to all reasonable golfers they should have to put up with sharing a golf course with someone who has to take an extra 20 shots per round? How long does it take a high handicap player to take those 20 shots?

For a reasonably skilled player, shooting 10 to 15 over par, it's incredibly frustrating to watch some players taking so many shots and so much time over shots.

My handicap? Irrelevant. I don't like being held up or don't like holding other players up. Too many players with ridiculously high handicaps show precious little tolerance for timekeeping.

Trampas

Some people never know when to stop digging.

I know some low handicappers who take a long time over and more time over the green than anywhere else where higher handicaps dont study every blade of grass until some low handicappers.

If the pick up when out of a hole then whats the problem.

OilBeefHooked2

Trolling? Golferx?

Golferx

Trolling? Not at all.

Show me one thing I have said that's not true.

Also, for anything else, it's an opinion. Agree, or disagree, it's no skin off my nose.

Logic will tell one that the player taking more shots will take more time to complete his/her round. All I'm advocating is that such players should not, or should not be allowed, interfere with the general timekeeping of the sport. By all means put a group of equally handicapped golfers out together. It's when the very poor players adversely affect the players with higher ability that trouble starts.

uberwolf

I played a round at the weekend, one of the women took 40 shots on a par 4. I ended up walking off the course. Couldn't handle it.

Dublin Spur

uberwolf wrote: »

I played a round at the weekend, one of the women took 40 shots on a par 4.

That's one of the funniest things I have ever read - surely a wind up

Hobart

Golferx wrote: »

Trolling? Not at all.

I don't think that you are trolling. I just think that you are naive.

Show me one thing I have said that's not true.

what you have said is subjective, not black and white. So really, there is no "true" and "un-true", just your experiences. A two ball pro game, on average, will take 5 - 5and a half hours to complete 18 holes, look at any PGA or USGA tournament for examples. I, personally, have never played in a strokes or stableford game which took more than 5 and a half hours. Strokes maximum 5 hours, and this is as a member of one of the longest courses in Ireland.

Also, for anything else, it's an opinion. Agree, or disagree, it's no skin off my nose.

You advocating opinion, as fact, which is incorrect. Your nose has SFA got to do with it.

Logic will tell one that the player taking more shots will take more time to complete his/her round.

You assume too much. It all depends on the course, conditions, calibre of the golfer etc. It's far too easy for somebody to generalise (as you are) about how "high handicappers" should not be allowed. You must be some golfer tbh. How are things on the tour??

All I'm advocating is that such players should not, or should not be allowed, interfere with the general timekeeping of the sport.

Are they? Give me some examples please.

By all means put a group of equally handicapped golfers out together.

But not in front of you....

It's when the very poor players adversely affect the players with higher ability that trouble starts.

Indeed. and it's when idiots like you start talking sh1te that the whole game suffers. You should plug your head out from your anal passage and stop talking nonsense.

uberwolf

Dublin Spur wrote: »

That's one of the funniest things I have ever read - surely a wind up

neither that nor the two warm up swings between each stroke.

Golferx

Hobart wrote: »

................... I just think that you are naive.

.................... Your nose has SFA got to do with it. ..............

................... How are things on the tour?? ................


...................idiots like you .............


..............You should plug your head out from your anal passage and stop talking nonsense.

And you are a moderator?

The above excerpts from your so-called contribution to a very legitimate and topical debate show your judgement to be quite clouded, your use of language inappropriate, and your opinion worthless.

OilBeefHooked2

Golferx wrote: »

And you are a moderator?

The above excerpts from your so-called contribution to a very legitimate and topical debate show your judgement to be quite clouded, your use of language inappropriate, and your opinion worthless.

Lol are you serious, you've hijacked the thread with your nonsensical dribble and when someone (i.e Hobart) highlights it for you, you take offense!
And yes He is a moderator, but he is entitled to have an opinion you know? and even more so when he has hit the nail on the head.

what2do

I'm guessing from the comments about high handicaps that the majority of posters here are male, I'm a female and in the club where I'm a member I would say nearly 50% of the women are off 36, This is largely due to the fact that the majority of them fall into the "older" caregory and don't have the distance that men do.

On the slow play note we tend to try play in 3 balls in the men are in fours as they don't seem to have the same capacity to move quickly between shots and feel the need to stand over every shot they play...and don't get me started on the length of time they spend on the greens!

Know this is slightly off topic but felt the need to defend the higher handicap players.

Mister Sifter

what2do wrote: »

I'm guessing from the comments about high handicaps that the majority of posters here are male, I'm a female and in the club where I'm a member I would say nearly 50% of the women are off 36, This is largely due to the fact that the majority of them fall into the "older" caregory and don't have the distance that men do.

On the slow play note we tend to try play in 3 balls in the men are in fours as they don't seem to have the same capacity to move quickly between shots and feel the need to stand over every shot they play...and don't get me started on the length of time they spend on the greens!

Know this is slightly off topic but felt the need to defend the higher handicap players.

My experience is that women are generally much quicker than men. That's even though they generally take more shots etc etc...

My Old dear tells me its because on-course toilet facilities are generally so poor for women that they rush like hell so they can get in for jimmy riddle.

Fourballs are an absolute nightmare. Was stuck in one at the wkend with three other guys who shot in the 100s... absolute nightmare!

One Cold Hand

I honestly can't figure out if your trolling or not mate, but I'm going to go ahead and answer as if you're not.

Golferx wrote: »

By definition, YES. They will have to take more shots to complete their round. Taking shots takes time.

This is such a stupid statement. There are so many other factors that can make a player 'slow.' For example:
1. The length of time spent on each shot. Lower handicappers will generally spend a longer amount of time taking each shot.
2. Walking speed between each shot. My father gets a bit of stick off his mates as he spends a fair bit of time over the ball. Since he became concious of this he pretty much runs between shots.

Obviously the number of shots is a factor but my experience the higher handicappers are aware of this and speed up other aspects of their game. To tarnish them all with one brush is ridiculous. Likewise it would be ridiculous to claim that all 5 handicappers are really quick. Some of the slowest golfers I've come accross are low handicappers.

Basically I would feel that it's fine to have one slow aspect to your game, be it the number of shots, the time you spend taking them, of the speed you walk at between shots, or whatever else. It's when your slow at all these that it becomes a problem.

Golferx wrote: »

Do you honestly think it's fair to all reasonable golfers they should have to put up with sharing a golf course with someone who has to take an extra 20 shots per round? How long does it take a high handicap player to take those 20 shots?

Do you think it's reasonable for a 22 h'capper to have to put up with some poncy 4 h'capper whose spending ages setting up for each shot, then ambling his way to the next one? Cos' I see this as often as I see high handicappers slowing up the course.

Golferx wrote: »

For a reasonably skilled player, shooting 10 to 15 over par, it's incredibly frustrating to watch some players taking so many shots and so much time over shots.

I'm assuming this is approximately your handicap? A good tip would be to forget about the people you're playing with, and concentrate on your own game. Letting others frustrate you won't help.



Look, I fully agree that slow play is a major problem, and I hate it as much as the next person. But to claim that it's high handicappers that cause all delays is laughable, and to claim that there's a direct correlation between slow play and a persons handicap is even more laughable.

Anyway, if you've such a problem with high handicappers, why do you play with them?

Hobart

Golferx wrote: »

And you are a moderator?

I am, but not of this forum. Being a mod does not preclude me from having an opinion.

The above excerpts from your so-called contribution to a very legitimate and topical debate show your judgement to be quite clouded, your use of language inappropriate, and your opinion worthless.

I have no issue with the debate, per-se, and I have not questioned it's legitimacy nor it's topicality. Your use of hyperbolic adjectives to try and justify your ignorance is quite amusing and just emphasises your naivety. Here's a hint, if you wish to debate a topic, attack the content and debate it, don't attack the messenger. By doing so, you weaken your argument and make yourself look ridiculous.

Anyhow, you might take the time to answer my points and stop attacking me.

Golferx

Hobart wrote: »

.............. don't attack the messenger. By doing so, you weaken your argument and make yourself look ridiculous..............

The words Pot, Kettle and Black spring to mind.

Hobart, you, in using the above sentence, are a hypocrite. Your previous foul and abusive post has been reported.

Hobart

Golferx wrote: »

The words Pot, Kettle and Black spring to mind.

Hobart, you, in using the above sentence, are a hypocrite. Your previous foul and abusive post has been reported.

The words water duck and back spring to mine.

I saw that you had reported the post, and while I will not address it directly here, I will just re-iterate that my status as a mod has no bearing on my ability to have an opinion. It's not that hard to grasp, surely?

Now maybe we can get back to the subject matter, why don't you address the points I made and stop dodging the issue?

copacetic

Hobart banned for a week for personal abuse.

Woodgate

As the original poster I have seen the debate go way off track and request the topic be closed or that people get back on track. May I suggest someone starts a topic in relation to golferx's "unique" statements.

copacetic

Thread closed at OPs request.