Unexpected Lost Ball - No Provisional - What Do You Do?

[nick1998bunker]

You should imput your scores for handicap hole-by-hole....and it will automatically adjust for ESC based on your handicap.  If you just put in an overall gross score and not post hole-by-hole scores...it will not make an ESC adjustment....and your handicap will be inaccurate.

I dont think it lets me. And how do determine esc score?

[bplewis24]

I dont think it lets me. And how do determine esc score?

http://www.usga.org/handicapping/articles_resources/USGA-Position-Paper-on-the-Equitable-Stroke-Control-Procedure/

With a handicap under 10, the max you can post for any hole is a double-bogey.  So, if your input method (like mine) only allows for the total score to be entered, you have to subtract any strokes over double-bogey from each occurrence, and then post that score.

[Meltdwhiskey]

You should imput your scores for handicap hole-by-hole....and it will automatically adjust for ESC based on your handicap.  If you just put in an overall gross score and not post hole-by-hole scores...it will not make an ESC adjustment....and your handicap will be inaccurate.

Just curious - what system do you use that accepts hole-by-hole scores. I use GHIIN an it just asks for an ESC adjusted total score.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

Just curious - what system do you use that accepts hole-by-hole scores. I use GHIIN an it just asks for an ESC adjusted total score.

It's the golfnet system. Mine specifically is www.ushandicap.com. It lets you post hole by hole scores and takes care of the rest.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24

What?

sorry i meant just. Im asking if not all handicap systems make you plug in your score for your holes. Mine just askes for overall score so if you card a 10 you are screwed.

It doesn't matter if you post hole by hole or total, you still have to include ESC.  If you post total (which is how I had to do it too), you just make the adjustment to any exceptional holes, then re-add the total before you enter it.

[Dave2512]

HBH is more for tracking stats than anything. To go through the hassle of doing it just for score would be pointless. You can post HBH scores and track stats at ghin.com.

[dfreuter415]

With fall quickly approaching, many clubs will encourage players to use a "Leaf Rule" to speed up play once the leaves begin to fall.  This is especially true of golf courses that have a large number of trees.

(I concur that if you are playing in a tournament of any kind and cannot find your ball, you MUST return to you prior position to play your next shot.)

However, if you do use the "Leaf Rule" would you penalize the player a stroke and have them hit from the general area where the ball was thought to be, or would you allow the player to hit their next shot without penalty?

And, if you use the "Leaf Rule" at some point in your round, would you post your score for handicap purposes?

[iacas]

The point of the reply from the USGA was that it was not really reasonable to predict a most likely score when you are still in theory standing on the tee without a ball in play.  The manual is quite specific in stating that a hole not played under the principles of the rules is treated differently from an unfinished hole.  I will take their words at face value and not try to add my own interpretation.

A hole in which you take eight strokes and still aren't on the green (maybe you're in a greenside bunker), then pick up, isn't "played under the principle of the rules" and yet putting par + handicap down on that hole seems awfully stupid, doesn't it?

So again, how far along do you have to be to have played enough of the hole for it to count?

Again, to be clear, the people who gave me the responses are USGA/WPGA representatives as well. It contradicts what the USGA told you, apparently.

I disagree with you that after pumping three balls OB you should write down a "4" on the hole. Heck, pump two balls OB and the best score you're making is 5.

[nick1998bunker]

[URL=http://www.usga.org/handicapping/articles_resources/USGA-Position-Paper-on-the-Equitable-Stroke-Control-Procedure/]http://www.usga.org/handicapping/articles_resources/USGA-Position-Paper-on-the-Equitable-Stroke-Control-Procedure/[/URL] With a handicap under 10, the max you can post for any hole is a double-bogey.  So, if your input method (like mine) only allows for the total score to be entered, you have to subtract any strokes over double-bogey from each occurrence, and then post that score.

Thank you so much! Don't get many triples anymore but I used to get them fairly often!

[iacas]

Thank you so much! Don't get many triples anymore but I used to get them fairly often!

Nick, please try not to ask questions that are likely to go off topic. For example, there are plenty of threads here that address the handicap questions you asked. Thank you.

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The point of the reply from the USGA was that it was not really reasonable to predict a most likely score when you are still in theory standing on the tee without a ball in play.  The manual is quite specific in stating that a hole not played under the principles of the rules is treated differently from an unfinished hole.  I will take their words at face value and not try to add my own interpretation.

Its hard to see how its more reasonable to assume par or bogey when you're standing on a tee, without a ball in play, and lying 2.  I understand that you're just repeating the USGA interpretation of the rule, it just seems strange.

Exactly.  It's not any more reasonable to predict par+handicap for an unplayed hole as it is to predict par+handicap+2 for an unfinished hole where you're still on the tee box after your first ball is OB.

BTW, I've talked to a few local reps from the USGA and West Penn GA about this and they side with me on this. Since the USGA's write-in "rules questions hotline" (my name) is not 100% likely to give a correct answer, that leaves us where we are now.

Yep. In my experience writing to the hotline, it's been difficult to communicate, and to get them to answer the questions I've asked if it involved more than just quoting the manual.  It doesn't seem that the hotline is necessarily manned by experts.

Certainly if everyone at the USGA is saying the same thing, all one can do is follow whatever they say, even if it doesn't make sense. But in this case there are apparently conflicting viewpoints within the ranks.

For anyone who's interested and missed it the first time, I have a synopsis of my back-and-forth with the USGA on this issue here: http://thesandtrap.com/t/68856/stroke-and-distance-vs-pace-of-play/36#post_882167  (One of my unanswered questions to the USGA was the one Erik brought up: "At what point do you decide you are far enough into the hole such that it qualifies as unfinished, instead of unplayed?")

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The point of the reply from the USGA was that it was not really reasonable to predict a most likely score when you are still in theory standing on the tee without a ball in play.  The manual is quite specific in stating that a hole not played under the principles of the rules is treated differently from an unfinished hole.  I will take their words at face value and not try to add my own interpretation.

Its hard to see how its more reasonable to assume par or bogey when you're standing on a tee, without a ball in play, and lying 2.  I understand that you're just repeating the USGA interpretation of the rule, it just seems strange.

Exactly.  It's not any more reasonable to predict par+handicap for an unplayed hole as it is to predict par+handicap+2 for an unfinished hole where you're still on the tee box after your first ball is OB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

BTW, I've talked to a few local reps from the USGA and West Penn GA about this and they side with me on this. Since the USGA's write-in "rules questions hotline" (my name) is not 100% likely to give a correct answer, that leaves us where we are now.

Yep. In my experience writing to the hotline, it's been difficult to communicate, and to get them to answer the questions I've asked if it involved more than just quoting the manual.  It doesn't seem that the hotline is necessarily manned by experts.

Certainly if everyone at the USGA is saying the same thing, all one can do is follow whatever they say, even if it doesn't make sense. But in this case there are apparently conflicting viewpoints within the ranks.

For anyone who's interested and missed it the first time, I have a synopsis of my back-and-forth with the USGA on this issue here: http://thesandtrap.com/t/68856/stroke-and-distance-vs-pace-of-play/36#post_882167  (One of my unanswered questions to the USGA was the one Erik brought up: "At what point do you decide you are far enough into the hole such that it qualifies as unfinished, instead of unplayed?")

It seems fairly obvious to me that they aren't really that concerned about it, simply because it will rarely have any significant effect on a player's handicap, regardless of which way you go.  An occasional hole every 2 or 3 rounds is insignificant in the big picture.  I doubt that whatever way you score it, you won't change your index more than one tenth of a point, if that.

If you find yourself in this situation too often, then you need to read up on Rule 27-2 and start playing more provisional balls.

If you find yourself with 6 or more incomplete holes in a single round, then you not only need to play more provisional balls, but you also invalidate that round for handicap purposes anyway.

[MEfree]

Just wait until MEFree gets a hold of this one...

LOL- yes, I agree with Erik and do it just like everyone else except Fourputt- pick up after reaching ESC or lose multiple balls and drop one and I am turning in ESC not par+ for handicap.

Coming back to the topic at hand, it seems that during a "casual" round, many players will just go ahead and drop a ball as opposed to hiking back to the tee when they have an unexpected lost ball.  This makes a lot of sense to me in terms of speed of play and overall enjoyment of the round.

I prefer to play by the same rules for "casual" rounds and tournaments, in part, so that nothing I experience in a tournament is new to me.

Not to beat a dead horse, but whether it is the handicap rule on ESC vs par+ or the OB/Lost Ball rule, if the majority of players are doing it different than the stated rule the majority of the time, then maybe the USGA should consider the pros/cons of a change in the rules??

The handicap rule has been de facto changed anyways as I don't know anyone besides Fourputt who would write down a par+ after pumping multiple balls OB.  Still, I think it would be better to have the handicap rule book read the sensible way (aka the same as everyone does it now).

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

Just wait until MEFree gets a hold of this one...

LOL- yes, I agree with Erik and do it just like everyone else except Fourputt- pick up after reaching ESC or lose multiple balls and drop one and I am turning in ESC not par+ for handicap.

Coming back to the topic at hand, it seems that during a "casual" round, many players will just go ahead and drop a ball as opposed to hiking back to the tee when they have an unexpected lost ball.  This makes a lot of sense to me in terms of speed of play and overall enjoyment of the round.

I prefer to play by the same rules for "casual" rounds and tournaments, in part, so that nothing I experience in a tournament is new to me.

Not to beat a dead horse, but whether it is the handicap rule on ESC vs par+ or the OB/Lost Ball rule, if the majority of players are doing it different than the stated rule the majority of the time, then maybe the USGA should consider the pros/cons of a change in the rules??

The handicap rule has been de facto changed anyways as I don't know anyone besides Fourputt who would write down a par+ after pumping multiple balls OB.  Still, I think it would be better to have the handicap rule book read the sensible way (aka the same as everyone does it now).

Did you bother to read the post in the thread that sacm3bill linked?  All I was doing was repeating the answer he got from the USGA.  If you read that thread, you'll see that prior to that I was on your side of the argument.  Don't be putting this on my head.  It's the USGA document that I'm quoting, not my own idea of what makes sense.  If they want a different interpretation, then they need to rewrite that section of the manual to clarify their position.

[sacm3bill]

Did you bother to read the post in the thread that sacm3bill linked?  All I was doing was repeating the answer he got from the USGA.  If you read that thread, you'll see that prior to that I was on your side of the argument.  Don't be putting this on my head.  It's the USGA document that I'm quoting, not my own idea of what makes sense.  If they want a different interpretation, then they need to rewrite that section of the manual to clarify their position.

In MEfree's defense I didn't take his post that way. He was just saying you're the only one he knows dong it the way that particular response from USGA said to do it.

[bplewis24]

Do you guys agree or disagree that the USGA's stance seems unreasonable (and borderline absurd) given the hypothetical situations that were offered?

I haven't paid close attention to the arguments the last couple pages, so I'm dismissing the possibility of an interpretation error.

[iacas]

Do you guys agree or disagree that the USGA's stance seems unreasonable (and borderline absurd) given the hypothetical situations that were offered?

I disagree with it. I don't want to use words like absurd.

[sacm3bill]

Do you guys agree or disagree that the USGA's stance seems unreasonable (and borderline absurd) given the hypothetical situations that were offered?

I haven't paid close attention to the arguments the last couple pages, so I'm dismissing the possibility of an interpretation error.

I'd just point out that there is no one stance, given that Erik has talked to representatives who say the opposite of what the "hotline" people told me. It's unfortunate that the hotline people ignored my specific questions about their rationale and instead fell back on stock responses.

At one point I even asked them if the rationale was to prevent sandbagging (one explanation that has been suggested by sandtrap members), and they ignored that question too. But I don't see how taking par plus on a hole where you've already jacked a ball or two out of bounds is sandbagging anyway - you really did jack a ball or two out of bounds, so it's not like reflecting that in your score is somehow dishonest.

I agree that in the grand scheme it doesn't matter since ESC comes into play fairly quickly.