Virtual Certainty

[wadesworld]

If I go by FourPutt's suggestion, as a bogey golfer, I would be taking 5 instead of likely score of 7 (distance + penalty) on a typical par 4 hole.   This will prevent my HI from inflation but will not accurately reflect my "potential."   But I understand that these things (should) happen rarely that it won't make much difference in bigger scheme of things.

As Fourputt said, the point of the par + handicap strokes is not to reflect what you think you would have made on the hole, but rather a score which will ensure your handicap stays the same.  If your handicap already accurately reflects your potential, then that won't change.

[rkim291968]

I will be following Fourputt's suggestion on that very rare occasion when I don't hit a provision and could not find the ball. I am virtually certain of that.

[turtleback]

fourputt, I understand your point.  I went back and read both rules (4.1 and 4.2) the two decisions, and I don't see that this situation falls clearly in one camp or the other.  The example used for rule 4.1 discusses a conceded stroke, while the example for 4.2 discusses a hole not played because a green is under construction.  In my interpretation, when he chose not to replay the shot that resulted in a lost ball, he's decided not to finish the hole.  Its interesting in that one rule would allow the ESC score, while the other would use par plus handicap, which would probably be lower.  It might be interesting to email the USGA and find out what they would say.

While you are right that the handicap manual is not as clear as it could be, the point has come up before and members have directed the question to the USGA and Fourputt's answer is what they said was correct.  Someone who is very good at searching here could probably find the past thread(s) where this has come up.  The USGA is pretty good about answering question of this type, although they caution you to not publish their exact response publicly.

So if you want real, can-read-it-for-yourself, confirmation (I would, in your position) you can ask them yourself.  The email address is on their website as I recall.

[DaveP043]

Thanks, I was about to do just that, so I'll save my fingertips the wear and tear of typing it out.  I do trust that  It does seem odd that if the player, after not finding the ball, had simply retired from the hole he'd have used Rule 4.1 for posting purposes, but by taking an incorrect drop and completing the hole, posts a score (almost certainly lower) based on Rule 4.2.  This is apparently one case where the rules don't seem quite fair, but they are what they are.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveP043

Thanks, I was about to do just that, so I'll save my fingertips the wear and tear of typing it out.  I do trust that  It does seem odd that if the player, after not finding the ball, had simply retired from the hole he'd have used Rule 4.1 for posting purposes, but by taking an incorrect drop and completing the hole, posts a score (almost certainly lower) based on Rule 4.2.  This is apparently one case where the rules don't seem quite fair, but they are what they are.

I think that it goes hand in hand with Rule 6-1:

Quote:

6-1 . Rules

The player and his caddie are responsible for knowing the Rules . During a stipulated round , for any breach of a Rule by his caddie , the player incurs the applicable penalty.

When returning a score for handicap, the player is expected to play by the rules, and any deliberate deviation must be treated more severely to ensure that he does not artificially pad his handicap through the breach of a rule when he knows the correct procedure.

[DaveP043]

I've just had another question come into my mind.  Supposing that the player, before turning in the score, realizes that she's essentially played from the wrong place, i.e. has dropped in the bunker instead of replaying the shot leading to the lost ball.  Could she apply the 2-stroke penalty for playing from the wrong place, and post that score?  The Committee could still DQ her for a significant breach, so the question applies only to posting her score.

[ColinL]

I've just had another question come into my mind.  Supposing that the player, before turning in the score, realizes that she's essentially played from the wrong place, i.e. has dropped in the bunker instead of replaying the shot leading to the lost ball.  Could she apply the 2-stroke penalty for playing from the wrong place, and post that score?  The Committee could still DQ her for a significant breach, so the question applies only to posting her score.

You can make any correction to your card before handing it in. You just have to be sure to involve your marker so that he is signing for the amended card.

[Fourputt]

I've just had another question come into my mind.  Supposing that the player, before turning in the score, realizes that she's essentially played from the wrong place, i.e. has dropped in the bunker instead of replaying the shot leading to the lost ball.  Could she apply the 2-stroke penalty for playing from the wrong place, and post that score?  The Committee could still DQ her for a significant breach, so the question applies only to posting her score.

In my opinion, for posting she would have to score that hole as one not played under the principles of the rules.  Since the most likely result in a competition would be DQ, and in a non tournament round that would not be a likely option, then the hole should be posted as par plus handicap allowance for having breached a rule on that hole without correcting the mistake.

You can make any correction to your card before handing it in. You just have to be sure to involve your marker so that he is signing for the amended card.

Here in the US for casual rounds, the card doesn't need to be attested, or even turned in in most cases.

[Golfingdad]

In my opinion, for posting she would have to score that hole as one not played under the principles of the rules.  Since the most likely result in a competition would be DQ, and in a non tournament round that would not be a likely option, then the hole should be posted as par plus handicap allowance for having breached a rule on that hole without correcting the mistake.

I fully understand your reasoning, however, I don't know that I agree.  There is plenty of information to go on prior to running afoul of the rules.  We know for a fact that she should have been hitting her 3rd from the tee on a medium-ish length par 3 (6 iron distance).

If we're playing match play and are conceded a stroke we are allowed the opportunity to make a judgment on what we would have scored for posting purposes.  If my opponent bungled the hole and I still had a 50' putt or something, it's not really reasonable for me to assume that I would have made that putt, but it is pretty fair to assume I'd 2 putt from there, so I get to post that, right?

Seems like a stretch to force her to assume she'd have birdied with the second ball (pretty sure shes a single digit) so I don't think it would be egregious at all for her to post a 5 (her ESC I think) there.

However, all of that said, I like to lean towards the conservative/vanity side of the scale because, A) I want a low handicap, and B)being labeled a sandbagger is something I most definitely do not want ... so I would probably post as you suggest.  :)  I wouldn't argue with anybody else who wanted to post a 5 there though, that's all.

---

A side question:  How rigid is the "hole not played by the rules" principle?  Let's say that there was also a water hazard on this hole and prior to the shot into the bunker, she dunked one.  Does that principle still apply even though it's a 100% known certainty that she was already beyond 'par plus handicap' when she broke the rule?  If so, I think that principle is a little silly.

[14ledo81]

A side question:  How rigid is the "hole not played by the rules" principle?  Let's say that there was also a water hazard on this hole and prior to the shot into the bunker, she dunked one.  Does that principle still apply even though it's a 100% known certainty that she was already beyond 'par plus handicap' when she broke the rule?  If so, I think that principle is a little silly.

As long as it is not virtually certain......

[wadesworld]

Thanks, I was about to do just that, so I'll save my fingertips the wear and tear of typing it out.  I do trust that  It does seem odd that if the player, after not finding the ball, had simply retired from the hole he'd have used Rule 4.1 for posting purposes, but by taking an incorrect drop and completing the hole, posts a score (almost certainly lower) based on Rule 4.2.  This is apparently one case where the rules don't seem quite fair, but they are what they are.

You're thinking about it backwards, which is not uncommon.  You're thinking that by allowing you a lower score, the handicap system is benefiting you.  However, that's backwards.  They're hurting you by making you take a lower score.  If there's a change, your handicap will go down, which gives you fewer strokes.  In actuality though, your handicap will likely stay exactly the same.

Remember that the par+handicap strokes only applies towards the score you post in the handicap system.  The score you actually made or the score you turn in for a tournament are completely different.  (As was mentioned, to turn the score in for a tournament, the mistake would have to be corrected before teeing off on the next hole)

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

In my opinion, for posting she would have to score that hole as one not played under the principles of the rules.  Since the most likely result in a competition would be DQ, and in a non tournament round that would not be a likely option, then the hole should be posted as par plus handicap allowance for having breached a rule on that hole without correcting the mistake.

I fully understand your reasoning, however, I don't know that I agree.  There is plenty of information to go on prior to running afoul of the rules.  We know for a fact that she should have been hitting her 3rd from the tee on a medium-ish length par 3 (6 iron distance).

If we're playing match play and are conceded a stroke we are allowed the opportunity to make a judgment on what we would have scored for posting purposes.  If my opponent bungled the hole and I still had a 50' putt or something, it's not really reasonable for me to assume that I would have made that putt, but it is pretty fair to assume I'd 2 putt from there, so I get to post that, right?

Seems like a stretch to force her to assume she'd have birdied with the second ball (pretty sure shes a single digit) so I don't think it would be egregious at all for her to post a 5 (her ESC I think) there.

However, all of that said, I like to lean towards the conservative/vanity side of the scale because, A) I want a low handicap, and B)being labeled a sandbagger is something I most definitely do not want ... so I would probably post as you suggest.  :)  I wouldn't argue with anybody else who wanted to post a 5 there though, that's all.

A side question:  How rigid is the "hole not played by the rules" principle?  Let's say that there was also a water hazard on this hole and prior to the shot into the bunker, she dunked one.  Does that principle still apply even though it's a 100% known certainty that she was already beyond 'par plus handicap' when she broke the rule?  If so, I think that principle is a little silly.

There is a big difference between playing a stroke on the putting green and playing a stroke from the tee.  Maybe with your 6.5 index you can predict what's going to happen every time you play from the tee (though we know that isn't so, since we are already talking about dealing with something unexpected).  I can't remotely predict what I'm going to do from any given tee, including a short par 3.  In fact, most players will score higher than par plus, and that is the reason for that difference in the handicap manual.  A stroke conceded on the green is clearly not seen in the same vein by the USGA as playing a stroke from the tee or from the fairway well short of the green.  Too many variables still in play for most players.

Well, I'm not going to debate it any more since I'll just be repeating myself.  Since the question was put to the USGA and they agreed with my belief, that's good enough for me.

[Golfingdad]

There is a big difference between playing a stroke on the putting green and playing a stroke from the tee.  Maybe with your 6.5 index you can predict what's going to happen every time you play from the tee (though we know that isn't so, since we are already talking about dealing with something unexpected).  I can't remotely predict what I'm going to do from any given tee, including a short par 3.  In fact, most players will score higher than par plus, and that is the reason for that difference in the handicap manual.  A stroke conceded on the green is clearly not seen in the same vein by the USGA as playing a stroke from the tee or from the fairway well short of the green.  Too many variables still in play for most players.

Well, I'm not going to debate it any more since I'll just be repeating myself.  Since the question was put to the USGA and they agreed with my belief, that's good enough for me.

No need to debate ... I told you that I score it the same way myself. But I'm still curious about my follow up question:

How rigid is the "hole not played by the rules" principle?  Let's say that there was also a water hazard on this hole and prior to the shot into the bunker, she dunked one.  Does that principle still apply even though it's a 100% known certainty that she was already beyond 'par plus handicap' when she broke the rule?

So everything else the same.  She drops in the bunker, plays on and gets DQ'd.  Since she played the hole not according to the rules, does she still have to post par + handicap even though she was already beyond her ESC even before the rule infraction?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

There is a big difference between playing a stroke on the putting green and playing a stroke from the tee.  Maybe with your 6.5 index you can predict what's going to happen every time you play from the tee (though we know that isn't so, since we are already talking about dealing with something unexpected).  I can't remotely predict what I'm going to do from any given tee, including a short par 3.  In fact, most players will score higher than par plus, and that is the reason for that difference in the handicap manual.  A stroke conceded on the green is clearly not seen in the same vein by the USGA as playing a stroke from the tee or from the fairway well short of the green.  Too many variables still in play for most players.

Well, I'm not going to debate it any more since I'll just be repeating myself.  Since the question was put to the USGA and they agreed with my belief, that's good enough for me.

No need to debate ... I told you that I score it the same way myself.    But I'm still curious about my follow up question:

How rigid is the "hole not played by the rules" principle?  Let's say that there was also a water hazard on this hole and prior to the shot into the bunker, she dunked one.  Does that principle still apply even though it's a 100% known certainty that she was already beyond 'par plus handicap' when she broke the rule?

So everything else the same.  She drops in the bunker, plays on and gets DQ'd.  Since she played the hole not according to the rules, does she still have to post par + handicap even though she was already beyond her ESC even before the rule infraction?

I don't see any difference, since the reasoning behind the par plus rule is to keep a player from inflating his or her handicap by breaching a rule.  It really goes hand in hand with the logic behind most penalties, that the player doesn't gain an advantage by a breach, and doesn't gain a distance advantage other than by making a stroke.  In this case it keeps a player from gaining a handicap advantage by breaking the rules.

[Tat14]

So everything else the same.  She drops in the bunker, plays on and gets DQ'd.  Since she played the hole not according to the rules, does she still have to post par + handicap even though she was already beyond her ESC even before the rule infraction?

I only apply the par + handicap strokes for holes that I didn't play at all due to weather or darkness driving me off the course. This actually made me assume two bogies last Sunday when I could've possibly broken 40 for the first time. Poop.

In your case above, I think ESC applies to her adjusted score for posting. Tourney score was moot at the point of DQ.

[DrvFrShow]

In this case a drop (+2 strokes violation), out, and 2 putt I make a 6 on the par 3. By ESC I take an 8. Which one grants me the unfair advantage? I posted the 100. It's moot because GHIN kicked it out for the revision.

[Golfingdad]

I don't see any difference, since the reasoning behind the par plus rule is to keep a player from inflating his or her handicap by breaching a rule.  It really goes hand in hand with the logic behind most penalties, that the player doesn't gain an advantage by a breach, and doesn't gain a distance advantage other than by making a stroke.  In this case it keeps a player from gaining a handicap advantage by breaking the rules.

Fair point, however, the obvious catch-22 here is that since our handicap system is largely self-monitored, I don't imagine the guy who wants to game the system by intentionally breaking a rule to inflate his handicap is going to be deterred by a rule preventing that. ;)

But at least I get the reasoning.

[Tat14]

In this case a drop (+2 strokes violation), out, and 2 putt I make a 6 on the par 3. By ESC I take an 8. Which one grants me the unfair advantage? I posted the 100. It's moot because GHIN kicked it out for the revision.

Correcting my comment above, USGA Handicapping Section 4 says that par plus handicap strokes should have been the score. The six or the equitable eight was "too high" for lack of a better phrase.

Like you said, GHIN ignored the 100. But I learned a little today though, so TY.