Jump to content
bkuehn1952

2019 Local Rule - 21.2 Maximum Score

Local Rule, 21.2 Maximum Score  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Local Rule, 21.2 Maximum Score, apply in any Stroke Play Tournament?

    • No. It is not a real stroke play tournament if a maximum is used versus the actual hole score
    • Yes, as a pace of play factor
    • Other - please explain


24 posts / 3412 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

I saw a comment in another Topic where a poster did not like a certain amateur tour because they imposed a maximum score per hole.  There was no explanation as to why this was a problem but presumably the poster felt a stroke play event wasn't really "stroke play" if one could pickup at double par or whatever the limit was.

For 2019 the USGA has added a Local Rule which can be used for tournaments.  There is no plan to implement this Local Rule in any USGA event and I suspect the rule is aimed at low level amateur events only.  Our club has used a maximum for some time. We run handicapped tournaments for seniors (50+).  Our member's handicap indices run from 0.0 to 36.0. We use 9 (gross) as the maximum.  Our maximum allowed course handicap is 36 and 9 is the ESC at that level.

We have used the Maximum Score rule as a pace of play tool.  When one has a "D" flight with twenty five seniors sporting handicaps of 25-36, no one wanted to watch one of our old guys shoot a 20 on a hole.  It also helps with Rules issues.  If someone goes sideways with a serious breach, we often can just plug in the maximum without resorting to a DQ. 

What does everyone else think?

 

http://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/images/rules/rules-modernization/golf-new-rules/Rules of Golf for 2019.pdf  [page 119]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

I have never played in a tournament other than charity events/scrambles so I dont have much experience in with stroke play tournaments. 

Last year I was debating about joining the GolfWeek Am Tour, and as I was reading over their rules, I noticed they have a triple bogey max on each hole. 

The guys I play with on a regular basis don't keep handicaps, but if they did, one would be similar to mine around 10-15, and the other 3 would be in the 20+ range, so I suggested we play with the triple bogey max rule as well, and we have been doing so ever since.

I personally dont think I've scored anything worse than an actual triple since we implemented it, but it has definitely helped with our pace of play a bit and the morale of the other guys since they know that a 8 is the highest they would actually score, when some cases they would have scored 10 or more on one hole. They don't take golf that serious, so by us capping it at a triple bogey, it makes it more enjoyable for them.

I think this is a good thing for the small, local amateur tournaments like the scenario @bkuehn1952 described, so I voted yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I don't have a problem with it for a net tournament as long as the max isn't too low.  My son played in some high school matches where the max was DB.  I think some of the kids weren't experienced golfers, but 3B sounds better to me.

BTW I've only played in one real tournament (and even that was shortened to a single round due to weather) and it's a goal for next year to play more (but that's a different topic), but a guy I was paired with was an getting 18 strokes playing his first tournament.  He played the front 9 in 9 over and had a marvelous back nine, except for a par 5 where he got in jail and couldn't get out.  Made something like a 13 or 14 and ended up finishing 3rd where a 10 or so would have put him in first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The tournament I play every year uses a maximum of triple bogey rule and a quota system. I think it works well. It helps with pace of play. I voted yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I used to be in the "as a pace of play factor" camp, until I played in a handicap no max score tournament this year. A guy in my flight had an 11 on a par 5 and I beat him by two shots I think. If they had the max score rule, I may have come in second to a fellow competitor that didn't finish a hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I had to choose "Other" because I believe there are plenty of times to use it (US Kids Golf tournaments, maybe a high school girls tournament, a club championship for the B through D flights… or any other lower level events) and plenty of times not to use it (city stroke play championship, U.S. Open, AJGA events… or any other higher level event).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I agree with @iacas. I can see it implemented for a lot of low-level tournaments. Your regular men's club event probably should use it. Most high school golf tournaments should use it. Higher level competitions, like the state golf championship, scratch club championship, etc., shouldn't use it.

For what it's worth, I don't think triple bogey is high enough - I would suggest double par or maybe a 10. I've won net events while making multiple triple bogies before. It should be a score that puts you completely out of the running for winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I like it for low level events as mentioned. I like it as a part of recreational golf as well, but thats a serrate issue entirely. Shouldn't be used in higher level tournaments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, DeadMan said:

For what it's worth, I don't think triple bogey is high enough - I would suggest double par or maybe a 10. I've won net events while making multiple triple bogies before. It should be a score that puts you completely out of the running for winning.

Yes, I’m thinking either double par + 1 or 10 across the board. US Kids Golf has used 10 for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

In low level tournaments I could see how it might help with pace of play. I certainly don't want it in play in any stroke play tournament that I am in. 

Additionally, whatever the cutoff score it is needs to be a net score not a gross score. What I mean is this, if you have the cutoff as a gross triple bogey and both myself and a 6 handicap both fail to finish the #6 handicap hole his net score would be one less than my net score, which is certainly not fair. If you have a max score that max score needs to be the same for everyone regardless of handicap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

We have a popular senior tournament 70+ to participate.  The maximum is the person’s maximum +1.  I think this eliminates most possibilities of someone winning who has not finished the hole.  Some players are in their 80s and there is a forced carry a couple of regular players have trouble with but they always give it a try.

It’s a net tournament 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bkuehn1952 said:

We use 9 (gross) as the maximum.

I'd be fine with that if it was NET. Not gross. Things like that should always be net, because you literally don't know what they'd have gotten.

So if a 36 gets a 9 that becomes a 7, but a 35 might have to take a net 8 on that hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'm also in the "other" camp, I think its fine for some club-level competitions  There's no question that this could help with pace of play, but it can also act as a bit of a "mercy rule."  I've seen a very few occasions where a player hits 4 or 5 balls OB in a row, At some point he'd appreciate the option to quit the hole without withdrawing from the tournament.  I do agree that the max score should be net-based, rather than gross, to keep things somewhat equitable across the full range of players.  And I agree that this should apply only to lower-level competitions.  

On the other hand, a max-score rule does have the potential to change results.  Its unlikely that someone who takes a  net 10, instead of 12 or 14, will play well enough on the remainder of the holes to be in the money, but its not completely impossible.  I'm not sure how I'd feel about that, no matter whether I was the one getting the benefit or getting the shaft.  But rules are rules.  I can see this being tried for a season at some clubs, and discontinued if an influential club member feels like he got cheated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

For casual golf, I am indifferent.  If it is to be applied, certainly applying it to the net score for the hole is the only rational method. 

I guess it depends on what changes we are willing to embrace for the sake of “pace of play” - that is the only logical reason I can see.  

For tournament golf, making a change like this to prevent people from becoming discouraged is the equivalent of a participation trophy. I play in flighted events on the GCAT, and have seen (more than once) a competitor cruising along with a great round (a few strokes over par, leading the flight) get wiped out by one tough hole. Last spring, my partner was +3 after 16 (leading by 4 strokes over 13 other people) and rang up a 12 on the par 5 17th. He finished 2 strokes off the lead. 

I can certainly see the argument for the other side in certain cases - but I guess we have to decide what “real golf” means.... maybe that definition is changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

13 minutes ago, BushwoodCC said:

For casual golf, I am indifferent.  If it is to be applied, certainly applying it to the net score for the hole is the only rational method. 

I guess it depends on what changes we are willing to embrace for the sake of “pace of play” - that is the only logical reason I can see.  

For tournament golf, making a change like this to prevent people from becoming discouraged is the equivalent of a participation trophy. I play in flighted events on the GCAT, and have seen (more than once) a competitor cruising along with a great round (a few strokes over par, leading the flight) get wiped out by one tough hole. Last spring, my partner was +3 after 16 (leading by 4 strokes over 13 other people) and rang up a 12 on the par 5 17th. He finished 2 strokes off the lead. 

I can certainly see the argument for the other side in certain cases - but I guess we have to decide what “real golf” means.... maybe that definition is changing.

This IS intended as an option for tournament golf.  For casual play, ESC does virtually the same thing, you can pick up your ball at any time.  Its up to the committee running any tournament to decide whether to limit hole scores or not.  And I agree with you, it has the potential to change outcomes at least occasionally.  The trick is to make the score limit high enough so that a player CAN take himself out of contention, and low enough to actually improve the pace of play..  

As for what "real golf" is, our friends in the UK have been playing Stableford as a competition format for a long time, and I feel pretty certain they believe that's real golf, even though there's a limit on hole score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I just reread this poll. The first time I read it I really didn't notice the "stroke play" thing... So I voted yes because in a Stableford it works perfectly well. So, I'd like to change my vote to yes, for Stableford tournaments and No for stroke play tournaments … unless there are special circumstances. 

It's not that I can't read. Just sometimes I choose not to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

6 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

So, I'd like to change my vote to yes, for Stableford tournaments and No for stroke play tournaments … unless there are special circumstances. 

That doesn't make much sense, because for Stableford there is effectively already a stroke limit.

And for tournament play… see the post one above yours by @DaveP043. It's intended to be a high number for lower-level competitions to keep play moving.

As I've pointed out, USKG tournaments have had a stroke limit of 10 for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2018 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
    More to come…
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • It's speculation that doesn't actually matter. GOAT is not the longest driver or we'd already be throwing Cameron Champ's or Jamie Sadlowski's names in the discussion.
    • How far would golf's legends drive the ball using modern equipment? At the 2016 Ryder Cup, the 6-foot-5 Thomas Pieters belted a drive 324...   An interesting article on how players way back would have driven the ball with today's ball and equipment.  I didn't realize that Jack had driven the ball 341 yards in a longest drive competition when he was 18.  
    • Oy. I don't give a shit about two top ten finishes in a decade. Nor am I comparing Jack to Vijay Singh, a guy whose putting stroke has been AWOL since roughly 2011. He wasn't. That's easily refuted. As for straighter you're not comparing like to like - you don't know what the fairway widths were, how far the ball bounced, etc. But we do KNOW that Tiger was longer than Jack. Tiger at 43 with a fused back is longer than Jack was when Jack was 40, 41, 42, or 43. Tiger @ 43: 297.8 Jack @ 40: 269.0 Jack @ 41: 264.3 Jack @ 42: 264.6 Jack @ 43: 266.1 Tiger was almost 30 yards longer at 43 than Jack was at 40, 41, 42, or 43. Now, several posts in, you're changing that up to say that, given modern equipment or whatever, Jack would probably have been as long as Tiger. But that's not what you said. Uhhhhh… He didn't do that. Neither did I. No they aren't. Furthermore, if all Tiger had to do was hit the ball 266 yards, he could probably hit 80% of the fairways. Fairways that are likely narrower, etc. So you lost the distance one, and if you want to measure "accuracy" by "fairway hit percentage" I again will point out you're not comparing like to like. They aren't playing the same golf courses, the same fairways, or hitting it the same distances. Furthermore, and more importantly, I don't care about stats like this when determining who the GOAT is. If you do, that's cool, but what I care about is wins, dominance, scoring averages, that sort of thing. I don't care who had a better short game (Tiger by far), who was a better putter (tie?), who hit a better 7-iron (almost surely Tiger), or whatever. I care about Ws. So not only are you provably wrong on distance, possibly off-base on accuracy, but you're arguing about things that most people don't even care about. Nobody considers Calvin Peete in the GOAT discussion because of how accurate he was off the tee. Huh? No. 🤦‍♂️ Uhhh, according to Jack, it was 118 MPH. I call bullshit on that. Oy. I don't give a shit about two top ten finishes in a decade. Nor am I comparing Jack to Vijay Singh, a guy whose putting stroke has been AWOL since roughly 2011. He wasn't. That's easily refuted. As for straighter you're not comparing like to like - you don't know what the fairway widths were, how far the ball bounced, etc. But we do KNOW that Tiger was longer than Jack. Tiger at 43 with a fused back is longer than Jack was when Jack was 40, 41, 42, or 43. Tiger @ 43: 297.8 Jack @ 40: 269.0 Jack @ 41: 264.3 Jack @ 42: 264.6 Jack @ 43: 266.1 Tiger was almost 30 yards longer at 43 than Jack was at 40, 41, 42, or 43. Now, several posts in, you're changing that up to say that, given modern equipment or whatever, Jack would probably have been as long as Tiger. But that's not what you said. Uhhhhh… He didn't do that. Neither did I. No they aren't. Furthermore, if all Tiger had to do was hit the ball 266 yards, he could probably hit 80% of the fairways. Fairways that are likely narrower, etc. So you lost the distance one, and if you want to measure "accuracy" by "fairway hit percentage" I again will point out you're not comparing like to like. They aren't playing the same golf courses, the same fairways, or hitting it the same distances. Furthermore, and more importantly, I don't care about stats like this when determining who the GOAT is. If you do, that's cool, but what I care about is wins, dominance, scoring averages, that sort of thing. I don't care who had a better short game (Tiger by far), who was a better putter (tie?), who hit a better 7-iron (almost surely Tiger), or whatever. I care about Ws. So not only are you provably wrong on distance, possibly off-base on accuracy, but you're arguing about things that most people don't even care about. Nobody considers Calvin Peete in the GOAT discussion because of how accurate he was off the tee. Huh? No. 🤦‍♂️ Uhhh, according to Jack, it was 118 MPH. I call bullshit on that. Ha ha ha.
    • I’ve never been one to sit on my donkey for too long. The past four and half decades have pretty much been work for me , as so I know, for many others as well.  Developing my golf game will (not) dominate my new found free time. It will though give me a new avenue of pursuits that I hope will keep my mind expanding. Thanks for the input and reply. 
    • That sort of extrapolation is not possible.  You are talking that he would be hitting the golf ball further than the average long drive competitor. I am not buying it. He would be one of the longer hitters on tour. Jack is not the physical freak like Dustin Johnson. I would put him probably a top 10 in distance yearly if he was in his prime competing today.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Dan42nepa
      Dan42nepa
      (63 years old)
    2. James Dalton
      James Dalton
      (78 years old)
    3. JMHARDING
      JMHARDING
      (29 years old)
    4. mwh1023
      mwh1023
      (52 years old)
    5. Skeesh
      Skeesh
      (47 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...