I. Facts

F recently shot a 65 to win the BMCC Club Championship. When his score was posted, several of his golfing companions were highly skeptical of this posting, particularly when they confirmed that the Club Championship was an 18-hole event, and that there were no witnesses who could be found who actually saw F on the premises.

Readers Sandwich, ZM, JS, and others who regularly play with F all said this score was “impossible” as F “wasn’t worth a shit”.

When pressed as to how and when he shot a 65, F confessed that he had actually mailed in his score. Nevertheless, he stated that under the “For the Golfer Act” which he was championing, golfers should be able to mail in their scores to combat the “systemic bias” inherent in awarding titles to players who actually qualified, registered for the event, and played with the lowest scores.

F cited the many hardships he had confronted on the links, including a bad swing, the yips, and no talent; he cited his American-Indian heritage; and he further noted that he hadn’t even been a member of a country club until after the 4th grade… and that was a 9-hole course in Madisonville, Ky. Yes, someone answered, but you have often told us you grew up playing with Reader BF, and he ended up on the professional tour.

F quickly changed the subject and outlined his proposed legislation:

1) The contestant does not have to show up at the tournament; mail-in scores are allowed

2) If he chooses to compete, the contestant does not have to provide an ID, or even belong to the hosting Club in question, as long he is able to manage his way onto the property ( BMCC, for instance, has a few walls and a swift, dangerous creek…but no problem if the contestant can overcome these barriers and isn’t caught before he reaches the first tee).

3)The Committee has no right to question Club membership or player credentials, as this would “suppress” participation

4) No witnesses are required to confirm the posted score. The rule requiring a valid signature on the scorecard to certify a score is henceforth abolished as it has a chilling effect on the act of submitting the scorecard, and imposes an unfair burden on marginal players.

5) Submitted scores are not subject to audit

F is confident his “For the Golfer Act” will pass eventually, and bring equity back to the game of golf. He promises not to let a spiteful filibuster by a few of his companions impede this historic effort. With passage, F is confident many more club championships are in his future.

II. Facts

In singles match play competition at a local club, a Reader pointed out to his opponent on the first tee that his handicap as recorded on the scorecard they were handed was a stroke higher than his handicap as reported on the GHIN app. The opponent asked the starter what he should do, and was told after a quick review that the GHIN app probably hadn’t been updated with the course’s new slope and course ratings.

Play commences, and the opponent wins the match 6-5. The next day our Reader receives a communication from the Club stating that the GHIN app was actually correct, and that the opponent had indeed played the match with a handicap higher than that to which he was entitled.

In this communication our Reader is offered 3 options:

1) To disqualify the opponent under R 3.2c;

2) To accept the results in the interest of sportsmanship; or,

3) To replay the match

Issue

How should a player respond?

Result

Our Reader advised the Committee that it should not be his choice to make, and that he believed the Committee should be instructed by the Rules of Golf. Subsequently, upon review by the Committee, our Reader is advised that his opponent was disqualified.

In fact, R 3.2 is quite specific. It is the player’s responsibility to know his handicap, and a player in match play who tees off with a handicap higher than that to which he is entitled is disqualified in match play. There is no provision under the rules to accommodate handicap mistakes by the Committee, or alternative outcomes in the event of an incorrect handicap entry.

This is a tough case, as the opponent made an effort to confirm that his handicap as listed on the scorecard was correct. Nevertheless, the Committee ultimately reached the correct Ruling.

F will carefully consider this case, however, and perhaps address its troubling outcome in his proposed “For the Golfer Act” so that players in future competitions aren’t tripped up by pesky Rules.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F