[Kalen Braley]

I didn't want to start a new thread, and besides this old one is an entertaining read with some terrific posts by GCA legends of yesteryear including Tom Paul. 

So my first question is, how does stuff like Jordan Spieth still happen in 2024?  Because not only would he have gotten it wrong, but also his opponent who was keeping his score?  And wouldn't his caddy have kept track too?  I don't get it.

My second question is, given your opponent keeps your score, what's to stop them from "accidentally" writing down the occasional wrong score in hopes you miss it and get DQ'd?  I mean if two guys hated each other and were in the same group, couldn't they just jag-off the other guys card out of spite?  Or are these shenanigans covered in the Tour bylaws?

Thanks in advance.

[Thomas Dai]

I didn't want to start a new thread, and besides this old one is an entertaining read with some terrific posts by GCA legends of yesteryear including Tom Paul. 
So my first question is, how does stuff like Jordan Spieth still happen in 2024?  Because not only would he have gotten it wrong, but also his opponent who was keeping his score?  And wouldn't his caddy have kept track too?  I don't get it.
My second question is, given your opponent keeps your score, what's to stop them from "accidentally" writing down the occasional wrong score in hopes you miss it and get DQ'd?  I mean if two guys hated each other and were in the same group, couldn't they just jag-off the other guys card out of spite?  Or are these shenanigans covered in the Tour bylaws?
Thanks in advance.

Fair points to make.
With prize money, sponsorships, ranking points and various vested and influential interests and self-interests involved nothing ought to really come as a surprise.
And what starts in the pro game is in due course more than likely to trickledown into the amateur game.
Verification in whatever form these days is probably more crucial now than ever before. And controversy usually sells.
Atb

[Tim Martin]

I was surprised at the Spieth DQ also as it shouldn’t happen if a marker score is being kept. I’ll give him credit for taking responsibility for the error as it’s clearly on him.

[Ben Hollerbach]

My hunch is Spieth was ticked off after his performance on 18, and didn’t do his due diligence in scoring. The totals were probably correct on the card, but the hole-by-hole was wrong, he confirmed the totals, signed, and went on his way.


All responsibility falls to Spieth to check the hole-by-hole before signing.

[Kalen Braley]

I understand the rule, even if I disagree with the draconian and grossly disproportionate nature of the penalty.

Its the mechanics that are a bit baffling:

1)  His opponent must of got it wrong, as he kept track on the official card that was turned in (as I understand it).
2)  Spieth got it wrong oh his own card.
3)  His caddy, whether he wrote it down or not, missed it.
4)  And the processes/procedures that he referred to were also ineffective?  (I'm not familiar with these but assume someone in the scorers tent would have known what it actually was)

Head scratcher...

[JohnVDB]

I understand the rule, even if I disagree with the draconian and grossly disproportionate nature of the penalty.

Its the mechanics that are a bit baffling:

1)  His opponent must of got it wrong, as he kept track on the official card that was turned in (as I understand it).
2)  Spieth got it wrong oh his own card.
3)  His caddy, whether he wrote it down or not, missed it.
4)  And the processes/procedures that he referred to were also ineffective?  (I'm not familiar with these but assume someone in the scorers tent would have known what it actually was)

Head scratcher...

I would dispute your second and third points.


He probably had it right on his tear strip, but probably didn’t check closely. Probably because, as Ben said, he was not paying enough attention after double bogeying 18.  Also, it sounds like he was feeling sick so his concentration wasn’t all there.


Having sat in scoring at professional events I will say that some p,Ayer’s involve their caddies and others don’t.  I don’t know if Jordan does or not. I’ve seen players go over every shot with their caddie and have them read the scores forwards and backwards and others not even have their caddie come into scoring.


I’d also guess that because of 18, he gave the card to the scorers and walked out before they had a chance to check it agains their computer. The standard procedure is that the scorer will total the card (ignoring any total that might be on there) and compare the card against the computer screen showing what the walking score entered.  If there is any difference they will check it with the player before he leaves the scoring area.  Sometimes players don’t wait.


In the end, this is all on the player and Jordan acknowledged that.

[Bill Shamleffer]

How many times did Jack Nicklaus get DQed for signing an incorrect scorecard?  0.


Attention to details matter, even in the scoring area.

[Carl Johnson]

Even tour pros are human.

[Sean_A]

I understand the rule so not much can be said on that point. However, as the comp is really multiple rounds, the real score is the final score. There really shouldn’t be four signed off scores. I raise the issue for the very situation such a Spieth’s and other issues over the years. It’s very simple to rectify an error as there is plenty of time until the end of the tournament. I don’t understand the false time constraint because the only real time constraint signature should be for 72 holes.


Ciao

[Ben Hollerbach]

I understand the rule so not much can be said on that point. However, as the comp is really multiple rounds, the real score is the final score. There really shouldn’t be four signed off scores. I raise the issue for the very situation such a Spieth’s and other issues over the years. It’s very simple to rectify an error as there is plenty of time until the end of the tournament. I don’t understand the false time constraint because the only real time constraint signature should be for 72 holes.

An incorrect score card could have a large impact on the cut.

It very much matters when the incorrect score is found and addressed. Even if an incorrect score is recorded during round one and caught following round 2, players on the course may have adjusted their play for a projected cut line influenced by the incorrect score. Or, as it happened in Canada last year, a player may falsify a scorecard to move their score below the cut line after the second round.

Your statement may be true only as it impacts the winner. But tournament golf includes a lot more than just 1 winner and whole pile of losers.  Unless the error is caught and corrected immediately, the implications of that error can easily trickle through the field affecting play across the tournament as a whole.

[Sean_A]

I understand the rule so not much can be said on that point. However, as the comp is really multiple rounds, the real score is the final score. There really shouldn’t be four signed off scores. I raise the issue for the very situation such a Spieth’s and other issues over the years. It’s very simple to rectify an error as there is plenty of time until the end of the tournament. I don’t understand the false time constraint because the only real time constraint signature should be for 72 holes.

An incorrect score card could have a large impact on the cut.

It very much matters when the incorrect score is found and addressed. Even if an incorrect score is recorded during round one and caught following round 2, players on the course may have adjusted their play for a projected cut line influenced by the incorrect score. Or, as it happened in Canada last year, a player may falsify a scorecard to move their score below the cut line after the second round.

Your statement may be true only as it impacts the winner. But tournament golf includes a lot more than just 1 winner and whole pile of losers.  Unless the error is caught and corrected immediately, the implications of that error can easily trickle through the field affecting play across the tournament as a whole.

Yes, so nothing changes. Of course any known error should be remedied ASAP. If the error is caught and remedied what is the issue with signing one time? Why does there need to be a penalty assessed to correct a mistake if discovered before signing the 72 hole score?


Ciao

[Ben Hollerbach]

I understand the rule so not much can be said on that point. However, as the comp is really multiple rounds, the real score is the final score. There really shouldn’t be four signed off scores. I raise the issue for the very situation such a Spieth’s and other issues over the years. It’s very simple to rectify an error as there is plenty of time until the end of the tournament. I don’t understand the false time constraint because the only real time constraint signature should be for 72 holes.

An incorrect score card could have a large impact on the cut.

It very much matters when the incorrect score is found and addressed. Even if an incorrect score is recorded during round one and caught following round 2, players on the course may have adjusted their play for a projected cut line influenced by the incorrect score. Or, as it happened in Canada last year, a player may falsify a scorecard to move their score below the cut line after the second round.

Your statement may be true only as it impacts the winner. But tournament golf includes a lot more than just 1 winner and whole pile of losers.  Unless the error is caught and corrected immediately, the implications of that error can easily trickle through the field affecting play across the tournament as a whole.

Yes, so nothing changes. Of course any known error should be remedied ASAP. If the error is caught and remedied what is the issue with signing one time? Why does there need to be a penalty assessed to correct a mistake if discovered before signing the 72 hole score?


Ciao

PGA Tour Canada, 2023 Ottowa Open: Justin Doeden double bogeys the 18th hole during the second round to record a 2 day total of -1. He review's his card with his playing partner & signs it. Before turning it in he looks at the leaderboard and notices the projected cut is -3. He alters his score on the 18th hole to be a par and turns in the card.

In this situation that actually happened last year, are you suggesting that because the error was caught shortly after it happened and because Justin's score of -1 would not have been good enough to make the cut that this was a no harm no foul type situation?

What if Justin's maliciously altered card placed him in a 3 way tie at T47, with the Top 50 a ties making the cut? Even if the error was caught same day it was committed, there's no telling what happened to the group of players who thought they finished T51. Correcting Justin's score, putting him behind the cut line, is not a sufficient enough penalty. What happens to the guy who thought he missed the cut and boarded a plane home that evening, only to land a few hours later to a message telling him he actually made the cut?

Signing an incorrectly lower scorecard occurs for one of 2 reasons negligence or maliciousness. We can't presume its all negligence when there are known examples of malicious behavior, and we can't presume the impact of the act will always been harmless, so the penalty has to be strong enough to dissuade malicious acts and protect the rest of the field. 

[Thomas Dai]

It’s not unusual for scores taken by on-course volunteer scorers and reported on TV to later be corrected. Such scorers, and there are usually quite a few, aren’t profession scorers, they’re amateur volunteers. They make mistakes.
While some folks might reckon they never make a mistake (ha, ha!) mistakes do occur as do blatant porky pies and when money is involved mistakes and blatant porky pies need to be eradicated.
Someone needs to be the person where the buck stops (appropriate phrasing). Hence it’s best if that person is the player themselves and they signify truthfulness by appending their signature to a card properly attested to protect the field by a playing partner.
Atb

[Sean_A]

I understand the rule so not much can be said on that point. However, as the comp is really multiple rounds, the real score is the final score. There really shouldn’t be four signed off scores. I raise the issue for the very situation such a Spieth’s and other issues over the years. It’s very simple to rectify an error as there is plenty of time until the end of the tournament. I don’t understand the false time constraint because the only real time constraint signature should be for 72 holes.

An incorrect score card could have a large impact on the cut.

It very much matters when the incorrect score is found and addressed. Even if an incorrect score is recorded during round one and caught following round 2, players on the course may have adjusted their play for a projected cut line influenced by the incorrect score. Or, as it happened in Canada last year, a player may falsify a scorecard to move their score below the cut line after the second round.

Your statement may be true only as it impacts the winner. But tournament golf includes a lot more than just 1 winner and whole pile of losers.  Unless the error is caught and corrected immediately, the implications of that error can easily trickle through the field affecting play across the tournament as a whole.

Yes, so nothing changes. Of course any known error should be remedied ASAP. If the error is caught and remedied what is the issue with signing one time? Why does there need to be a penalty assessed to correct a mistake if discovered before signing the 72 hole score?


Ciao

PGA Tour Canada, 2023 Ottowa Open: Justin Doeden double bogeys the 18th hole during the second round to record a 2 day total of -1. He review's his card with his playing partner & signs it. Before turning it in he looks at the leaderboard and notices the projected cut is -3. He alters his score on the 18th hole to be a par and turns in the card.

In this situation that actually happened last year, are you suggesting that because the error was caught shortly after it happened and because Justin's score of -1 would not have been good enough to make the cut that this was a no harm no foul type situation?

What if Justin's maliciously altered card placed him in a 3 way tie at T47, with the Top 50 a ties making the cut? Even if the error was caught same day it was committed, there's no telling what happened to the group of players who thought they finished T51. Correcting Justin's score, putting him behind the cut line, is not a sufficient enough penalty. What happens to the guy who thought he missed the cut and boarded a plane home that evening, only to land a few hours later to a message telling him he actually made the cut?

Signing an incorrectly lower scorecard occurs for one of 2 reasons negligence or maliciousness. We can't presume its all negligence when there are known examples of malicious behavior, and we can't presume the impact of the act will always been harmless, so the penalty has to be strong enough to dissuade malicious acts and protect the rest of the field.

Yes, a guy missing a cut because of an incorrect score is unfortunate. But that can happen regardless of a signature. Same for the Justin example. My point is if an incorrect score is known, amend it. I am not convinced folks can know the intent of a player for anything. I can understand a player being dqed for an incorrect score after the final round even if it was an oversight. Especially if by some weird chance it happened in the previous three days. But I can't get behind slamming players, especially those who didn't know they were penalized when they signed the card, for signing an unecessary three cards in a 72 hole event. If other players suspect there are cheaters, its pretty easy to take attestation a little more seriously. That is how the field is protected. Shit, if a player gets nailed for an incorrect signature, so should the attester.


Anyway, a difference of opinion is fine, but card mess ups are just another thing which makes pro golf look silly.


Ciao 

[Niall C]

It seems to me that the end of each round is the obvious and easiest time to tot up the score and sign the card. In terms of taking responsibility for errors, the player is responsible for his actions on the course so why not when logging his score ?


Niall

[Charlie Goerges]

the player is responsible for his actions on the course so why not when logging his score ?

To play devil's advocate, I might say "because in no other professional sport is the player concerned about tracking the score properly".


I'm not saying this is the right answer, but it is one of the areas that non-golfers find utterly mystifying.

[Kalen Braley]

I think Sean hit on all the main points as I see it.

With all the cameras, computers, and eyeballs literally looking at every single shot in real time and meticulously keeping track of all strokes (whether taken or incurred) it seems a very banal and redundant "final exam" where the player must correctly attest or be sent off. And even if they insisted on having a physical signed card, with current technology it would be super easy for a player to have the card scanned with a laptop camera and immediately spot any hole by hole difference and correct it.

At the end of the day, what do we care about? Whether a golfer has decent clerical and Quality Control skills or whether they can put a tiny ball in a hole?

Just seems a silly and completely obsolete final step on the modern Tour with no upside and absurd downside.

[Ben Hollerbach]

With all the cameras, computers, and eyeballs literally looking at every single shot in real time and meticulously keeping track of all strokes (whether taken or incurred) it seems a very banal and redundant "final exam" where the player must correctly attest or be sent off. And even if they insisted on having a physical signed card, with current technology it would be super easy for a player to have the card scanned with a laptop camera and immediately spot any hole by hole difference and correct it.

Every shot isn't captured on camera. So those players on camera more frequently would, for better or worse, have a better record of their scoring.

The walking scorers are volunteers who make mistakes and often need corrections. Talking with waking scorers its funny how they all complain about how all round the radio in their ear is a back and forth of the TV crews challenging the walking scorers about the score, having scorers going "well I didn't see it, I think so-and-so made the putt" or "The CBS guy was up near the green and didn't see so-and-so have to take an unplayable drop back in the fairway". There is a lot of human error in their participation.

Speaking of human error. one of the walking scorers responsibilities is interfacing with Shotlink, they tell the shotlink system who's shot to record, and if they fail to select when a player is playing, or they select the wrong player the data will be wrong and need it's own correction. Have you ever watched a group tee off on TV and 2 of the 3 players had a shot tracer on the screen? the reason the 3rd person didn't get it is because the walking scorer was too slow to tell the system that player had tee'd off.

There are not as many eyeballs on the play as you may think. During this years AT&T Pebble Beach, 12 of the 80 players in the field while playing Spyglass Hill lost a ball in the general area. The ground was so wet that balls would plug in the fairway or rough and players were unable to find them. We're talking about 2 pro's, 2 am's, 4 caddies, and the marshals on the course repeatedly not being able to find balls in play.

But all of that is secondary to there being only one rulebook for golf. Yes the PGA Tour at any point in the last 60 could have written their own, but they continue to differ to the USGA. At no other level in the game could outside scoring be possible. The infrastructure around the tournaments just isn't large enough. Peer attested scoring continues to be required across the spectrum of the game. It's not being removed from the rulebook anytime soon. Sure, the PGA Tour could ask the USGA to write a MLR to accommodate 3rd party scoring for PGA Tour events, but once again, after 60 years they have chosen not too.

I would imagine the tradition of peer attested scoring is one reason why things have not changed on the PGA Tour, but the greater reason is most likely because so very rarely does a player turn in a wrong card. This week 240 of 241 cards were accurate and without error. A success rate of 99.58% and it was an aberration in scoring accuracy that was noteworthy. This was also a small field, Last week they were 409 for 409 in accurate cards. Is this a problem worth a significant deviation for?

[Niall C]

the player is responsible for his actions on the course so why not when logging his score ?

To play devil's advocate, I might say "because in no other professional sport is the player concerned about tracking the score properly".


I'm not saying this is the right answer, but it is one of the areas that non-golfers find utterly mystifying.

Charlie


The glib answer to your advocacy would be to say why should we care what non-golfers think ? In this instance I think that would be partially valid although I appreciate there will be other instances where it does very much matter. Personally I'd like to think the non-golfer might be intrigued by the expectation on golfers to play to the rules and to be be self-policing in doing so, in contrast to other sports where trying to hoodwink the ref/umpire is part of the game.


Niall

[Mike_Trenham]

For daily club kind of events there should be a local rule that the golfers are responsible for BOTH their total as well as their individual hole scores.  The club professionals would then only be required to review and confirm the hole by hole scores line-up for the golfers in the money that day. This rule is set up for the highest levels of competition and is an unnecessary tax on the rest of the game.

[Charlie Goerges]

the player is responsible for his actions on the course so why not when logging his score ?

To play devil's advocate, I might say "because in no other professional sport is the player concerned about tracking the score properly".


I'm not saying this is the right answer, but it is one of the areas that non-golfers find utterly mystifying.

Charlie


The glib answer to your advocacy would be to say why should we care what non-golfers think ? In this instance I think that would be partially valid although I appreciate there will be other instances where it does very much matter. Personally I'd like to think the non-golfer might be intrigued by the expectation on golfers to play to the rules and to be be self-policing in doing so, in contrast to other sports where trying to hoodwink the ref/umpire is part of the game.


Niall

I don't really disagree with any of that, and by and large the current system works just about all of the time. But I have some sympathy for the idea that, at the top level at least, the tour should just hire (no volunteers) a scorer (or two) for every group on the course.

[JohnVDB]

A player has three responsibilities in a stroke play event.1) Get to the first tee on time.
2) Hole out their ball on every hole.
3) Make sure there are 18 correct scores on their scorecard at the end of the round as well as the proper signatures. They can spend as long as they want in there making sure its right.  I've had players be still in there checking their cards when the next group arrived because they wanted to get it right.

Most DQ's happen because a player is pissed and doesn't pay attention or wait for the people in scoring to double check it. I'm not going to say that happened with Jordan, but he did just double bogey the 18th.
Does the Committee really know what the player's shot?NO, in many cases they don't. 

Having been the Chair of Scoring Central volunteers at a PGA Senior Championship, I can assure you that the walking scorers make tons of mistakes or find out about things they didn't see or know happened. We were getting radio calls all day to change  scores on the computer that were entered incorrectly in their handheld devices.  Even after the cards were returned we had to change scores because score the player and marker reported was different than what the walking scorer entered and it got resolved in scoring. So, how do we get the final word?  By the player telling us what they shot which they do by returning a scorecard.

I keep hearing the "pundits" on Golf Channel saying that ShotLink has all the data.  But, they don't or they only get it by word of mouth.  For example, if a player is in the trees, ShotLink may not be able to see them. They may take two strokes to get the ball out. I assume the walking scorer reports that to ShotLink.

Also, ShotLink doesn't always know if a drop was for a penalty or not.  Again, the walking scorer needs to report that to them.
Also, there is one walking scorer for a group of three players.  If A is in the left trees and B is in the right trees, they might not see a shot.

I don't think they have ShotLink at the second or third courses at some events or some of the overseas events.  This would mean that they would have to tell the players that they have to certify the scores sometimes but not others.  Lets make it more confusing.  Also, other tours don't have ShotLink so the players would be having to remember to sign for their scores when they play in those events.

Changing the RulesThe Rules on scorecards have been liberalized several times over the past 10-15 years.
1) Don't add a penalty that you didn't know you incurred, we'll add the penalty and an additional two strokes instead of DQ'ing you.
2) People didn't like that when it happened to Lexi, so we'll just add the penalty and not the additional two strokes.
3) You didn't make sure your handicap was correct on your scorecard.  No problem, we'll call that Committee error and fix it.
4) There is now a Model Local Rule (L-1) that, if used, says you don't get DQ'ed for not signing your card (or your marker not signing the card).  Instead you get two strokes.  Note to any club pros out there, use this Local Rule!
So, the Rules could be liberalized some more and allow corrections on the cards, probably as a Local Rule and with a two-stroke penalty added. Maybe it will happen. The Rules have been liberalized in so many ways I can see it being a possibility.

How do you deal with the mistakes when they happen and affect the cut or pairings?
Every major organization has policies in place for how to deal with this. I've been gone for 5 years so my info might be out of date, but when I was at the USGA we said that once the pairings or match play brackets were published they couldn't be changed.  We had a case at a USGA championship where a player came into the office after we'd published the match play bracket and told us he'd signed for a wrong score.  He was DQ'ed and his opponent got a bye.  We weren't going to try to round up the players who had been in the playoff and play it.
So, assuming the Tour has something similar they would just go with the cut as it was.

[Lou_Duran]

if I may ask, who is this "shivas" guy in the earlier pages?  The name I associated years ago is not part of this thread.


IMO, cheating may be a problem at some local clubs and competitions, but it's not major and can be resolved.


There is nothing wrong with the marking, verification, and signing of scorecards under the current rules.  And having live-scored on the KF Tour, I can attest from the ongoing radio communications that errors are commonly made during the round and nearly always resolved in Scoring.

[Ben Hollerbach]

if I may ask, who is this "shivas" guy in the earlier pages?  The name I associated years ago is not part of this thread.

The first 3 pages of this thread are nearly 20 years old...

[Steve Wilson]

Shivas wasn't Dave Schmidt?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()