US Mid Am Qualifier @ Yale

[JESII]

Not sure where to go with that one.


I think that approach should be used more in these qualifiers, especially the two day ones. The right thing would be a substantial probation period for those not submitting a score card. A verified good explanation submitted later could end the probationary period, but it must be verified and good if you ask me.

[Tom Huckaby]

Question - do you get the "don't come back" USGA letter if you NC, or just if you don't get within 10 strokes of your handicap, or whatever the number is?

If only for a score returned, well... that might explain the high number of NCs and any given tourney.

TH

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't think there is a rule that allows the committee to pull a guy from the competition because he playing so badly he is hurting the field.  In a bicycle criterium they have marshals staged thoughout the site pulling people who don't belong.  You don't have to play in all that many tournaments before you get paired with a guy who is already 20 shots out and obviouly should not have been there to begin with.

[John Kavanaugh]

Question - do you get the "don't come back" USGA letter if you NC, or just if you don't get within 10 strokes of your handicap, or whatever the number is?

If only for a score returned, well... that might explain the high number of NCs and any given tourney.

TH

Huck,

I got the letter once for getting sick the day of the competition and not hitting a shot.  I sent my caddie to the course to tell them I couldn't make it and of course have no proof he did despite an $80 tip for his trouble.  (I figured I owed him because he was out a loop unless he found another last second)

[Tom Huckaby]

JK - those are weeded out by the "don't come back letters", no?  And of course you understand that life and limb is not stake in any golf tournament - at least not to the same extent as a bicycle race.  

I recall Tom Paul once describing how tournament officials COULD highly encourage the most egregious laggers to leave mid-round also... I could be wrong though....

In any case, having been one of the laggers far more than one of the true competitors, I'd ask you guys to give us a little break.  We likely are trying our best, and can do better, but have lives and the pressure of playing against you guys brings out the worst in us.  So long as we play quickly, what do you care?

And we crossed re my question.  I know you get letters if you no show - and I'm guessing your caddie just didn't get the word to them in time.  No-shows with notice given within a time frame typically set forth (ie 24 hours in advance) usually are OK, as I recall.  My question is if guys who NC but did play a certain number of holes get the letter.

TH

[Bob_Huntley]

The NC business happened very rarely in the colonies but I remember when it happened at the Northern Rhodesian Amateur one year. The Committee Chairman, one Bertie Williams, was just an old fashioned type who felt that you should finish and post. A couple of the NC boys pulled there usual stunt and Bertie then ordered the scorer to post a 99 against each competitor's name on the scoreboard and had the local paper print the scores .

Probably couldn't or shouldn't happen here, but he sure felt happy about having done it.  


Bob

[Jim Sweeney]

If a player starts a USGA Qualifier he must post a score or he is subject to the 10 stroke rule. However, the local committeeman or the person in charge of the competition can exempt a player from the rule. This could happen in the case of a WD due to injury or if the player was clearly capable but had a really bad day. For example, a few years ago our city champion shot an 84 or something but was not reported.

UInfortunately, too many times the same people show up every year and turn in there 85s, 90s, and worse.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jim:

If they get the letters, how can they keep showing up every year?  I thought the whole purpose of the letter was to say the player is suspended from doing the competition again.

But anyway thanks for answering my NC question.  So OK, it is embarassment rather than ulterior practical motives that might cause the "score too high, MC instead of posting it" move.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

redanman - you missed a key part of Mike's question, one that makes it legit (I think).  The player is already out there on the side of the mountain, having been told by his fellow-competitors that the ball would be OK.  The time for the provisional has long since passed.  Sure he SHOULD have hit a provisional, but he didn't on the advice of the other guys,  Happens all the time.

Is the greater honor REALLY to go back and hold up play, just for the sake of posting a score?  I know the rules say this... I just wonder if in this instance the greater good might not be to just take the NC and keep play moving.

And of course we also know the lesson from Bob's story:  one NEVER messes with a man named Bertie.

 

[Mike_Sweeney]

redanman - you missed a key part of Mike's question, one that makes it legit (I think).  

Huck,

This is GolfClubAtlas! You know that selective reading is allowed to suit one's needs.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Mike - of course!  I stand corrected.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

r - oh I know you don't mean to dodge, but this answer puts you as even more appropriate for a co-starring role with Ben Stiller.

The question isn't what he should have done before the ball was lost; the question is what is the more honorable procedure given the facts.

Your answer to that would be appreciated.  And I can't believe your answer is that he should intentionally DQ.

 

[Mike_Sweeney]

Huck,

I appreciate your stamina.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Mike - well, I do want an answer to this!  It's a hell of a good question, and I really do want to know what the rules mavens - or anyone else - thinks.

It sure seems logical to me that in this specific instance, keeping play moving trumps the absolute necessity to turn in a score.  But logic doesn't always apply in the rules of golf...I expect there to be SOMETHING that says one should post the score.  I'm intrigued as to what that might be.

TH

[michael j fay]

Mike:

The instance you sited may be a good reason for a WD or NC.

The problem is that 24 of these prima donnas either NC or WD at Yale and each and every one of them has what they consider a valid reason.

I got two 10 shot over letters from the USGA, the first I believed was a fluke bad round. The second I took a hint and came to the realization that I did not belong in the field unless I had a resurgence in my game. I played on in the Conn. State Golf Assoc. events for a couple more years. Never received a 10 shot over letter, but did not need one.
I retired because of lack of talent.

I never qualified for a USGA site visit, although I was close a number of times. When I failed to reach the site in the Connecticut Amateur two years in a row, I knew that the field did not need me.

Far too many boutique handicap players play in these qualifiers. They may be a 2 at their home course from the whites. When faced with a tournament prepared golf course, two playing partners that hit the ball 40 yards by them and no competition mindset, they fail, NC and learn nothing. The NC is because they cannot admit to themselves and their friends that they just are not good enough. It is a very bad situation because that person will go over and over if allowed and he is just dragging everyone down.

If someone NCed and I were running the show I would make them sit for at least the season up through the same tournament the next year.

Defend Traditiion!

[Bob_Huntley]

Michael,

A good test is to read the scores at the R&A Autumn Meeting Medal Round. You will see scratch players carding high eighties and even nineties when the wind is blowing.

I must say that I did a NC a few years ago but that was because I hit a couple of drives into The Old Course Hotel and ran out of balls. The previous holes were not played too well either.

Bob

[michael j fay]

Running out of Titleists is acceptable. Running out of balls is not.

[James Bennett]

Bob, Redanman and others

In South OZ, the 'vardon trophy' events used to (25 years ago) have an automatic score of 88, ie 18 over the course rating for that day, for any DNF/NCR/DQ.  Not sure of the current practice.  This was used for the full season averages, although only the top 20 were ever seen.

James B

[Frank Pasquale]

I queried the USGA about what happens to NCs and WDs, and this is the response I received:


A player who "no cards" will receive a letter, the same letter of those
players who posted a score above the 10 strokes of the course rating.
He must answer the letter, giving scores of recent play in a local,
state or national level.  If he does not comply, he will be pulled from
future USGA qualifiers.  If a person "wd's" inquiries are made to the
official in charge as to what was the reason, if it shows that he
really no carded, he too will receive such a letter.

[AndrewB]

I played in the qualifier at Yale on Monday and you can add another to the list of people that love the course.  I'm still not sure whether I'm more disappointed that I played poorly or that I couldn't get out for another round that afternoon.

As others mentioned, the wind was up and it got stronger as the day went on.  The course was playing relatively firm, particularly for an inland American course, and the hole locations were quite tricky.  The greens were quick and true, and overall I thought the course was in very good shape.

The design is really interesting, fun to play, and of course challenging.  As I'd heard before, the scale of the course is large, particularly the greens and surrounding bunkers.

The use of partially blind and fully blind shots throughout the course was really interesting and adds a considerable mental challenge.  (Disclaimer: I don't mind blind shots at all and think they can be used very effectively to vary the challenge of a course.)  Three, eight, and 12 are really interesting examples of blind shots.  From all of the tees you can see the majority of the hole, but you cannot see the specific areas you are hitting to: the landing area for the drives are blind and the greens are blind from those landing areas once you get there.  I can't recall seeing this design characteristic used before where you can see the shape of the whole hole, but not the intermediate points that you need to use to get there.  10, 11, 17, and 18 also have blind landing areas for the tee shots; on all of these you can see enough to know what the correct general direction is, but certainly not enough to be entirely sure of yourself.

In fact, I found the driving challenge presented at Yale much more interesting than most courses.  There's the partial blindness mentioned above, but also holes like four and six where water hazards come well into the line of play.  Both of these were very well positioned for someone of my length to present the choice of challenging or laying up.  One, two, and 16 were the only relatively straight forward drives out there.

Being on my way back from Royal Dornoch, the sharp dropoffs on the left, right, and back of the fifth reminded me of 10 there (though, the 10th green at RDGC is half as wide as the fifth at Yale).  The 14th at Yale also somewhat reminded me of the 15th at RDGC since I ended up with a short pitch to an elevated green that I needed to hit very well just to hold the green (my drive hit a rock on that left mound and ended up just 50 yards short of the green).  The obvious difference is that 15 at RDGC has a lot more options for how to play the shot.

The ninth being so long makes the shot to back hole locations really interesting for me.  For long players it's probably not a problem to land and stop it on the back quickly, but I have a relatively low ball flight and wasn't sure if I could stop the ball if I landed it back there.  Thinking about where to try and land the ball, the trajectory required to run it through the swale, and the likelihood of actually landing where you want within it was a lot of fun.  I imagine I could stand on that tee with a bucket of balls all day and have a LOT of fun.  The striking thing about this hole is that getting to the correct portion of the green seems like the hard part, but once you get up there you realize that there's still a lot of work left to two putt if you're on the wrong side of the hole (as I was).

I've played a few Redan holes and, if my memory is not failing me, this one seemed to have the most countour in the green that I've seen.  The slope on the front right of the green seemed like it would send a lot of balls right of the green as well as feeding them down left onto the green.  This certainly makes accuracy important when playing for that slope since you could easily end up on the other side with a very difficult chip or putt onto the green.  The very back of the green slopes back to front severely which also puts a premium on distance and trajectory control since if this long shot gets away from you and you run just off the back, as I did, you have one hell of a pitch shot left.

Anyhow, those are my comments on the course for now.  I really hope to have the opportunity to get back out that way so I can play the course again.

[JESII]

Thanks for that summary Andrew. Wish you had played a bit better. Good luck the rest of the year.

Tom and Mike,

I think every situation allows a tactful escape, including Mike's hypo. Why is it so difficult to tell your playing companions you'll meet them on the green, walk back to your original spot and 1) if nobody is yet waiting, play out quickly, or 2) if the following group is on the tee, wait off to the side and have them hit. As they are walking to their tee shot you have plenty of time to drop - hit - walk and play into the green and finish out the hole.

This may cause a minute or so in total delay but it does require one thing. A determination to post a score. This determination is lacking in some, always has been, always will be.

Mr. Huntley's story seems like a good avenue.

[Tom Huckaby]

Gents, we can all find examples and specifics to defend whatever side we believe in in this.  

And yes, I do concur that it is wise to err on the side of tradition, determination, honor, whatever you want to call it.  MCs should be avoided if at all possible.

But just as you are saying in Mike Sweeney's example the guy should go back and tactfully play his way in, well... no offense to Mr. Huntley but why couldn't he just borrow a golf ball or two from a fellow competitor?  Why was it Ok for him to quit, where you seem to be demanding Sweeney's man finish at all costs?  And he really would be NCing out of courtesy, trying to stay out of the way of the competitors behind him.

Seems to me that the principle of turning in a card no matter what is a good one, but there are exceptions.  The key is that one should do this only in the direst of circumstances.

I get that.

So I still dont' see why Sweeney's man wouldn't be right and honorable to just take the NC and get out of the way.  And JES, I know he COULD go back and do this somewhat unobtrusively.  I just don't see that that represents any higher good, in this situation.

If the principle is finish no matter what and you are demanding he go back, then you also shouldn't be excusing Mr. Huntley.

TH

[JESII]

Tom

My referrence to Bob Huntley was directed at the story from the Rhodesian Amateur where the players NCing were posted as 99. After all, I see NC as an ego issue and that tact would certainly bite.

I may well be wrong, but running out of balls due to the OLD Course Hotel being in the way is easily excusable.

Here's my view. If you are going to show up, you need to be prepared to keep up the pace and post your score. What you shoot has very little bearing on anyone else's life, and should concern them very little.

[Tom Huckaby]

JES:

My intent was not to pick on Mr. Huntley as of course one does that with the certainty that the return riposte will be swift and true.    I just do believe if one is going to take this fully on principle, there really can be no exceptions.  Personally I think EACH of Mike Sweeney's golfer and Mr. Huntley were justified in the NC; I still don't see how anyone can say Huntley is and the Sweeney golfer isn't.

I any event, I absolutely agree with the following, and would say it's my view also:

If you are going to show up, you need to be prepared to keep up the pace and post your score. What you shoot has very little bearing on anyone else's life, and should concern them very little.

Sweeney's golfer is taking an action in an effort to keep up the pace.  His score will indeed have no bearing on anyone.  I just believe that keeping up the pace has equal or greater merit than the absolute necessity to post a score.  

Look at it this way:  ask those guys on 18 tee who have to wait while Sweeney golfer returns to the tee, etc. which action THEY would rather have him do.  I'd say they'd all be very fine with his NC, and in fact would prefer it.

Wouldn't you?

Thus this exception.  Again, we agree on the principles - NCs should be utterly cryit downe.  There are just very few absolutes that work absolutely in this golf life.

 

[JESII]

Tom,

There is surely a fine line because my first instinct is to look at the R&A Autumn Meeting Medal Round as having a degree of social golf that these qualifiers people sign up for and then NC so as not to 1)ruin their handicap or 2) embarass themselves publicly, do not.

A competition among fellow members is a different animal than local, regional or national competition.

[Tags:]

Tags: