Here's a hypothetical situation that points up an anomaly in my view.
Two groups in a stableford competition, A and B, stop playing on the 15th and take shelter from a sudden downpour. After 10 minutes, group A decide to call it a day and walk in, thereby omitting 3 holes. Bob in that group has already gained 35 points. Group B decide to wait a few more minutes as it looks as if the squall is passing over and recommence play, completing the 15th and playing the remaining 3 holes. Fred in that group finishes with 36 points.
In the end, a score of 35 points is enough for 2nd prize.
If we say that Group A simply "finished its round" and omitted holes with the blessing of Decision 32-1/2, the players are not disqualified and Bob wins 2nd prize. If we say that the players in Group B must be disqualified under 6-8 because they discontinued play for 15 minutes without authority and without an acceptable reason, Fred does not share the 2nd prize.
Both Bob and Fred stopped playing and took shelter for the same reason. Bob wins 2nd prize because he then gave up and walked in. Fred is denied 2nd prize because he then continued play and completed his stipulated round with a higher points total than Bob.
I'm uncomfortable with that outcome. Being rewarded for giving up in adversity and penalised for persevering is, to me, the wrong way round.
