Annual Handicap Review

[bunkerblaster]

It looks as if England Golf want the Annual Handicap Review (AHR) to be carried out between October and March. The EG WHS Platform now has reports available to assist in the process. A number of questions arise for discussion. I have seen a handicap review report, a sot cap/hard cap, and a WHS V CONGU handicap comparison. The handicap review flags up the names of golfers which the system considers should be reviewed by the Cttee. I can see a couple of hard capped 10 HI good golfers, I can see a player who reached the hard cap, hit form and now is on the way back down. a couple of high handicappers at the hard cap. There may be a couple flagged because the have had an ESR .

So on the subject of the two better golfers, clearly the ability is there to play under 10 HI but they are not doing it, I am thinking they need the hard cap raised to allow for the potential for a say 2 stroke higher new hard cap without the need to alter all their differentials, can this be done within the handicapping guidelines. I am going to do a lot more research on this, but my request if for advice on the mindset I should adopt and the technicals in the WHS platform to carry it out.

 

[wjemather]

It looks as if England Golf want the Annual Handicap Review (AHR) to be carried out between October and March. The EG WHS Platform now has reports available to assist in the process. A number of questions arise for discussion. I have seen a handicap review report, a sot cap/hard cap, and a WHS V CONGU handicap comparison. The handicap review flags up the names of golfers which the system considers should be reviewed by the Cttee. I can see a couple of hard capped 10 HI good golfers, I can see a player who reached the hard cap, hit form and now is on the way back down. a couple of high handicappers at the hard cap. There may be a couple flagged because the have had an ESR .

So on the subject of the two better golfers, clearly the ability is there to play under 10 HI but they are not doing it, I am thinking they need the hard cap raised to allow for the potential for a say 2 stroke higher new hard cap without the need to alter all their differentials, can this be done within the handicapping guidelines. I am going to do a lot more research on this, but my request if for advice on the mindset I should adopt and the technicals in the WHS platform to carry it out.

Yes, the handicap committee may reset the Low Handicap Index (which in turn resets the Soft/Hard Caps). There does not appear to currently be a facility to simply reset the LHI on it's own within the EG WHS platform - it has to be done in the process of applying an adjustment; as such, you have to apply an increase or reduction and then reverse it.

The only LHI resets I have done so far were for players who had activated the Soft/Hard Cap immediately on submitting their 20th score due to having a great score early on which did not have enough scores to average it out at the time, and so caused an freakishly low HI for their ability.

 

[bunkerblaster]

Yes, the handicap committee may reset the Low Handicap Index (which in turn resets the Soft/Hard Caps). There does not appear to currently be a facility to simply reset the LHI on it's own within the EG WHS platform - it has to be done in the process of applying an adjustment; as such, you have to apply an increase or reduction and then reverse it.

The only LHI resets I have done so far were for players who had activated the Soft/Hard Cap immediately on submitting their 20th score due to having a great score early on which did not have enough scores to average it out at the time, and so caused an freakishly low HI for their ability.

wje, Thank you for your response. Re your second sentence - exactly the same thing happened to one of our new players with the same result. We could not understand what had happened, when I checked the record, the adjustment happened after 20 scores so I guessed that was the trigger. That golfer has been flagged for review and because he is no longer as competitive as before and hard capped he will need adjusting.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

I've been looking at the players who have hit the hard cap. Specifically I have modelled what would be their "natural" HI if there was no low index. In most cases it would be 2 shots of less but in one case it's over 5 shots. Thus if we apply a maximum 5 shot adjustment and reset the Low Index they would still be at the hard cap.

 

[wjemather]

I've been looking at the players who have hit the hard cap. Specifically I have modelled what would be their "natural" HI if there was no low index. In most cases it would be 2 shots of less but in one case it's over 5 shots. Thus if we apply a maximum 5 shot adjustment and reset the Low Index they would still be at the hard cap.

After resetting the LHI, it does not get recalculated until the next score is entered. At this point it is set to the lowest index since the reset (i.e. the most recent one), so there is no possibility of still being affected by a cap.

 

[rulie]

wje, Thank you for your response. Re your second sentence - exactly the same thing happened to one of our new players with the same result. We could not understand what had happened, when I checked the record, the adjustment happened after 20 scores so I guessed that was the trigger. That golfer has been flagged for review and because he is no longer as competitive as before and hard capped he will need adjusting.

Just keep posting more scores and the LHI will change accordingly - it potentially changes with every score posted as the LHI is determined from scores in the last 365 days from the most recent score posted.

 

[NearHull]

I spoke to EG last week asking for advice on how to conduct the annual review ( there are guidelines on the R&A website). The reply was that they will be issued fairly soon.

We have circa 10 members flagged for a review using the WHS platform report - i‘m one of them.

 

[D-S]

Just keep posting more scores and the LHI will change accordingly - it potentially changes with every score posted as the LHI is determined from scores in the last 365 days from the most recent score posted.

Surely the LHI is simply the lowest index point in the last 365 days irrespective of the number of cards entered. It can possibly go down with each score posted but cannot go up.

 

[Swango1980]

Just keep posting more scores and the LHI will change accordingly - it potentially changes with every score posted as the LHI is determined from scores in the last 365 days from the most recent score posted.

If your Low Handicap Index was set, for e.g., 265 days before the current date, then how does handing in more scores solve the problem for the player. They could enter scores every day for the next 100 days and LHI will not change upwards. It will only change once the date of the LHI was 366 days previous.

 

[jim8flog]

Surely the LHI is simply the lowest index point in the last 365 days irrespective of the number of cards entered. It can possibly go down with each score posted but cannot go up.

Why do you think it cannot go up? I know mine is now higher than it was a few months ago.

 

[Swango1980]

Why do you think it cannot go up? I know mine is now higher than it was a few months ago.

It can go up, but I think the point he was making that this is independent of the number of scores submitted, it is dependent on time? If 3 players achieve a low Index of 10.0 on the same day, then all 3 submit 100% shocking / bad scores for the next, say 300 days, then the low index for each player will still be 10.0. It doesn't matter that one player submitted 5 scores, another 30 scores and another 150 scores since the date they achieved the low index. And, it doesn't matter how many scores they enter in the next 65 days, LHI will still be 10.0 for that period.

Of course, where handing in more scores does help is looking at it longer term. The player who handed in loads of scores just after achieving 10.0 will have seen early increases in their handicap above this, so after 365 days their LHI will start to increase faster. Whereas a player who barely played after achieving 10.0, will have had that low index for a longer period of time, and would have risen much more slowly. So the LHI would also rise slowly 365 days later and counting.

 

[jim8flog]

It can go up, but I think the point he was making that this is independent of the number of scores submitted, it is dependent on time? If 3 players achieve a low Index of 10.0 on the same day, then all 3 submit 100% shocking / bad scores for the next, say 300 days, then the low index for each player will still be 10.0. It doesn't matter that one player submitted 5 scores, another 30 scores and another 150 scores since the date they achieved the low index. And, it doesn't matter how many scores they enter in the next 65 days, LHI will still be 10.0 for that period.

Of course, where handing in more scores does help is looking at it longer term. The player who handed in loads of scores just after achieving 10.0 will have seen early increases in their handicap above this, so after 365 days their LHI will start to increase faster. Whereas a player who barely played after achieving 10.0, will have had that low index for a longer period of time, and would have risen much more slowly. So the LHI would also rise slowly 365 days later and counting.

I would agree time is the only factor.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I spoke to EG last week asking for advice on how to conduct the annual review ( there are guidelines on the R&A website). The reply was that they will be issued fairly soon.

We have circa 10 members flagged for a review using the WHS platform report - i‘m one of them.

You're lucky, I brought it up with Scottish Golf cos I couldn't find any reports, they haven't built reports yet, and are of the view that annual reviews are likely to be redundant because WHS should take care of players naturally

I don't know what to say to that really

 

[AliMc]

You're lucky, I brought it up with Scottish Golf cos I couldn't find any reports, they haven't built reports yet, and are of the view that annual reviews are likely to be redundant because WHS should take care of players naturally

I don't know what to say to that really

I don't know as much about h'caps as others clearly do and tbh don't have a great deal of interest in their workings but can see their point, with whs working why would you need an annual review

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I don't know as much about h'caps as others clearly do and tbh don't have a great deal of interest in their workings but can see their point, with whs working why would you need an annual review

There's the issue

 

[rulefan]

I don't know as much about h'caps as others clearly do and tbh don't have a great deal of interest in their workings but can see their point, with whs working why would you need an annual review

Possibly because players don't submit sufficient qualifying scores or haven't reported a health problem ....

 

[Colin L]

You're lucky, I brought it up with Scottish Golf cos I couldn't find any reports, they haven't built reports yet, and are of the view that annual reviews are likely to be redundant because WHS should take care of players naturally

I don't know what to say to that really

That is a serious distortion of the situation. Data from the season just finishing will be analysed and on the basis of that, reports will be devised and issued. The recommendation is that clubs therefore do not carry out any review till at least January/February. The expectation is that not many players will be highlighted by the review process.

I think that expectation may prove to be overly hopeful. I can't see that the WHS system can do anything to change the perennial problem of the declining player who doesn't put in scores and whose index will not, as a result. reflect their actual ability. "Twas ever thus.

 

[doublebogey7]

That is a serious distortion of the situation. Data from the season just finishing will be analysed and on the basis of that, reports will be devised and issued. The recommendation is that clubs therefore do not carry out any review till at least January/February. The expectation is that not many players will be highlighted by the review process.

I think that expectation may prove to be overly hopeful. I can't see that the WHS system can do anything to change the perennial problem of the declining player who doesn't put in scores and whose index will not, as a result. reflect their actual ability. "Twas ever thus.

But is it up to an annual review to solve this, surely now with a bigger emphasis on submitting casual rounds surely it is down to players themselves.

 

[Colin L]

But is it up to an annual review to solve this, surely now with a bigger emphasis on submitting casual rounds surely it is down to players themselves.

Absolutely down to the players. I didn't mean to suggest it was a fault of the WHS. What I would hope for is a report which highlights members who have submitted very few or no scores - something that I expect can be done easily by computer but which is just too time-consuming to be done by handicap committees.

 

[rulefan]

"Twas ever thus.

There is certainly evidence that rate of uptake of WHS casual scores is far greater than the use of CONGU Supplementary Scores. But in my club no indication of change by the seniors.