Annual Review Handicap Adjustment CONGU clause 23(A)

[3offTheTee]

I was undecided whether to post in ask the experts of here so if wrong I apologise.

Had a nightmare season with my 'best' 8 scores for the player of the year averaging 78 nett which is 7 over the SSS and CSS is also usually 71.

Under the review athe a omitted added 1 shot and my handicap is now 14, ok they may have thought 15 or 16 May be more appropriate.

1. Can anyone tell me how it is worked out and what is the criteria?

2. When I knew I was having a bad round say 15/16 I could have N/R(not a chance by the way) and in those circumstances what would have happened to my handicap?

3. Whilst I have no intention of appealing is an appeal possible?

 

[rosecott]

I was undecided whether to post in ask the experts of here so if wrong I apologise.

Had a nightmare season with my 'best' 8 scores for the player of the year averaging 78 nett which is 7 over the SSS and CSS is also usually 71.

Under the review athe a omitted added 1 shot and my handicap is now 14, ok they may have thought 15 or 16 May be more appropriate.

1. Can anyone tell me how it is worked out and what is the criteria?

2. When I knew I was having a bad round say 15/16 I could have N/R(not a chance by the way) and in those circumstances what would have happened to my handicap?

3. Whilst I have no intention of appealing is an appeal possible?

1. http://www.congu.com/FAQs.htm

2. No difference, NR also puts you up 0.1.

3. There is a laid down appeal procedure - see your Club Secretary, but don't hold your breath.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I have just completed our HC review

1.First thing we did was run off the Annual review from Club Systems which using a complicated formula makes suggestions of HC changes - both up and down

You could well have been flagged by that and then the committee decided to agree with the result and apply the HC change

2. NR wouldnt have change much in regards your HC - it would have been .1 added either way ( unless your bad round squezzed into buffer using Stableford adjustments )

3. Yes you can appeal but you obviously will be aware that they would have cut you for valid reasons and there is a little caveat in the Congu rules that in Annual review the committee can apply a change to allow someones HC to be a true reflection of the players ability - but they must provide some sort of evidence for that

 

[3offTheTee]

Thanks guys.

Regarding Rosecott's point 2 what I am saying that whilst I realise I would have had 0.1 back would anyone have been in a position to check my overall poor scores. I.e. Hypothetically if I had had 8N/r scores would the software have picked up my situation.

Repeat I have no intention of appealing

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Thanks guys.

Regarding Rosecott's point 2 what I am saying that whilst I realise I would have had 0.1 back would anyone have been in a position to check my overall poor scores. I.e. Hypothetically if I had had 8N/r scores would the software have picked up my situation.

Repeat I have no intention of appealing

Yes the software includes the NR's when doing the calcualtions

 

[duncan mackie]

Would just add that averages aren't the issue - the crux of the issue is whether your scoring suggests that you are correctly handicapped or not; and whether the committee believes ( based on everything they have available) that this is a true reflection - at which point they are required to act as they think appropriate.

 

[rosecott]

Thanks guys.

Regarding Rosecott's point 2 what I am saying that whilst I realise I would have had 0.1 back would anyone have been in a position to check my overall poor scores. I.e. Hypothetically if I had had 8N/r scores would the software have picked up my situation.

Repeat I have no intention of appealing

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you meant blanks on 8 holes in a round, you'll be outside buffer, it doesn't matter by how much you're outside.

If you meant you have had 8 NR rounds, that would be what contributed to an Annual Review increase recommendation.

 

[pbrown7582]

I had the same last year poor set of results which added a shot to my h/cap couldn't argue as even with the extra shot I wouldn't of made buffer. It the system just gives you extra incentive to correct faults and get the cuts to get back down.

 

[Old Skier]

I have just completed our HC review

1.First thing we did was run off the Annual review from Club Systems which using a complicated formula makes suggestions of HC changes - both up and down

You could well have been flagged by that and then the committee decided to agree with the result and apply the HC change

And obviously you will have checked their playing records and not just relied on the report from the system.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

And obviously you will have checked their playing records and not just relied on the report from the system.

Obviously

 

[chellie]

It's worth pointing out that should anyone wish to appeal against handicap alterations the player has to appeal in writing no later than two weeks after they have been notified of the change.

The club, however, can take as long as they want to look into it.

 

[louise_a]

The handicapping system makes recommendations and the handicap committee can act on them or ignore them as they think fit.

 

[Foxholer]

Yes the software includes the NR's when doing the calcualtions

I'm not entirely sure it can do that! As the, not all that complicated, calculation uses actual scores to calculate an average (as per the link Rosecott included), those NRs that don't show scores can't be included in that simple calculation!

D you have info not included in that FAQ answer?

 

[rosecott]

I'm not entirely sure it can do that! As the, not all that complicated, calculation uses actual scores to calculate an average (as per the link Rosecott included), those NRs that don't show scores can't be included in that simple calculation!

D you have info not included in that FAQ answer?

The AR report contains data on NRs to allow the committee to take them into account.

 

[Foxholer]

The AR report contains data on NRs to allow the committee to take them into account.

That's what I figured. It was the word 'calculation' rather than 'Report' that I wanted to clarify.

Another reason why it's preferable (at least to Congu) that scores are recorded, even when an NR may be the Competition result.

 

[duncan mackie]

I'm not entirely sure it can do that! As the, not all that complicated, calculation uses actual scores to calculate an average (as per the link Rosecott included), those NRs that don't show scores can't be included in that simple calculation!

D you have info not included in that FAQ answer?

it seems to be able to use incidence in the absence of scores

I was wrong to state that scores weren't relevant but, having gone through it all recently as others, incidence mapped out most obviously against recommendations.

 

[rulefan]

The annual review calculation takes account of the number of times you have player in your buffer zone. It is not concerned with average scores per se.

 

[Chisteve]

Mine has been cut by 1, should be alittle more i think I just don't play very well in comps ............ Yet

 

[Foxholer]

The annual review calculation takes account of the number of times you have player in your buffer zone. It is not concerned with average scores per se.

That contradicts what Congu have on their website - as per the link Rosecott posted in post #2!

Perhaps a combo of both - to include NRs?

 

[rulefan]

That contradicts what Congu have on their website - as per the link Rosecott posted in post #2!

Perhaps a combo of both - to include NRs?

Yes, I'm afraid I massively over simplified it.

CONGU use the median value which is not the same as people usually understand an average to be. For most non-mathematicians the average is the mean.

The mean is the total of the numbers divided by how many numbers there are.The median is the middle value of all the numbers.

The effect is to take more notice of the distribution and relative number of low scores rather than the cumulative value of higher scores.

I can't see how NRs can contribute to the formula. However, NRs do reduce the confidence in the recommendation as the more real scores the better.