Annual Review

[Rlburnside]

Does anyone know why a player at our club who has had over 20 consecutive .1s has not been flagged up on our handicapmaster softwhere?

Other players have been flagged up and given a increase so I can't be a glitch in the system .

 

[duncan mackie]

Has he subsequently had better scores? There certainly seems to be a difference in overall outcome depending on exactly when a review is done relative to a scoring sequence.
Other possibility is that the actual scores are only 1 away from buffer such that when reviewed against his current (2 higher) handicap he would now make buffer on a significant number of them - I believe that this is a factor in the calculation but don't have a source.

Other than that, I'm not a great believer in glitches except in the very early days of software implementation.

 

[rosecott]

Does anyone know why a player at our club who has had over 20 consecutive .1s has not been flagged up on our handicapmaster softwhere?

Other players have been flagged up and given a increase so I can't be a glitch in the system .

We use Handicapmaster. Every time I log in, it prompts me to view the list of players with 7 or more consecutive 0.1s. This has always worked perfectly with no glitches. I have been using Handicapmaster for 17 years and would bet my bottom dollar that there is no glitch. Is your player absolutely certain there is no break in the sequence of 0.1s? Also, the Handicap Committee does not have to increase handicaps based on the Continuous Handicap Review - your committee may have decided not to apply an increase.

 

[Jamesbrown]

Committee makes the overall decision.
Player could of had previous good scores. Player could of had 7 bad rounds but those 7 could be the only 7 rounds they’ve played in a year. Not enough evidence of capability.
Could of had those 7 bad rounds over a period of 2 weeks. Just shows a rough patch.

Playing 3 comps a week in season and if the weathers right I’ll pop an additional supplementary on Fridays. I can easily (and have) rack up 7 0.1s and never got a shot back and I wouldn’t want it either.

The player will have to get another 7 0.1s back and see what happens. Maybe write to the committee explaining why they need a shot back with evidence.

All this becomes irrelevant next year when WHS is implemented.

 

[duncan mackie]

Committee makes the overall decision.
Player could of had previous good scores. Player could of had 7 bad rounds but those 7 could be the only 7 rounds they’ve played in a year. Not enough evidence of capability.
Could of had those 7 bad rounds over a period of 2 weeks. Just shows a rough patch.

Playing 3 comps a week in season and if the weathers right I’ll pop an additional supplementary on Fridays. I can easily (and have) rack up 7 0.1s and never got a shot back and I wouldn’t want it either.

The player will have to get another 7 0.1s back and see what happens. Maybe write to the committee explaining why they need a shot back with evidence.

All this becomes irrelevant next year when WHS is implemented.

He's asking why the software might not have provided the flag rather than what the committee do next.

And no, it won't become irrelevant under the WHS as there is significant scope for flag generation and committee involvement in the implementation ie what you score won't automatically result in your handicap index in a number of circumstances.

 

[jim8flog]

the first question I would ask "is are you absolutely sure that the 0.1s are consecutive?"

I have had a few players at our club ask me about it and when I have looked at their scores they are not consecutive 0.1s

It is worth remembering that 20 0.1s would have already have given him a 2 shot increase.

 

[Jamesbrown]

He's asking why the software might not have provided the flag rather than what the committee do next.

And no, it won't become irrelevant under the WHS as there is significant scope for flag generation and committee involvement in the implementation ie what you score won't automatically result in your handicap index in a number of circumstances.

You could of just said. “You didn’t read the post properly *****.”

 

[rulefan]

Does anyone know why a player at our club who has had over 20 consecutive .1s has not been flagged up on our handicapmaster softwhere?

Other players have been flagged up and given a increase so I can't be a glitch in the system .

It sounds as if the committee may have decided to take no action.
But a query here may help if there has been no flag https://www.handicapmaster.org/forums3/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=e512f26b21a3d87bc5f54769b7870c54

 

[duncan mackie]

You could of just said. “You didn’t read the post properly *****.”

Then again I felt your last sentence raised an important point that other posters have also referenced in that way. The retention of the various control points by CONGU will create another new set of issues for committees to handle (in the manner of you opening points).

 

[Rlburnside]

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Player in question has had 27 consecutive.1s ranging from +4 to + 16.

He has not been flagged up but has been given a increase of 1.

This seems unfair to me as I think he should have been given a much bigger increase.

My understanding is if a player has 7 consecutive.1s his handicap should be reviewed.


I find it strange his scores have not been flagged up.

 

[jim8flog]

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Player in question has had 27 consecutive.1s ranging from +4 to + 16.

He has not been flagged up but has been given a increase of 1.

This seems unfair to me as I think he should have been given a much bigger increase.

My understanding is if a player has 7 consecutive.1s his handicap should be reviewed.


I find it strange his scores have not been flagged up.

It is reviewed if the handicap committee runs the continuous review report. The 27 0.1 increases would have already given him a 3 shot increase plus the extra 1 so maybe they feel that he has had enough increases already.

On our committee we would certainly not make increase so big that the player is likely to win the next time he plays. My limited experience is to change the handicap so that they are likely to buffer. Without knowing this persons handicap would the +4s put him in the buffer with his new handicap?

 

[Rlburnside]

It is reviewed if the handicap committee runs the continuous review report. The 27 0.1 increases would have already given him a 3 shot increase plus the extra 1 so maybe they feel that he has had enough
On our committee we would certainly not make increase so big that the player is likely to win the next time he plays. My limited experience is to change the handicap so that they are likely to buffer. Without knowing this persons handicap would the +4s put him in the buffer with his new handicap?

I have pushed for us to use the continuous review to no avail, and he hasn’t been given a increase in h/c by this method.

I was told the player has not been flagged up and has only been given a one shot increase by one of the committee

I feel he should of had a 3 shot increase, even with this increase he will still find it hard to compete due to his age.

 

[jim8flog]

The only thing I can suggest is that the players puts in a handicap review request citing clauses

23.16 Handicap Committees should review the handicaps of players to identify those players who are under-handicapped by running the Continuous Review Report on a quarterly basis during the playing season. This report runs on a rolling basis and does not re-set at the end of a calendar year.


23.17 Using the principles of the Annual Review, the General Play Adjustment and the advice document on the CONGU® website, Handicap Committees should apply a Continuous Review Increase (CRI) when deemed appropriate and continue to monitor the performance of such players closely.

and if they refuse to do so (and refuse an increase) appeal to County (area Authority).

 

[duncan mackie]

I was told the player has not been flagged up and has only been given a one shot increase by one of the committee

🤔 that shouldn't happen; requires the committee last time I looked. If it's changed then I apologise for wasting time...

 

[Old Skier]

Still done by committee

 

[Deleted member 15344]

How does the player know he wasn’t “flagged up “ ? It’s not something really the committee should share with people as it just creates arguments and issues

If the committee have given him a one shot increase then why was that if it’s not because the software has added him to the review list - and 27 comps in a row would be added to the list in my experience - quite clearly performance is way below target - but the maximum increase would be 2 shots

But then the committee can increase further if they wish but have to be careful when doing it

 

[Rlburnside]

How does the player know he wasn’t “flagged up “ ? It’s not something really the committee should share with people as it just creates arguments and issues

If the committee have given him a one shot increase then why was that if it’s not because the software has added him to the review list - and 27 comps in a row would be added to the list in my experience - quite clearly performance is way below target - but the maximum increase would be 2 shots

But then the committee can increase further if they wish but have to be careful when doing it

All the player in question knows is he has been given a one shot increase.

I have been told personally that he hadn't been flagged up and I can't understand why hence my question on here,another player was given a two shot increase and he had far less continues.1s

 

[rulefan]

Can you PM me with his CDH #