Annual review

[User20204]

It's about how you are playing. As it takes forever to go up a shot and still playing badly you almost can't wait to go up, then when you're game comes back, you're desperate to come down, horrible game

 

[Backsticks]

Handicap changes given after the annual review should not be optional.

They arent. 'Optional' handicap increases are either a misreporting, or, if factual, of a handicap committee not doing its job correctly. The player does not have an option.

 

[Crow]

I was given a shot on my handicap recently but asked them to take it back.

0.1 back in every comp this year (12 straight 0.1s!) but I put that partly down to the heart attack I had in January together with a frozen shoulder I've had since December.
Play wise I feel that my chipping, which has destroyed potentially good rounds over the last year or two, is coming back and the frozen shoulder is getting better so not as restricting on my swing.

 

[Backsticks]

Presumably though, they declined your request? Handicaps do not change according to the players asking. If the hc cttee deemed your handicap should be raised to reflect your recent scores, then that is that, according to the Congu system at least.

 

[duncan mackie]

Presumably though, they declined your request? Handicaps do not change according to the players asking. If the hc cttee deemed your handicap should be raised to reflect your recent scores, then that is that, according to the Congu system at least.

In Crow's case he is at least providing the committee with additional, relevant, information to factor into their decision.
In that case I would look at the latest couple of scores and see if there is any evidence to support the premise that the players is really returning from injury - however it would have to be clearly discernable. Without it the answer is simple - it goes to the new level and is monitored closely for a period. It's not right for the rest of the club otherwise.

One of the products of the change over to the WHS at the end of next year will be a wholesale realignment around such issues anyway. Reality will win out!

 

[rulefan]

I was given a shot on my handicap recently but asked them to take it back.

0.1 back in every comp this year (12 straight 0.1s!) but I put that partly down to the heart attack I had in January together with a frozen shoulder I've had since December.
Play wise I feel that my chipping, which has destroyed potentially good rounds over the last year or two, is coming back and the frozen shoulder is getting better so not as restricting on my swing.

.
What are your differentials now? But when you had 7 straight 0.1s you should probably have had an increase then.
As you are not playing to your correct handicap you are possibly affecting other players' handicaps and are letting your partner down if playing in better balls.

 

[Backsticks]

In Crow's case he is at least providing the committee with additional, relevant, information to factor into their decision.
In that case I would look at the latest couple of scores and see if there is any evidence to support the premise that the players is really returning from injury - however it would have to be clearly discernable. Without it the answer is simple - it goes to the new level and is monitored closely for a period. It's not right for the rest of the club otherwise.

One of the products of the change over to the WHS at the end of next year will be a wholesale realignment around such issues anyway. Reality will win out!

Open to correction, but as far as I remember, health issues are not relevant to the decision. The ctte must make their decisions based on scores. This was to make it independent from petitions from players looking for shots back on the basis of this or that injury or health issue. The correct procedure, is play, return scores, and the hc will be adjusted on those without bias.

 

[rulefan]

Open to correction, but as far as I remember, health issues are not relevant to the decision. The ctte must make their decisions based on scores. This was to make it independent from petitions from players looking for shots back on the basis of this or that injury or health issue. The correct procedure, is play, return scores, and the hc will be adjusted on those without bias.

Clause 23/6 would suggest that health is an important factor deciding on giving a handicap increase.

 

[njt1986]

was speaking to a guy over the weekend who had a very poor season last year and had gone from 6 to 8 and was offered an increase in his handicap, but refused

so would you take the increase or not?

Yes. Handicap isn't a status symbol to me, nor is it an ego thing. If i'm playing better on average, cut it, it's fine. If I start playing worse, raise it. I'd much rather have it reflect how I play in general. I wouldn't give a monkeys if I went from a 10 to a 28, if that's how i've been playing then that's what it should be, and vice versa

 

[jim8flog]

We get most appeals against a handicap increase form players that have their handicap increased.

No appeals have been upheld in the past 3 years, since I have been part of the committee.

 

[duncan mackie]

Open to correction, but as far as I remember, health issues are not relevant to the decision. The ctte must make their decisions based on scores. This was to make it independent from petitions from players looking for shots back on the basis of this or that injury or health issue. The correct procedure, is play, return scores, and the hc will be adjusted on those without bias.

A case of yes, but...

Jim's provided a reference, but in this specific context it may be easier to reverse the situation to see how it fits with the principle (as you present it).

A player has a health issue that impacts his game. He plays and it's obvious from his scores that with that health issue he has the wrong handicap.
The committee initially decide to increase the handicap based on the scores.
Then are then advised that the condition is improving and expected to have gone within a short period - and a further look at the scores supports this with the last 2 scores being +2, then +1 to buffer.
Would they be correct in ignoring the new information, against which they can relate recent scores, and go ahead with a further increase?
Arguably the increase they are proposing is now clearly related to a temporary health issue yet you suggest that they would be wrong not to make it, and go on to suggest that they shouldn't make such increases?

I'm simply saying that the committee should take into account all such factors.

Where we agree 100% is that the players wishes are not relevant🤔

 

[Smasher]

I voted yes as i want my handicap to represent the level i play at, i wouldn't be happy about it getting 'worse' (higher) though.
If it were higher or even lower than it should be i'd feel like i'm cheating myself, bandit handicap or lying to myself about how 'good' i am.

 

[rulefan]

I voted yes as i want my handicap to represent the level i play at, i wouldn't be happy about it getting 'worse' (higher) though.
If it were higher or even lower than it should be i'd feel like i'm cheating myself, bandit handicap or lying to myself about how 'good' i am.

If your playing record reflects the level you play at, why would the committee propose a change (increase or decrease)?

 

[Hitdaball]

Yes please.

12 to 24 should be good. It’s not going to make any difference to me making buffer tho 🤣

I’ll have a word and we will try that out on the 6th at Coxmoor 👍🏻😬😁