Old Skier
Tour Winner
Numbers could be due to lack of Q's over a period of time. Just a guess.
Annual review
- Thread starter jim8flog
- Start date
jim8flog
Journeyman Pro
No.
What was most noticeable was the number of players on the review report with a very large number of GP scores on their record, many approaching 100 with one over 200.
mikejohnchapman
Challenge Tour Pro
We have just concluded our review and for the first time in living memory have decided not to adjust anyone.
We had 10 people flagged and also considered about the same number for special circumstances.
However, we do have a lot of GP rounds per year, and this appears to have swayed matters
We had 10 people flagged and also considered about the same number for special circumstances.
However, we do have a lot of GP rounds per year, and this appears to have swayed matters
D-S
Well-known member
It always might be the case that our clubs have unnaturally low numbers, but I ran them for a mix of clubs (large/small, members/proprietary). I’ll have another look to see if I have missed any club with a really high number - I might have to do all 40. I’ll let you know.
LizAig
Active member
You should review players who have been ill/injured and are struggling to play to handucap as once they reach the hard cap they wint go up at all. In same vein once they are fit - returning after illness/ injury you are supposed to review to bring handicap down as appropriate. This info came from our regional handicap advisor. Also I’m sure you’re supposed to run the Handicap Review report monthly to see which players are flagged
Last edited:
LizAig
Active member
This was the email we got last year re the annual review from our regional handicap advisor - I can’t find this year‘s but resuming it will be similar.
Dear Everyone,
I hope you Annual Reviews are going well. With the new averaging system, you should not have very many players flagged for alteration.
When carrying out your Annual Reviews, please look at the scoring record for each player flagged for increase. You need to check that there are no unusual scores included in the 'high scores' identified. For example, a 'no return' of nothing but zeros will give a bogus score on the record which will just be identified within the software as a 'high score' (and often a very high one!).
Quite often, if you remove these bogus score(s), the flag will be removed and no action will be required. For increases, we are looking for a genuine 'declining' golfer who needs some help with enjoying their golf, or perhaps has a long term illness: not one who is too lazy to put in a score, or complete the round (and should not be rewarded with a shot back!).
For those who regularly walk in after (say 15) holes because they are not scoring well, they must not be allowed just to add a zero for the unplayed holes, unless it was for a 'valid reason'. They need to be given a penalty score of CH+CR (which will be neutral for their HI) to satisfy the score intent. If you suspect the player has done this to manipulate their HI upward, you should add a Penalty Score equal to their LHI (LHI+CR) to anchor them. Obviously, their LHI reflects the best they have been within the past 12 months, so it would not be a case of reducing them below their demonstrated ability.
Having adjusted any player for any reason, or if you applied a P score which might need explanation, remember to make a note on the Notes tab of the player membership record on the platform.
If you have questions on Annual Review (or anything else), please don't hesitate to get in touch
Dear Everyone,
I hope you Annual Reviews are going well. With the new averaging system, you should not have very many players flagged for alteration.
When carrying out your Annual Reviews, please look at the scoring record for each player flagged for increase. You need to check that there are no unusual scores included in the 'high scores' identified. For example, a 'no return' of nothing but zeros will give a bogus score on the record which will just be identified within the software as a 'high score' (and often a very high one!).
Quite often, if you remove these bogus score(s), the flag will be removed and no action will be required. For increases, we are looking for a genuine 'declining' golfer who needs some help with enjoying their golf, or perhaps has a long term illness: not one who is too lazy to put in a score, or complete the round (and should not be rewarded with a shot back!).
For those who regularly walk in after (say 15) holes because they are not scoring well, they must not be allowed just to add a zero for the unplayed holes, unless it was for a 'valid reason'. They need to be given a penalty score of CH+CR (which will be neutral for their HI) to satisfy the score intent. If you suspect the player has done this to manipulate their HI upward, you should add a Penalty Score equal to their LHI (LHI+CR) to anchor them. Obviously, their LHI reflects the best they have been within the past 12 months, so it would not be a case of reducing them below their demonstrated ability.
Having adjusted any player for any reason, or if you applied a P score which might need explanation, remember to make a note on the Notes tab of the player membership record on the platform.
If you have questions on Annual Review (or anything else), please don't hesitate to get in touch
jim8flog
Journeyman Pro
You should note if you are reviewing a player where the review is due to inlury only scores since the injury/illness occurred started should be taken in to consideration
Old Skier
Tour Winner
I would certainly be looking at people with such high GP scores. I play over 30 Qs a year plus put in cards when I play at other courses. 100-200 GPS is quite extraordinary.
Why?
jim8flog
Journeyman Pro
I actually think this is where the review report fails in the algorithm. As I understand it picks out players with a high number of scores outside of the expected range if player is putting a high number of scores it would be natural to assume that they will have a high number of scores outside of the expected range as most players are simply not that consistent.
All players on the list were given a very basic review in that all we are looking for is a relative good number of scores within a reasonable range of their Hi.
One of the points as well is that if a player is putting a qualifying score every time they play (as clearly many are) they would only have to play for a few weeks for their 20 scores to be current scores.
100-200 is not really extraordinary. I know from personal experience of playing with them many of the regular groups are putting in scores every time they play. We get around 40-50 general play scores going in every day as well as the fact we run 3 comps a week.
Old Skier
Tour Winner
Because I have come across players putting in GP scores when the course or comp doesn't fit the necessary requirements. Many that I have come across are even putting in cards at BB opens.
@jim8flog doesn't feel these are unusual numbers and as long as the cards are legit that's fine.
Will have to remember to ask other clubs at our next county management meeting to see what others figures are.
