Annual Review

[drewster]

A questions to the experts/handicap secretaries amongst you. Can you take a look at my signature and offer an explanation as to why my handicap might have gone up a full shot at annual review ?

Arrived at the club on Saturday morning to a load of grief from my normal roll up crew to say that I've gone up a shot and didn't believe it until I saw it on the notice board myself !!!!

What I can't understand is that last year I started at 9.9 and finished at 10.0 and in between I got down to my lowest ever of 9.4.

Seems a bit harsh to me but there must be some logic to it. The only thing I can think of is that I did have a bad time in medal play, would that have an impact ??

Thanks in advance for any advice given.

 

[rosecott]

Your sig shows 2 better than handicap, 2 buffers, 11 worse than buffer. Were those 15 your only qualifiers?

 

[drewster]

Yes sir , that was my season of qualifiers in microcosm !

 

[drewster]

Your sig shows 2 better than handicap, 2 buffers, 11 worse than buffer. Were those 15 your only qualifiers?

Sorry to be pedantic but 3 x buffers as the first round last year was buffer too.

 

[duncan mackie]

On what's shown the last 8 have been 6 increases and 2 buffers. My understanding is that a run of 7 increases gets a recommendation for an imediate mid year increase; suspect the system is a little cleverer than that and looks beyond the simple incidence but I wouldn't be surprised at it's recommendation on the scores shown - equally I wouldn't have been surprised if it hadn't recommended an increase!

At that handicap it's expecting you to buffer or better at around 1:3 to 1:4 (to support the underlying CSS calculation) which is why i suggest its marginal. One more failure to hit 0.1 and it's pretty clear cut and if the next beat buffer it would be clear cut the other way!

 

[drewster]

Thanks Duncan, I'll just work hard to get back down again but it did come as a bit of a shock especially as I went from 10.4 to 9.4 in 2 rounds earlier on in the season. Naively I thought I might of been on for a deduction at AR at the time !!!!!

 

[rosecott]

Sorry to be pedantic but 3 x buffers as the first round last year was buffer too.

Depending on when your club carries out the AR, that buffer may have been included in the previous year.

If you have the patience and access to your gross scores, try this:

https://www.englandgolf.org/library-media/documents/Annual Review Presentation.pdf

 

[drewster]

Depending on when your club carries out the AR, that buffer may have been included in the previous year.

If you have the patience and access to your gross scores, try this:

https://www.englandgolf.org/library-media/documents/Annual Review Presentation.pdf

Thanks for this . After a brief read I can understand the logic now but there is a note on there that clearly states...

" Note: Any player whose handicap has come down over the year is excluded from any recommendation for increase "

I had 2 x reductions over the year and still got a one shot increase. Reading another thread on here it doesn't seem like I can appeal as there is an ethos that the player should have no say in their playing handicap but in yours or in any learned opinion is there a route for me to appeal here ???

 

[Cake]

Thanks for this . After a brief read I can understand the logic now but there is a note on there that clearly states...

" Note: Any player whose handicap has come down over the year is excluded from any recommendation for increase "

Definitely not an expert, but I would read that as applying to players that ended up with an overall reduction are excluded... if I am reading your sig correctly then you went from 9.9 to 10.0 over the year?

That said going up a whole shot in AR seems harsh, but I don’t know what the process there is.

 

[duncan mackie]

Agree with cake...yours hasn't come down over the year.

 

[drewster]

My mistake gents. I perceived "over the year" to be at any point over the year but I see how it reads in the way you suggest too. I'll just take the hit and get on it with it but it's been interesting to get points of view from elsewhere so thanks all.

 

[jim8flog]

Rather than just looking at your actual handicap, the H/C would be looking a your scores relative to the CSS. There must have been some reason for your name to appear on the computer generated annual review but on brief look it could not have been because of 7 x0.1 increases in a row because there is no such run during the year.

On the basis of the simplicity of what I am looking at there appears to be no reason for the increase.

If you are unhappy with it I would question it with the handicap sec/ committee and ask simply if they have made an error. The club must have an appeals procedure if you are further not satisfied.

 

[Imurg]

To my, admittedly lightly informed, eyes...
If you've started on 10 and finished on 10, having played over a dozen qualifiers, kind of says that your handicap is about where it should be...a bit simplistic but..
Last year I played 6 qualifiers
Well out and 0.1 up in the first 4 and scraped buffer in the last 2...
I haven't been moved..🤔

 

[rosecott]

Rather than just looking at your actual handicap, the H/C would be looking a your scores relative to the CSS. There must have been some reason for your name to appear on the computer generated annual review but on brief look it could not have been because of 7 x0.1 increases in a row because there is no such run during the year.

On the basis of the simplicity of what I am looking at there appears to be no reason for the increase.

If you are unhappy with it I would question it with the handicap sec/ committee and ask simply if they have made an error. The club must have an appeals procedure if you are further not satisfied.

England Golf appeals info:

https://www.englandgolf.org/page.aspx?sitesectionid=339&search=

 

[duncan mackie]

Rather than just looking at your actual handicap, the H/C would be looking a your scores relative to the CSS. There must have been some reason for your name to appear on the computer generated annual review but on brief look it could not have been because of 7 x0.1 increases in a row because there is no such run during the year.

On the basis of the simplicity of what I am looking at there appears to be no reason for the increase.

If you are unhappy with it I would question it with the handicap sec/ committee and ask simply if they have made an error. The club must have an appeals procedure if you are further not satisfied.

I agree, but there are more than 7 scores so it will do a Mean Gross Differential check, and if that comes back at over 3 it will recommend a shot increase.

As you say, without the data it's speculation, but to my eye there's nothing that absolutely screams error in the data presented.