Changes following a Handicap Review, Sanctioning by Authorized Association.

[Colin L]

I seem to recall something re players at scratch or below but can’t find any notes.
It would be surprising though if a club could cut a +4 to +6 at an annual review without authorisation.

I'm curious as to why, if there is the evidence, cutting a +4 handicap by 2 strokes should be considered anything different from cutting a 24 handicap by 2 strokes.

 

[D-S]

I'm curious as to why, if there is the evidence, cutting a +4 handicap by 2 strokes should be considered anything different from cutting a 24 handicap by 2 strokes.

To preserve the integrity for elite competitions where handicaps are the way of balloting players out.

As a concrete example, EG now reserve the right to refuse entry to players (who qualify above others due to low HI) who have more than 4 GP scores on their record. They want to ensure that their general Play scores do not unduly reduce their HI in comparison with their competitive record.
I am sure EG would not look favourably on elite players (which someone off +4 or +6 certainly is) whose HI has been reduced significantly due to the actions of a local committee using evidence that is not comprised of individual competitive strokeplay.

Additionally, club committees had to seek permission from their County under UHS to cut any player in CAT 1, which at 5.4 and below was not exactly elite. So obviously those in authority previously thought that there was a difference then too.

 

[rulefan]

To preserve the integrity for elite competitions where handicaps are the way of balloting players out.

As a concrete example, EG now reserve the right to refuse entry to players (who qualify above others due to low HI) who have more than 4 GP scores on their record. They want to ensure that their general Play scores do not unduly reduce their HI in comparison with their competitive record.
I am sure EG would not look favourably on elite players (which someone off +4 or +6 certainly is) whose HI has been reduced significantly due to the actions of a local committee using evidence that is not comprised of individual competitive strokeplay.

Additionally, club committees had to seek permission from their County under UHS to cut any player in CAT 1, which at 5.4 and below was not exactly elite. So obviously those in authority previously thought that there was a difference then too.

The difference is that EG have now introduced a specific rule to protect their elite competitions (some Counties may follow suit). Previously it was a crude attempt to deal with the same issue. It is now targeted more appropriately and no longer places a burden on clubs.

 

[D-S]

The difference is that EG have now introduced a specific rule to protect their elite competitions (some Counties may follow suit). Previously it was a crude attempt to deal with the same issue. It is now targeted more appropriately and no longer places a burden on clubs.

It’s a big Jump though from needing permission for 5 and below to a free for all.
If you saw some of the appeals and potential appeals in process in the counties for increases and decreases which are totally unwarranted then allowing clubs having such power is surprising and might just cause additional work on scrutinising entries for balloted competitions . Of course the County only sees poor practice when it is unpopular, those who are happy with increases or decreases will never complain So these are not visible

 

[rulefan]

It’s a big Jump though from needing permission for 5 and below to a free for all.
If you saw some of the appeals and potential appeals in process in the counties for increases and decreases which are totally unwarranted then allowing clubs having such power is surprising and might just cause additional work on scrutinising entries for balloted competitions . Of course the County only sees poor practice when it is unpopular, those who are happy with increases or decreases will never complain So these are not visible

I never experienced large numbers of 'high' value changes when I had the responsibility for 10% of the clubs in England. I can't really believe my county was unique in this matter.

 

[D-S]

I never experienced large numbers of 'high' value changes when I had the responsibility for 10% of the clubs in England. I can't really believe my county was unique in this matter.

Clubs might have been loath to do so if sanction was required from the local Union, now they can do so freely.

 

[woofers]

I have spoken to out County Handicap Advisor who says he has seen/heard nothing that requires or indicates that any reference needs to be made to the county or EG unless the player appeals.

 

[rulefan]

View attachment 45866

Any adjustment to a player’s Handicap Index resulting from a handicap review must:
* Be sanctioned or ratified by the Authorized Association.
The Authorized Association has discretion to restrict this requirement only for players above, below or within a specified handicap range.
England Golf has chosen not to invoke this clause

* Be applied only after the player has been informed and has had an opportunity to
respond to the Handicap Committee or, where appropriate, the Authorized
Association.
England Golf has decided that this is its approach.


I would be interested to hear if any County or Club has been required by EG to submit the results of adjustments following any review. Or if any club has actually submitted such information without a request.

 

[woofers]

Any adjustment to a player’s Handicap Index resulting from a handicap review must:
* Be sanctioned or ratified by the Authorized Association.
The Authorized Association has discretion to restrict this requirement only for players above, below or within a specified handicap range.
England Golf has chosen not to invoke this clause

* Be applied only after the player has been informed and has had an opportunity to
respond to the Handicap Committee or, where appropriate, the Authorized
Association.
England Golf has decided that this is its approach.


I would be interested to hear if any County or Club has been required by EG to submit the results of adjustments following any review. Or if any club has actually submitted such information without a request.

Which is great, and eminently sensible, but a shame they haven’t put this in their guidance note which says to apply adjustments in accordance with rule 7.1, i.e as shown above.
Out of interest where have England Golf published its decision and approach, that you refer to?
I don’t think anyone is arguing about the sensibility of not having to get all or any handicap changes ratified by the Authorised Authority, it’s just that communications regarding this appear out of kilter with the rules that pertain to the running and playing of golf generally, and where the written words are usually very specific in their meaning.

 

[rulefan]

Which is great, and eminently sensible, but a shame they haven’t put this in their guidance note which says to apply adjustments in accordance with rule 7.1, i.e as shown above.
Out of interest where have England Golf published its decision and approach, that you refer to?
I don’t think anyone is arguing about the sensibility of not having to get all or any handicap changes ratified by the Authorised Authority, it’s just that communications regarding this appear out of kilter with the rules that pertain to the running and playing of golf generally, and where the written words are usually very specific in their meaning.

I can only resort to the EG Handicap Review Guidance which, as you say, makes no reference to 7.1
Players must be informed should any adjustment be made by the committee; this should be done in writing and player given the right to appeal the decision made by the committee. Appeals sit on 3 levels –
• Club Review – Should a player question the decision; the club should offer the player the opportunity to discuss the decision with the committee.
• County Appeal – Should the player wish to appeal the decision following discussions with the club, this must be done via the County Union/Association.
• England Golf Appeal – Appeals to England Golf will only be considered once the Club and County have made their decision. The outcome of this appeal is final.
Additional Guidance / Support
If you need any additional guidance is conducting this review, please contact your County Handicap Advisor.

Supported by the comments made to me by the County Advisor after speaking to or contacting EG.

I agree that the situation is unsatisfactory and I am in the process of writing a note to EG (WHS Support).

 

[Colin L]

My memory is that the national authority was allowed to delegate handicap adjustments to clubs and that CONGU adopted that option. I'm not sure, however, of where there is textual support for that being now well out of involvement in handicapping.

 

[rulefan]

I have received the following from the Regional Handicap Advisor.

Alterations to a HI need only be sanctioned by the County Union or Association if it is for an 'Elite' golfer. This is a golfer with a HI of or less than scratch for a male and 2 for a female.
The Club has the delegated responsibility (as they did under CONGU) for maintaining handicaps correctly at club level.
For an alteration to any other player, the club may alter a HI downward by as many strokes as they deem necessary.
The upward movement of a HI may only be by less than 5 strokes per year (in line with the capping process). The platform will not allow this to happen, and you would have to apply to the County Union or Association for approval and to carry out the process for implementation of that increase.

EG have so far not answered and the advisor has not said where this documented.

 

[D-S]

I have spoken to our County Handicap Advisor who says he has seen/heard nothing that requires or indicates that any reference needs to be made to the county or EG unless the player appeals.

Isn't this a direct contradiction of this advice?

 

[rulefan]

Isn't this a direct contradiction of this advice?

This simply shows there is a disconnect somewhere between EG and clubs.
There seems to be nothing for clubs to refer to. The county rep has been given nothing. The regional rep has an 'understanding' based on seminars from a couple of years ago. EG won't say say what the official line is.

 

[D-S]

This simply shows there is a disconnect somewhere between EG and clubs.
There seems to be nothing for clubs to refer to. The county rep has been given nothing. The regional rep has an 'understanding' based on seminars from a couple of years ago. EG won't say say what the official line is.

Well. no doubt we willl see what the truth is in due course. I will check with my source this week.
It does seem a bit strange that there is ‘simply a disconnect’ though over two years into WHS. Apparently this disconnect is also between Regional and County Handicap Advisors as well
Although as earlier mentioned in the thread there was an understanding by some (including me)that sanction was still required, albeit at a scratch for men level rather than Cat 1 as per UHS.

 

[jim8flog]

This simply shows there is a disconnect somewhere between EG and clubs.
There seems to be nothing for clubs to refer to. The county rep has been given nothing. The regional rep has an 'understanding' based on seminars from a couple of years ago.

As per my original comments

 

[jim8flog]

For those that might consider an appeal to 'county' be aware that there may well be a fee for this.

I believe at one time Dorset charged a fee of £200.

In my time on committee we have only had one player who wanted to take it that far.

 

[rulefan]

For those that might consider an appeal to 'county' be aware that there may well be a fee for this.

I believe at one time Dorset charged a fee of £200.

In my time on committee we have only had one player who wanted to take it that far.

When I was on the county executive board we had a couple of appeals (handicapping and disciplinary) but we didn't charge unless we had to resort to 'legal advice' (which we never had to do).

 

[Swango1980]

I'm curious as to why, if there is the evidence, cutting a +4 handicap by 2 strokes should be considered anything different from cutting a 24 handicap by 2 strokes.

Pre WHS, the authorities must have felt there was reason to not permit the adjustment of very low (Cat 1 golfers) during Annual Review. Could the same reasons still exist (I notice rulefan mentioned a specific rule has been implemented for elite competitions, which might mitigate the review of low handicappers that did not exist pre WHS?)

However, in a small number of cases, there does seem to be some pride in clubs having "x number of scratch or plus handicapped players". Could this influence some handicap committees to be biased, and maybe reducing some of the handicaps of these low players simply to keep them at very low handicaps? Many of these players themselves are often happy to stay as low as possible anyway, so they could be in full agreement of this practice. I appreciate any Committee worth their salt should not do this, and I'd imagine no one that comes on this forum would consider this practice acceptable. But, I think there around 2-3 thousand golf clubs in the UK. I have discussed on here before, some very very dodgy practices by Committees over the years in various ways. So, it would not surprise me at all if I heard, every now and then, of a Committee (often one person at a club who is in charge of handicaps), fiddling handicaps to keep some of the low guys low. Maybe even at the request of the players themselves, and thinking nothing of it and just doing it.

I guess that temptation could not be acted upon if low handicappers could not have handicap adjustments without higher authority. But, yes, if this has no impact on elite amateur competitions at all, then maybe there is no difference between cutting a plus player and cutting a high handicapper?

 

[D-S]

Pre WHS, the authorities must have felt there was reason to not permit the adjustment of very low (Cat 1 golfers) during Annual Review. Could the same reasons still exist (I notice rulefan mentioned a specific rule has been implemented for elite competitions, which might mitigate the review of low handicappers that did not exist pre WHS?)

However, in a small number of cases, there does seem to be some pride in clubs having "x number of scratch or plus handicapped players". Could this influence some handicap committees to be biased, and maybe reducing some of the handicaps of these low players simply to keep them at very low handicaps? Many of these players themselves are often happy to stay as low as possible anyway, so they could be in full agreement of this practice. I appreciate any Committee worth their salt should not do this, and I'd imagine no one that comes on this forum would consider this practice acceptable. But, I think there around 2-3 thousand golf clubs in the UK. I have discussed on here before, some very very dodgy practices by Committees over the years in various ways. So, it would not surprise me at all if I heard, every now and then, of a Committee (often one person at a club who is in charge of handicaps), fiddling handicaps to keep some of the low guys low. Maybe even at the request of the players themselves, and thinking nothing of it and just doing it.

I guess that temptation could not be acted upon if low handicappers could not have handicap adjustments without higher authority. But, yes, if this has no impact on elite amateur competitions at all, then maybe there is no difference between cutting a plus player and cutting a high handicapper?

There certainly have been many cases of elite players trying to manipulate their handicaps downwards in order to enter elite amateur competitions (not just in England but elsewhere where the entry conditions might not include handicap record scrutiny) and also to reach handicap level to either gain entrance and/or scholarship to universities‘ golf programmes as well as County or higher squads.
Allowing an extra method of doing this, via a club’s handicap committee, seems to be an odd step.
In order to maintain integrity at this level of the sport I personally feel that cutting a +4 handicapper by 2 shots has more resonance than a 24 handicapper.