Continuous Handicap Review

[rulefan]

the CONGU notion of 2 strokes maximum.

Colin
Which clause covers this? I can't find it.

 

[Colin L]

There's no clause to say this, but I understand it from Scottish Golf. I've expressed it too much as it if is a rule rather than guidance. The information was that CONGU is reluctant to encourage increases of more than two strokes. I expect that is a generalisation about normal circumstances, but not applicable to exceptional circumstances where, for whatever reason, a player's handicap has been left way behind in a decline in performance and in fairness needs an exceptional increase to bring it back on a level with others.

 

[jim8flog]

If you are getting 7 x 0.1 every month your handicap needs a serious review.

I did have a personal review at the beginning of the year but I have noticed that players like myself still appear on the report every month despite having had an increase. I no longer need a review and no longer fit the 7 x 0.1 increases but have gone both up 1 stroke and down 1 stroke during 2017.


Whether tor not there is something wrong with the software I cannot be sure because there are a lot of players on the list that we simply ignore.

We are having a new software supplier in January so it will be interesting to see if this continues.

 

[jim8flog]

I'm not quite with this. If a player takes up all those opportunities, his handicap increases should better keep up with a decline in performance.

One of my current concerns, however, is the player who submits only the three qualifying scores a year to maintain a competition handicap. That can mean that he is into a third season before the continuous handicap review is triggered. Of course the Annual Review should take care of this, but I see increases in scores which cannot be compensated for if you restrict increases to the CONGU notion of 2 strokes maximum.

I think the mathematics of the system simply do not work if a player is going to have a handicap that reflects his current ability if the increases are only 0.1 at a time especially if they do not play enough to trigger a review

Lets say a player plays 6 competitions all of which are 4/5 worse than their buffer zone they would only go up 1 stroke maximum they then continue to play at the same level they are still playing 3/4 worse than there new handicap and so it carries on- they decline further but never get more than a one shot increase automatically so their handicap never matches their ability.

Re your comment about taking up the opportunities I doubt that any player plays in all comps but there are certainly a lot who take up enough to get 7 x 0.1 consecutively.

 

[rulefan]

There's no clause to say this, but I understand it from Scottish Golf. I've expressed it too much as it if is a rule rather than guidance. The information was that CONGU is reluctant to encourage increases of more than two strokes. I expect that is a generalisation about normal circumstances, but not applicable to exceptional circumstances where, for whatever reason, a player's handicap has been left way behind in a decline in performance and in fairness needs an exceptional increase to bring it back on a level with others.

Ok. Your statement did puzzle me as the advice we give in England is that exceptional circumstances are treated exceptionally.
The system is designed to indicate the potential of a player to achieve a score. It works both up and down.
If a player cannot reach his buffer zone his handicap should be adjusted so that he can at least occasionally.

 

[rulefan]

I think the mathematics of the system simply do not work if a player is going to have a handicap that reflects his current ability if the increases are only 0.1 at a time especially if they do not play enough to trigger a review

Lets say a player plays 6 competitions all of which are 4/5 worse than their buffer zone they would only go up 1 stroke maximum they then continue to play at the same level they are still playing 3/4 worse than there new handicap and so it carries on- they decline further but never get more than a one shot increase automatically so their handicap never matches their ability.

Re your comment about taking up the opportunities I doubt that any player plays in all comps but there are certainly a lot who take up enough to get 7 x 0.1 consecutively.

As the book says - "to promote fair and equitable handicapping, it is just as important to increase handicaps, where necessary, as it is to reduce them"All out of kilter handicaps can have an effect on the CSS, which in turn affects all players.
Less than 7 returned scores does not allow for the assessment (via the AR) of player ability from the pattern of scores.

 

[Golfrulesnerd]

Regarding how continuous review should be operated: rather than all the heresay and speculation in this thread, just read the two pages of appendix Q in the congu manual, which can be viewed online..

 

[Colin L]

Welcome to the forum. I'm not sure what you saw as hearsay and speculation but bear in mind that conversations like these help us all share experience, check out uncertainties and generally help each other's knowledge and understanding to a far greater extent than the few lines and flow diagram of Appendix Q which is really no more than a simple - simplistic even -- starting point. Do feel encouraged to contribute your own knowledge and experience but I'd suggest in threads a little more recent than this nearly 2 year old one!

I was engaged in a Continuous Handicap Review yesterday. 2 years on from a massive exercise to redress a serious extent of underhandicapping in the club, we are still finding new names croppping up because of continuous changes in members' performance, age, physical condition etc. and because of the unhelpful slowness of the 0.1 increments compounded by so many players returning only the minimum 3 scores a year.

The factors involved are far more complex than Appendix Q might suggest and its few lines certainly do not prepare you for the amazing variety of reactions you get from people to having their handicaps raised to a realistic level. That's where the scars come from.

 

[Golfrulesnerd]

Welcome to the forum. I'm not sure what you saw as hearsay and speculation but bear in mind that conversations like these help us all share experience, check out uncertainties and generally help each other's knowledge and understanding to a far greater extent than the few lines and flow diagram of Appendix Q which is really no more than a simple - simplistic even -- starting point. Do feel encouraged to contribute your own knowledge and experience but I'd suggest in threads a little more recent than this nearly 2 year old one!

I was engaged in a Continuous Handicap Review yesterday. 2 years on from a massive exercise to redress a serious extent of underhandicapping in the club, we are still finding new names croppping up because of continuous changes in members' performance, age, physical condition etc. and because of the unhelpful slowness of the 0.1 increments compounded by so many players returning only the minimum 3 scores a year.

The factors involved are far more complex than Appendix Q might suggest and its few lines certainly do not prepare you for the amazing variety of reactions you get from people to having their handicaps raised to a realistic level. That's where the scars come from.

What I meant by heresay is where contributors report on things they heard and speculate on what congu intends, rather than on what congu actually says. There was a lot of such speculation in the thread.

Handicapping is, as you say, a complex subject. (I know that from being a handicap secretary), but appendix Q and the associated text in clause 23 of the CONGU manual at least shows clearly that CRIs are not automatic and indicate pretty clearly what the CRI mechanism and report are designed to do. Of course, when the report uncovers legitimate candidates for a handicap increase, then it becomes a matter for consideration of other evidence and discussion by the Hcap Committee.

As you say, appendix Q is a starting point - I'm just saying that it would be a good idea if people at least did start at the starting point, i.e. what CONGU says, rather than speculate.

 

[jim8flog]

What I meant by heresay is where contributors report on things they heard and speculate on what congu intends, rather than on what congu actually says. There was a lot of such speculation in the thread.

Handicapping is, as you say, a complex subject. (I know that from being a handicap secretary), but appendix Q and the associated text in clause 23 of the CONGU manual at least shows clearly that CRIs are not automatic and indicate pretty clearly what the CRI mechanism and report are designed to do. Of course, when the report uncovers legitimate candidates for a handicap increase, then it becomes a matter for consideration of other evidence and discussion by the Hcap Committee.

As you say, appendix Q is a starting point - I'm just saying that it would be a good idea if people at least did start at the starting point, i.e. what CONGU says, rather than speculate.

This thread is now 20 months old and since that time CONGU have issued newer guidelines. There is a specific guide for the continuous review. On the home page follow the link on useful information.

 

[Golfrulesnerd]

The thread is old but the topic is still very current and so this thread (fortunately or unfortunately) still pops up if forum users are seeking guidance on CRIs. As far as I know, what I refer to, i.e. Appendix Q, in the 1 January 2019 version of the CONGU manual, is the latest word. The content of this Appendix used to be a separate document on the CONGU website but was included as App Q in this year's version of the CONGU manual.

I saw that there are more recent threads on the topic, but many of these continue to suggest uncertainty, where very little uncertainty exists, about what the process is and what is mandatory and what is merely recommended by CONGU. If players and handicap committees read Clause 23 and then App Q, it would dispel much of the apparent confusion. Of course, as Colin L rightly indicated, having followed CONGU's basic process, the hcap committee still needs to consider the context and other data about the individual player, before deciding whether to award a CRI.

 

[Colin L]

If it's of interest to you, our Continuous Review just completed came up with 20 players and resulted in increases for 16.

 

[jim8flog]

As a committee we were discussing the CONGU flow chart and decided it is too vague anyway

Is the player affected by Age?

Note age is not defined

We are all affected by age!!