Continuous Handicap Review

[jim8flog]

The implementation of the software is mandatory. Reviewing and/or modifying handicaps are a recommendation.

Incidentally, EG is recommending all 28/36 handicaps are reviewed at the Annual Review which it recommends should be done after the end of the year.

We have already agreed a procedure in line with this. We intend to do ours before the end of the year as we have a new computer system being implemented in January and want items like this out of the way before it gets introduced.

 

[Colin L]

I was reading up on this, this morning and agree with a previous post that the only Mandatory commitment is to the Annual Review. This is a bullet from the communication. Appendix M refers to the AR:

• Handicap Adjustments – Confirmation that the adherence to Appendix M (Guidelines for Handicap Reviews) is mandatory, not optional.

Appendix M refers to both the Annual Review and General Play Adjustment. I don't think the CONGU notice is clear on what is mandatory.

Currently the Continuous Handicap Review is a should do not a must. There is no doubt a great variance as to what force is given to the word "should". To my mind you shouldn't not do something an authority tells you you should do - if you see what I mean.

 

[rulefan]

I'm pretty sure that it is the job of the Handicap Committee to decide on - not offer - a review and to inform the player of the outcome.

There is no provision in the CONGU Regulations for a player to refuse a handicap adjustment. These are a matter for the club.

CONGU® Handicap
A CONGU® Handicap is a handicap allotted and adjusted by the Home Club of a Member

 

[lex!]

Appendix M refers to both the Annual Review and General Play Adjustment. I don't think the CONGU notice is clear on what is mandatory.

Currently the Continuous Handicap Review is a should do not a must. There is no doubt a great variance as to what force is given to the word "should". To my mind you shouldn't not do something an authority tells you you should do - if you see what I mean.

Nowhere in appendix M refers to the continuous review. If you read appendix M then that's the bit that is Mandatory !!!!

 

[rulefan]

Appendix M has nothing to do with it. As I said before, re the Continuous Handicap Review (only).

The implementation of the software is mandatory. Reviewing and/or modifying handicaps are a recommendation.

 

[Colin L]

Appendix M has nothing to do with it. As I said before, re the Continuous Handicap Review (only).

The implementation of the software is mandatory. Reviewing and/or modifying handicaps are a recommendation.

I think my tired old brain would appreciate some clarification of what is meant by the implementation of the software.

 

[rulefan]

I think my tired old brain would appreciate some clarification of what is meant by the implementation of the software.

Running the program.

But contrary to my original briefing notes I now see that running it is only 'should' in clause 23.16.

 

[Colin L]

Thanks for that. That's demisted the glass!

 

[rulefan]

Thanks for that. That's demisted the glass!

The champagne must have been too warm.

 

[Canfordhacker]

Thanks for the responses all. I've had a response from the club and they have agreed that it's not mandatory but will trigger the continuous review process.

Cheers

 

[jim8flog]

Thanks for the responses all. I've had a response from the club and they have agreed that it's not mandatory but will trigger the continuous review process.

Cheers

One of the things we reckon on our committee is that it should make the annual review a shorter process. We change around 10 players a month. (membership 800+).

 

[rosecott]

One of the things we reckon on our committee is that it should make the annual review a shorter process. We change around 10 players a month. (membership 800+).

If you are making that many adjustments throughout the year - I assume you are talking General Play Adjustments - I suspect that your Annual Review report when you run it will be quite short.

 

[rulefan]

One of the things we reckon on our committee is that it should make the annual review a shorter process. We change around 10 players a month. (membership 800+).

What is the justification for these adjustments? Doesn't the UHS work?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

One of the things we reckon on our committee is that it should make the annual review a shorter process. We change around 10 players a month. (membership 800+).

Why are you changing so many players on a monthly basis ? What report are you using to do any changes ?

 

[Old Skier]

10 players a month seems a bit OTT but as I have no sight of your reports I have to accept it.

 

[jim8flog]

10 players a month seems a bit OTT but as I have no sight of your reports I have to accept it.

On the last report there were nearly 50 players on the list, weeded down to 15 for full review and 11 were increased. We have a lot of qualifying competitions available, 4 per week, so a lot of opportunity for players with too low a handicap to get 0.1 increases.

On a personal basis I play around 30 qualifiers a year and my name appears on the list every month.

 

[jim8flog]

I would add that the report is good at highlighting new handicapped players that have been give too low an initial handicap so some of the adjustments are for these players.

We also have a very high percentage of senior golfers. eg our fortnightly Men's Seniors comps has over 90 players and not all on the reserve list get to play.

 

[rulefan]

On the last report there were nearly 50 players on the list, weeded down to 15 for full review and 11 were increased. We have a lot of qualifying competitions available, 4 per week, so a lot of opportunity for players with too low a handicap to get 0.1 increases.

On a personal basis I play around 30 qualifiers a year and my name appears on the list every month.

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

 

[Old Skier]

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

As do the other 9

 

[Colin L]

On the last report there were nearly 50 players on the list, weeded down to 15 for full review and 11 were increased. We have a lot of qualifying competitions available, 4 per week, so a lot of opportunity for players with too low a handicap to get 0.1 increases.

On a personal basis I play around 30 qualifiers a year and my name appears on the list every month.

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.