CR-Par

[IanM]

Interesting one today, iGolfer not on start sheet, posted score on MyEg attested by another iGolfer (also not on start sheet) of Gross level par, - 1.4 below CR.
2 other scores on record, one from prestigious Midlands course yesterday gross 72, the other from a local shorter last Saturday course gross 63.
iGolf are being notified and the score is being marked as matchplay pending resolution.
Is someone hacking Dotgolf?

No need to hack, just get a chum to help, or open two accounts!

 

[D-S]

Interesting one today, iGolfer not on start sheet, posted score on MyEg attested by another iGolfer (also not on start sheet) of Gross level par, - 1.4 below CR.
2 other scores on record, one from prestigious Midlands course yesterday gross 72, the other from a local shorter last Saturday course gross 63.
iGolf are being notified and the score is being marked as matchplay pending resolution.
Is someone hacking Dotgolf?

Just to add we have two further cases today of players (visitors) submitting GP scores with the attester not being present. This is sadly fairly typical. The level of non compliance is astonishing. We advise the clubs involved, delete or mark the scores as matchplay, however they still keep happening quite a few times a week with no signs of them lessening.
It is a faff and, in all honesty, I am not sure we are doing any good. Really not sure if it is worth the hassle.

 

[clubchamp98]

Just to add we have two further cases today of players (visitors) submitting GP scores with the attester not being present. This is sadly fairly typical. The level of non compliance is astonishing. We advise the clubs involved, delete or mark the scores as matchplay, however they still keep happening quite a few times a week with no signs of them lessening.
It is a faff and, in all honesty, I am not sure we are doing any good. Really not sure if it is worth the hassle.

Some golfers are blatant cheats .
But putting in a system that just makes it child’s play to do it on an app is just very poor imo.

 

[Griffsters]

Just to add we have two further cases today of players (visitors) submitting GP scores with the attester not being present. This is sadly fairly typical. The level of non compliance is astonishing. We advise the clubs involved, delete or mark the scores as matchplay, however they still keep happening quite a few times a week with no signs of them lessening.
It is a faff and, in all honesty, I am not sure we are doing any good. Really not sure if it is worth the hassle.

Agreed, this type of thing is rife. Its a constant battle at our own club, never mind when members are on their travels. Mostly new members at the younger end of the scale, but not exclusively.

It's just too easy to to submit scores that *should not* count, with an over reliance on retrospective checking from either overworked or non existent committee members. The notion that if you are a golf club member you automatically sign up to the 'Integrity' aspect is long gone IMHO

 

[cliveb]

I was playing with someone yesterday who said that he's in a society whose rules are that if you score 36 or more points in a society round, they insist you put the card in for handicapping. If you don't score well, the card doesn't go in. I explained to him that cherry-picking scores for handicapping is against the rules, but he was having none of it.

 

[Swango1980]

I was playing with someone yesterday who said that he's in a society whose rules are that if you score 36 or more points in a society round, they insist you put the card in for handicapping. If you don't score well, the card doesn't go in. I explained to him that cherry-picking scores for handicapping is against the rules, but he was having none of it.

I know a golf club committee that ask that of the players in their roll ups

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I was playing with someone yesterday who said that he's in a society whose rules are that if you score 36 or more points in a society round, they insist you put the card in for handicapping. If you don't score well, the card doesn't go in. I explained to him that cherry-picking scores for handicapping is against the rules, but he was having none of it.

You also have to register the round before going out and then have no choice as to whether or not to submit it.

 

[cliveb]

You also have to register the round before going out and then have no choice as to whether or not to submit it.

That's what I told him, but it was like talking to a brick wall.

 

[Swango1980]

That's what I told him, but it was like talking to a brick wall.

If it is actually endorsed by a society, rather than the players handicap committee, then the player is seemingly able to get around not pre registering without their handicap committee noticing, or caring?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

But…it is.

If you go and play in Australia, you follow Golf Australia rules.

If you play in the US, you play by their rules.

The calculation of the handicap indices of players is the same globally, which was the main driver.

Most certainly are not, USA for eg happy to use matchplay scores, and "most likely score" whatever that could mean. It's a nonsense to say that all countries are calculating handicaps the same, they simply are not

 

[Swango1980]

Most certainly are not, USA for eg happy to use matchplay scores, and "most likely score" whatever that could mean. It's a nonsense to say that all countries are calculating handicaps the same, they simply are not

Still the same CALCULATION? Albeit the score used might be played a bit differently

 

[D-S]

Still the same CALCULATION? Albeit the score used might be played a bit differently

Not only played differently but estimated differently. One by a proprietary algorithm the other by the player’s own guesswork.

 

[Swango1980]

Not only played differently but estimated differently. One by a proprietary algorithm the other by the player’s own guesswork.

Not saying I agree with Most Likely Score and all that. Seems dodgy

 

[D-S]

Not saying I agree with Most Likely Score and all that. Seems dodgy

Like a lot of things, in theory it is fine if applied correctly and diligently, in practice it often isn’t and allows for a considerable amount of interpretation that tends to go the way the player wants it to go.

 

[wjemather]

Not only played differently but estimated differently. One by a proprietary algorithm the other by the player’s own guesswork.

Like a lot of things, in theory it is fine if applied correctly and diligently, in practice it often isn’t and allows for a considerable amount of interpretation that tends to go the way the player wants it to go.

Neither of these things are true.

 

[Crow]

Neither of these things are true.

You make sound arguments for many things, but this is just burying your head in the sand.

If you were to take a 25 golfers and give them the same scenario then ask them how many shots would be a most likely score, you wouldn't get them all agreeing.

 

[wjemather]

You make sound arguments for many things, but this is just burying your head in the sand.

If you were to take a 25 golfers and give them the same scenario then ask them how many shots would be a most likely score, you wouldn't get them all agreeing.

MLS is a defined process with clear guidelines. It is not an exercise in guessing what the most likely score might have been.

 

[D-S]

Neither of these things are true.

I said in practice this allows for a considerable amount of interpretation - I have seen MLS in practice many, many times - it does allow for a considerable amount of interpretation (normally expressed as ‘just put me down an ‘x’), is that putt 5 feet or 6 feet, is it 19 or 21 feet -

“Add 2 or 3 additional strokes, depending on the position of the ball, the difficulty of the green and the ability of the player.” Position of the ball, ability of the player, difficulty of the green are all down to the interpretation of the player. These things are true.

A ball lying roughly 20 yards away is picked up routinely and anything between 2 and 4 strokes are added - in reality

 

[Crow]

MLS is a defined process with clear guidelines. It is not an exercise in guessing what the most likely score might have been.

I didn't suggest they'd guess, I believe that they interpret the guidelines differently, and this might be for several reasons:
- An inability to estimate distances
- A difference of opinion in a handicap golfer's ability
- A subconscious desire for a better/worse score

 

[wjemather]

I said in practice this allows for a considerable amount of interpretation - I have seen MLS in practice many, many times - it does allow for a considerable amount of interpretation (normally expressed as ‘just put me down an ‘x’), is that putt 5 feet or 6 feet, is it 19 or 21 feet -

“Add 2 or 3 additional strokes, depending on the position of the ball, the difficulty of the green and the ability of the player.” Position of the ball, ability of the player, difficulty of the green are all down to the interpretation of the player. These things are true.

A ball lying roughly 20 yards away is picked up routinely and anything between 2 and 4 strokes are added.

This isn't interpretation (of the rule/guideline); it's judgement (of distance, difficulty and ability).
It also isn't a considerable amount.
Additionally, borderline situations are a tiny minority of the application of MLS - the vast majority being a simple +1 for the ball lying within 5 feet of the hole; and the vast majority of balls picked up elsewhere are recorded as nett double bogeys.