DQ'd from Competition under rule 3.3b

[doublebogey7]

I don't follow that. Players weren't ever responsible for making their own UHS changes, were they?

Separately from whether you should be required to have your handicap on your card in strokeplay, there will of courses always be a need for a requirement to know and inform opponents correctly of your course handicap and for a rule which spells out the consequences of getting it wrong.

Yes players were responsible pre WHS making reductions to handicap where qualifying scores had not been posted to the handicap record. Remember scores were not posted until the committee had closed the competition or approved the supplementary score.

 

[Foxholer]

I wonder whether this could be up for consideration in the next round of rules changes. The player has, under WHS, lost responsibility for making their own handicap changes. So there is no longer a need for the player to be responsible for writing it in the card as far as I can see.

I don't follow that. Players weren't ever responsible for making their own UHS changes, were they?

Separately from whether you should be required to have your handicap on your card in strokeplay, there will of courses always be a need for a requirement to know and inform opponents correctly of your course handicap and for a rule which spells out the consequences of getting it wrong.

They were only 'provisional' - where a reduction was known to be due, but the actual amount hadn't been finalised; as there might be a CSS adjustment as well as that known to be due from a better than existing 'cap.
E.G. Cat 3 Player scores sufficient to reduce handicap to, say, 16.6 from 17.5 under harsh conditions that might trigger a CSS 1 higher than SSS (say). As is, player knows he's now of 17, not 18 so Player must play off 17 until any CSS is known and thatthere's a possibility of further reduction - to 16.3 aka 16. Player is not penalised for playing off a wrong handicap if results haven't been posted.

 

[Colin L]

Yes players were responsible pre WHS making reductions to handicap where qualifying scores had not been posted to the handicap record. Remember scores were not posted until the committee had closed the competition or approved the supplementary score.

Sure, if that's what you meant. But to quibble a bit over words, that wasn't matter of players being required to or having the authority to change their handicaps. It was a requirement to record what they knew their handicap was going to be changed to if that was lower than before. They were not themselves making the change.

It's good though that with overnight processing the need for this has gone not just because it's one less matter for us to do but because it takes away another way in which we can get it wrong.

 

[jim8flog]

I don't follow that. Players weren't ever responsible for making their own UHS changes, were they?

.

I always remember it was the case.

I once had the unpleasant task of telling the Captain he and his playing partner had lost a 4BBB match for declaring a wrong handicap. His playing partner had shot a score better than handicap in the morning comp and not adjusted his handicap before the start of the match. (we had notices on our handicap notice board


C O N G U ® U N I F I E D H A N D I C A P P I N G S Y S T E M

20.11 If a player returns a Qualifying Score or Scores below his Playing Handicap at his Home
Club or away and is unable to:
(a) report an away score(s) to his Home Club; or
(b) ascertain whether or not his Playing Handicap has been reduced as a result of the
score(s) he must, before playing in another competition at his Home Club or away, for that competition
make such reduction to his Playing Handicap as shall be appropriate under the UHS by
applying the Competition Scratch Score if known, otherwise the Standard Scratch Score, to
calculate his Nett Differential and handicap reduction.

 

[Backache]

There has just been the following clarification issued:


Rule 3:
Rule 3.3b(4):

1. Interpretation 3.3b(4)/1 – National Association May Establish Meaning of “Handicap” Player
Must Show on Scorecard

Until further notice, a National Association (Authorized Association as defined in the Rules of
Handicapping) may adopt a policy that establishes the handicap that players must show on
their scorecard in a net-score stroke play competition. This handicap does not have to be the
handicap described in Interpretation 3.3b(4)/1, which is the Course Handicap (as defined in
the Rules of Handicapping). The options for the National Association are the Handicap Index,

the Course Handicap or the Playing Handicap. If no policy is adopted by the National
Association, the Course Handicap is the handicap the player must show on the scorecard, in

accordance with Interpretation 3.3b(4)/1. (Added 4/2021)






2. Interpretation 3.3b(4)/2 – Player May be Exempt From Penalty When Committee Provides a
Scorecard With an Incorrect Handicap

Until further notice, a National Association (Authorized Association as defined in the Rules of
Handicapping) may adopt a policy that alters the provisions in Interpretation 3.3b(4)/2. With
such a policy in place, it means that if a Committee provides a player with a scorecard
containing the incorrect handicap and the error is not corrected before the player returns the
scorecard, this will be treated as an administrative mistake by the Committee. This means that
the player is not penalized if the incorrect handicap on the returned scorecard is the handicap
provided by the Committee. There is no time limit for correcting the mistake. (Added 4/2021)

 

[Foxholer]

There has just been the following clarification issued:


Rule 3:
Rule 3.3b(4):

1. Interpretation 3.3b(4)/1 – National Association May Establish Meaning of “Handicap” Player
Must Show on Scorecard

Until further notice, a National Association (Authorized Association as defined in the Rules of
Handicapping) may adopt a policy that establishes the handicap that players must show on
their scorecard in a net-score stroke play competition. This handicap does not have to be the
handicap described in Interpretation 3.3b(4)/1, which is the Course Handicap (as defined in
the Rules of Handicapping). The options for the National Association are the Handicap Index,

the Course Handicap or the Playing Handicap. If no policy is adopted by the National
Association, the Course Handicap is the handicap the player must show on the scorecard, in

accordance with Interpretation 3.3b(4)/1. (Added 4/2021)






2. Interpretation 3.3b(4)/2 – Player May be Exempt From Penalty When Committee Provides a
Scorecard With an Incorrect Handicap

Until further notice, a National Association (Authorized Association as defined in the Rules of
Handicapping) may adopt a policy that alters the provisions in Interpretation 3.3b(4)/2. With
such a policy in place, it means that if a Committee provides a player with a scorecard
containing the incorrect handicap and the error is not corrected before the player returns the
scorecard, this will be treated as an administrative mistake by the Committee. This means that
the player is not penalized if the incorrect handicap on the returned scorecard is the handicap
provided by the Committee. There is no time limit for correcting the mistake. (Added 4/2021)

Re 1...
Unfortunately, that won't totally eliminate confusion/errors. If CH, the confusion won't change. If HI - the logical alternative/'standard' imo, then there'll be confusion/errors from/by those who have been doing it 'correctly' up to implementaion.

Re 2...
Eminently sensible.

I'd opt for Club provided Handicap usinh HI (and labelled as such).
Of course, National Associations have yet to adopt/confirm either of the above.

 

[wjemather]

There has just been the following clarification issued:


Rule 3:
Rule 3.3b(4):

1. Interpretation 3.3b(4)/1 – National Association May Establish Meaning of “Handicap” Player
Must Show on Scorecard

Until further notice, a National Association (Authorized Association as defined in the Rules of
Handicapping) may adopt a policy that establishes the handicap that players must show on
their scorecard in a net-score stroke play competition. This handicap does not have to be the
handicap described in Interpretation 3.3b(4)/1, which is the Course Handicap (as defined in
the Rules of Handicapping). The options for the National Association are the Handicap Index,

the Course Handicap or the Playing Handicap. If no policy is adopted by the National
Association, the Course Handicap is the handicap the player must show on the scorecard, in

accordance with Interpretation 3.3b(4)/1. (Added 4/2021)






2. Interpretation 3.3b(4)/2 – Player May be Exempt From Penalty When Committee Provides a
Scorecard With an Incorrect Handicap

Until further notice, a National Association (Authorized Association as defined in the Rules of
Handicapping) may adopt a policy that alters the provisions in Interpretation 3.3b(4)/2. With
such a policy in place, it means that if a Committee provides a player with a scorecard
containing the incorrect handicap and the error is not corrected before the player returns the
scorecard, this will be treated as an administrative mistake by the Committee. This means that
the player is not penalized if the incorrect handicap on the returned scorecard is the handicap
provided by the Committee. There is no time limit for correcting the mistake. (Added 4/2021)

"Just been issued" 12-13 months ago!!

 

[Colin L]

I'd opt for Club provided Handicap usinh HI (and labelled as such).
Of course, National Associations have yet to adopt/confirm either of the above.

[Discreet cough]

G2.1b/1 Handicap On The Scorecard
To avoid a DQ under Rule 3.3b (4) of the Rules of Golf the player must put his/her Course Handicap on the scorecard (see Interpretation 3.3b (4)/1 of the Rules of Golf). This is expressed as an integer and represents the number of strokes the player receives for handicap purposes for both Competition scores and General Play returns.....
Guidance on the WHS Rules of Handicapping as applied within GB&I, CONGU

The first issue of this document was 15/09/2020.

 

[Foxholer]

[Discreet cough]

G2.1b/1 Handicap On The Scorecard
To avoid a DQ under Rule 3.3b (4) of the Rules of Golf the player must put his/her Course Handicap on the scorecard (see Interpretation 3.3b (4)/1 of the Rules of Golf). This is expressed as an integer and represents the number of strokes the player receives for handicap purposes for both Competition scores and General Play returns.....
Guidance on the WHS Rules of Handicapping as applied within GB&I, CONGU

The first issue of this document was 15/09/2020.

My post was referring to the (not particularly) recently released 'clarification' (Post 65), not current Rules.

 

[Colin L]

My post was referring to the (not particularly) recently released 'clarification' (Post 65), not current Rules.

I'm not doing well in this thread. First an embarrassing mistake and now it seems I'm misreading things. I managed to misinterpret "I'd opt for Club provided Handicap using HI (and labelled as such)" as implying that CONGU still had to make the choice it made and published before the transition to the WHS.

And, worse, I interpreted "Of course, National Associations have yet to adopt/confirm either of the above" to be saying that CONGU hadn't yet made the decision they made and published before the transition to the WHS. It must have meant other National Associations.

Sad signs that it's probably time I retired from all of this rules and handicapping stuff.

 

[Foxholer]

I'm not doing well in this thread. First an embarrassing mistake and now it seems I'm misreading things. I managed to misinterpret "I'd opt for Club provided Handicap using HI (and labelled as such)" as implying that CONGU still had to make the choice it made and published before the transition to the WHS.

And, worse, I interpreted "Of course, National Associations have yet to adopt/confirm either of the above" to be saying that CONGU hadn't yet made the decision they made and published before the transition to the WHS. It must have meant other National Associations.

Sad signs that it's probably time I retired from all of this rules and handicapping stuff.

Please don't do that. You are generally spot on, so 1 'rogue thread' is forgiveable. Trying to follow some of my referalls can be a tricky process too!

 

[Colin L]

Please don't do that. You are generally spot on, so 1 'rogue thread' is forgiveable. Trying to follow some of my referalls can be a tricky process too!

I hope the irony in my comments didn't go unnoticed.

But straight up, how do you square "National Associations have yet to adopt/confirm either of the above". with the fact that CONGU made it clear in 2020 that course handicap was the requirement? I certainly find that a tricky process to follow.

 

[Foxholer]

I hope the irony in my comments didn't go unnoticed.

But straight up, how do you square "National Associations have yet to adopt/confirm either of the above". with the fact that CONGU made it clear in 2020 that course handicap was the requirement? I certainly find that a tricky process to follow.

Indeed it didn't - thus the emojis.
Not for me to say why the've acted as they have, but neither groups come out of it particularly well imo. CH is the last of the 3 'options' I'd have chosen! But it should have been agreed ages ago - before WHS was implemented.

 

[wjemather]

Not for me to say why the've acted as they have, but neither groups come out of it particularly well imo. CH is the last of the 3 'options' I'd have chosen! But it should have been agreed ages ago - before WHS was implemented.

It was.

 

[Colin L]

Indeed it didn't - thus the emojis.
Not for me to say why the've acted as they have, but neither groups come out of it particularly well imo. CH is the last of the 3 'options' I'd have chosen! But it should have been agreed ages ago - before WHS was implemented.

I just don't get what you're saying and I don't think I'm missing anything. The CONGU Document, Guidance on the WHS Rules of Handicapping as applied within GB&I, CONGU was issued in September 2020 - before implementation. It states

.......the player must put his/her Course Handicap on the scorecard

I see no note of this being a later amendment to the text and so it must have been there from the start. How then can you say that it should have been agreed before WHS was implemented when the guidance that the course handicap must be used is in a document issued before implementation? I see too that I noted to members in a club bulletin in November 2020 that they had to put their course handicap on their scorecard.

Yours
Confused of Caledonia

 

[Foxholer]

It was.

Apparently not, or at least not implemented, by everyone who should have.

 

[Foxholer]

I just don't get what you're saying and I don't think I'm missing anything. The CONGU Document, Guidance on the WHS Rules of Handicapping as applied within GB&I, CONGU was issued in September 2020 - before implementation. It states

.......the player must put his/her Course Handicap on the scorecard

I see no note of this being a later amendment to the text and so it must have been there from the start. How then can you say that it should have been agreed before WHS was implemented when the guidance that the course handicap must be used is in a document issued before implementation? I see too that I noted to members in a club bulletin in November 2020 that they had to put their course handicap on their scorecard.

Yours
Confused of Caledonia

I was only replying to you post re National Assocs not agreeing...or at least not adopting/confirming...
I may, of course, have misinterpreted your post.

Just as confused of Surrey

 

[wjemather]

Apparently not, or at least not implemented, by everyone who should have.

Who are you referring to? All competent club committees were aware of the rules and interpretations, and CONGU and individual union guidance on them, and will have modified their processes and educated their members accordingly.

 

[Colin L]

I was only replying to you post re National Assocs not agreeing...or at least not adopting/confirming...
I may, of course, have misinterpreted your post.

Just as confused of Surrey

I think you did miss the irony, but no matter.

 

[rulie]

I was only replying to you post re National Assocs not agreeing...or at least not adopting/confirming...
I may, of course, have misinterpreted your post.

Just as confused of Surrey

When you're stuck in a hole, stop digging......