EG Webinar on New Handicap Rules in 2024

[Swango1980]

If the software only allows one score per hole (i.e. only has one box) then only 18 scores can be returned - it is entirely down to the players which is entered, you only will advise your marker one score.
I played in a 4BB comp yesterday and regularly the marker asked was that your 4 or your partners? and if I was the first ball in I would say it was mine.
If the club is using scorecards and organisers are inputting the scores they probably can make it mandatory that only one score is entered per hole (penalty for example if there are two scores on one hole on the card neither will be entered).

I'm not sure that works very well, or helps the issues I explained.

A pair consists of a scratch golfer and a 36 handicapper. Both score a par. So, what is ISV asking for in this one box per hole?

Is it the gross score? If so, then it needs to ask a second question, who scored it.

Or, it is asking for a nett score? At which point you are asking players to work out nett scores, they can no longer just focus on the gross score, the exact thing we've been trying to train them for years to only focus on, and the Committee / Computer can work out the rest.

 

[D-S]

I'm not sure that works very well, or helps the issues I explained.

A pair consists of a scratch golfer and a 36 handicapper. Both score a par. So, what is ISV asking for in this one box per hole? The gross score of the player who achieved the best nett score (in your example if they both had a gross 4, the scratch player had a nett 4 and the 36 handicapper a nett 2 - so therefore enter 4 on the 36 handicappers line in the software.

Is it the gross score? Yes If so, then it needs to ask a second question, who scored it. You enter it on the line of the player who scored it - when you enter this score you will not be able to enter a score on that hole on the line of the other player

Or, it is asking for a nett score? No At which point you are asking players to work out nett scores, they can no longer just focus on the gross score, the exact thing we've been trying to train them for years to only focus on, and the Committee / Computer can work out the rest.

Very often at the moment players already do exactly that.

 

[Swango1980]

Very often at the moment players already do exactly that.

Then I can see the problem of players having 2 scores to pick from on the card, and foolishly putting the score in the wrong player box (if initially both boxes are available).

 

[D-S]

Then I can see the problem of players having 2 scores to pick from on the card, and foolishly putting the score in the wrong player box (if initially both boxes are available). Exactly why the organisers should mandate that only one score is put down per hole on the card.

They just need to learn which score to put on the card. If you don’t know which player gets a shot where and therefore who had the best nett score first then you are not playing better ball right. The point of the game is to achieve the best nett score per hole and your partner holing first to secure the 2 points so you can have a go at the three pointer as you get a shot is all part of the game.

 

[Swango1980]

They just need to learn which score to put on the card. If you don’t know which player gets a shot where and therefore who had the best nett score first then you are not playing better ball right. The point of the game is to achieve the best nett score per hole and your partner holing first to secure the 2 points so you can have a go at the three pointer as you get a shot is all part of the game.

I know this, as do most people. But the system is usually designed to accommodate some of the most ignorant that may have to use it. Exactly why the fall back has always been "just enter your gross score, and don't worry about anything else". There was a reason why EG continued to make this clear. There is a reason why many on these forums over the last few years have continued to remind people of this, when various areas of confusion crop up with WHS.

Now with 4BBB, they'll have to move away from this. By telling people to just put one score per hole is a recipe for ridiculous mistakes. In fact, I've only played this format in a couple of opens all year, and once I witnessed one such error. One of the chaps in our group was in charge of the scorecard. When he picked it up, he was told to just put one score per hole by the organisers (at this time there was no need by the rules, but I know some organisers might prefer it). At end of the round, he did just that. Sadly, all 18 scores were put under Colum A, even though Player B clearly contributed. Moral of the story, some people are stupid, or most people are capable of stupid things from time to time.

So, I've always felt it makes much more sense that ALL players who score simply put their score down if they holed out. Then let the computer work out the team score. That way you remove at least one area were stupid mistakes can be made. And, as I said before anyway, if a score is going to go on someones handicap record, I think it is crazy that players are being advised to omit genuine scores just so the system can make something up for them.

 

[clubchamp98]

This thread just proves using 4bbb to catch the bandits is not as easy as we think.

Using somebody else’s score to be included in your handicap index just sounds wrong!

 

[2blue]

This thread just proves using 4bbb to catch the bandits is not as easy as we think.

Using somebody else’s score to be included in your handicap index just sounds wrong!

Just got to be 'at them' in every way possible. Most Comps/Events etc are now up-rating their C & C's to demand a number of Q rounds/Comp scores in the last 12 months.
Just last Nov I played at Bradford GC in a Yorkshire Union Members invitational B/Ball. We finished 8th with 41pts but got promoted into the prizes at 5th place due to the top 3 pairs (1st had 46pts) having invited friends who didn't have 4 Q Comp scores in the past 12 months........ plenty of GP's but not Competition.
Doesn't mean they were bandits (both in 1st place were single-figure H/caps) so a little surprising they hadn't felt the need to check the Comp Conditions.
In the end, I guess it will continue to be difficult to eliminate banditry altogether...... just need to make it as difficult as possible. UHS was a joke with the 3 scores in a year to maintain an 'Active H/cap'

 

[clubchamp98]

Just got to be 'at them' in every way possible. Most Comps/Events etc are now up-rating their C & C's to demand a number of Q rounds/Comp scores in the last 12 months.
Just last Nov I played at Bradford GC in a Yorkshire Union Members invitational B/Ball. We finished 8th with 41pts but got promoted into the prizes at 5th place due to the top 3 pairs (1st had 46pts) having invited friends who didn't have 4 Q Comp scores in the past 12 months........ plenty of GP's but not Competition.
Doesn't mean they were bandits (both in 1st place were single-figure H/caps) so a little surprising they hadn't felt the need to check the Comp Conditions.
In the end, I guess it will continue to be difficult to eliminate banditry altogether...... just need to make it as difficult as possible. UHS was a joke with the 3 scores in a year to maintain an 'Active H/cap'

Yes that’s happening at elite level if there is an oversubscribed event,
so makes sense at higher levels

In future though ,is a comp 4bbb score on your index 20 rounds going to count in your best eight.?
If these are going to be used to ajust handicaps they would be I guess.
So handicaps are partly based on someone else’s scores not wholly their own!

That sounds strange that two single figures don’t have enough comp cards in.

 

[2blue]

Yes that’s happening at elite level if there is an oversubscribed event,
so makes sense at higher levels

In future though ,is a comp 4bbb score on your index 20 rounds going to count in your best eight.?
If these are going to be used to ajust handicaps they would be I guess.
So handicaps are partly based on someone else’s scores not wholly their own!

That sounds strange that two single figures don’t have enough comp cards in.

The 1st place YUGC member did but his invitee didn't....... just lots of GP rounds from various courses all over Yorkshire..... very strange.
When 45pts off 85% is converted back to 100% it may well figure in the best 8. At least it may well be sending a message...... sadly, cheats will always cheat.

 

[D-S]

The bottom line is that if you want to seriously manipulate your handicap, you will put more cards in not less, so number of scores doesn’t necessarily relate to accuracy.

 

[2blue]

The bottom line is that if you want to seriously manipulate your handicap, you will put more cards in not less, so number of scores doesn’t necessarily relate to accuracy.

Absolutely!! However, more scores provide more evidence for a vigilant & active H/cap team to use to review H/caps with B/ball included. THIS is such an important part of the process.

 

[clubchamp98]

Absolutely!! However, more scores provide more evidence for a vigilant & active H/cap team to use to review H/caps with B/ball included. THIS is such an important part of the process.

Yes I agree but imo 75% should be comp cards.
I think there should be a limit on GP cards in your best eight to two.

 

[Swango1980]

Absolutely!! However, more scores provide more evidence for a vigilant & active H/cap team to use to review H/caps with B/ball included. THIS is such an important part of the process.

If a player puts in loads of scores, it is probably going to be difficult to know if the player is manipulating handicap or rubbish with a few purple patches, or just plain massively inconsistent

Bandits can often get away with it I'm Open as their own handicap secs have no idea what they do outside their own club, and it is rare they get feedback

 

[2blue]

If a player puts in loads of scores, it is probably going to be difficult to know if the player is manipulating handicap or rubbish with a few purple patches, or just plain massively inconsistent

Bandits can often get away with it in Opens as their own handicap secs have no idea what they do outside their own club, and it is rare they get feedback

For several years now all the Opens I've entered have required CDH nos so I'd expect that the B/Ball scores will now automatically show on their H/cap records & I'd hope that the Platform would also have a Reporting system that highlights such.
All in all it's a good move despite a few messy bits IMO.

 

[2blue]

Yes I agree but imo 75% should be comp cards.
I think there should be a limit on GP cards in your best eight to two

For elite events, they have done that as the suspicion is that GPs are being used to stay LOW.
I think here we are talking about GPs being used to GO HIGH.

 

[rulie]

Several competitions here are using the player's "Low Index" as there HI for the event.

 

[Swango1980]

For several years now all the Opens I've entered have required CDH nos so I'd expect that the B/Ball scores will now automatically show on their H/cap records & I'd hope that the Platform would also have a Reporting system that highlights such.
All in all it's a good move despite a few messy bits IMO.

How would that work? I thought only he GOOD betterball scores went on to a players record, and maybe only the record of one of the players, not necessarily both.

You could have a player that plays more than a dozen 4BBB Opens and gets a team score over 42 points 3 times, with his score going onto his record. Another player could play only 3 Opens and have his score appear 3 times on his record. If a handicap sec was to look at both records, how would they know which player might need a review more, when there is no record of all the bad scores as well?

Furthermore, bandit pairs could consist of one fairly steady player and a streaky high handicapper. They might use up to 8 scores from high handicapper where he has scored 3, 4 and maybe 5 points on holes. Then hopefully at least 10 scores from steady player around 2 points a hole, perhaps the odd 3 pointer. It's the high handicapper that does the damage and enables such a great team score, the low handicapper who had the score go on their record (and potentially a worse score than the higher handicapper)

 

[NearHull]

YUGC County Members events have moved this year from 3 GP + 3 Comp scores in the past 12 months, to 6 Comp scores in the past 12 months, to win a prize. That will catch a few out!

 

[D-S]

How would that work? I thought only he GOOD betterball scores went on to a players record, and maybe only the record of one of the players, not necessarily both.

You could have a player that plays more than a dozen 4BBB Opens and gets a team score over 42 points 3 times, with his score going onto his record. Another player could play only 3 Opens and have his score appear 3 times on his record. If a handicap sec was to look at both records, how would they know which player might need a review more, when there is no record of all the bad scores as well?

Furthermore, bandit pairs could consist of one fairly steady player and a streaky high handicapper. They might use up to 8 scores from high handicapper where he has scored 3, 4 and maybe 5 points on holes. Then hopefully at least 10 scores from steady player around 2 points a hole, perhaps the odd 3 pointer. It's the high handicapper that does the damage and enables such a great team score, the low handicapper who had the score go on their record (and potentially a worse score than the higher handicapper)

As I understand it all the scores will be available for committees to review. I would assume the ‘non counting‘ (less than 42 points combined less than 36 individual scores) will just be the raw data, showing the 3 or 8 or 14 scores that were input alongside the player plus the team total. If they are regularly getting 40 points and your player is on the card 14 or so times every time then this is useful evidence as is someone who is only ever on the card a handful of times despite high team scores. As all such evidence it is never definitive but adds to the picture of the player’s demonstrated ability.
A very good thing for use by diligent handicap committees, now all we need are more diligent handicap committees.

 

[Swango1980]

As I understand it all the scores will be available for committees to review. I would assume the ‘non counting‘ (less than 42 points combined less than 36 individual scores) will just be the raw data, showing the 3 or 8 or 14 scores that were input alongside the player plus the team total. If they are regularly getting 40 points and your player is on the card 14 or so times every time then this is useful evidence as is someone who is only ever on the card a handful of times despite high team scores. As all such evidence it is never definitive but adds to the picture of the player’s demonstrated ability.
A very good thing for use by diligent handicap committees, now all we need are more diligent handicap committees.

It'll be interesting to see how that looks. Given the inconsistency of some players, and the fact they have a partner to score when they don't do well, you could have players with a lot of 4BBB events, many of which they score on less than 9 holes (maybe even a lot less sometimes), and yet still have a reasonable number of times in which the team get over 42 points.

When WHS started, despite all the various difficulties of implementing certain procedures, I always felt it was at least good the system demanded pre-registration, and that the "purity" of the system meant that if a player commits to a score for handicap, that commitment is made before starting. Therefore all their rounds are included, good and bad, so that they are awarded a fair handicap for them. With 4BBB, that is now completely out the window. The system is now actively deciding to put good scores on the system, and disregard bad ones. I think that is an awful way to use WHS. All in all, if you have a diligent handicap committee, then theoretically they'll more often have to INCREASE player handicaps because the system had only added good scores to a players record, and not the bad ones.