EG Webinar on New Handicap Rules in 2024

[Swango1980]

The H'cap Sec is not supposed to be the only member of the H'cap C'ee. Many hands .......

Indeed. It is much too of a complicated and arduous job for one or 2 people to do anymore.

It truly does require many hands.

 

[2blue]

The H'cap Sec is not supposed to be the only member of the H'cap C'ee. Many hands .......

Yep... we have 6 of us processing Comps etc sharing the load........ & the blame!!!

 

[rulefan]

Indeed. It is much too of a complicated and arduous job for one or 2 people to do anymore.

It truly does require many hands.

It always has done. UHS also required a minimum of 3 members.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

This thread has highlighted a lot of practical issues and some effective solutions.

On reflection a few things stand-out to me:

1. It would have been better if CONGU had adopted the "normal" methodology in use elsewhere at the beginning (cr-par, rounding, etc). Be interested to hear the reason why not.
2. Explaining the system to a new / casual player is a nightmare. UHS had it's problems but it was much simpler to explain. The general approach of "don't worry the computer will work it out" only goes so far.
3. We are putting a large increase in work on volunteers to not only administer / check the system but also to investigate and verify the veracity of scores and eligibility of competitors. Many will feel this is too much to cope with.
4. I remain concerned about the heavy reliance on technology. We have no cellular coverage on our course and only wifi coverage in the clubhouse and surrounds. We are not alone and the push by EG to a fully digital system in not sustainable for many rural areas.
5. We are not finished on this journey - there is more to come with matchplay, MLS, etc. on the horizon.

I really like the aims and objectives of WHS and think it's a good system. However, a little like the rules of golf, they have got so complex that only a few can understand them so problems occur based on complexity.

 

[D-S]

This thread has highlighted a lot of practical issues and some effective solutions.

On reflection a few things stand-out to me:

1. It would have been better if CONGU had adopted the "normal" methodology in use elsewhere at the beginning (cr-par, rounding, etc). Be interested to hear the reason why not. James Luke admitted that all those involved in the original decision not to now rue this mistake.
2. Explaining the system to a new / casual player is a nightmare. UHS had its problems but it was much simpler to explain. The general approach of "don't worry the computer will work it out" only goes so far.
3. We are putting a large increase in work on volunteers to not only administer / check the system but also to investigate and verify the veracity of scores and eligibility of competitors. Many will feel this is too much to cope with. My worry, having seen it at first hand is the large gap between the capabilities and availability of club volunteers and therefore the bigger the burden, the larger disparity in result.
4. I remain concerned about the heavy reliance on technology. We have no cellular coverage on our course and only wifi coverage in the clubhouse and surrounds. We are not alone and the push by EG to a fully digital system in not sustainable for many rural areas.
5. We are not finished on this journey - there is more to come with matchplay, MLS, etc. on the horizon. There will be further review in 4 years time and this may or may not be included. I would like to think they would do some trials as proposed that Golf Ireland would do but never happened.

I really like the aims and objectives of WHS and think it's a good system. However, a little like the rules of golf, they have got so complex that only a few can understand them so problems occur based on complexity.

 

[rulefan]

1) (CR-Par). The need for everyone(?) to use 36 points instead of differential to determine how well or poorly they had played was underestimated. I still think it was o good idea though.
2) Club volunteers have always been a problem. Now being brought to the attention of weak clubs. Almost always reflected in other areas.

 

[apj0524]

1) (CR-Par). The need for everyone(?) to use 36 points instead of differential to determine how well or poorly they had played was underestimated. I still think it was o good idea though.
2) Club volunteers have always been a problem. Now being brought to the attention of weak clubs. Almost always reflected in other areas.

In my view this too much of a sweeping statement, we are not a week club or Match & Handicap committee but the additional work, ensuring GP scores are legitimate, having to chase NR Scorecards before the end of the day so we can put their score in or apply a penalty score in my view is an un-reasonable additional burden added to the volunteers duties by EG.

 

[wjemather]

In my view this too much of a sweeping statement, we are not a week club or Match & Handicap committee but the additional work, ensuring GP scores are legitimate, having to chase NR Scorecards before the end of the day so we can put their score in or apply a penalty score in my view is an un-reasonable additional burden added to the volunteers duties by EG.

This should be a trivial task if player responsibilities (why they exist, and the consequences of failing to fulfil them) have been successfully communicated - EG have been pushing hard on this - and good processes are in place to deal with (what should only be) rare failures.

 

[wjemather]

To go back to the Webinar, I don't think enough was made out of the fact that Course Handicaps are going to be unrounded in future so it will be difficult to work out your playing handicap by simply using the board as many do in future, I don't fancy having to work out 85% of 6.2 or 15.9 early on a Sunday morning if the roll up is doing 2 out of 4 for example.
Having rounded scores on the boards (which need to be changed anyway due to CR-Par) simply will be wrong and confusing. So examples of better solutions should be given.
A QR code linking to a PH calculator is a good idea, but where do clubs source the calculator? Wouldn't it be good for EG to have one?
Or are there tables with all the allowances 75/80/85/90/95% available to print out so they can be in the Pro Shop/Changing room/Clubhouse. Shouldn't these be available on the EG website not just the rounded (useless) CR-Par tables that they have now?

They would need to know the formulae though in order to get the to the unrounded CH. Most won't have a clue.

Per the updated guidance for next year (G6.2a), unrounded CH is to be used to calculate the PH "whenever Playing Handicaps are calculated via machine..."; also, "note that if the calculation is being done manually, players can use the rounded Course Handicap to calculated Playing Handicaps (e.g. a casual 4-Ball match play round)."

 

[wjemather]

That’s right in theory.
But reality ?

As part of their union affiliation, clubs are obliged to fulfil their responsibilities under the rules of handicapping; this includes forming a handicap committee of at least 3 people.

 

[D-S]

Per the updated guidance for next year (G6.2a), unrounded CH is to be used to calculate the PH "whenever Playing Handicaps are calculated via machine..."; also, "note that if the calculation is being done manually, players can use the rounded Course Handicap to calculated Playing Handicaps (e.g. a casual 4-Ball match play round)."

I understand this but it still will lead to incredible confusion when anyone does the maths on the rounded number in a social game and comes up with a different number from the comp they played in the day before or vice versa when a comp gives you a different number than you have been busy using in social games. I am not sure why all of a sudden the ‘wrong’ number is acceptable.
I can see it now with someone using this calculator and coming up with one number and someone else saying the board says different. This is going just to add to people’s gripes unfounded or not.

 

[D-S]

As part of their union affiliation, clubs are obliged to fulfil their responsibilities under the rules of handicapping; this includes forming a handicap committee of at least 3 people.

Interesting to see just how many clubs have been disaffiliated in the past couple of years for not fulfilling this responsibility.

 

[wjemather]

I understand this but it still will lead to incredible confusion when anyone does the maths on the rounded number in a social game and comes up with a different number from the comp they played in the day before or vice versa when a comp gives you a different number than you have been busy using in social games. I am not sure why all of a sudden the ‘wrong’ number is acceptable.
I can see it now with someone using this calculator and coming up with one number and someone else saying the board says different. This is going just to add to people’s gripes unfounded or not.

We're talking casual golf - players are free to agree whatever handicaps and allowances they like. There is no obligation to use WHS at all.

 

[wjemather]

Interesting to see just how many clubs have been disaffiliated in the past couple of years for not fulfilling this responsibility.

I'd guess none. County unions are assisting clubs in meeting their responsibilities, including helping them set up and recruit for their committees.

 

[D-S]

We're talking casual golf - players are free to agree whatever handicaps and allowances they like. There is no obligation to use WHS at all.

Of course not but a lot do as they think they must be ‘right’, most golf played is ‘casual’ and handicaps play an important part.

 

[D-S]

I'd guess none. County unions are assisting clubs in meeting their responsibilities, including helping them set up and recruit for their committees.

They of course do, but they can only assist if they are asked or advised that there is an issue which by the very nature of dysfunctional clubs rarely happens. It’s quite easy to guess which clubs are which just by the attendance at seminars and the levels of interaction with the County.

 

[wjemather]

Of course not but a lot do as they think they must be ‘right’, most golf played is ‘casual’ and handicaps play an important part.

Calculating playing handicaps using either rounded or unrounded course handicaps is 'right' since both are acceptable options within the WHS framework, regardless of which method the handicapping authority has chosen to recommend or mandate for competitions.

 

[wjemather]

They of course do, but they can only assist if they are asked or advised that there is an issue which by the very nature of dysfunctional clubs rarely happens. It’s quite easy to guess which clubs are which just by the attendance at seminars and the levels of interaction with the County.

But your question was regarding the number of clubs being disaffiliated. In order for this to happen, the union would first have to have been aware of the issues, then attempted to resolve things with the club, and have their advice and assistance rejected after warning as to the consequences for the club and its members.

 

[D-S]

Calculating playing handicaps using either rounded or unrounded course handicaps is 'right' since both are acceptable options within the WHS framework, regardless of which method the handicapping authority has chosen to recommend or mandate for competitions.

It’s good to know that different numbers of shots received or given can be now right for the same format. This is going to be really simple to explain and be accepted and understood.

 

[D-S]

But your question was regarding the number of clubs being disaffiliated. In order for this to happen, the union would first have to have been aware of the issues, then attempted to resolve things with the club, and have their advice and assistance rejected after warning as to the consequences for the club and its members.

Exactly and the reality is that whereas we all know or assume that clubs may well not be fulfilling their responsibilities it is very difficult for the Counties to find this out and act.