England Golf General Play Restrictions

[rulefan]

I think many are reading too much into the EG statement. Five GP scores does not prohibit entry.

“........ where somebody has more than four general play scores in their record, we will assess their general play scores against their competition scores.
“Should there be a difference, we’ll investigate it and may not accept their entry into that designated championship. That will only apply to those [events] that are oversubscribed.”

 

[Wabinez]

I think many are reading too much into the EG statement. Five GP scores does not prohibit entry.

“........ where somebody has more than four general play scores in their record, we will assess their general play scores against their competition scores.
“Should there be a difference, we’ll investigate it and may not accept their entry into that designated championship. That will only apply to those [events] that are oversubscribed.”

It's crazy how many people overlooked this. Don't let the full details get in the way of an argument though!

 

[D-S]

Though some may have missed the nuance of the new Term of Competition, I think the salient part is that EG have recognised or inferred that there are two distinct types of scores on a persons record that may or may not need to be viewed separately. They had already shown, by producing the report on the WHS Portal, that performance differential might need to be looked at between these score types - this is just further highlighting the possible issue.

 

[BiMGuy]

So, just to be clear. This will really only impact a very small number of people in a very small number of events, because a very small number of people are manipulating the HI down to qualify for said events?

The bigger problem to most handicap golfers is surely the number of people who are manipulating their HI to be artificially high? And the fact that in most club comps we are not all playing to the same rules!

And when did HC golf at any level become elite golf? Surely that is the PGA and DPW Tours?

 

[Swango1980]

I think many are reading too much into the EG statement. Five GP scores does not prohibit entry.

“........ where somebody has more than four general play scores in their record, we will assess their general play scores against their competition scores.
“Should there be a difference, we’ll investigate it and may not accept their entry into that designated championship. That will only apply to those [events] that are oversubscribed.”

I'm not sure people were overlooking this? After all, if an event wasn't fully subscribed, I don't think anyone would have a problem with a few guys entering that are not as good as they are on paper.

Furthermore, if their competition scores are just as good as GP scores, then it would seem fair to accept that entry. I think people are simply raising the fact that England Golf have still felt it necessary that they will need to introduce this additional restriction, one they didn't have to before. So, there must be some expectation that they will occasionally need to implement it. Clearly, it is a deterrent to players trying to push their handicap down using GP rounds. However, the guideline could also prohibit honest players also entering such competitions if they just so happen to have a good set of GP scores, Maybe they just went through a purple patch for a few weeks, for example, where there were no competitions to play and so they could only submit GP rounds.

If England Golf felt all golfers were honest, would they have this guideline at all?

 

[wjemather]

I'm not sure people were overlooking this?

Well, given the NCG article states in the opening sentence "Players entering England Golf’s top tournaments could be turned away if their handicap records include too many general play scores", it's very clear that they are.

 

[Swango1980]

Well, given the NCG article states in the opening sentence "Players entering England Golf’s top tournaments could be turned away if their handicap records include too many general play scores", it's very clear that they are.

That is a fact though, is it not? Based on what was posted by rulefan in Post 181.

It doesn't say "Players with too many GP rounds on their record WILL be turned away"

 

[rulefan]

I think too much emphasis is being placed on 'excluding players with too many GP scores'. In reality it is more about a simple method of selecting the demonstrably better competition players for oversubscribed high level events. It is not about cheating.

There has always been the need to make such decisions but it was pretty subjective as there were no 'tools' available.
WHS (not EG) provided a useful report showing the relationship between resultant comp & gp indices; presumably to help committees with handicap reviews, given that in many parts of the world gp scores dominate comp scores (or vice versa)

 

[D-S]

I think too much emphasis is being placed on 'excluding players with too many GP scores'. In reality it is more about a simple method of selecting the demonstrably better competition players for oversubscribed high level events. It is not about cheating.

There has always been the need to make such decisions but it was pretty subjective as there were no 'tools' available.
WHS (not EG) provided a useful report showing the relationship between resultant comp & gp indices; presumably to help committees with handicap reviews, given that in many parts of the world gp scores dominate comp scores (or vice versa)

I was at the seminar when EG announced this to the Counties back in November and the inference was certainly that the purpose of the new term was to weed out individuals who had manipulated their handicaps to achieve entry into EG scratch balloted competitions. They even gave examples of players who had done just this - this was corroborated with many examples from the floor. This was not sold as just an extra layer of judging player competence.

 

[wjemather]

That is a fact though, is it not? Based on what was posted by rulefan in Post 181.

It doesn't say "Players with too many GP rounds on their record WILL be turned away"

"...too many gp scores... " is not the criterion. It is a misleading statement that demonstrates a lack of understanding.

The original headline also (over-dramaticaly) described it as a "ruthless" policy, but that has since been replaced by the word "new".

 

[Imurg]

In the balloting process it shows that the event is oversubscribed
EG run a report that shows player X has 6 GP cards in his 20, all of which are better than his usual or expected score range.
What investigations they can do is beyond me but....
As a result, he gets balloted out.
As clear as day..that is saying that EG do not trust player X and those GP cards are not considered worthy...
Even if it isn't directly saying it there is a very strong implication that handicap manipulation has taken place.
They are, effectively, calling Player X a cheat and admitting that the GP card system is flawed.
And if the system is flawed, why is this process not being applied to ordinary club golfers who, if they are manipulating their Index, will be doing it the other way..?

 

[Swango1980]

"...too many gp scores... " is not the criterion. It is a misleading statement that demonstrates a lack of understanding.

The original headline also (over-dramaticaly) described it as a "ruthless" policy, but that has since been replaced by the word "new".

"too many gp scores" is simply a statement used to summarise the discussion within the opening sentence. The article then goes on to discuss what "too many gp scores" actually means.

 

[doublebogey7]

In the balloting process it shows that the event is oversubscribed
EG run a report that shows player X has 6 GP cards in his 20, all of which are better than his usual or expected score range.
What investigations they can do is beyond me but....
As a result, he gets balloted out.
As clear as day..that is saying that EG do not trust player X and those GP cards are not considered worthy...
Even if it isn't directly saying it there is a very strong implication that handicap manipulation has taken place.
They are, effectively, calling Player X a cheat and admitting that the GP card system is flawed.
And if the system is flawed, why is this process not being applied to ordinary club golfers who, if they are manipulating their Index, will be doing it the other way..?

I suggest you addressd this question to your club handicap committee, as it they who run your competitions. Their is a report that the club can and should run on a regular basis that identifies those whose GP scores vary vastly from their competetion scores.

 

[Swango1980]

I think too much emphasis is being placed on 'excluding players with too many GP scores'. In reality it is more about a simple method of selecting the demonstrably better competition players for oversubscribed high level events. It is not about cheating.

There has always been the need to make such decisions but it was pretty subjective as there were no 'tools' available.
WHS (not EG) provided a useful report showing the relationship between resultant comp & gp indices; presumably to help committees with handicap reviews, given that in many parts of the world gp scores dominate comp scores (or vice versa)

What is it about. A random selection criteria?

If a competition is over-subscribed, why not simply remove players with the highest indices first? Why potentially decide that a player off -0.5 can play, but a player off -2.0 cannot play, because they have 6 GP scores contributing to that index, which are all lower than their competitive rounds.

 

[rulefan]

As a result, he gets balloted out.
As clear as day..that is saying that EG do not trust player X and those GP cards are not considered worthy...
Even if it isn't directly saying it there is a very strong implication that handicap manipulation has taken place.
They are, effectively, calling Player X a cheat and admitting that the GP card system is flawed.
And if the system is flawed, why is this process not being applied to ordinary club golfers who, if they are manipulating their Index, will be doing it the other way..?

No. They are simply saying his GP scores do not reflect his competition scores, for whatever reason (nerves, course setup if he has been playing major events?).
IMO EG would not call a player a cheat either directly or by implication

I was at the seminar when EG announced this to the Counties back in November and the inference was certainly that the purpose of the new term was to weed out individuals who had manipulated their handicaps to achieve entry into EG scratch balloted competitions. They even gave examples of players who had done just this - this was corroborated with many examples from the floor. This was not sold as just an extra layer of judging player competence.

Was this presented by EG personnel? Did they identify the players? Were they all of elite status?

 

[wjemather]

"too many gp scores" is simply a statement used to summarise the discussion within the opening sentence. The article then goes on to discuss what "too many gp scores" actually means.

No, it's a gross misrepresentation of the policy.

 

[Swango1980]

No, it's a gross misrepresentation of the policy.

But, why are you focusing on the opening line of a full article? I'd completely agree that, if someone was getting angry simply because they'd be disallowed entry to a competition for having too many GP scores, then you could direct them to read the full article. They'd have nothing to be worried about if their competition scores of the same level expected, rather than being a lot worse than GP scores.

The opening line is just the opening line. It is unlikely to ever capture the full detail of the guideline, otherwise the guideline would just be that same sentence alone.

Discussion on this thread is "why was this guideline considered at all?". The simple answer seems to be that EG may think, and even experienced, elite golfers entering these competitions that are not as elite as their handicap suggests, and at least some of these may well be guilty of manipulation. Can't 100% accuse them of that, but the suspicion is there.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

If you’re playing any form of 4BB and not giving advice then I would suggest you are doing it wrong. Personally I have never seen side bets in medals/Stablefords being ever pairs or matchplay based, almost always on the individual card. Any sort of pairs or team game requires sometimes a different strategy on a hole due to the situation your partner/team mates may be in and so is incompatbile with an individual score.

the reason I said it was because at the 3 courses I've been a member at that DID play in fours, then side bets always seemed to be in pairs. And yes holes up/down, so matchplay, yes you're holing out, and yes there's no advice because it's a medal. Nobody, least of all me, said that it was a proper 4BBB, that's the point

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Folk were cheating handicaps long before WHS, but I wonder why it was made it easier to do?

Hence we're seeing restrictions coming in!

But it's not easier to do due to WHS, it's due to Covid which facilitated the need to score via an App and which has continued for the purposes of GP scores (and in some clubs their medals too)

 

[D-S]

Was this presented by EG personnel? Did they identify the players? Were they all of elite status?

Yes it was an EG seminar, it was presented by EG personnel. The presenter who gave this news was a member of the Championship Committee.
Of course they did not name the players by name, that they belive were manipulating the system, in an open forum however they did advise us of the discrepancies and the differentials between their competition and GP scores. As I said the audience of County Secretaries, Regional Handicap Advisors and County Handicap Advisors also corroborrated the fact with examples of their own.
The players were of elite status as they gained entry into prestigious EG competitions last year. This triggered the change to the term of competition.