Handicap Committee / Club Secretary

[Bamberdele2.0]

If I understand you correctly, the handicap committee have applied additional reductions (to the automatic exception play reduction) outside of a formal review. They absolutely should not be doing this; and even if the reduction was as a result of a review, the player must be informed and given the right to appeal prior to application (appeals are to the committee in the first instance, and then to county if still not satisfied).

To answer your original question; there is no restriction on the makeup of the handicap committee (other than a minimum of 3 people) or conflict with non-member/non-playing staff being on it, but it is peer review system so a majority of playing members is recommended (and it can make sense to have a representative from each sub-section of the club, i.e. ladies, seniors). Many clubs have employed staff in the role of handicap secretaries as finding volunteers willing to give up that much time can be difficult; the problem is, since it isn't their primary role, many such committees simply don't operate within the rules of handicap pin .

Thanks for putting me in the loop here as this is ultimately where I wanted this thread to lead to. It is my understanding he was informed immediately by phone as there was a review from the committee but he took it upon himself to take no action and left it be. At no point did he mention he had a right to appeal, and I’m sure if he did he would have taken it upon himself to exercise this right. I will speak to him over the weekend to try and confirm this.

If you are saying you have rights to appeal with these decisions then that is very interesting to know. I know I am only 1 round away from getting the same treatment and I won’t just lie down and take it.

That last round was on 17th April, and it appears he won that competition with 43 points (2nd was 41 points)? If that is the same guy, the 17th of April was not his last competition, so I assume this drop was some time ago, after that competition win?

I will assume the player already had 20 scores on their record at that point. Their Score Differential of 6.1 would have replaced another in the top 8. No idea what the 8th best score was beforehand, so given his Index was 15.8, I'll guess a value of about 18 at that time in April. That would have resulted in a cut of about 1.5, plus an extra 1.0 for an exceptional score reduction (he shot more than 7.0 better than his index). So, his Index would have dropped from 15.8 to about 13.3.

Therefore, if that was about right, I'd expect his course handicap the following competition to be around 13.3 x 137/113 = 16. And Playing Handicap = 15. The same player played a week later, and I notice his handicap (playing) was 13.

So, does it sound about right that the Committee cut him an additional 2 strokes over and above what WHS cut him after that competition? If so, on the face of it that sounds wrong, and you could have a rogue handicap committee that like to act outside the scope of WHS, especially when under a bit of peer pressure. Do they commonly give people extra cuts if they win a competition? Or, maybe they had other evidence I am unaware of that they felt they had to act upon?

So, I think he started off 28 last year and won a few comps. So they cut him 5 shots then because people moaned, and in hindsight it was probably the correct decision because he was pretty much hitting bandit territory. I never played with him then as I am new to the club.

But as you can see from his previous scores he was struggling to break 90 until his 82.

Now could you say, for instance, because he has history with the committee that they are now watching him indefinitely and any big score that comes in will always be reviewed?

 

[jim8flog]

I would add

In the old UHS manual there was a 'no no' from CONGU about penalising a player for a 'day in the sun'

Although I can find no reference to it in the RoH.

 

[Bamberdele2.0]

‘A day in the sun’ is a term I am unfamiliar with but now understand exactly what it means.

And this was a massive case of a day in the sun.

So would you agree that if you were in his shoes you would appeal that decision in a heartbeat?

 

[Swango1980]

So, I think he started off 28 last year and won a few comps. So they cut him 5 shots then because people moaned, and in hindsight it was probably the correct decision because he was pretty much hitting bandit territory. I never played with him then as I am new to the club.

But as you can see from his previous scores he was struggling to break 90 until his 82.

Now could you say, for instance, because he has history with the committee that they are watching him and any big score that comes in will always be reviewed?

Well, that will certainly put him on their radar. The fact he was off 28 last year, and now he is comfortably low teens (if not edging towards single figures) is interesting. Makes you wonder why his handicap was so high last year, or has he put in a real effort in the last year to improve? If he was a new golfer last year, then his early handicap could well have been too high, and would naturally come down quickly as he submitted good scores (although annoy members in the process if he starts to win several competitions in doing so). This may have been the catalyst to give him an extra big cut back then, and their action was justified in the end, clearly he is not a 28 handicapper.

It probably does explain why they were so quick to cut him again in April, although it may still be harsh if it now looks like he is reaching his potential. At any rate, as others have said, he would have had the right to appeal, and I'm sure the Committee, if they hadn't already done so, would have disclosed their exact reasons for doing it.

 

[Bamberdele2.0]

Well, that will certainly put him on their radar. The fact he was off 28 last year, and now he is comfortably low teens (if not edging towards single figures) is interesting. Makes you wonder why his handicap was so high last year, or has he put in a real effort in the last year to improve? If he was a new golfer last year, then his early handicap could well have been too high, and would naturally come down quickly as he submitted good scores (although annoy members in the process if he starts to win several competitions in doing so). This may have been the catalyst to give him an extra big cut back then, and their action was justified in the end, clearly he is not a 28 handicapper.

It probably does explain why they were so quick to cut him again in April, although it may still be harsh if it now looks like he is reaching his potential. At any rate, as others have said, he would have had the right to appeal, and I'm sure the Committee, if they hadn't already done so, would have disclosed their exact reasons for doing it.

Well he won the winter league last year and a number of stablefords / medals so you are quite right in the fact that he is on the radar.

But he puts huge effort in, lessons weekly etc.

But as one of his PP’s I can’t help but feel a little bad for him as he expressed that he’s not enjoyed playing golf in general since that cut.

We have a little cash stableford social between my group and he won’t play with us anymore ?

 

[wjemather]

Thanks for putting me in the loop here as this is ultimately where I wanted this thread to lead to. It is my understanding he was informed immediately by phone as there was a review from the committee but he took it upon himself to take no action and left it be. At no point did he mention he had a right to appeal, and I’m sure if he did he would have taken it upon himself to exercise this right. I will speak to him over the weekend to try and confirm this.

If you are saying you have rights to appeal with these decisions then that is very interesting to know. I know I am only 1 round away from getting the same treatment and I won’t just lie down and take it

Your handicap committee are over-stepping if they are initiating a review every time a good score gets submitted. They should only be doing this when a player is "consistently returning scores that do not reflect their demonstrated ability" - the WHS system has reports that assist in identifying such players.

With regards to the review process itself, "a player must be made aware of, and be given the opportunity to contribute towards, the handicap review process to the extent practicable and must have recourse to an appeals procedure, if requested". It doesn't sound like this has been followed either.

 

[Bamberdele2.0]

Good to know.

I’m not far off exercising this right as a few people have passed comments about myself but i’ve taken it as a compliment - however I won’t if the committee chop me a heavy amount after ‘a day in the sun’.

Having said that, the MYEG adjustments after each round seem to be dead on and this is the only system I’ve ever known.

 

[rosecott]

Is there a conflict of interest with the club secretary being on the handicap committee?

Or is this a normal thing that happens at most clubs

As Club Secretary, I attend meetings of the Handicap Committee in an advisory capacity only and do not vote on issues. Reading your subsequent postings, I am of the firm opinion that your committee should not be taking any such action in response to one single round.

 

[Swango1980]

Well he won the winter league last year and a number of stablefords / medals so you are quite right in the fact that he is on the radar.

But he puts huge effort in, lessons weekly etc.

But as one of his PP’s I can’t help but feel a little bad for him as he expressed that he’s not enjoyed playing golf in general since that cut.

We have a little cash stableford social between my group and he won’t play with us anymore ?

Winning the winter league is yet more evidence the Committee can use to help justify their decision, as I assume none of these matches went on his handicap record (i.e. match play)?

In terms of your little cash stableford, I assume he must have won the cash quite frequently before his cuts? I'm sure he was happy to put his money into that then, whilst others in the group might not have been as competitive as him were putting money in? I guess in one sense he wants to be a little careful. It is one thing getting down about the game after an unnecessary handicap cut (that might still apply here), and another getting down just because you don't have an excellent chance of winning.

Furthermore, if he plays enough golf, he will start to quickly lose those scores with the -2.0 adjustment, and hopefully his handicap will find its way back to a "fairer" level fairly soon. I went through some awful form at the back end of last year, knowing I wouldn't be competitive when I played. However, I just persevered to see how well I could actually do, as my handicap started to increase. Found my mojo again in last month or so, and am now more competitive with the odd reduction in handicap again.

 

[Bdill93]

Good to know.

I’m not far off exercising this right as a few people have passed comments about myself but i’ve taken it as a compliment - however I won’t if the committee chop me a heavy amount after ‘a day in the sun’.

Having said that, the MYEG adjustments after each round seem to be dead on and this is the only system I’ve ever known.

Does feel like the committee are singling the guy out, but also sounds as if hes won a lot and theyre just trying to combat any chance of him being categorised as a bandit.

Really if youre shooting 90's regularly, an 80 something is always on the cards, its only a few duffed shots here and a couple of better putts there away from a good round! Sounds like the guys been trying hard to get better and does deserve a lower handicap - but I do agree with the many comments above, a whole 5 shots off his index is rather large!

 

[Bamberdele2.0]

Winning the winter league is yet more evidence the Committee can use to help justify their decision, as I assume none of these matches went on his handicap record (i.e. match play)?

In terms of your little cash stableford, I assume he must have won the cash quite frequently before his cuts? I'm sure he was happy to put his money into that then, whilst others in the group might not have been as competitive as him were putting money in? I guess in one sense he wants to be a little careful. It is one thing getting down about the game after an unnecessary handicap cut (that might still apply here), and another getting down just because you don't have an excellent chance of winning.

Furthermore, if he plays enough golf, he will start to quickly lose those scores with the -2.0 adjustment, and hopefully his handicap will find its way back to a "fairer" level fairly soon. I went through some awful form at the back end of last year, knowing I wouldn't be competitive when I played. However, I just persevered to see how well I could actually do, as my handicap started to increase. Found my mojo again in last month or so, and am now more competitive with the odd reduction in handicap again.

In all honesty the cash games were all evenly split between us, but now he’s at a big disadvantage I don’t blame him for not wanting to partake. He’s defeated before the first tee off, psychologically speaking.

Does feel like the committee are singling the guy out, but also sounds as if hes won a lot and theyre just trying to combat any chance of him being categorised as a bandit.

Really if youre shooting 90's regularly, an 80 something is always on the cards, its only a few duffed shots here and a couple of better putts there away from a good round! Sounds like the guys been trying hard to get better and does deserve a lower handicap - but I do agree with the many comments above, a whole 5 shots off his index is rather large!

?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Our club secretary does not play golf. The position was advertised, members could apply, job was given to most suitable candidate after interviews.

Our club pro has been on the handicaps and comps committee for ages, but never chairman. Seems to have been an absolutely splendid idea. The organising work he does is greatly appreciated.

 

[rulefan]

Is there a conflict of interest with the club secretary being on the handicap committee?

Or is this a normal thing that happens at most clubs

Both our Manager and Assistant Manager are on the Handicap and Competitions Committee. Between them they manage the technical/mechanical sides of the system, publication of upcoming comps, posting results etc. They also provide an interface to the course manager re improper or missing GUR etc marking and issuing bulletins re rules situations as a result of course conditions (eg waterlogged bunkers). Although they have a vote they never do and are not involved in handicap reviews.

 

[full_throttle]

Only a 5 shot cut?

a new member at my course handed in 3 cards, allocated a HCI of 37, duly won his first competition with a 9 under, cut by 10 shots, then the following week 44 points in the stableford. He is now down to 21,7

 

[Swango1980]

Only a 5 shot cut?

a new member at my course handed in 3 cards, allocated a HCI of 37, duly won his first competition with a 9 under, cut by 10 shots, then the following week 44 points in the stableford. He is now down to 21,7

Mainly because WHS is garbage at giving out reasonable initial handicaps, especially to those with higher handicaps. The WHS supporters will explain it is completely fair as the initial 3 scores did not show any evidence the player could go lower, and a standard -2.0 reduction is applied anyway, regardless of handicap.That is true. However, it blissfully ignores the fact that a player who has only submitted 3 scores, especially high scores and a new golfer, could reasonably be expected to smash that score in the near future.

It could easily be mitigated. But, maybe it never will. Therefore, new golfers playing in comps, especially if they don't hand in general play scores after getting that initial handicap, always have a good chance of shooting crazy low scores. Other members should just take it on the chin

 

[louise_a]

with a score like that 2 shots for an extraordinary score would have been added as well as the calculated handicap so he should have gone down by a little over 3 shots under the sytem

 

[louise_a]

just found your mate and it seems an additional 3 shot cut was applied, although he has played a lot of golf since then and his handicap is balancing out again, it seems your handicap committee acted with undue haste, At least with the WHS it will not take him long to get back to a correct handicap

 

[badgergm]

Your handicap committee are over-stepping if they are initiating a review every time a good score gets submitted. They should only be doing this when a player is "consistently returning scores that do not reflect their demonstrated ability" - the WHS system has reports that assist in identifying such players.

With regards to the review process itself, "a player must be made aware of, and be given the opportunity to contribute towards, the handicap review process to the extent practicable and must have recourse to an appeals procedure, if requested". It doesn't sound like this has been followed either.

Recently a member at my club was cut 11 shots (yes 11) by the handicap secretary, after an exceptional round. Player puts in cards regularl. Apparently there is some kind of formula they are applying. They are under the impression that they can do what they like.

 

[wjemather]

Mainly because WHS is garbage at giving out reasonable initial handicaps, especially to those with higher handicaps. The WHS supporters will explain it is completely fair as the initial 3 scores did not show any evidence the player could go lower, and a standard -2.0 reduction is applied anyway, regardless of handicap.That is true. However, it blissfully ignores the fact that a player who has only submitted 3 scores, especially high scores and a new golfer, could reasonably be expected to smash that score in the near future.

It could easily be mitigated. But, maybe it never will. Therefore, new golfers playing in comps, especially if they don't hand in general play scores after getting that initial handicap, always have a good chance of shooting crazy low scores. Other members should just take it on the chin

Absolute rubbish. Such issues with initial handicaps are no different from any other handicap system we've had; indeed for most, there is little difference from the initial handicaps that would have been allocated under UHS. However, WHS will quickly resolve itself (if left alone) whereas older systems relied on the intervention (and often guesswork) of volunteers.

Any mitigation means penalising new players (protecting established players) by either giving them unrealistically low initial handicaps to stop them being competitive, or requiring a greater number of scores and therefore preventing them from playing comps altogether.

 

[wjemather]

Only a 5 shot cut?

a new member at my course handed in 3 cards, allocated a HCI of 37, duly won his first competition with a 9 under, cut by 10 shots, then the following week 44 points in the stableford. He is now down to 21,7

When there are so few scores on a players record, one low score can cause a huge reduction in Handicap Index because only the lowest score is being used to calculate the index; there needs to be well over ten scores before the averaging begins to have a noticeable effect in smoothing out these big decreases.