Handicap manipulation - how to address

[nickjdavis]

Notify his home club hdcp comm. It’s called peer review.

Peer Review is quite well defined...

4.4/1 – Clarification of Meaning of Peer Review as a Method of Certification of Scores

Peer review is normally conducted by someone:

• Playing in the same group or who was present during the round, and/or
• Who is a member of the same golf club as the player.

In all cases, it must be someone who:

• Has formed a reasonable basis from which to provide support for a score that has been posted or challenge the player on any anomalies in the posted score, or
• Has knowledge of the player’s demonstrated ability and can reasonably verify or challenge the Handicap Index issued to the player.

Challenges or disputes should be raised with the player and/or reported to the Handicap Committee for consideration.

To facilitate the process of peer review, player scoring records must be accessible to all other members of the golf club (see Appendix B: Player’s Scoring Record).


I would suggest that, although well intentioned, Louise falls short on the three things i have emboldened. She has no knowledge of this golfer, his background, personal circumstances, golf history, outside of what she might deduce from a list of scores on the Dotgolf portal.

What would happen if bored handicap secretaries (and I'm not meaning to target Louise with this phrase...I've been known myself to have a browse...its just something I guess we do, because we can ) started browsing the records of players unfamiliar to them, across all four points of the compass, and started writing to other clubs whenever they perceive an anomaly?

Sure, if the player had registered to play in an Open at Louise's course then Louise would well be within her rights to make such an enquiry....but as it stands...I personally don't think she has any legitimate right or reason to raise an issue with the players club (it is not clear if the players home club is local, even under the same County union or under a different County). I do not believe that Peer review, as per the Congu/EG definition in the handicapping manual, applies.

 

[rulie]

You seem to be suggesting that players do not have a right/obligation to ask for handicap reviews of other players, known to them or not?
I believe they do and should.

 

[wjemather]

Peer Review is quite well defined...

4.4/1 – Clarification of Meaning of Peer Review as a Method of Certification of Scores

Peer review is normally conducted by someone:

• Playing in the same group or who was present during the round, and/or
• Who is a member of the same golf club as the player.

In all cases, it must be someone who:

• Has formed a reasonable basis from which to provide support for a score that has been posted or challenge the player on any anomalies in the posted score, or
• Has knowledge of the player’s demonstrated ability and can reasonably verify or challenge the Handicap Index issued to the player.

Challenges or disputes should be raised with the player and/or reported to the Handicap Committee for consideration.

To facilitate the process of peer review, player scoring records must be accessible to all other members of the golf club (see Appendix B: Player’s Scoring Record).


I would suggest that, although well intentioned, Louise falls short on the three things i have emboldened. She has no knowledge of this golfer, his background, personal circumstances, golf history, outside of what she might deduce from a list of scores on the Dotgolf portal.

What would happen if bored handicap secretaries (and I'm not meaning to target Louise with this phrase...I've been known myself to have a browse...its just something I guess we do, because we can ) started browsing the records of players unfamiliar to them, across all four points of the compass, and started writing to other clubs whenever they perceive an anomaly?

Sure, if the player had registered to play in an Open at Louise's course then Louise would well be within her rights to make such an enquiry....but as it stands...I personally don't think she has any legitimate right or reason to raise an issue with the players club (it is not clear if the players home club is local, even under the same County union or under a different County). I do not believe that Peer review, as per the Congu/EG definition in the handicapping manual, applies.

Even limited analysis of the player's scoring record and/or competition results is sufficient to satisfy the first bullet point (that you didn't highlight).

See also, GB&I Guidance GB (1) (Appendix B).

 

[nickjdavis]

Even limited analysis of the player's scoring record and/or competition results is sufficient to satisfy the first bullet point (that you didn't highlight).

See also, GB&I Guidance GB (1) (Appendix B).

Which is why I didn't highlight it. But satisfying 1 out of the 4 conditions isn't particularly compelling in my opinion.

Appendix B is quite wooly in its description of Peer Review....its not clear if "other golfers and club members" includes golfers or administrators from other clubs, potentially even in different county jurisdictions.

Dont get me wrong...I'm all for highlighting real cases of manipulation...I'm just not convinced in this particular case that it is justified. I'm guessing that there must be some sort of guidance, that needs to be followed by folks who have access to the Dotgolf system, and how they choose to use the data (which is personal) that they have access to. Stumbling across a player who's record looks fishy, and highlighting it to said players club, is a course of action that might not fall within such guidelines.

 

[backwoodsman]

Which is why I didn't highlight it. But satisfying 1 out of the 4 conditions isn't particularly compelling in my opinion.

Appendix B is quite wooly in its description of Peer Review....its not clear if "other golfers and club members" includes golfers or administrators from other clubs, potentially even in different county jurisdictions.

Dont get me wrong...I'm all for highlighting real cases of manipulation...I'm just not convinced in this particular case that it is justified. I'm guessing that there must be some sort of guidance, that needs to be followed by folks who have access to the Dotgolf system, and how they choose to use the data (which is personal) that they have access to. Stumbling across a player who's record looks fishy, and highlighting it to said players club, is a course of action that might not fall within such guidelines.

But the guidance (as posted) doesn't say you must meet all 4 criteria?

It simply says one or other or both of the first two would be normal (ie but not essential). But that it must be one or other of the second two criteria

 

[wjemather]

Which is why I didn't highlight it. But satisfying 1 out of the 4 conditions isn't particularly compelling in my opinion.

Appendix B is quite wooly in its description of Peer Review....its not clear if "other golfers and club members" includes golfers or administrators from other clubs, potentially even in different county jurisdictions.

Dont get me wrong...I'm all for highlighting real cases of manipulation...I'm just not convinced in this particular case that it is justified. I'm guessing that there must be some sort of guidance, that needs to be followed by folks who have access to the Dotgolf system, and how they choose to use the data (which is personal) that they have access to. Stumbling across a player who's record looks fishy, and highlighting it to said players club, is a course of action that might not fall within such guidelines.

The first two are not conditions, and only one of the second two are required, so satisfying one of those is sufficient.

 

[louise_a]

Very interesting I have just had another look and it appears that he has been cut 2 shots and his HI is frozen.

 

[nickjdavis]

But the guidance (as posted) doesn't say you must meet all 4 criteria?

It simply says one or other or both of the first two would be normal (ie but not essential). But that it must be one or other of the second two criteria

The first two are not conditions, and only one of the second two are required, so satisfying one of those is sufficient.

No it doesn't....and its a reasonable rebuttal....but I still dont agree that there is enough justification to proceed as Louise might want. I still would be personally uncomfortable in trying to justify any message i might wish to send, highlighting any handicap inconsistency I might perceive. I still view it as potentially breaching a reasonable expected use of the data that is at my (or Louise's) disposal.

But its an interesting debate.

 

[backwoodsman]

Very interesting I have just had another look and it appears that he has been cut 2 shots and his HI is frozen.

No it doesn't....and its a reasonable rebuttal....but I still dont agree that there is enough justification to proceed as Louise might want. I still would be personally uncomfortable in trying to justify any message i might wish to send, highlighting any handicap inconsistency I might perceive. I still view it as potentially breaching a reasonable expected use of the data that is at my (or Louise's) disposal.

But its an interesting debate.

So, problem solved without Louise needing to get involved.

Looks like, either, someome else complained, or his h/c committee is on the ball ...

 

[Swango1980]

No it doesn't....and its a reasonable rebuttal....but I still dont agree that there is enough justification to proceed as Louise might want. I still would be personally uncomfortable in trying to justify any message i might wish to send, highlighting any handicap inconsistency I might perceive. I still view it as potentially breaching a reasonable expected use of the data that is at my (or Louise's) disposal.

But its an interesting debate.

Surely the Peer Review can be instigated by anyone, if they have information that suggests a handicap needs more investigation? So, if I somehow viewed the playing record of a random golfer, at any club, that had a strange pattern then I could / should raise that with the relevant handicap secretary.

The pattern Louise has come across seems like the textbook pattern of scores of a golfer trying to increase their handicap for Open competitions. We don't know any more details, but still feels like a good use of peer review for a handicap sec to investigate further. How far apart are the rounds, are they general play, is there a noticeable difference between GP and competition, etc?

If this shouldn't be reported by Louise as part of a peer review, then at what point can peer review actually be used? Does the scoring pattern need to be even more extreme? Can it only be instigated by a fellow club member who has seen you actually play? I wouldn't have thought so.

 

[KenL]

Anyone who regularly scores better at away clubs than their own course is surely at it!

 

[IanM]

Report "cheating." Sometimes it works and folk get their entry money returned

 

[tobybarker]

Anyone who regularly scores better at away clubs than their own course is surely at it!

I often play really well when away..... Perhaps it's because i don't stress too much about the course as i don't know it as well as my own course .... Just stand there and hit it... It's not because I've manipulated my hcp

 

[nickjdavis]

Surely the Peer Review can be instigated by anyone, if they have information that suggests a handicap needs more investigation? So, if I somehow viewed the playing record of a random golfer, at any club, that had a strange pattern then I could / should raise that with the relevant handicap secretary.

The pattern Louise has come across seems like the textbook pattern of scores of a golfer trying to increase their handicap for Open competitions. We don't know any more details, but still feels like a good use of peer review for a handicap sec to investigate further. How far apart are the rounds, are they general play, is there a noticeable difference between GP and competition, etc?

If this shouldn't be reported by Louise as part of a peer review, then at what point can peer review actually be used? Does the scoring pattern need to be even more extreme? Can it only be instigated by a fellow club member who has seen you actually play? I wouldn't have thought so.

There are two issues at play here...

1) WHO exactly can instigate a peer review. The way i read the definition, it is ambiguous, and my interpretation is that it should be a member/official of the same club who has knowledge of the standard of play typically demonstrated by the player in question. It may well be the intention of the authorities that ANYONE can ask for a review, even if you do not know the golfer in question....but the handicapping rules and associated guidelines are not explicity clear in this regard.

2) What limitations there might be on how, someone with access to the Dotgolf data, can use that data when it was not accessed for a legitimate reason. Accidentally stumbling across what you think is a scoring anomaly, whilst looking for something else, is not a legitimate reason. I am actually quite surprised that anyone who can access the dotgolf records can see any registered golfers record in England. I would have thought that you would need to know a players specific EG memberhsip (old CDH) number to be able to access their record...i.e. the sort of information that they might reasonably be asked to provide when entering an Open competition.

I'm not saying there isn't a case to answer (and by the looks of further updates it looks like some action may have been taken)...I'm just saying that care needs to be taken when you start accessing and analysing personal data, relating to a third party, with whom you have no association.

 

[Swango1980]

There are two issues at play here...

1) WHO exactly can instigate a peer review. The way i read the definition, it is ambiguous, and my interpretation is that it should be a member/official of the same club who has knowledge of the standard of play typically demonstrated by the player in question. It may well be the intention of the authorities that ANYONE can ask for a review, even if you do not know the golfer in question....but the handicapping rules and associated guidelines are not explicity clear in this regard.

2) What limitations there might be on how, someone with access to the Dotgolf data, can use that data when it was not accessed for a legitimate reason. Accidentally stumbling across what you think is a scoring anomaly, whilst looking for something else, is not a legitimate reason. I am actually quite surprised that anyone who can access the dotgolf records can see any registered golfers record in England. I would have thought that you would need to know a players specific EG memberhsip (old CDH) number to be able to access their record...i.e. the sort of information that they might reasonably be asked to provide when entering an Open competition.

I'm not saying there isn't a case to answer (and by the looks of further updates it looks like some action may have been taken)...I'm just saying that care needs to be taken when you start accessing and analysing personal data, relating to a third party, with whom you have no association.

Are we not all "peers"? We all play golf and have handicaps, and thus peers.

That doesn't mean we can all directly change a person's handicap. Surely it just means we have reviewed a players record, and flagged it to someone in an official position to look at. That is the peer review bit.

At that point, the peer review simply becomes a standard review from a handicap sec, who can do such things at any time. The handicap sec could still decide no change is necessary, depending on what they find

 

[clubchamp98]

So we have a Cheats charter that makes it easy to fiddle your handicap.
Now we need a Snitches charter to report them .

Progress

 

[rulefan]

There are two issues at play here...

1) WHO exactly can instigate a peer review. The way i read the definition, it is ambiguous, and my interpretation is that it should be a member/official of the same club who has knowledge of the standard of play typically demonstrated by the player in question. It may well be the intention of the authorities that ANYONE can ask for a review, even if you do not know the golfer in question....but the handicapping rules and associated guidelines are not explicity clear in this regard.

Rule 4.4 Clarifications:
4.4/1 – Clarification of Meaning of Peer Review as a Method of Certification of Scores

Peer review is normally conducted .....
It doesn't say must be.

In all cases, it must be someone who:
Has knowledge of the player’s demonstrated ability and can reasonably verify or challenge the Handicap Index issued to the player.

Hardly ambiguous.

 

[rosecott]

There is nothing new under the sun with WHS. Going back to 2013 and CONGU days, I contacted James Crampton - who was the England Golf handicaps man - as follows:

“I am in a bit of a quandary and would appreciate some guidance.

I am a regular poster on the Golf Monthly online forum. In response to a question from a forum member about his handicap situation on moving from a short course to a much longer course, I PMd him the correct advice on immediate transfer of his current handicap to his new club. I did, however, suspect that he didn’t like the answer. It was a relatively easy piece of detective work to identify him and the two clubs concerned. Having access to both Masterscoreboard and Howdidido, it transpired that he left the xxxxxx Golf Club with a playing handicap of 7 and was allocated 18 and a new CDH number at xxxxxxxx Golf Club. I sent him a personal message pointing out that this shouldn’t happen. He responded admitting that this was the case but maintained that he had talked to the xxxxxxxx Handicap Secretary who said he wasn’t really a Cat 2 player and they agreed on 18.”

James advised me to relay the facts to the player’s County Secretary.

Having done this, I eventually got the following response from the County Secretary:

“I did take action on your original email and had long and protracted discussion with the new club of Mr xxxxxxxxx and they have assured me that following his playing in and assessment by their Professional Staff that he was never a golfer of 7 handicap ability and that they are very satisfied with the handicap that he now has. I could have pressed the matter further and insisted they bring him on the books at 7.4 however this would only have resulted in them taking action to increase his handicap at annual review.”

I then decided not to pursue the matter any further, content that I had at least made the appropriate people aware of the facts.

The bottom line, however, is that I checked today on the player’s current handicap – 6.6.