Handicap rule 19

[Deleted member 1740]

Firstly, I came 2nd yesterday in one of our board medal comps shooting a 3under nett 67 off 19 and I've had an email to say I've been cut 1.9 shots.

The css was 70,par 70 so I should've been cut 0.9. This is the 1st time since Feb I've played near or below my hcap as I've been playing like a pleb.

What does this rule 19 cover and what criteria do the hcap committee use to make their decision?

I'm very happy to be cut but just curious about this rule 19 lark.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Unlucky fella, that card must have came in late. Did you have you chisel ready to put your name on?

Still a good performance, coming 2nd out of 100+ golfers. Only about 12 at par or under nett, also.

 

[rosecott]

Firstly, I came 2nd yesterday in one of our board medal comps shooting a 3under nett 67 off 19 and I've had an email to say I've been cut 1.9 shots.

The css was 70,par 70 so I should've been cut 0.9. This is the 1st time since Feb I've played near or below my hcap as I've been playing like a pleb.

What does this rule 19 cover and what criteria do the hcap committee use to make their decision?

I'm very happy to be cut but just curious about this rule 19 lark.

Your 0.9 cut was the result of your performance in the qualifer 3 x 0.3. Sounds as if there was a General Play reduction of 1.0 - Clause 23 (replaces rule 19). There must be a reason for the General Play cut as any self-respecting club would say why Clause 23 had been used. What have you been doing recently? Congrats on the cut by the way.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Your 0.9 cut was the result of your performance in the qualifer 3 x 0.3. Sounds as if there was a General Play reduction of 1.0 - Clause 23 (replaces rule 19). There must be a reason for the General Play cut as any self-respecting club would say why Clause 23 had been used. What have you been doing recently? Congrats on the cut by the way.

Thanks mate the last 6 -8 comps I've played well above my hcap so i was surprised to be cut under general play rule.

I'd understand if I'd been playing well recently but I've not.

 

[chrisd]

Crikey, the Clause 23 cut was administered pretty quickly. When I was on the Golf Committee we had to ratify it at the next meeting. We used to consider a cut for anyone who (nett) equalled or bettered the course amateur record and always looked at their playing record too to decide how much to cut

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Crikey, the Clause 23 cut was administered pretty quickly. When I was on the Golf Committee we had to ratify it at the next meeting. We used to consider a cut for anyone who (nett) equalled or bettered the course amateur record and always looked at their playing record too to decide how much to cut

Over what period of time would you look??

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Unlucky fella, that card must have came in late. Did you have you chisel ready to put your name on?

Still a good performance, coming 2nd out of 100+ golfers. Only about 12 at par or under nett, also.

Cheers pal, I knew somebody would beat me and to be honest I'm not too bothered its good to see my hcap tumble though.

 

[Foxholer]

Some clubs have an automatic cut for winners/second placers of Board comps - and Matchplay winners/finalists. Goes against Congu guidelines, so/and makes for inconsistency nationwide!

 

[bobmac]

Some clubs have an automatic cut for winners/second placers of Board comps - and Matchplay winners/finalists. Goes against Congu guidelines, so/and makes for inconsistency nationwide!

I've been playing golf for over 40 years and I've never heard that one before.

 

[chrisd]

Over what period of time would you look??

Most of the current season, but to be honest, if a player shot the nett equivilent of the course record we had to cut a whole shot under CONGU rules and rarely did more than 2 extra shots. We would often try and drop someone to, say a 15.3 so that a couple of bad rounds after that and they would get a shot back off what we deducted thus leaving the computer cut.

 

[Foxholer]

I've been playing golf for over 40 years and I've never heard that one before.

You have learned something new then! A previous (Surrey) club used to - certainly Matchplay comps. They were advised to stop it, so probably have now. Was originally done to combat sand-bagging, thn became routine.

 

[rosecott]

Some clubs have an automatic cut for winners/second placers of Board comps - and Matchplay winners/finalists. Goes against Congu guidelines, so/and makes for inconsistency nationwide!

They aren't guidelines - as far as I am aware they are directives.

 

[duncan mackie]

They aren't guidelines - as far as I am aware they are directives.

sadly, whilst being explicit about the action the word 'should' remains in the book.

the committee should not apply a formulae to the winners of club match play events such as reducing their handicaps by 2 shots, or a similar wording.

should being defined within the rules as a recomendation.

I continue to see such constructions as a fundamental weakness in the system; even more surprising from a board that states the biggest weakness in the system is the difference in approaches taken by committees!

 

[Foxholer]

They aren't guidelines - as far as I am aware they are directives.

http://www.scottishgolf.org/files/CONGU_UHS_2012-20153.pdf

Check the title! And I agree with Duncan re use of the word 'should'.

The fact that these were published by Scottish Union is irrelevant - it's a Congu document.

They 'should' be directives imo! :angry: I believe Congu are leaving the door open to allow clubs to adjust relative sand-baggers - those that play few comps other than Matchplay ones.

 

[Junior]

Stu, dont use all your good rounds up before Caldy & Northenden !!!!!

Well played mate !!!!

 

[duncan mackie]

http://www.scottishgolf.org/files/CONGU_UHS_2012-20153.pdf

Check the title! And I agree with Duncan re use of the word 'should'.

The fact that these were published by Scottish Union is irrelevant - it's a Congu document.

They 'should' be directives imo! :angry: I believe Congu are leaving the door open to allow clubs to adjust relative sand-baggers - those that play few comps other than Matchplay ones.

whilst I agree your conclusion in it's widest sense it is unnecessay given the precise wording in the example given ie Not apply a formula to make adjustments such as the winners of club match play events being the
subject of a handicap reduction of two strokes.

However, within the range of such statements, all covered by the 'should' qualifier, are others that are more general and it would be inapporpriate to put a 'must' against them for the reason you set out.

Excellent example of where a little more thought would enable more consistency I think!

 

[rosecott]

sadly, whilst being explicit about the action the word 'should' remains in the book.

the committee should not apply a formulae to the winners of club match play events such as reducing their handicaps by 2 shots, or a similar wording.

should being defined within the rules as a recomendation.

I continue to see such constructions as a fundamental weakness in the system; even more surprising from a board that states the biggest weakness in the system is the difference in approaches taken by committees!

I know it says "should", but why would any club that wants the handicapping system to work not apply the elements which are "in the spirit" of the handicapping system. It's another case of the "we know best" syndrome. What would be your advice on such "recommendations" to your handicap committee?

 

[BrummieFred]

Can I suggest that the OP in his stroke play medal may have included a triple bogey or worse which was compensated by a number of pars or better, and therefore the computer will automatically convert return to a stableford score with double as worse return, for purposes of handicap/ability only, and must under Clause 19 make a further handicap reduction but not less than one whole stroke.

Quote: It has been introduced to lessen the impact of the occassional 'bad' scoreon a players Stroke Play return.

 

[duncan mackie]

I know it says "should", but why would any club that wants the handicapping system to work not apply the elements which are "in the spirit" of the handicapping system. It's another case of the "we know best" syndrome. What would be your advice on such "recommendations" to your handicap committee?

we wouldn't apply them. all AR and any 23 situations are minuted, which has a very positive impact on the more emotional arguments put forward! These would have included some observed Trilby Tour success...

whilst a degree of bias may exist I am confident that we are generally one of the best handicapped clubs; our issues, when we have them, are around the fast improvers (juniors) and the odd 'returner'. outwith these two elements it's normally a logjam around 1 or 2 under in comps, and at last years Masters tournament (winners over the last 12 months) we had a tie of 7 people on level par (medal rounds) heading out to a play off!

one of the most positive factors I would put forward is the number of discussions, and length of them, that do not result in immediate action. On the other side of the coin a lot of AR increases are made, and only 1 has suddenly found a little form (which could have had a number of causes).

 

[Foxholer]

Can I suggest that the OP in his stroke play medal may have included a triple bogey or worse which was compensated by a number of pars or better, and therefore the computer will automatically convert return to a stableford score with double as worse return, for purposes of handicap/ability only, and must under Clause 19 make a further handicap reduction but not less than one whole stroke.

Quote: It has been introduced to lessen the impact of the occassional 'bad' scoreon a players Stroke Play return.

A couple of things make this most unlikely.

1. The Stableford adjustment would not be 1 stroke off the handicap - but 1 (or more) * 0.3.
2. While a' Clause 23 afjustment' (General Play) done by a Committee must be a minimum of 1 - which might combine with the 3 under = 0.9 reduction - there is no other way to get a 1.0 additional reduction through the system - Clause 19 (Stableford Adjustment) would do it in steps of 0.3

The bit in bold in your post about min of 1 stroke refers to the OLD Clause 19 (new Clause 23), but you are wrongly associating it (the min change of 1) with the NEW Clause 19 (Stableford Adjustment).