Lapsing of handicaps

[jim8flog]

Given the current ease with which players can submit qualifying scores should England Golf etc bring back in some sort of lapsed handicap rule for players who do not submit a certain number of cards?

 

[nickjdavis]

my gut instinct is to say yes.....but i know that this goes against the very "inclusive philosophy" that the authorities are trying to foster, in order to stimulate participation/growth in the game.

 

[Imurg]

If you're not going to use your handicap why have one in the first place?
Go through the "hassle" of putting 3 cards in to get it and then don't put any more in..what's the point?
After less than 6 months that index will, likely, be an inaccurate representation of your ability.
The fact that you could put in your 3 cards and get, say, a 20 index then go away, practice like hell and improve to be 15 shots better but still retain that 20 index is bizarre to say the least.
Surely everyone who has a handicap is able to put 3 cards in during a year - even casual rounds..if you're not playing 3 times a year you don't need a handicap

 

[peld]

If you're not going to use your handicap why have one in the first place?
Go through the "hassle" of putting 3 cards in to get it and then don't put any more in..what's the point?
After less than 6 months that index will, likely, be an inaccurate representation of your ability.

Because people put 3 cards in, get a handicap of 32 or whatever, then play scrambles or non-counting comps and shoot scores like a 15hcp

 

[fundy]

are these non club members were taking about?

 

[rulefan]

Because people put 3 cards in, get a handicap of 32 or whatever, then play scrambles or non-counting comps and shoot scores like a 15hcp

What is their handicap committee doing about it? That is what they are (un)paid for. The question for them is 'Why did you volunteer?'

 

[mikejohnchapman]

What is their handicap committee doing about it? That is what they are (un)paid for. The question for them is 'Why did you volunteer?'

Really, you are going there?

What is a member of the Handicap Committee supposed to do if people don't submit cards? The system is specifically set-up to encourage people to do so but a lot don't. Thus if you had an official handicap on 1st January 2018 you got a handicap index. No other submissions were necessary.

Many clubs have introduced a minimum number of rounds before you can enter club competitions but if someone only plays in "non-qualifying events" what evidence has a handicap committee got to cut people on general play? I wonder is anyone has come up with a good means of assessing individuals in greensome, foresome, scrambles and bowmakers - with the new handicap allowances on team comps it's difficult to assess any of them anymore.

Much is made in the review process for "not punishing success" so trying to make the handicap committee into the club's Stasi is hardly going to encourage participation.

 

[jim8flog]

When the WHS was planned to come in we had over 100 members who had not submitted a card in over 3 years.
What can a handicap committee do about those.

I know we had an odd few who said they would resign if they lost their handicap but one can only presume what their reason for having one is.

When the 54 handicap limit came in several years ago we had a few complain that having a higher handicap would stop them from playing in a lot of away comps so I am presuming it could be something similar, too many scores and their handicap could increase and they also would not get to play away.

 

[rulefan]

Really, you are going there?

What is a member of the Handicap Committee supposed to do if people don't submit cards? The system is specifically set-up to encourage people to do so but a lot don't. Thus if you had an official handicap on 1st January 2018 you got a handicap index. No other submissions were necessary.

Many clubs have introduced a minimum number of rounds before you can enter club competitions but if someone only plays in "non-qualifying events" what evidence has a handicap committee got to cut people on general play? I wonder is anyone has come up with a good means of assessing individuals in greensome, foresome, scrambles and bowmakers - with the new handicap allowances on team comps it's difficult to assess any of them anymore.

Much is made in the review process for "not punishing success" so trying to make the handicap committee into the club's Stasi is hardly going to encourage participation.

In recent years CONGU handicaps never lapsed. How did the committee handle it then? Did they check the annual review? The same facilities are available now.

 

[rulefan]

When the WHS was planned to come in we had over 100 members who had not submitted a card in over 3 years.
What can a handicap committee do about those.

The same as it did before. Ignore them or ask them about their intent.

I know we had an odd few who said they would resign if they lost their handicap but one can only presume what their reason for having one is.

When the 54 handicap limit came in several years ago we had a few complain that having a higher handicap would stop them from playing in a lot of away comps so I am presuming it could be something similar, too many scores and their handicap could increase and they also would not get to play away.

I would suggest that they would never play to anything like their 'handicap'; so why worry, they're not going to win anything.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I presume the wish for people with a handicap ( who need one to enter any comp - scrambles etc) to put in cards regularly is to prevent 'cheating' by keeping a false handicap ? Cheating is a bit strong perhaps, but clearly some do not like people not putting in regular scores.
BUt, considering this reason( retaining a false handicap) , if someone was of that mind, how would his putting in casual round cards prevent the "cheating"?
It's the easiest thing in the world to play badly if it suits you, so you just do that and keep your high handicap.
Difficult to see a cast iron solution.
Maybe the problem isn't as prevalent as is feared.?

 

[Backsticks]

1) If you're not going to use your handicap why have one in the first place?
2) Go through the "hassle" of putting 3 cards in to get it and then don't put any more in..what's the point?
3) After less than 6 months that index will, likely, be an inaccurate representation of your ability.

1) For prestige. To be able to say you have one. That is worth something to a lot of people even if regular card submitting golfers find it bizzare.
2) As above. 3 rounds is not really a hassle when the goal is simply to possess a handicap.
3) When the motivation is as above, inaccuracy can be a benefit.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

In recent years CONGU handicaps never lapsed. How did the committee handle it then? Did they check the annual review? The same facilities are available now.

That's true, but they did have the "c" designation of having to have played 3 times in the last 18 months to keep the handicap current. This at least forced people who wanted to play in any form of competition to put in some cards as most competition committees would exclude "non-c" handicaps.

This was dropped by WHS so the presumption is they were not concerned about currency of handicap.

Again, if a player has not put cards in and only enters team competitions how is the annual review going to pick this up. If you look at the reports provided by EG to aid the review they all look at rounds played.

 

[Backache]

Personally the requirement to register a round before submitting stops me from putting in cards other than in competitions.
I really cannot put other people to the bother of marking a card when playing for fun.
Since before covid I have put in one card as I have only played once in a medal.

 

[rulefan]

Again, if a player has not put cards in and only enters team competitions how is the annual review going to pick this up. If you look at the reports provided by EG to aid the review they all look at rounds played.

Did the AR pick them up before?
I believe there is a WHS report facility (or it may be in the ISV software) that will identify players with fewer than a specified no of returns but it is not mentioned in the new winter review package from EG

 

[IanM]

I'd love to see folk banned from pairs comps and matchplay knockouts unless a certain number of singles cards were recorded.

Conversly we also have the stupidity of folk slopping around in the mud playing qualifying comps because the "course is measured."

As said above Handicap Secs need to do their stuff (consistently)

But as in many things, "behaviours eat processes for breakfast!"

 

[rulefan]

As said above Handicap Secs need to do their stuff (consistently)

Not just H'cap Secs but H'cap committee members (and club committees should ensure the is a proper H committee).

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Did the AR pick them up before?
I believe there is a WHS report facility (or it may be in the ISV software) that will identify players with fewer than a specified no of returns but it is not mentioned in the new winter review package from EG

I wasn't on the Handicap Committee when the last UHS review was performed but was told that you were not supposed to adjust handicaps where less than 7 rounds had been played. If that is the case then no - nothing has changed as a lack of cards = no basis for review.

Indeed if you look the criteria for review under WHS the base assumption is there are many scores to make comparisons with various criteria. Again lack of cards = no basis for review. EG specifically instruct clubs to only review those people that show up as "flagged" in their "Handicap Review Report". If you haven't returned scores you won't get on this report! The WHS guidance below gives only criteria that may be considered but if this is all team based you can't in all honesty change a handicap on guesswork because someone does well in scrambles.

When conducting a handicap review, the Handicap Committee might consider:

l The player’s scoring record history.
l The trend of the player’s Handicap Index, such as differences in a player’s Handicap Index over the past 12-24 months.
l Deviations from the expected scoring performance for the player.
l Frequency of score submissions in the past 12 months versus previous 12- month cycles.
l Comparison of average Score Differentials between competitive and casual rounds.
l Comparison of average Score Differentials in match play versus stroke play formats of play.
l Comparison of average Score Differentials in individual versus team formats of play.
l Any scores from, or performances known, in non-authorized formats of play.
l Any other knowledge that the Handicap Committee has relative to the player’s golfing ability. For example, improving play following golf lessons, declining scoring potential due to frequency of playing, ageing, incapacitating injuries or illness, etc.
l Percentage of acceptable scores submitted at a player’s home club.
l Percentage of acceptable scores submitted from casual round formats.
l Percentage of acceptable scores from 9-hole rounds. l Identifying relevant handicapping trends for Handicap Committee consideration.
l Length of time since a player last played to their Handicap Index.
l Number of scores since a player last played to their Handicap Index.
l Information supplied by any other golf club where the player is a member.

So tell me are we doing our job by applying the rules or not?

 

[rulefan]

I wasn't on the Handicap Committee when the last UHS review was performed but was told that you were not supposed to adjust handicaps where less than 7 rounds had been played. If that is the case then no - nothing has changed as a lack of cards = no basis for review.

That was not a UHS criterion. Probably an unofficial club convention.

EG specifically instruct clubs to only review those people that show up as "flagged" in their "Handicap Review Report".

Is this only a requirement that was put out for this for this winter?

When conducting a handicap review, the Handicap Committee might consider:

Perhaps
l Any other knowledge that the Handicap Committee has relative to the player’s golfing ability. For example, improving play following golf lessons, declining scoring potential due to frequency of playing, ageing, incapacitating injuries or illness, etc.

 

[jim8flog]

I wasn't on the Handicap Committee when the last UHS review was performed but was told that you were not supposed to adjust handicaps where less than 7 rounds had been played. If that is the case then no - nothing has changed as a lack of cards = no basis for review.

Indeed if you look the criteria for review under WHS the base assumption is there are many scores to make comparisons with various criteria. Again lack of cards = no basis for review. EG specifically instruct clubs to only review those people that show up as "flagged" in their "Handicap Review Report". If you haven't returned scores you won't get on this report! The WHS guidance below gives only criteria that may be considered but if this is all team based you can't in all honesty change a handicap on guesswork because someone does well in scrambles.

When conducting a handicap review, the Handicap Committee might consider:

l The player’s scoring record history.
l The trend of the player’s Handicap Index, such as differences in a player’s Handicap Index over the past 12-24 months.
l Deviations from the expected scoring performance for the player.
l Frequency of score submissions in the past 12 months versus previous 12- month cycles.
l Comparison of average Score Differentials between competitive and casual rounds.
l Comparison of average Score Differentials in match play versus stroke play formats of play.
l Comparison of average Score Differentials in individual versus team formats of play.
l Any scores from, or performances known, in non-authorized formats of play.
l Any other knowledge that the Handicap Committee has relative to the player’s golfing ability. For example, improving play following golf lessons, declining scoring potential due to frequency of playing, ageing, incapacitating injuries or illness, etc.
l Percentage of acceptable scores submitted at a player’s home club.
l Percentage of acceptable scores submitted from casual round formats.
l Percentage of acceptable scores from 9-hole rounds. l Identifying relevant handicapping trends for Handicap Committee consideration.
l Length of time since a player last played to their Handicap Index.
l Number of scores since a player last played to their Handicap Index.
l Information supplied by any other golf club where the player is a member.

So tell me are we doing our job by applying the rules or not?

When the WHS first came out there was an instruction that a player without a full handicap record of 20 scores should not be reviewed. I do not know if that instruction still applies.