Mandatory Allowances

[NearHull]

I’ve just been contacted by a member to check whether the 4BBB allowance is 85%. I was able to reassure him that 85% is the mandatory allowance. He is booked into Hollinwell 4BBB Stableford Open tomorrow and they are insisting on 75%.
I had a similar experience at Fulford 4BBB Stableford Seniors Open a few weeks ago. They insisted on 100%.
Both of these courses are top courses, holding some top events, Hollinwell even holds Open Qualifying events. Why do these clubs feel that they can blatantly break the Rules of Golf/Handicap with such arrogance?

 

[rulefan]

It might be worth sending this to handicapping@englandgolf.org . It might wake them up.
Or even to secretary@yugc.co.uk where there are Fulford connections.

 

[Neilds]

Looking at the R&A site, Appendix C states 'Recommended'. Does this mean clubs can change if they see fit? Not sure why they would, but stranger things have happened when it comes to handicaps

 

[rulefan]

Looking at the R&A site, Appendix C states 'Recommended'. Does this mean clubs can change if they see fit? Not sure why they would, but stranger things have happened when it comes to handicaps

I have been told that CONGU will be stating that all handicap allowance are mandatory. This is still to be released but will be out shortly!

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I have been told that CONGU will be stating that all handicap allowance are mandatory. This is still to be released but will be out shortly!

Excellent, the death of Texas Scrambles is nigh, bring it on

 

[chrisd]

Excellent, the death of Texas Scrambles is nigh, bring it on

Why will it kill them off?

My experience of playing to the new handicap allowances was that the low handicap groups were evenly spread through the field and that all the teams appeared to have a chance of winning. The 10% of the team handicap, to me, is clearly skewed to the benefit of low handicap teams and I see this change going to be the re making of scrambles

 

[Colin L]

Excellent, the death of Texas Scrambles is nigh, bring it on

Why do you want to spoil other people's enjoyment?

 

[Colin L]

Looking at the R&A site, Appendix C states 'Recommended'. Does this mean clubs can change if they see fit? Not sure why they would, but stranger things have happened when it comes to handicaps

The R&A/USGA rules recommend the allowances in Appendix C. CONGU has already stated that they are mandatory in GB&I:

The National Associations within CONGU® have determined that allowances set out in the table in Appendix C are mandatory.
[Guidance on the WHS Rules of Handicapping, GC (Appendix 1), page 21]

 

[Neilds]

The R&A/USGA rules recommend the allowances in Appendix C. CONGU has already stated that they are mandatory in GB&I:

The National Associations within CONGU® have determined that allowances set out in the table in Appendix C are mandatory.
[Guidance on the WHS Rules of Handicapping, GC (Appendix 1), page 21]

Not too confusing then!!!

 

[clubchamp98]

Excellent, the death of Texas Scrambles is nigh, bring it on

I thought Texas was outside the rules of golf anyway .
So the committee can set its own handicap allowances.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Why do you want to spoil other people's enjoyment?

They'll enjoy Am-Ams or 4BBB more. There's a generation in Scotland have barely seen a 4BBB since the advent of TS opens, and they're a rotten form of golf.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Does it really matter ? It’s the same for everyone in the field ?

It might be worth sending this to handicapping@englandgolf.org . It might wake them up.
Or even to secretary@yugc.co.uk where there are Fulford connections.

Snitching on clubs ??

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Why will it kill them off?

My experience of playing to the new handicap allowances was that the low handicap groups were evenly spread through the field and that all the teams appeared to have a chance of winning. The 10% of the team handicap, to me, is clearly skewed to the benefit of low handicap teams and I see this change going to be the re making of scrambles

Scrambles were invariably full, there's been a massive outcry this year and we haven't reached peak Scramble season yet which only really starts as September kicks in, so I'm not seeing how they will pick up more teams then full, but judging by the reaction they'll lose a lot. One club has already specifically advertised their TS Open as 10% in response (I won't name them on here for obvious reasons above)

 

[Beedee]

They'll enjoy Am-Ams or 4BBB more. There's a generation in Scotland have barely seen a 4BBB since the advent of TS opens, and they're a rotten form of golf.

I may be over reading things. Maybe I'm just too sensitive and reading between the lines. But I don't think you like Texas Scramble. Maybe you should mention it sometime just so we're all clear.

 

[NearHull]

Please don’t turn this discussion about how mandated allowances are being ignored into a Texas Scramble debate.

 

[rulefan]

Please don’t turn this discussion about how mandated allowances are being ignored into a Texas Scramble debate.

It's not just scrambles, as you know it is affecting 4BBB, and now Individual Opens.

 

[SteveJay]

They'll enjoy Am-Ams or 4BBB more. There's a generation in Scotland have barely seen a 4BBB since the advent of TS opens, and they're a rotten form of golf.

Each to their own. I actually find them one of the most enjoyable formats to play in.

 

[rulie]

The R&A/USGA rules recommend the allowances in Appendix C. CONGU has already stated that they are mandatory in GB&I:

The National Associations within CONGU® have determined that allowances set out in the table in Appendix C are mandatory.
[Guidance on the WHS Rules of Handicapping, GC (Appendix 1), page 21]

This seems like an extreme position of the National Associations to take and feels like the NA wishes to control things which, imo, should be left to the club that is organizing the event(s). Again, imo, just leave the allowances as recommendations.
When I was working, we had a saying for things like this, "invented in head office to be implemented in the field". Many of these initiatives were not well-received in the field and would just fade away.

 

[Colin L]

In making the allowances mandatory, the CONGU countries presumably thought it important to have consistency in the application of handicaps to competitions. It will be interesting to see if it is seen as important enough to monitor and enforce.

 

[rulie]

In making the allowances mandatory, the CONGU countries presumably thought it important to have consistency in the application of handicaps to competitions. It will be interesting to see if it is seen as important enough to monitor and enforce.

I fully understand mandating how handicaps are established, and feel that recommending handicap allowances is sufficient. Mandating allowances just seems heavy-handed. Just my two pence worth.