Minimum Holes

[wjemather]

I think we will get our wish, I now have confirmation letter from England Golf stating that holding our 13 hole competitions and submitting the scores top England golf is perfectly acceptable.

That's great.

 

[rulefan]

We are stuck at County level at the moment, we are searching for evidence to lodge an appeal and take the dispute to the next level. But thanks to the power of social media I now have definitive proof that we can do 13 holes and count it towards our WHI, from a higher power then the NUGC. So we should now be able to take this forward to a successful conclusion.

I like it. I know our seniors will.
How many will count for handicap calcs? How do they account for 'unplayed' or 'excess' holes?

 

[AlanD]

I like it. I know our seniors will.
How many will count for handicap calcs? How do they account for 'unplayed' or 'excess' holes?

All rounds will count for handicapping. For our format i.e 5 unplayed holes, they will be scored by awarding each player net par +1 - : so it is a neutral score, but if you do not mix these results with 18 hole competitions and general play scores, it could artificially keep players handicaps lower than they might be, as not many handicap players will score net par regularly over the unplayed holes. But for us it is a great result, but we still have to challenge our club committee and the County as they are currently oposed to this.

 

[rulefan]

All rounds will count for handicapping. For our format i.e 5 unplayed holes, they will be scored by awarding each player net par +1 - : so it is a neutral score, but if you do not mix these results with 18 hole competitions and general play scores, it could artificially keep players handicaps lower than they might be, as not many handicap players will score net par regularly over the unplayed holes. But for us it is a great result, but we still have to challenge our club committee and the County as they are currently oposed to this.

Are EG getting the software modified?

 

[wjemather]

Are EH getting the software modified?

Why would EG (I assume) software need to be modified?
I know some don't (looking at you ClubV1 - again!!), but ISVs should already facilitate comps over specified holes (automatically sending DNPs to WHS for unplayed holes); for those that don't, players simply enter DNP manually.

 

[wjemather]

All rounds will count for handicapping. For our format i.e 5 unplayed holes, they will be scored by awarding each player net par +1 - : so it is a neutral score, but if you do not mix these results with 18 hole competitions and general play scores, it could artificially keep players handicaps lower than they might be, as not many handicap players will score net par regularly over the unplayed holes. But for us it is a great result, but we still have to challenge our club committee and the County as they are currently oposed to this.

By this I assume you mean nett par +1 for the first unplayed hole, and nett par for the rest (so nett par +1 in total).

 

[AlanD]

Why would EG (I assume) software need to be modified?
I know some don't (looking at you ClubV1 - again!!), but ISVs should already facilitate comps over specified holes (automatically sending DNPs to WHS for unplayed holes); for those that don't, players simply enter DNP manually.

Our ISV, Handicapmaster can accommodate all of this, their software will allow qualifying competitions from 9 right up to 18 holes, once the score has been sent to the England Golf platform, the appropriate scaling up of the score is applied, then any changes to a players index as a result is applied at midnight.

 

[AlanD]

By this I assume you mean nett par +1 for the first unplayed hole, and nett par for the rest (so nett par +1 in total).

That is correct

 

[rulefan]

Why would EG (I assume) software need to be modified?
I know some don't (looking at you ClubV1 - again!!), but ISVs should already facilitate comps over specified holes (automatically sending DNPs to WHS for unplayed holes); for those that don't, players simply enter DNP manually.

I was thinking a different scaling might be done. But as AlanD #87 says it is the same as first panel in the table in 3.2