No Returns - Policy vs Reality

[rulefan]

Another aspect is to consider the transition to WHS. I have done some testing of the process and found some anomolies where players consistently post no scores at all for a No Return. When checking one player, he had 3 'proper' returns where his handicap had decreased, but the other 17 scores (presumably not going to get a reduction) were all blank, including Stablefords where the posting was for zero points. Given the player had a CONGU handicap of 9, it is likely that he had simply not been bothered to enter any scores. When using all of these scores to deteremine a WHS Index, the Index came out as 21.6 due to all of the NRs and Zero points giving a very high Score Differential. I've not doubt that the process will highlight such instances, but it will require a Committee to review and ensure a reasonable allocation.

I wonder if the committee will, seeing that they seemingly haven't done a very good job in monitoring NRs under CONGU

 

[Swango1980]

Another aspect is to consider the transition to WHS. I have done some testing of the process and found some anomolies where players consistently post no scores at all for a No Return. When checking one player, he had 3 'proper' returns where his handicap had decreased, but the other 17 scores (presumably not going to get a reduction) were all blank, including Stablefords where the posting was for zero points. Given the player had a CONGU handicap of 9, it is likely that he had simply not been bothered to enter any scores. When using all of these scores to deteremine a WHS Index, the Index came out as 21.6 due to all of the NRs and Zero points giving a very high Score Differential. I've not doubt that the process will highlight such instances, but it will require a Committee to review and ensure a reasonable allocation.

That's pretty extreme, I wonder how many players are like him

Under the current system, it is not really an issue with handicaps, as he'd go up 0.1 anyway, every time he NR'd (assuming he was NRing due to a score that would not make his buffer)

However, under WHS, then this is exactly why Committees will need to enforce tougher policies for players who NR consistently. If a player NR's that often, they are not fulfilling their responsibilities in having a handicap.

 

[jim8flog]

Another aspect is to consider the transition to WHS. I have done some testing of the process and found some anomolies where players consistently post no scores at all for a No Return. When checking one player, he had 3 'proper' returns where his handicap had decreased, but the other 17 scores (presumably not going to get a reduction) were all blank, including Stablefords where the posting was for zero points. Given the player had a CONGU handicap of 9, it is likely that he had simply not been bothered to enter any scores. When using all of these scores to deteremine a WHS Index, the Index came out as 21.6 due to all of the NRs and Zero points giving a very high Score Differential. I've not doubt that the process will highlight such instances, but it will require a Committee to review and ensure a reasonable allocation.

It is one of the things I like about the new system - less than 10 holes scored do not accept the card.

Penalty scores to be applied as appropriate.

 

[rosecott]

I'm pretty sure that should not be mandatory. Entry to a sweep is not enforceable as far as I know.

It may be a matter of terminology. Perhaps he is talking about what I would recognise as a competition fee which a club can make mandatory as a condition of entry.

 

[Swango1980]

It is one of the things I like about the new system - less than 10 holes scored do not accept the card.

Penalty scores to be applied as appropriate.

I guess for golfers who don't want a handicap increase, they can NR before completing 10 holes?

 

[rulefan]

I guess for golfers who don't want a handicap increase, they can NR before completing 10 holes?

But they can be penalised for it now.

 

[Swango1980]

But they can be penalised for it now.

Yes, they automatically go up 0.1

 

[rulefan]

Yes, they automatically go up 0.1

Sorry, I meant in the future.
But disciplinary action can be taken now.

 

[Swango1980]

Sorry, I meant in the future.
But disciplinary action can be taken now.

They can, but as Jimbof mentioned above, will they, given that they are not at the moment? Play for a well established members club, no doubt strict policies will be enforced. Play at a club run by an owner, with a small Committee of volunteers, and members who play cheapish membership (more casual golfers) who are less concerned about strict policies, and will sooner walk than be told they MUST not NR, then let us see how those Committees penalise players for putting in an NR.

If a golfer invests in a high membership fee, they are usually the type to strict to club policies rather than risk and disciplinary measures. If a golfer joins a club with a ridiculously cheap membership, they are more likely (in general) to have golf as a very much secondary activity (behind things like family, work, etc), pay it to join in the odd comp or effectively have cheap rounds of golf all year round, and are more likely going to tell you to get stuffed if you tell them they can't play in a comp for a few weeks because they NRed.

At least the current system simply put them up 0.1, even if no disciplinary measures were introduced. Under WHS, and certainly in the extreme case of Jimbof's example when NR rounds enter the best 8, it just seems to be a right nightmare for the Committee.

 

[ger147]

It may be a matter of terminology. Perhaps he is talking about what I would recognise as a competition fee which a club can make mandatory as a condition of entry.

Nope, a total of £3 is charged for every comp. £1 entry fee, £1 for the 2's and £1 for the sweep. £3 is automatically deducted when you sign in, no option to only pay the £1 entry fee.

 

[rosecott]

Nope, a total of £3 is charged for every comp. £1 entry fee, £1 for the 2's and £1 for the sweep. £3 is automatically deducted when you sign in, no option to only pay the £1 entry fee.

Am I correct in thinking that the payout is based on the £1 sweep and the £1 2s money? If that is the case, it's the same principle here. £4 comp fee plus £1 for 2s. All the 2s money is paid out and 20% of the comp fee is retained for club funds.