No Returns - WHS

[Swango1980]

Have you ever proven someone has “deliberately” not entered a card ?

Also why would someone deliberately not enter their card - if it’s a really bad round then it’s makes no difference , if it’s a superb round then they are going to make sure they submit

And if a Low Handicapper NRs then why would it keep his Handicap Low ?

Do you not trust your fellow members and golfers ?



How much affect do you really think one missing scorecard will have ? People’s handicaps are going to be affected by someone not putting their scorecard in - seen it happy plenty of times and seen it have zero affect on anyone’s handicap

If someone doesn’t put their scorecard in - DQ and move on. There is no harden fast rule in regards not submitting a card and people need to understand the level we are all playing it and why we are playing.

Clearly, you have no understanding on how the World Handicap System works, in comparison to CONGU.

You also seem to absolve the player from any responsibilities in terms of handicapping. If they are having a bad day, have a sulk, stop playing, no problem

 

[BubbaP]

I'm not on a committee or have any particular expertise in this area, but my observation when this topic comes up is the variation and inconsistency in terms that are tossed about.
To try a couple of scenarios:

Player A, in a medal can't locate their ball (when expected to find it) on the 17th hole, is already over handicap and chooses to NR this hole. They score the 18th, and subsequently key in the 17 scores plus 1 NR hole into the system, resulting in an NR overall - this is what I think of as a "No Return" - is this wrong?

Player B, has a bit of a torrid time, and decides on the 8th not to continue the round and leaves the course taking their card with them. Nothing is subsequently put into the system. Is this also a "No Return"?

Cheers

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Clearly, you have no understanding on how the World Handicap System works, in comparison to CONGU.

You also seem to absolve the player from any responsibilities in terms of handicapping. If they are having a bad day, have a sulk, stop playing, no problem

what’s wrong with someone stopping playing and giving up when they are having a mare ? Seen it plenty of times and had no issues at all with - why would anyone have an issue with that. Would you like to see someone suffer for the full 18 ?

Are you really going to look to find ways to punish people because they don’t finish a round of golf. This isn’t people’s careers - it’s supposed to be enjoyment and if someone isn’t enjoying themselves then they are entitled to walk away - and to do so without the fear of some jobsworth who wants to find a way to apply further punishment on them.

There is no need to add rules where it’s not required for scenarios that affect .0001% of the club golfers out there -

 

[Bdill93]

what’s wrong with someone stopping playing and giving up when they are having a mare ? Seen it plenty of times and had no issues at all with - why would anyone have an issue with that. Would you like to see someone suffer for the full 18 ?

Are you really going to look to find ways to punish people because they don’t finish a round of golf. This isn’t people’s careers - it’s supposed to be enjoyment and if someone isn’t enjoying themselves then they are entitled to walk away - and to do so without the fear of some jobsworth who wants to find a way to apply further punishment on them.

There is no need to add rules where it’s not required for scenarios that affect .0001% of the club golfers out there -

There is a need to add the rule as under CONGU there was a punishment for a NR - 0.1 added on to your handicap.

WHS requires everyone to complete their rounds and submit the cards. If you dont complete a number of holes, the computer will generate an estimated score for you on incomplete holes - but only if you submit the card. If you walk away and dont submit a card with a minimum of 9 holes scored, why shouldnt you get at least the 0.1 addition you used to? Youve taken a space in the comp someone else might have wanted who would have played the full 18?

 

[Swango1980]

I'm not on a committee or have any particular expertise in this area, but my observation when this topic comes up is the variation and inconsistency in terms that are tossed about.
To try a couple of scenarios:

Player A, in a medal can't locate their ball (when expected to find it) on the 17th hole, is already over handicap and chooses to NR this hole. They score the 18th, and subsequently key in the 17 scores plus 1 NR hole into the system, resulting in an NR overall - this is what I think of as a "No Return" - is this wrong?

Player B, has a bit of a torrid time, and decides on the 8th not to continue the round and leaves the course taking their card with them. Nothing is subsequently put into the system. Is this also a "No Return"?

Cheers

To clarify.

A player that NRs in a medal because they did not complete a hole, because they had a nightmare, is not an issue. So long as they continue to play the round thereafter. Their score will still be NR for the competition, but for handicapping it is important they keep playing.

The issue is the player that has a nightmare, and then just quits. Makes no attempt to play subsequent holes. They are then not fulfilling their handicapping responsibilities. Previously, under CONGU, it didn't really matter, because they would still get a 0.1 increase and effect the CSS in the same way. Under WHS, this is not the case.

 

[Swango1980]

what’s wrong with someone stopping playing and giving up when they are having a mare ? Seen it plenty of times and had no issues at all with - why would anyone have an issue with that. Would you like to see someone suffer for the full 18 ?

Are you really going to look to find ways to punish people because they don’t finish a round of golf. This isn’t people’s careers - it’s supposed to be enjoyment and if someone isn’t enjoying themselves then they are entitled to walk away - and to do so without the fear of some jobsworth who wants to find a way to apply further punishment on them.

There is no need to add rules where it’s not required for scenarios that affect .0001% of the club golfers out there -

You complete ignore the comments related to how the WHS works. There is no sense in explaining this to you again, as it goes in one ear and out the other.

You are simply thinking on an emotional context. You seem to think I (and the handicapping authorities) are WANTING to see people suffer. It is a completely immature attitude to have, as it makes no sense. No one within the handicapping authorities wants to see golfers suffer. And, no one on a Committee wants to see that either (hopefully). Committee members would rather stay well clear of any issues related to penalties and disciplinary procedures if at all possible.

However, if we just ignored, or let golfers NR when they were feeling upset, what happens when another golfer complains about the Committee for not taking stronger action, and referring to the WHS Manual. Do you think England Golf will fully support the Committee, or remind us of our responsibilities as a Committee? I'd imagine the latter?

What if a very low handicapper always NRed when he was having a bad round, and ended up qualifying to play in prestigious County events. Yet, if he submitted all scores, he would not be anywhere near that level of low handicap? And, if we did take action, what if he kicks off and says he is being treated unfairly because a 15 handicapper was let off the hook for doing the same thing (yet he NRs because he gets stroppy rather than trying to keep a low handicap).

Amongst the Player Responsibilities, we have:

"Attempt to make the best score possible on each hole"

Please tell me how they fulfil that duty by walking off the course and not bothering to play the last remaining holes?

I agree, this isn't people's careers. But that is a fairly pathetic argument, because we could then apply that to letting people off for not signing their card, dropping in the wrong place or accidentally grounding their club in the bunker. Why penalise any golfer for what you think is a fairly minor breach of the rules, just don't apply the penalty. Why should we, "not playing for a row of houses" as some like to say at times. Probably not the right approach for a Committee member to take?

 

[wjemather]

I'm not on a committee or have any particular expertise in this area, but my observation when this topic comes up is the variation and inconsistency in terms that are tossed about.
To try a couple of scenarios:

Player A, in a medal can't locate their ball (when expected to find it) on the 17th hole, is already over handicap and chooses to NR this hole. They score the 18th, and subsequently key in the 17 scores plus 1 NR hole into the system, resulting in an NR overall - this is what I think of as a "No Return" - is this wrong?

Player B, has a bit of a torrid time, and decides on the 8th not to continue the round and leaves the course taking their card with them. Nothing is subsequently put into the system. Is this also a "No Return"?

Cheers

No return (NR) applies only to a hole that is not completed - a round may have more than one NR. Confusingly it has also commonly been used to describe a round that includes one or more NRs - by the rules of golf they are disqualifications (DQ) for failure to complete a hole (medal play only) or failure to return a completed scorecard. Player A has done exactly as they should.

Player B would be disqualified from the competition, but would also be in breach of their responsibilities under the rules of handicapping both for not completing the minimum 10 holes (assuming an 18-hole round) and for not returning their score. In the scenario outlined, the handicap committee should apply a penalty score equal to a round played to handicap.

 

[Swango1980]

[QUOTE="Swango1980, post: 2329915, member: 26510".

Amongst the Player Responsibilities, we have:

"Attempt to make the best score possible on each hole"

Please tell me how they fulfil that duty by walking off the course and not bothering to play the last remaining holes?/QUOTE]
Surely that means your intention from the 1st tee up to and including whilst you are in the competition? Once you've quit you're out.

If I had such a mare that I decided to quit in a comp, there's absolutely no way I'm still competing properly and truthfully "doing the best I can" on the remaining holes. I'd just be totally threaders and almost undoubtedly not bother holing out.

Of course, that is difficult to prove, and I don't disagree with your point. Although, technically had you openly admitted that then you would be in breach of your responsibilities.

In an extreme case, if a player knew he was unlikely to win a competition after 5 or 6 holes, they could purposely decide to miss putts and mess about for the rest of the round, to intentionally make their score as high as possible. Maybe turn a potential and simple 90 into 100+. Although this will almost certainly fall outside their best 8 rounds, by doing this regularly then they will almost certainly push scores into their to 8 that would never have been there. Because, we all know that we can have a nightmare start, but then turn things around, have a good back 9 and a pretty decent score, albeit not top of the leaderboard. However, this particular scenario will be a nightmare for anyone on the Committee to identify, as that player could simply claim it is all part of their mentality and they lose their game.

However, by simply failing to stop playing, that is clear the player has not fulfilled their responsibilities. Unless they can claim injury.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

You complete ignore the comments related to how the WHS works. There is no sense in explaining this to you again, as it goes in one ear and out the other.

You are simply thinking on an emotional context. You seem to think I (and the handicapping authorities) are WANTING to see people suffer. It is a completely immature attitude to have, as it makes no sense. No one within the handicapping authorities wants to see golfers suffer. And, no one on a Committee wants to see that either (hopefully). Committee members would rather stay well clear of any issues related to penalties and disciplinary procedures if at all possible.

However, if we just ignored, or let golfers NR when they were feeling upset, what happens when another golfer complains about the Committee for not taking stronger action, and referring to the WHS Manual. Do you think England Golf will fully support the Committee, or remind us of our responsibilities as a Committee? I'd imagine the latter?

What if a very low handicapper always NRed when he was having a bad round, and ended up qualifying to play in prestigious County events. Yet, if he submitted all scores, he would not be anywhere near that level of low handicap? And, if we did take action, what if he kicks off and says he is being treated unfairly because a 15 handicapper was let off the hook for doing the same thing (yet he NRs because he gets stroppy rather than trying to keep a low handicap).

Amongst the Player Responsibilities, we have:

"Attempt to make the best score possible on each hole"

Please tell me how they fulfil that duty by walking off the course and not bothering to play the last remaining holes?

I agree, this isn't people's careers. But that is a fairly pathetic argument, because we could then apply that to letting people off for not signing their card, dropping in the wrong place or accidentally grounding their club in the bunker. Why penalise any golfer for what you think is a fairly minor breach of the rules, just don't apply the penalty. Why should we, "not playing for a row of houses" as some like to say at times. Probably not the right approach for a Committee member to take?

a lot of “what if” scenarios based on what exactly ?

How many people do you honestly think don’t put their card in to try and manipulate the system ? Seriously ?

And yes you should look the human side isn’t of looking at creating sanctions because there is nothing that outlines any sanctions , what are the limits , how many times is someone allowed to not enter before they get put on the naughty step

You also can’t compare it to the clear golf rules

If someone doesn’t sign a card the rule is there , same with grounding in a bunker etc etc - rules for them are clear

But show me what rule is says that as a club golfer I am not allowed to walk off if I’m having a complete mare and I need to get off the golf course ?

what rule is it that states I must play the very best I can do on every hole

What club would look to apply sanctions to someone who does that ? And how many members do you really think will start pointing at people for not being sanctioned because they walked off.

We allow people to NR , if someone wants to walk in because they are having that bad a day they can walk in , they aren’t forced to stay out there in fear of any sanctions that will be applied if someone believes they didn’t “try their best” and complete every hole.

No one starts a competition wanting to play their best - we all start trying to do the very best we can and try to enjoy the round , sometimes that just doesn’t happen and people want to leave. Sometimes people just forgot to put their card in , sometimes some people have to rush off - all things I have witnessed over the past 10 years and it’s not bothered me or another member one single bit

 

[Swango1980]

Just for ease I've numbered a couple of points.

Point 1 is, and always has been, cheating. It also goes against the responsibility you previously posted about returning the best score possible.

2. Do the rules specifically say that players must return the best score they can possibly make for every single hole, including ALL holes that come after the point they have NR'd in a medal?

Number 1, 100% agree

Number 2, "Attempt to make the best score possible on each hole"

Now, of course, you could interpret that as the best on each hole they decide to play. Or you could interpret that as each hole of the round. I assume the latter, perhaps you assume the former. However, I think I have good reason, given the statement in Post 11. That is, Committees being encouraged to consider disciplinary procedures for players who fail to complete rounds.

 

[Swango1980]

But show me what rule is says that as a club golfer I am not allowed to walk off if I’m having a complete mare and I need to get off the golf course ?

what rule is it that states I must play the very best I can do on every hole

OK, despite repeating myself, maybe this will bring everything together by answering your specific questions:

You asked : "But show me what rule is says that as a club golfer I am not allowed to walk off if I’m having a complete mare and I need to get off the golf course ?"

This was in Post 11, where the WHS Manual states: "The Handicap Committee or the Authorized Association should consider disciplinary procedures for players who repeatedly fail to submit their scores or who fail to complete rounds."

You asked: "what rule is it that states I must play the very best I can do on every hole"

This was in Post 29, where the WHS manual states: "Attempt to make the best score possible on each hole"

 

[Swango1980]

But your wording there is slightly, but importantly, different. The WHS wording you posted is "should consider disciplinary procedures for players who repeatedly fail to submit their scores or who fail to complete rounds."

So at the moment, there's nothing that says that every player MUST complete ALL 18 holes to the best of his ability even after quitting a competition.

And, this is mainly why I am asking the question. The guidance seems clear to a point, but then stops short of being definitive. There are certainly players who NR repeatedly at my club. But then, how does one define repeatedly? One might say 2 or 3 NRs would meet that definition. Others may think many more would be required. It is just another one of my grievances with WHS, where it simply adds another concern onto the Committee that was a non issue before.

However, the reason I posted this on the Expert forum was that I hoped Handicap Secs at other clubs may have a view on this, in terms of what they are thinking at their clubs, if anything. However, I certainly do not believe that England Golf would accept a player walking off the course as fulfilling their responsibilities. The Competition and the Round for Handicap are considered as separate issues. WHS does not care about your competition result when it comes to calculating your handicap. It does care that you try your best during the round.

I have not yet come up with any rules of conduct related to this at my club, yet. Because, members are confused enough about adapting to the basics of the new system, it is going to take a bit of time for them to start getting used to it when we start playing again. Some I don't wanna start throwing out some new disciplinary procedures and upsetting some members (especially when moral is already generally low with bloomin Covid). But, at the Committee Meeting last night, the Senior's representative rightly pointed out his concerns, and we need to come up with something. Because, if we do not, we could be messing around pretty quickly trying to chase players for their scores, applying penalty scores etc. If a player walks off on the front 9 (the 5th is a good spot to walk off given its location on the course) after a terrible start, then we will apparently need to disregard the round completely. So, a player could be having a shocker, and that round never sees their handicap record. And clearly that would be a big breach of fulfilling those responsibilities.

 

[Swango1980]

Just had a novel thought about a potential way in which the handicap system could deal with an NR, without potentially banning or disciplining players via Committee.

If a player is deemed to NR (I.e. quit playing, rather than simply picking up on a disaster hole) without a reasonable excuse, this could simply be marked as a Round NR. This then subtracts 1.0 off their Index, and this doesn't return to normal until they submit a complete round in future. There would be an Asterix next to this handicap, so that it is flagged if they try to enter a competition that requires a low handicap limit.

Although I don't agree with Liverpoolphil that we just happily ignore people who NR because they have had a huff (I didn't mind at all under CONGU), I do share the feeling that disciplinary procedures are never a nice thing for a Committee to have to do. The idea above would at least make golfers think twice about quitting on a round.

Obviously this thought doesn't resolve my original question about what Committee should do for now, if anything. So far, I don't think anyone has shared what will be happening at their clubs? So I presume either nothing has been decided yet, or perhaps clubs will do nothing and might risk dealing with individual cases as they arise subjectively?

 

[wjemather]

Just had a novel thought about a potential way in which the handicap system could deal with an NR, without potentially banning or disciplining players via Committee.

If a player is deemed to NR (I.e. quit playing, rather than simply picking up on a disaster hole) without a reasonable excuse, this could simply be marked as a Round NR. This then subtracts 1.0 off their Index, and this doesn't return to normal until they submit a complete round in future. There would be an Asterix next to this handicap, so that it is flagged if they try to enter a competition that requires a low handicap limit.

Although I don't agree with Liverpoolphil that we just happily ignore people who NR because they have had a huff (I didn't mind at all under CONGU), I do share the feeling that disciplinary procedures are never a nice thing for a Committee to have to do. The idea above would at least make golfers think twice about quitting on a round.

Obviously this thought doesn't resolve my original question about what Committee should do for now, if anything. So far, I don't think anyone has shared what will be happening at their clubs? So I presume either nothing has been decided yet, or perhaps clubs will do nothing and might risk dealing with individual cases as they arise subjectively?

WHS copes just fine with NRs and walkoffs as long as the score is returned, and by means of penalty scores if necessary.

The only issue I have is that the process on the platform requires manual calculations when it should be a simple drop-down list, i.e. delete intent or post penalty score: high/low/to-handicap. I submitted an enhancement request for this last year.

Dealing with persistent offenders will be for committees to decide. We intend to take a gentle educational approach initially, but members have been advised regarding potential sanctions. These include suspension from regular or trophy competitions, exclusion from knockouts, suspension/freezing of index, requiring general play scores for reinstatement, etc. These measures are new for us, but I know many clubs had such processes in place previously under UHS.

 

[Swango1980]

WHS copes just fine with NRs and walkoffs as long as the score is returned, and by means of penalty scores if necessary.

The only issue I have is that the process on the platform requires manual calculations when it should be a simple drop-down list, i.e. delete intent or post penalty score: high/low/to-handicap. I submitted an enhancement request for this last year.

Dealing with persistent offenders will be for committees to decide. We intend to take a gentle educational approach initially, but members have been advised regarding potential sanctions. These include suspension from regular or trophy competitions, exclusion from knockouts, suspension/freezing of index, requiring general play scores for reinstatement, etc. These measures are new for us, but I know many clubs had such processes in place previously under UHS.

Cheers

At our club, I'm always concerned about competition ban type penalties, as it heavily punishes a player who supports competitions by playing in most of them, and is no punishment for a player who plays in a competition once a year. Also, I guess at some clubs, with steep membership fees, golfers are invested in golf and are likely to do their best not to fall out with Committee (and those clubs may not be that bothered in losing that member anyway, if they can attract other members). Our club is a very cheap membership, and a lot of members enjoy golf, but not high up on their priority list in terms of other distractions like family, work, other hobbies, etc. So, hand them out a ban, and they are more likely to think "whatever, won't join next year" (which is where I see where Liverpoolphil is coming from, in that aspect at least).

Although WHS works fine in terms of applying penalty scores, my concerns are:

• If no card is submitted, or any scores entered, someone has to go chasing to find out what holes were actually played, and enter any scores they can find (possibly of another person's card). If there are NRs in most competitions, at least one, then that is extra Committee work that wasn't required before (previously, at long as you knew the entry list, then these players would just be included in the score sheet as NR, no worry about whether their holes scores were entered or not)
• If a player gives up before completing the front 9 (which is not uncommon), then they can avoid the score going on their handicap record at all. Again, previously it would be assumed they had a bad round and go up 0.1.
• Competitions with multiple NRs, maybe because of bad weather, will provide a headache as well. Do you treat these players differently to a single player who NRed on a glorious summer day who just walked off the course in a huff? Again, before all cases would just be NR and handicap system would take care of it.

Essentially, pre WHS there was no requirement to discipline players for quitting rounds. The only issue players disliked this was on a social level, not a handicap level. Now, WHS instructs us that we need to consider disciplinary procedures, which just opens a can of worms.

I don't think we will introduce anything yet, as we all need to see how the system works in anger. We will likely also take the soft approach initially, and then come late summer see if we need to introduce harder measures. Golf is so much more complicated now that it ever has been. Golfers are trying to learn a new handicap system (which by it's nature is more complicated, whether it is fairer or not), whilst keeping track of all the Covid guidelines. We also have a new competition secretary, who is issuing out new terms of competition and so on. So, it is information overload at the moment, I don't want to start scaring members by throwing out disciplinary measures, when many are simply panicking about struggling to come to terms with the difference between a Course Handicap, and the many Playing Handicaps that stem from that.

 

[wjemather]

Cheers

At our club, I'm always concerned about competition ban type penalties, as it heavily punishes a player who supports competitions by playing in most of them, and is no punishment for a player who plays in a competition once a year. Also, I guess at some clubs, with steep membership fees, golfers are invested in golf and are likely to do their best not to fall out with Committee (and those clubs may not be that bothered in losing that member anyway, if they can attract other members). Our club is a very cheap membership, and a lot of members enjoy golf, but not high up on their priority list in terms of other distractions like family, work, other hobbies, etc. So, hand them out a ban, and they are more likely to think "whatever, won't join next year" (which is where I see where Liverpoolphil is coming from, in that aspect at least).

Although WHS works fine in terms of applying penalty scores, my concerns are:

• If no card is submitted, or any scores entered, someone has to go chasing to find out what holes were actually played, and enter any scores they can find (possibly of another person's card). If there are NRs in most competitions, at least one, then that is extra Committee work that wasn't required before (previously, at long as you knew the entry list, then these players would just be included in the score sheet as NR, no worry about whether their holes scores were entered or not)
• If a player gives up before completing the front 9 (which is not uncommon), then they can avoid the score going on their handicap record at all. Again, previously it would be assumed they had a bad round and go up 0.1.
• Competitions with multiple NRs, maybe because of bad weather, will provide a headache as well. Do you treat these players differently to a single player who NRed on a glorious summer day who just walked off the course in a huff? Again, before all cases would just be NR and handicap system would take care of it.

Essentially, pre WHS there was no requirement to discipline players for quitting rounds. The only issue players disliked this was on a social level, not a handicap level. Now, WHS instructs us that we need to consider disciplinary procedures, which just opens a can of worms.

I don't think we will introduce anything yet, as we all need to see how the system works in anger. We will likely also take the soft approach initially, and then come late summer see if we need to introduce harder measures. Golf is so much more complicated now that it ever has been. Golfers are trying to learn a new handicap system (which by it's nature is more complicated, whether it is fairer or not), whilst keeping track of all the Covid guidelines. We also have a new competition secretary, who is issuing out new terms of competition and so on. So, it is information overload at the moment, I don't want to start scaring members by throwing out disciplinary measures, when many are simply panicking about struggling to come to terms with the difference between a Course Handicap, and the many Playing Handicaps that stem from that.

I'm not envisioning many persistent offenders; we had a dozen or so members at our club who routinely walked-off or refused to submit non-winning cards, but education (pro shop staff helped massively with this by talking directly to people) last year reduced that number to under five and a couple of those declined EG data-submission, so do not have official handicaps any longer. A potentially good option for the stubborn ones is requiring a general play round with a committee member as an educational exercise.

 

[rosecott]

There is something which has not had a mention in this discussion on NRs.

CONGU introduced - as handicap qualifiers - an innovation which was intended to make NRs a thing of the past - Regular Strokeply Maximum Score. The concept was that you played a Medal round (still called that by a majority of golfers, I think) and a complete blow-up on a hole made it a bit difficult to get into the prize money - but not impossible - but encouraged players to carry on playing and still allowed the score to be used for handicap purposes. Like most changes from the norm, it was met with hoots of derision - mainly from low handicappers. We bit the bullet and, after the aforementioned hoots, we brought it in and it is now accepted with players now wondering what the fuss was about. We do not have NRs.

 

[rulefan]

There is something which has not had a mention in this discussion on NRs.

CONGU introduced - as handicap qualifiers - an innovation which was intended to make NRs a thing of the past - Regular Strokeply Maximum Score. The concept was that you played a Medal round (still called that by a majority of golfers, I think) and a complete blow-up on a hole made it a bit difficult to get into the prize money - but not impossible - but encouraged players to carry on playing and still allowed the score to be used for handicap purposes. Like most changes from the norm, it was met with hoots of derision - mainly from low handicappers. We bit the bullet and, after the aforementioned hoots, we brought it in and it is now accepted with players now wondering what the fuss was about. We do not have NRs.

Coincidentally, we are reviewing our 'non returned cards' and NR policy. A few years ago when the former was causing issues with card reconciliation and handicap protection, the hcap sec sent letters to offenders warning them that action (unspecified) might be taken together with a document explaining why continuing a round was a good idea after an odd blow up hole. After rumours went round about possible suspension (never actually mentioned) the problem stopped and except for the odd legitimate case has never resurfaced.
Unfortunately, the original proposed formal procedure was never documented although copies of the letters (and 'good idea document') do. After an informal discussion with the hcap sec I have tabled the item for our next hcap meeting.
If anyone produces a workable formal procedure in the next couple of weeks I would be very interested in seeing it.

 

[jim8flog]

Coincidentally, we are reviewing our 'non returned cards' and NR policy. A few years ago when the former was causing issues with card reconciliation and handicap protection, the hcap sec sent letters to offenders warning them that action (unspecified) might be taken together with a document explaining why continuing a round was a good idea after an odd blow up hole. After rumours went round about possible suspension (never actually mentioned) the problem stopped and except for the odd legitimate case has never resurfaced.
Unfortunately, the original proposed formal procedure was never documented although copies of the letters (and 'good idea document') do. After an informal discussion with the hcap sec I have tabled the item for our next hcap meeting.
If anyone produces a workable formal procedure in the next couple of weeks I would be very interested in seeing it.

Dealing with players who failed to return cards was becoming very time consuming for the office having to contact the players to see why there was no card with anything up to about 30 in some comps . Bearing in that on some Monday mornings the handicap admin secretary was processing 3/4 competitions.

We therefore introduced formal procedures about 5 years ago. With one player it went as far as suspension of handicap for 4 weeks. It generally did the trick we went from up to 30 not returned cards/scores to just a few. However it was very time consuming as it involved a series of letters to those who did not return cards etc. and a need to keep records.

Basically it was
1st time - gentle reminder letter, with a reminder of the clubs rules
Noted for one year
2nd time (within a year of the first) a slightly more insistent letter with a reminder of the third stage procedure .
Noted for one year
3rd time within a year of the 2nd letter - suspension of handicap.

We shelved the procedure for the time being, which it has been for a couple of years now, but it is still in the Handbook as a rule with which to remind persistent offenders.

 

[wjemather]

There is something which has not had a mention in this discussion on NRs.

CONGU introduced - as handicap qualifiers - an innovation which was intended to make NRs a thing of the past - Regular Strokeply Maximum Score. The concept was that you played a Medal round (still called that by a majority of golfers, I think) and a complete blow-up on a hole made it a bit difficult to get into the prize money - but not impossible - but encouraged players to carry on playing and still allowed the score to be used for handicap purposes. Like most changes from the norm, it was met with hoots of derision - mainly from low handicappers. We bit the bullet and, after the aforementioned hoots, we brought it in and it is now accepted with players now wondering what the fuss was about. We do not have NRs.

Maximum Score is something I am considering for most of our medals - the aim being to increase participation and enjoyment (and pace of play), as I think many people will happily take a net double/triple-bogey and move on rather than having to trudge back to the tee or get DQed.