Official WHS Survey

[Voyager EMH]

I think this post would be more accurate if it was posted towards you, rather than by you, on this matter. In my opinion.

If posts are directed to me - I am likely to respond.
Thank you for your contribution.
I am always interested to read your posts on these matters.

 

[Swango1980]

If post are directed to me - I am likely to respond.
Thank you for your contribution.
I am always interested to read your posts on these matters.

Which is exactly what others are doing to you. If you are tired of their responses, perhaps the same is true about how they feel about yours? Probably more so, as you are responding to multiple posters, so your comments appear the most.

 

[wjemather]

Pleas stop doing this - it is tiresome.
I am not "assuming" - I am speculating. You and I making alternative speculations (medal or stableford, committee responsibilities, who does what and why) could go on for a very long time - very tiresome for everyone.

The problem with your speculations is that they fail to consider everything that is required when administering competitions and handicaps, resulting in faulty conclusions.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

1. Members didn't use to have to do it - now they do. (Although most, like me, are very happy to do so)

2. That is what I have said.

So there has been a work load decrease then

 

[Voyager EMH]

Which is exactly what others are doing to you. If you are tired of their responses, perhaps the same is true about how they feel about yours? Probably more so, as you are responding to multiple posters, so your comments appear the most.

You have confused "tired of" with what I described as "tiresome".
But I do get your point.

Expressing alternative views is not tiresome.

But when some says, "So what you are saying is..." or words to that effect can become very tiresome when you feel that is not at all what you are saying. And to let it go unchallenged is not always the best action to take.

 

[Voyager EMH]

The problem with your speculations is that they fail to consider everything that is required when administering competitions and handicaps, resulting in faulty conclusions.

They don't fail to consider - they simply fail to mention. But if you want me to mention them, I will, in my responses to your posts that are directed to me.

 

[Dunesman]

If it only a handful of competitions, the additional work is negligible. As with handicap changes beyond their WHS one for recent winners, its simply a matter of looking down the computer generated result and making the changes to those concerned. Its no more than is done for other competitions at times any way, to find some of the non standard prize allocations like, best past Captain, best front or back nine, best new member, etc.
Sure, if all competitions were run with not 95% or not 9 holes specific reductions, then it would be onerous. But the rarity make tye bit of pencilled ammendments perfectly practical I would feel.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I am never surprised when people take on extra work to get what they like and want rather than do less or nothing which conforms with what they should or ought to do.
People will rail against something they don't like, and if they can find a way to achieve something they prefer, they might choose to do it.
If this endangers "tellings-off" or sanctions, they are often quite prepared for this.
So a comp with 90% or 100% when it should be 95% is just another one of those things. It irritates me whenever it might occur. But occur it has and might do again.

Motorists do this every day. Easy to stay behind someone doing 40 on a 40-limit dual carriageway.
But use indicator, press right foot down, manoeuvre out to right lane, increase speed to 52, slow down, move back into left lane. Lots of extra work - so why do it?
Deal with sanction and penalties, should they occur.

So who will take note of number plate and report it next time they see it happen?
Good on you if you do.
But will it stop someone from doing it again?

 

[wjemather]

An affiliated golf club having it's handicap administration privileges (or affiliation) suspended affects all members, not just the small number in collusion to break their conditions of affiliation and run competitions not in accordance with the rules and guidance.

 

[D-S]

An affiliated golf club having it's handicap administration privileges (or affiliation) suspended affects all members, not just the small number in collusion to break their conditions of affiliation and run competitions not in accordance with the rules and guidance.

It would also have a deleterious affect on the club itself as not being able to offer a rated course for visitors or give its members handicaps will likely cause a significant decrease in revenue.

We have one club at the moment who are saying, in a ratings issue, that simply not being able to offer a rated winter course is costing them money.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Running such a big risk of losing privileges, has to make one wonder why people would do such a thing.
A huge step for someone reporting it as well - this could cause them to not have the club they like anymore.
They would have to ready to leave anyway in order for it not to be shooting-in-the-foot scenario. But then if they are leaving, would they be bothered to report it?

And a momentous step for the county to effectively shut down the club in a draconian way. Bit of a shooting-in-the-foot scenario there as well.
More likely a harshly worded reprimand for the first offence. Easily ridden out by the offending club.
Sub-group only alternative allowances after that. Culture will continue.

 

[Swango1980]

Running such a big risk of losing privileges, has to make one wonder why people would do such a thing.
A huge step for someone reporting it as well - this could cause them to not have the club they like anymore.
They would have to ready to leave anyway in order for it not to be shooting-in-the-foot scenario. But then if they are leaving, would they be bothered to report it?

And a momentous step for the county to effectively shut down the club in a draconian way. Bit of a shooting-in-the-foot scenario there as well.
More likely a harshly worded reprimand for the first offence. Easily ridden out by the offending club.
Sub-group only alternative allowances after that. Culture will continue.

There is the possibility that the people on the Committee of the club are simply ignorant that they are doing anything wrong. After all, there are people on this forum who are confidentially telling us that it is absolutely fine and doing everything they can to justify it. What is written in the Rules of Handicapping is irrelevant, if it doesn't suit them. I guess some people think that Committees of affiliated Golf Clubs are permitted to do whatever they want, as long as they can use the defense "we are doing it in the best interests of our members"

I'm not sure anyone said the club would immediately be shut down. They contact the club and explain what the responsibilities are. The most likely reason they are being contacted is because someone has brought it to the County's attention. If the club continues to do what they wish, and the complaint(s) still exist, then the Union have little choice but to take tougher stances, whatever they happen to be.

And, if a golf Club ignored what they were being advised, directly from the Union, I would seriously question the integrity of the people running the Committee at that Club.

 

[D-S]

And a momentous step for the county to effectively shut down the club in a draconian way. Bit of a shooting-in-the-foot scenario there as well.
More likely a harshly worded reprimand for the first offence. Easily ridden out by the offending club.
Sub-group only alternative allowances after that. Culture will continue.

As I advised in post 2188 two days ago replying to one of your posts "I am inclined to think that you are wrong and the County, if made aware, would initially discuss this with the club and advise them to use the mandatory handicap allowances for club run competitions. Eventually if the breach continued and the County were unable to change the club’s behaviour, they would advise England Golf and if, after further ‘education’, the policy remained in place there would be sanctions, although I would be extremely surprised if it ever got that far."

So it is unlikely to result in disaffiliation and the 'momentous step' as you term it - certainly not for the first offence but if repeated then further sanctions would take place.

What a 'shooting in the foot scenario' is who knows?

How the 'culture' would continue for club competitions, I really have no idea.

 

[Voyager EMH]

As I advised in post 2188 two days ago replying to one of your posts "I am inclined to think that you are wrong and the County, if made aware, would initially discuss this with the club and advise them to use the mandatory handicap allowances for club run competitions. Eventually if the breach continued and the County were unable to change the club’s behaviour, they would advise England Golf and if, after further ‘education’, the policy remained in place there would be sanctions, although I would be extremely surprised if it ever got that far."

So it is unlikely to result in disaffiliation and the 'momentous step' as you term it - certainly not for the first offence but if repeated then further sanctions would take place.

What a 'shooting in the foot scenario' is who knows?

How the 'culture' would continue for club competitions, I really have no idea.

Yes, I'm sure that sunk in with me. Probably why I repeated it.

I said the culture would continue in sub-groups, not club competitions, following a reprimand.

Shooting in the foot: to do something or say something that causes problems for oneself. A very well known and much used phrase.

 

[D-S]

Yes, I'm sure that sunk in with me. Probably why I repeated it.

I said the culture would continue in sub-groups, not club competitions, following a reprimand.

Shooting in the foot: to do something or say something that causes problems for oneself. A very well known and much used phrase.

I understand the phrase (but thanks for the patronisation anyway), I was asking about what the scenario was and who was shooting who in the foot.

 

[Voyager EMH]

There is the possibility that the people on the Committee of the club are simply ignorant that they are doing anything wrong. After all, there are people on this forum who are confidentially telling us that it is absolutely fine and doing everything they can to justify it. What is written in the Rules of Handicapping is irrelevant, if it doesn't suit them. I guess some people think that Committees of affiliated Golf Clubs are permitted to do whatever they want, as long as they can use the defense "we are doing it in the best interests of our members"

I'm not sure anyone said the club would immediately be shut down. They contact the club and explain what the responsibilities are. The most likely reason they are being contacted is because someone has brought it to the County's attention. If the club continues to do what they wish, and the complaint(s) still exist, then the Union have little choice but to take tougher stances, whatever they happen to be.

And, if a golf Club ignored what they were being advised, directly from the Union, I would seriously question the integrity of the people running the Committee at that Club.

That is not what has gone on at my club.
People by-pass the committee by running members only "fun days" that are not handicap qualifying comps - AmAms etc.

I have described what I have witnessed occurring and also joined in with the debate on what might or could occur.
The first is factual reporting and the second is theoretical or speculation.
I think many here are still confused by my posts and blurred these two together.
Much scorn directed at me over my speculation that incorrect allowances at club-run events may yet continue undetected and unreported.
Easy to have incorrect allowances when scores are not submitted for handicapping. A lot trickier when they are - but it could still happen and be undetected or unreported.

I do wish that folk could quit their aversion to "losing a shot" or "losing two shots" and just accept the correct allowance for everything.
But when a chap returns his score with 100% for roll-ups and casual games about 40 times a year and gets irritated when "losing a shot" for the 5 or 6 club comps he plays in, this will not be happening anytime soon. And "but the lower guys are not losing a shot" - still hearing this a lot.

If we could drop the concept of Course Handicap, I would welcome it. It would solve a heck of a lot of my irritations and put a lot of people on the right track.

EG index - do calculation - handicap.

Only use the word "handicap" once not three times. And no stopping before the full calculation is done.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I understand the phrase (but thanks for the patronisation anyway), I was asking about what the scenario was and who was shooting who in the foot.

Bringing about a downfall at one's own club by the responsible act of reporting a misdemeanour.
This was said in a response to a post about what the ultimate sanction to a club could be.

As for finding something patronising - welcome to the club. I know all about doing things correctly, H&C responsibilities, county level authority etc, but have had them all spelled out to me as if I am completely ignorant after being a member of a golf club for over 50 years.

 

[Thintowin]

Lots to read on this thread. Interesting stuff.

Some posters seem to think WHS is great, which surprises me, do these posters actually play? I don't know anyone, who plays golf at all seriously, that supports the WHS as it currently stands. Surely it must change to protect the integrity of amateur club golf? I'm talking specifically about the HI calculation. The previous category-based algorithm was far, far, far better.