oob stake

[hovis]

It's The Belfry - from the stories that he has said if they are true their HC/Comps person breaks all the Congu rules - apparently there was some comp where they all didn't play one hole or something so the comp guy gave them all a par on that hole then put it through as an official qualfier !!

yes. you have a good memory. i was actually cut from that 17 hole comp. a formal complaint was going to be put in from a few members but we thought it would be a little harsh as he was diagnosed with liver cancer shortly after. he is no longer with us.

 

[rulefan]

What is the setup now?

 

[hovis]

Outside the requirements of CONGU, club should be de-affiliated

its not difficult to get around is it. the computer software makes most of the calculations. if it does need to be done by 3 people then he is a smart bloke and he would make sure his ass is covered.
it wouldn't be difficult to ask two other people to run the same software to say the correct procedure was followed. that way by the letter of the law the correct procedure was followed. when infact one single hard working man done 99.9% of the work

 

[hovis]

What is the setup now?

what set up?

 

[Old Skier]

its not difficult to get around is it. the computer software makes most of the calculations. if it does need to be done by 3 people then he is a smart bloke and he would make sure his ass is covered.
it wouldn't be difficult to ask two other people to run the same software to say the correct procedure was followed. that way by the letter of the law the correct procedure was followed. when infact one single hard working man done 99.9% of the work

Only a very little part of the annual review relies on information reported on the system. Sounds like the requirements are being completely ignored and if they are, not forgetting that clubs have to sign off annually to county that they are compliant, from such a major club it's unfortunate that they feel they are above the rules.

 

[hovis]

Only a very little part of the annual review relies on information reported on the system. Sounds like the requirements are being completely ignored and if they are, not forgetting that clubs have to sign off annually to county that they are compliant, from such a major club it's unfortunate that they feel they are above the rules.

whatever is required of the club I have no doubt that they are doing everything they should to satisfy the criteria. however, it would be the bare minimum to meet the criteria

"There is now a computer-generated report which flags players with 7 consecutive 0.1 handicap increases. Handicap Committees are recommended to review the performance of such players giving due consideration to applying a handicap increase."

"HandicapMaster, the software many members use to enter competition scores, can generate an Annual Handicap Review report. This details the players that the CONGU Unified Handicapping System identifies as potentially needing handicap adjustment, up or down.

It also generates a separate report of members who have not played within 3 shots of their handicap . Thirdly it generates a report of all members against how many non- and qualifying scores, supplementary scores and NRs during the year"


sounds like software to me!!!

 

[rulefan]

The handicap committee is required to review the reports and players' records. Clause 7.7(i)
It is known that there are players who do not always fulfil their responsibilities and use the
system to increase their chances of success. It is impossible for a computer program to
differentiate between the player who is genuinely trying his best but struggling to play to his
handicap and the player who is deliberately building a handicap. An automatic system based
purely on the scores submitted would increase the handicap of the latter which could allow the
player to gain further advantage. In addition, the software can only take into account Qualifying
Scores. Many players play a substantial number of match play and other Non-Qualifying
Competitions which are not included in the analysis. It is only the Handicap Committee taking
all factors into consideration before ratifying any recommendation that can make the necessary
differentiation and determination.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

whatever is required of the club I have no doubt that they are doing everything they should to satisfy the criteria. however, it would be the bare minimum to meet the criteria

"There is now a computer-generated report which flags players with 7 consecutive 0.1 handicap increases. Handicap Committees are recommended to review the performance of such players giving due consideration to applying a handicap increase."

"HandicapMaster, the software many members use to enter competition scores, can generate an Annual Handicap Review report. This details the players that the CONGU Unified Handicapping System identifies as potentially needing handicap adjustment, up or down.

It also generates a separate report of members who have not played within 3 shots of their handicap . Thirdly it generates a report of all members against how many non- and qualifying scores, supplementary scores and NRs during the year"


sounds like software to me!!!

When the annual review is printed off it even says that the results are to be used as a "guide" only - any AR must have a least three people present to talk through possible HC changes that have been flagged - the software is there to help not do the job - if you "guy" just applied all the changes then he isn't fit to be employed to be HC sec because he is failing within Congu guidelines

How does he apply changes from Non Q ? The report doesn't show that

Same with the 7 .1's - they are only a guideline and a recommendation that the HC sec must use judgement - again if he puts them automatically it's wrong

From what you mention on the forum about the HC Sec he is failing to do the bare minimum to compile with Congu Regs - it's surprising when first of all it appears he is paid to do the job and secondly it's the Belfry - or possibly you have things a little mixed up

 

[Old Skier]

whatever is required of the club I have no doubt that they are doing everything they should to satisfy the criteria. however, it would be the bare minimum to meet the criteria

"There is now a computer-generated report which flags players with 7 consecutive 0.1 handicap increases. Handicap Committees are recommended to review the performance of such players giving due consideration to applying a handicap increase."

"HandicapMaster, the software many members use to enter competition scores, can generate an Annual Handicap Review report. This details the players that the CONGU Unified Handicapping System identifies as potentially needing handicap adjustment, up or down.

It also generates a separate report of members who have not played within 3 shots of their handicap . Thirdly it generates a report of all members against how many non- and qualifying scores, supplementary scores and NRs during the year"


sounds like software to me!!!

I'm not sure you fully understand the requirements that are quite clearly laid down in the CONGU handbook or have ever had sight of the return that must be completed and returned to county every year. If everything you say is happening in your club in the way that you have described i,t it is clear that the handicap requirements are not being properly administrated and the club could quite easily be de-affiliated.

 

[Colin L]

I didn't count, but I wouldn't be surprised if we hadn't, after discussion, changed the computer generated recommendations in our Annual Review more often than we accepted them.

 

[rulefan]

We certainly changed many that were not actually listed in the report.

 

[Colin L]

That too.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

My thoughts would be that as we have to play the course as we find it then irrespective of the fact that every other OOB post on the course is in a metal 4x4 holder - the fact is that this OOB post is simply in the ground. The adjacency of a metal 4x4 stakeholder, the same as those holding all other OOB posts, is coincidental and irrelevant.

But my instinct would be to ensure that the course is as intended to be played, and so would 'first' put the OOB post back into it's holder, and then 'formally' look for my ball.

But I have no idea which of the above is what I should do under the rules.

 

[rulefan]

I had a faint memory of an applicable Decision but couldn't find it online. I'll have a look in the Decisions Book later: that amazing index might help.

Is this what was in your mind?

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-33,d33-2a-19