Player Penalties for repeat Non Return of Cards

Thread starter #1
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
552
Location
Somerset
Hi

We have tried to educate an been fuzzy and warm to some of the members who continue to not return their cards from a comp so we are going the the 3 strikes and the player is sanctioned route.

We have not issue with players NR a hole or a number of holes in medal and accepting they have DQd themselves out of the comp but completed their round, as some do, but we have a hard core who think its OK just not to return a card.

I know this topic has been discussed to death but I am looking for some guidance what other M&H members on the forum have issued to the members explaining:

1) First incidence discuss the issue and explain the need to complete the round under the Rules of Handicapping

2) Second incidence we put in in writing explaining this is being monitored and if there is 3rd incidence the player will be sanctioned with a 4 week competition ban

3) Third incidence 4 week competition ban

Can anyone advise how they have implemented some thing similar?

Thanks
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
150
Location
Inverurie Aberdeenshire
I’m not an M& h sec but I understood that Penalty scores were the punishment for not completing a round counting for handicap ( competition or general play). This can be - as I understand it - a low score for those seeking to increase their handicap index or a high one for those trying to get down to a (vanity) low handicap (perhaps to qualify for some competition). Bans from competitions could lead to members leaving
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
1,693
Its really difficult though to determine the motive behind a players reasoning for not returning a card...in the vast majority of cases it is simply downright laziness/forgetfulness rather than any concerted attempt to manipulate a players index...so its not always easy to determine what sort of penalty score could be applied.

I personally favour an approach of applying a penalty score equivalent to the best of their last 20 scores to high handicappers, a score equivalent to the worst score in their recent record for low handicappers, and a penalty score equivalent to their current handicap index for medium handicappers.

This stops high handicappers building a handicap, low handicappers maintaining or improving a vanity handicap and also provides a buffer zone that prevents the golfers in between from manipulating their handicap in either direction.

What the boundaries are could be anything you choose....something like up to 5 index being low, up to 14 being medium and above 14 being in the high category.
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
10,820
Location
Liverpool
Its really difficult though to determine the motive behind a players reasoning for not returning a card...in the vast majority of cases it is simply downright laziness/forgetfulness rather than any concerted attempt to manipulate a players index...so its not always easy to determine what sort of penalty score could be applied.

I personally favour an approach of applying a penalty score equivalent to the best of their last 20 scores to high handicappers, a score equivalent to the worst score in their recent record for low handicappers, and a penalty score equivalent to their current handicap index for medium handicappers.

This stops high handicappers building a handicap, low handicappers maintaining or improving a vanity handicap and also provides a buffer zone that prevents the golfers in between from manipulating their handicap in either direction.

What the boundaries are could be anything you choose....something like up to 5 index being low, up to 14 being medium and above 14 being in the high category.
Yes that’s sensible.
I NRd a couple of weeks ago ,it was so slow we left after 14 holes.
I didn’t put my card in and was given 18 double bogeys.
My highest score in WHS is 81.
So not really a score that’s going to affect me.
But the only way to stop serial offenders is comp bans as nobody knows their reason for NR .
 

wjemather

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
810
Location
Bristol
Its really difficult though to determine the motive behind a players reasoning for not returning a card...in the vast majority of cases it is simply downright laziness/forgetfulness rather than any concerted attempt to manipulate a players index...so its not always easy to determine what sort of penalty score could be applied.

I personally favour an approach of applying a penalty score equivalent to the best of their last 20 scores to high handicappers, a score equivalent to the worst score in their recent record for low handicappers, and a penalty score equivalent to their current handicap index for medium handicappers.

This stops high handicappers building a handicap, low handicappers maintaining or improving a vanity handicap and also provides a buffer zone that prevents the golfers in between from manipulating their handicap in either direction.

What the boundaries are could be anything you choose....something like up to 5 index being low, up to 14 being medium and above 14 being in the high category.
Your approach does not follow CONGU's guidance (G7.1b), which states "a score equivalent to the current Handicap Index should be submitted..." for all players unless there are "possible" ulterior motives. There is no reason for low or high handicappers be treated differently.
 

rulie

Head Pro
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,129
Yes that’s sensible.
I NRd a couple of weeks ago ,it was so slow we left after 14 holes.
I didn’t put my card in and was given 18 double bogeys.
My highest score in WHS is 81.
So not really a score that’s going to affect me.
But the only way to stop serial offenders is comp bans as nobody knows their reason for NR .
Agree that a penalty score of 18 double bogeys is pointless - it only takes up one spot of 20 in the scoring record and will never become one of the 8 scores used for calculating handicap index.
 

2blue

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
3,472
Location
Leeds,
Yes that’s sensible.
I NRd a couple of weeks ago ,it was so slow we left after 14 holes.
I didn’t put my card in and was given 18 double bogeys.
My highest score in WHS is 81.
So not really a score that’s going to affect me.
But the only way to stop serial offenders is comp bans as nobody knows their reason for NR .
Your 14 holes can be used for your H/cap the other 4 should have been recorded as DNP (Did not play) & are not treated as net double bogies.
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
10,820
Location
Liverpool
Agree that a penalty score of 18 double bogeys is pointless - it only takes up one spot of 20 in the scoring record and will never become one of the 8 scores used for calculating handicap index.
Yes but at least it’s consistent if used for everybody.
But it could benefit a high capper to build a higher handicap.
But who decides the penalty if this isn’t used.
It could look vindictive if you treat people differently.
That’s where the cat 1/2/3/4 was useful imo.
I don’t envy the cap sec dealing with all this now.
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
10,820
Location
Liverpool
Your 14 holes can be used for your H/cap the other 4 should have been recorded as DNP (Did not play) & are not treated as net double bogies.
Card was in the bin.
After watching the game in front fishing balls out of a ditch for about 10 mins.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
1,693
Your approach does not follow CONGU's guidance (G7.1b), which states "a score equivalent to the current Handicap Index should be submitted..." for all players unless there are "possible" ulterior motives. There is no reason for low or high handicappers be treated differently.
What version of the Guidance document do you have?....you have quoted wording that does not appear in version 1.5 which I have just downloaded from the CONGU site.

G7.1b in this version does not contain the wording "for all players unless there are possible ulterior motives".

The guidance says that "penalties should be considered along the following lines". Following the same logic as the rules in respects of the specific use of words such as could, should, may, must etc. this to my mind indicates that there is some latitude in how handicap secretaries can handle the situation and that the prescribed penalties are merely "suggestions" rather than mandated defined actions to be taken.
 

rulie

Head Pro
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,129
Yes but at least it’s consistent if used for everybody.
But it could benefit a high capper to build a higher handicap.
But who decides the penalty if this isn’t used.
It could look vindictive if you treat people differently.
That’s where the cat 1/2/3/4 was useful imo.
I don’t envy the cap sec dealing with all this now.
Yes, it's consistently useless (other than taking up a spot in the last 20). What's the point in doing useless work?
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
11,151
We had a 3 strikes approach after problems a few years ago. Step 2 letters were all that was needed to stop it. A change of h'cap sec took the foot off the pedal and the issue came back this year. A new h'cap sec has reissued the notice and after a few friendly words and a couple letters it has settle down again. No members took umbrage either time.
 

wjemather

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
810
Location
Bristol
What version of the Guidance document do you have?....you have quoted wording that does not appear in version 1.5 which I have just downloaded from the CONGU site.

G7.1b in this version does not contain the wording "for all players unless there are possible ulterior motives".

The guidance says that "penalties should be considered along the following lines". Following the same logic as the rules in respects of the specific use of words such as could, should, may, must etc. this to my mind indicates that there is some latitude in how handicap secretaries can handle the situation and that the prescribed penalties are merely "suggestions" rather than mandated defined actions to be taken.
I clearly quoted the phrases and words contained in the guidance. The general principle of WHS is to treat all players equally - why are you not doing that?
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
1,693
I clearly quoted the phrases and words contained in the guidance. The general principle of WHS is to treat all players equally - why are you not doing that?
The words you quoted do not appear in Version 1.5 of the guidance. Please clarify which version you are quoting from. Then we can sing from the same song sheet and I can, if necessary, adjust my stance.
 

jim8flog

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
10,480
Location
Yeovil
Hi

We have tried to educate an been fuzzy and warm to some of the members who continue to not return their cards from a comp so we are going the the 3 strikes and the player is sanctioned route.

We have not issue with players NR a hole or a number of holes in medal and accepting they have DQd themselves out of the comp but completed their round, as some do, but we have a hard core who think its OK just not to return a card.

I know this topic has been discussed to death but I am looking for some guidance what other M&H members on the forum have issued to the members explaining:

1) First incidence discuss the issue and explain the need to complete the round under the Rules of Handicapping

2) Second incidence we put in in writing explaining this is being monitored and if there is 3rd incidence the player will be sanctioned with a 4 week competition ban

3) Third incidence 4 week competition ban

Can anyone advise how they have implemented some thing similar?

Thanks
Our 3rd stage is loss of handicap* for a 4 week period not a competition ban. We used it once and word went round and it reduced the incidence greatly, (the player was real handicap protector (very low single figure doing it deliberately).

*Stops the player from playing in any competitions anywhere.
 

2blue

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
3,472
Location
Leeds,
Our 3rd stage is loss of handicap* for a 4 week period not a competition ban. We used it once and word went round and it reduced the incidence greatly, (the player was real handicap protector (very low single figure doing it deliberately).

*Stops the player from playing in any competitions anywhere.
This is the approach we are taking with serial offenders..... it's following the guidance & if anyone has an effective alternative I'd be happy to hear it.
 

2blue

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
3,472
Location
Leeds,
Card was in the bin.
After watching the game in front fishing balls out of a ditch for about 10 mins.
Our Comp Conditions require players to retain their card until the Comp is closed. So with us you would have received a 1st warning & the 18 hole net D/B's removed from your record. :oops::oops:
 

IanMcC

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2019
Messages
556
Penalty score is usually enough to deter offenders, once they realise what it does to their Index. The guidance document states:

A score equivalent to the current Handicap Index should be submitted to the WHS Platform (i.e. an Adjusted Gross Score which would be equivalent to the Course Rating + Course Handicap).

For particularly naughty girls and boys, it goes on to state this:

Possible attempt to keep handicap low
A score equivalent to the Adjusted Gross Score of the highest return in the last 20 scores should be submitted to the WHS Platform.

Possible attempt to build a handicap
A score equivalent to the Adjusted Gross Score of the lowest return in the last 20 scores should be submitted to the WHS Platform.
 

Captainron

Big Hitting, South African Sweary Person
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
5,581
Location
Rural Lincolnshire
Why would you give them more than 1 chance?? A non-return of a card is a fully concious decision. It doesnt matter if there ar 17 N/R'd holes and a par on there, you put the card in.

1 Strike then full sanction would be my route of travel. The reason for this is because when it is done the first time, the miscreant would be given a full picture of thier actions and the message that another transgression will result in a ban/flogging/end of membership/defenistration/burning at the stake etc....
 

rulie

Head Pro
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,129
Penalty score is usually enough to deter offenders, once they realise what it does to their Index. The guidance document states:

A score equivalent to the current Handicap Index should be submitted to the WHS Platform (i.e. an Adjusted Gross Score which would be equivalent to the Course Rating + Course Handicap).

For particularly naughty girls and boys, it goes on to state this:

Possible attempt to keep handicap low
A score equivalent to the Adjusted Gross Score of the highest return in the last 20 scores should be submitted to the WHS Platform.

Possible attempt to build a handicap
A score equivalent to the Adjusted Gross Score of the lowest return in the last 20 scores should be submitted to the WHS Platform.
I think it would be more appropriate to post a score equivalent to the highest/lowest score of the 8 scores that determine their handicap index rather than the highest/lowest of the last 20.
 
Top