Player Penalties for repeat Non Return of Cards

[rulefan]

Which is all well and good but this requires the handicap committee to now be a team of Sherlock Holmes sleuths trying to deduce someones intent. I am at a loss as to how to find out someones intent. I guess that one option is to ask the person what was scored and get confirmation from the playing partners (who may well be colluding if someone is doing either of the first activities). It all starts falling into the "hard and difficult bucket" that tends to then get ignored and that's not right either.

How would any of the situations be handled under the CONGU UHS?

 

[Foxholer]

I think you may be overlooking that the CONGU guidance is to match the penalty to whether the player is innocently remiss, trying to build a higher handicap or trying to maintain an artificially low handicap. It isn't a one solution fits all matter. This is what a committee can do (the bits in blue are my own comments, not something actually said in the guidance document):

A score equivalent to the highest return in the last 20 can be assigned to a player who is perceived to be trying to keep his handicap too low. He has avoided returning a high score and so cops a high score as the penalty.

A score equivalent to the lowest return in the last 20 can be assigned to a player who is perceived to be trying to build his handicap. He has avoided returning a low score that would keep his handicap down and so cops a low score as the penalty.

A score equivalent to the player's current Handicap Index can be assigned to a player who is forgetful, didn't realise he had to return a card when he hadn't completed all the holes for some reason or other - in short has no ulterior motive. He gets a "neutral score" which isn't really a penalty but maintains the turnover of the last 20 as would have been the result of his returning the score in the first place.

It all seems well worked out to give committees a response to each different situation.

Indeed, I saw that in a doc at about 7:30 am and thought I'd posted it. Apparently not!

 

[Foxholer]

How would any of the situations be handled under the CONGU UHS?

All +0.1, I believe. At least initially. No biggie for the simply forgetful, ineffective and flag-raising for the bandit (though sanctions were available). N/A/Self defeating/lesson for the guy hoping to go lower.

 

[Colin L]

Which is all well and good but this requires the handicap committee to now be a team of Sherlock Holmes sleuths trying to deduce someones intent. I am at a loss as to how to find out someones intent. I guess that one option is to ask the person what was scored and get confirmation from the playing partners (who may well be colluding if someone is doing either of the first activities). It all starts falling into the "hard and difficult bucket" that tends to then get ignored and that's not right either.

There’s nothing new in looking to a handicap committee to monitor and act on dodgy practices.

 

[rulefan]

All +0.1, I believe. At least initially. No biggie for the simply forgetful, ineffective and flag-raising for the bandit (though sanctions were available). N/A/Self defeating/lesson for the guy hoping to go lower.

So much the same. Committee monitoring.

 

[Foxholer]

So much the same. Committee monitoring.

Er...Automatic!
No real need for committee monitoring, except for the usual...Bandits.

 

[yandabrown]

There’s nothing new in looking to a handicap committee to monitor and act on dodgy practices.

Not new to golf, new to me on the committee though I didn't mean to imply that this was new due to WHS, I think that the options are merely different in WHS but just as hard to detect intent. What do others do in this area?

 

[rulefan]

Er...Automatic!
No real need for committee monitoring, except for the usual...Bandits.

That's what I meant. Committees had then and now have to look out for bandits and vanity cappers.

 

[jim8flog]

Just a reminder of the Rules of Handicapping

The committee are expected to do their best to ascertain the actual score and input that.

Apart from that it is really up to the club to set up some sort of disciplinary procedure especially for repeat 'offenders' . We have gone as far as temporary suspension of handicap with one repeat offender.