Please list all the things you do when dealing with comp cards and scores

[doublebogey7]

Interested in this, I can only find references to the requirement to completing score cards in the Rules of Golf and nothing on electronic score cards for competitions.
Any info appreciated.

Try the definition of Scorecard

"The scorecard may be in any paper or electronic form approved by the Committee"

 

[doublebogey7]

Same thing

Definition of Scorecard Includes "The scorecard may be in any paper or electronic form approved by the Committee".

 

[Colin L]

1. Ignore the rubbish about electronic scoring only. There is absolutely no trail for checking accuracy of entries if physical scorecards are not used.

I don't get that. With physical cards you have a pile of cards showing gross scores for 18 holes. With electronic cards, you have a pile of images on a computer showing the gross scores for 18 holes. What's the difference?

2. Use the scorecards to check ALL GROSS SCORES ON ALL CARDS, not just the top 5 or so, have been entered correctly on the electronic system. Many mistakes are made, and the important thing for all golfers is that the score sent to WHS is correct.

That is extraordinarily conscientious but how many are willing to spend the hours required for doing this. If you quantify the mistakes made and then evaluate the impact they make on the handicap indexes of the players concerned, is it actually worth the time and effort?

3. If the player has at least one of the HI, CH or PH correct, then I would deem it acceptable. Most people on here will hate this advice, btw.

And so they should, as has already been pointed out. With an electronic scorecard, there is no problem as the system will have generated the correct course handicap. No DQs.

4. Be prepared for detective work using the start sheet, Handicap Indexes and sign in times to determine who's card is in your hand if it doesn't have a name. It happens more often than you would think, and this fault alone is not a DQ, as stated above.

With an electronic scorecard, no-one's score can be nameless.

 

[IanMcC]

I don't get that. With physical cards you have a pile of cards showing gross scores for 18 holes. With electronic cards, you have a pile of images on a computer showing the gross scores for 18 holes. What's the difference?


That is extraordinarily conscientious but how many are willing to spend the hours required for doing this. If you quantify the mistakes made and then evaluate the impact they make on the handicap indexes of the players concerned, is it actually worth the time and effort?


And so they should, as has already been pointed out. With an electronic scorecard, there is no problem as the system will have generated the correct course handicap. No DQs.


With an electronic scorecard, no-one's score can be nameless.

1. If you dont get it, then you are a bit silly. With electronic only, you get what you get. With scorecard backup, you can correct mistakes. Are you a M&H Secretary? If you are, obviously all of your members are perfect, and don't make any mistakes.....
2. I am, and so should anyone else that takes the role on. 3 comps a week. Averaging 100, 60 and 40 entries. Total time 4 hours, I reckon. leaves plenty of time for other M&H matters. Every mistake makes an impact, and all should be avoided if possible.
3. Your point emphasises how daft the Rule is. I have warned all of my members what is required for Open comps et cetera, but if they make a stab at getting it right, who am I to DQ them for getting an integer wrong if they missed a change in HI?
4. True, but no one's score can be checked either, but the Attester can often be nameless, as has been proved on the systems in England and Wales at least.

If I was a golfer, I would rather have me as M&H secretary than you any day of the week, with greatest respect.

 

[doublebogey7]

1. If you dont get it, then you are a bit silly. With electronic only, you get what you get. With scorecard backup, you can correct mistakes. Are you a M&H Secretary? If you are, obviously all of your members are perfect, and don't make any mistakes.....
2. I am, and so should anyone else that takes the role on. 3 comps a week. Averaging 100, 60 and 40 entries. Total time 4 hours, I reckon. leaves plenty of time for other M&H matters. Every mistake makes an impact, and all should be avoided if possible.
3. Your point emphasises how daft the Rule is. I have warned all of my members what is required for Open comps et cetera, but if they make a stab at getting it right, who am I to DQ them for getting an integer wrong if they missed a change in HI?
4. True, but no one's score can be checked either, but the Attester can often be nameless, as has been proved on the systems in England and Wales at least.

If I was a golfer, I would rather have me as M&H secretary than you any day of the week, with greatest respect.

1. With no Electronic entry there is no "backup". That's how it worked for over a century so I'm not sure why we need a "backup" now.
2. Most clubs would struggle to find a volunteer to carry out such a role if it meant spending over 12 hours a week on such work.
3. You are the arbiter not the rule maker. What other rule infringements do you overlook
4. See 1

I am a golfer and I'd rather have a Handicap Secretary who followed the RR&A/USGA rulkes of Golf than made up their own rules, but each to their own.

 

[wjemather]

4. True, but no one's score can be checked either, but the Attester can often be nameless, as has been proved on the systems in England and Wales at least.

There is a clear issue here, in that some (perhaps many) clubs have been using ISV apps (HDID, IG, etc.) as an electronic scorecard even though they did not provide the necessary functionality (per the rules) to serve such a purpose.

Further, even though apps may now meet the rules requirements, some clubs are continuing to use them as before, i.e. without enabling/requiring the enhanced functions.

 

[IanMcC]

[QUOTE

I am a golfer and I'd rather have a Handicap Secretary who followed the RR&A/USGA rulkes of Golf than made up their own rules, but each to their own.[/QUOTE]

In the second to last comp I administered, someone typed 1 instead of 4 into the PSI. In the third but last comp I administered, someone typed 7 instead of 4.
In 2 instances this season already, someone has entered their Stableford scores instead of gross scores.

As a self pronounced 'golfer', would you truly want your mistake to go through to the officiating body, or would you want your M&H person to correct it?

 

[Colin L]

1. If you dont get it, then you are a bit silly. With electronic only, you get what you get. With scorecard backup, you can correct mistakes. Are you a M&H Secretary? If you are, obviously all of your members are perfect, and don't make any mistakes.....
2. I am, and so should anyone else that takes the role on. 3 comps a week. Averaging 100, 60 and 40 entries. Total time 4 hours, I reckon. leaves plenty of time for other M&H matters. Every mistake makes an impact, and all should be avoided if possible.
3. Your point emphasises how daft the Rule is. I have warned all of my members what is required for Open comps et cetera, but if they make a stab at getting it right, who am I to DQ them for getting an integer wrong if they missed a change in HI?
4. True, but no one's score can be checked either, but the Attester can often be nameless, as has been proved on the systems in England and Wales at least.

If I was a golfer, I would rather have me as M&H secretary than you any day of the week, with greatest respect.

There is an continuing element of personal insult in what you say that's not needed. I'd appreciate your avoiding it.

With a paper scorecard, you get what you want for a stroke play competition: a certified record of each player's course handicap and gross score per hole which is all that is required from the player.
With an electronic scorecard, you get what you want for a stroke play competition: a certified record of each player's course handicap and gross score per hole which is all that is required from the player.

Whichever method is chosen, the Committee has the responsibility to total each score, apply the player's handicap and sort out all the scores into an order of merit. The difference is that with an electronic scorecard, the Committee discharges that responsibility by computer.and by so doing reduces not only its workload but the possibility of mistakes. With an electronic card, the only possible mistake in the entire process of returning scores and determining winners is that a wrong score for a hole is recorded. That is most likely to be a mistake in counting the number of strokes for a hole that goes unnoticed by the marker. If an error is made in inputting the score for a hole, the likelihood is that this will be picked up when player and marker check the scores at the end of the round. It is no different from pencilling the wrong number on to a card. Whether a paper or an electronic scorecard is used, there is nothing within the rules that can give a Committee a complete and reliable way of checking that hole by hole gross scores are correct.

All of that has to do with competition results, of course. Returning scores tot he CDH for handicapping purposes is a separate matter. The gain with an electronic scorecard is that scores are inputted once only. What you put down as your score for the competition is simultaneously the score you put in for your handicap. The opportunity for human error is reduced snd there is nothing for the Committee to spend hours checking.

If a Committee wanst to continue with paper cards, so be it. But I do think it is denying itself the opportunity to make life much easier for itself and the players it serves plus an opportunity to minimise the potential for error by letting machines do the work from the outset. I may be an old fart, but I embrace technological advances that make life easier and better. My fellow members are far from perfect, but by and large they seem to be embracing them too.

(By the way, I do know a thing or two about the WHS and the Rules of Golf.)

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

In the second to last comp I administered, someone typed 1 instead of 4 into the PSI. In the third but last comp I administered, someone typed 7 instead of 4.
In 2 instances this season already, someone has entered their Stableford scores instead of gross scores.

As a self pronounced 'golfer', would you truly want your mistake to go through to the officiating body, or would you want your M&H person to correct it?

I recently created an incorrect electronic scorecard as I made a mistake entering a score and connectivity issues meant that although I thought I’d corrected my mistake I hadn’t. But as we now are back to having to submit a signed physical card as well as being requested (not required) to submit electronic input i was advised that the physical card took precedence irrespective of what I had entered electronically.

Our Golf Manager said he checked all physical cards and that the electronic record was a useful backup and saves him time entering scores for WHS purposes. If he spotted an error in an electronic card he’d correct it but he might not do so in time for an incorrect HI generated overnight meaning a player might have the wrong CH and hence use a wrong PH. It is the responsibility of the player to check that changes to his CH as a result of a round are as he would expect (No change from previous times).

I note also that we are currently being asked to record out start and end times to monitor round times and as a means of keeping us mindful of our speed of play…our IG is not set up for us to record an end time electronically.

 

[DickInShorts]

For all its faults the Scottish Golf app (VMS) doesn’t allow you to finalise ( sign) your card unless the scores input by your marker agree with those input by you. We get a highlighted (in pink!) number which needs to be resolved before your score can be returned.

Hence the talk about validation and certification and backups is obsolete for clubs using this app.

I recall HDID app also required similar but was turned off by clubs during the pandemic( it was at Moray)

 

[wjemather]

For all its faults the Scottish Golf app (VMS) doesn’t allow you to finalise ( sign) your card unless the scores input by your marker agree with those input by you. We get a highlighted (in pink!) number which needs to be resolved before your score can be returned.

Hence the talk about validation and certification and backups is obsolete for clubs using this app.

I recall HDID app also required similar but was turned off by clubs during the pandemic( it was at Moray)

HDID did not have this functionality until it was upgraded just a few months ago. It also needs to be enabled on the back end in ClubV1 otherwise it remains a simple score entry system and in this configuration it cannot reasonably be considered an electronic scorecard.

 

[doublebogey7]

[QUOTE

I am a golfer and I'd rather have a Handicap Secretary who followed the RR&A/USGA rulkes of Golf than made up their own rules, but each to their own.

In the second to last comp I administered, someone typed 1 instead of 4 into the PSI. In the third but last comp I administered, someone typed 7 instead of 4.
In 2 instances this season already, someone has entered their Stableford scores instead of gross scores.

As a self pronounced 'golfer', would you truly want your mistake to go through to the officiating body, or would you want your M&H person to correct it?[/QUOTE]

I'd want to take responsibility for my own errors

 

[apj0524]

There is an continuing element of personal insult in what you say that's not needed. I'd appreciate your avoiding it.

With a paper scorecard, you get what you want for a stroke play competition: a certified record of each player's course handicap and gross score per hole which is all that is required from the player.
With an electronic scorecard, you get what you want for a stroke play competition: a certified record of each player's course handicap and gross score per hole which is all that is required from the player.

Whichever method is chosen, the Committee has the responsibility to total each score, apply the player's handicap and sort out all the scores into an order of merit. The difference is that with an electronic scorecard, the Committee discharges that responsibility by computer.and by so doing reduces not only its workload but the possibility of mistakes. With an electronic card, the only possible mistake in the entire process of returning scores and determining winners is that a wrong score for a hole is recorded. That is most likely to be a mistake in counting the number of strokes for a hole that goes unnoticed by the marker. If an error is made in inputting the score for a hole, the likelihood is that this will be picked up when player and marker check the scores at the end of the round. It is no different from pencilling the wrong number on to a card. Whether a paper or an electronic scorecard is used, there is nothing within the rules that can give a Committee a complete and reliable way of checking that hole by hole gross scores are correct.

All of that has to do with competition results, of course. Returning scores tot he CDH for handicapping purposes is a separate matter. The gain with an electronic scorecard is that scores are inputted once only. What you put down as your score for the competition is simultaneously the score you put in for your handicap. The opportunity for human error is reduced snd there is nothing for the Committee to spend hours checking.

If a Committee wanst to continue with paper cards, so be it. But I do think it is denying itself the opportunity to make life much easier for itself and the players it serves plus an opportunity to minimise the potential for error by letting machines do the work from the outset. I may be an old fart, but I embrace technological advances that make life easier and better. My fellow members are far from perfect, but by and large they seem to be embracing them too.

(By the way, I do know a thing or two about the WHS and the Rules of Golf.)

I would like to 100% uses the IG App for score cards but despite working with the membership of 100 entries only about 30% have adopted this option because of the demographic of the membership, plus the network signal is iffy in some areas of the course so so it seems we will continue cards for while with scores entered after the round using the App or vis the PSI Terminal.

 

[Colin L]

In the second to last comp I administered, someone typed 1 instead of 4 into the PSI. In the third but last comp I administered, someone typed 7 instead of 4.
In 2 instances this season already, someone has entered their Stableford scores instead of gross scores.

As a self pronounced 'golfer', would you truly want your mistake to go through to the officiating body, or would you want your M&H person to correct it

I'd want to take responsibility for my own errors

Your score would already be in your CDH record by the time the error was noticed and it would be down to your M&H person to correct it subsequently in the CDH - which is easy enough, if tedious, to do.

 

[Swango1980]

There is an continuing element of personal insult in what you say that's not needed. I'd appreciate your avoiding it.

With a paper scorecard, you get what you want for a stroke play competition: a certified record of each player's course handicap and gross score per hole which is all that is required from the player.
With an electronic scorecard, you get what you want for a stroke play competition: a certified record of each player's course handicap and gross score per hole which is all that is required from the player.

Whichever method is chosen, the Committee has the responsibility to total each score, apply the player's handicap and sort out all the scores into an order of merit. The difference is that with an electronic scorecard, the Committee discharges that responsibility by computer.and by so doing reduces not only its workload but the possibility of mistakes. With an electronic card, the only possible mistake in the entire process of returning scores and determining winners is that a wrong score for a hole is recorded. That is most likely to be a mistake in counting the number of strokes for a hole that goes unnoticed by the marker. If an error is made in inputting the score for a hole, the likelihood is that this will be picked up when player and marker check the scores at the end of the round. It is no different from pencilling the wrong number on to a card. Whether a paper or an electronic scorecard is used, there is nothing within the rules that can give a Committee a complete and reliable way of checking that hole by hole gross scores are correct.

All of that has to do with competition results, of course. Returning scores tot he CDH for handicapping purposes is a separate matter. The gain with an electronic scorecard is that scores are inputted once only. What you put down as your score for the competition is simultaneously the score you put in for your handicap. The opportunity for human error is reduced snd there is nothing for the Committee to spend hours checking.

If a Committee wanst to continue with paper cards, so be it. But I do think it is denying itself the opportunity to make life much easier for itself and the players it serves plus an opportunity to minimise the potential for error by letting machines do the work from the outset. I may be an old fart, but I embrace technological advances that make life easier and better. My fellow members are far from perfect, but by and large they seem to be embracing them too.

(By the way, I do know a thing or two about the WHS and the Rules of Golf.)

I have to disagree with this part. Over the years, pre and post WHS, I have seen many many occasions where a player has input the wrong score on the PSI or howdidido, and they clearly do not catch on with the mistake when they see the total. Classic cases are when a player has entered a 1 on a par 5 or something daft (probably was a 10+), or they end up with 90 points because they typed in their Stableford points rather than gross scores. However, most are a lot more subtle, where they are flying through each hole and maybe accidentally skip a hole, or repeat some holes when they lose themselves when looking back and forth from the physical to the electronic score.

It is definitely different to writing scores on a physical scorecard. Players do this after each hole, so simply fill the next box (i.e. not quickly typing in 18 scores in one go). They also have to make a physical effort to write a number. If a player scores a 5, it is difficult for a player to write anything other than a 5, as writing a 3, 4, 6, etc is a conscious effort. Whereas, on a computer it is a case of tapping a number or an arrow button to select a score, and a mistake can be made if a player has fat fingers or the screen does not register their input.

Finally, whether players need to do it or not, in virtually every case I've ever played, after 9 and 18 holes players tend to confirm gross scores or stableford points with each other. Many disagreements have occurred, sometimes as people added wrong, others because a player entered a wrong score. Either way, once it is all sorted, there is a pretty good chance any mistakes have been rectified. With electronic scoring, I think there is a habit of players not bothering anymore, and just assuming the computer will get it right. Of course, this falls apart if they accidentally typed a wrong score, and I doubt their marker will be sitting at home when the results are published, see the players score is wrong and phone the club.

 

[Swango1980]

How was it missing? One person marked a card for the whole group, others could if they wanted to but it never happened. At the end of each round the marker would tell people their scores, they go, okay, thumbs up, whatever, job done. If anyone disagreed with a score then they could go to the manager and explain the disagreement but I'm not aware that ever happened. So, score entered, player agrees with score entered ?‍.

It's back to psi plus card now, it did months ago when cards came back into play, but the system worked effortlessly during that time.

Who marked the markers score?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Who marked the markers score?

No one . We are an honest bunch

Remember, this was just during covid when cards were not swapped etc. There were no scoring oddities during this time, I would expect if there were then those people and groups would have been monitored a little closer.

 

[jim8flog]

[QUOTE


In 2 instances this season already, someone has entered their Stableford scores instead of gross scores.

This a 'fault' which clearly shows up in the results as players who do this are shown as the winner in most cases so is very easy to spot and and correct. So if you are only checking the top 5 cards in each division with 3 'winners' you would be checking this card anyway.

The person who checks the cards where I play is the General Manager and I know he does not have the time to check all 100 or so cards for correctness of score on card v PSI or IG app in Saturday comps.

As guideline when it come to general play cards (to which a similar process could be applied) we were advised by our county to only bother checking the cards on the basis of random sampling and not to bother checking every single card.

 

[Swango1980]

No one . We are an honest bunch

Remember, this was just during covid when cards were not swapped etc. There were no scoring oddities during this time, I would expect if there were then those people and groups would have been monitored a little closer.

It's not so much about being honest (a little bit, but I'd like to think most golfers would say they play with honest people), it is more to do with human errors. Unless your golf club membership is restricted to robot golfers, mistakes can be made.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

It's not so much about being honest (a little bit, but I'd like to think most golfers would say they play with honest people), it is more to do with human errors. Unless your golf club membership is restricted to robot golfers, mistakes can be made.

Obviously this would not be the case now. It was when golf was opening up again, everything was more relaxed, we were all just grateful to be playing again. If the marker kept winning I am sure people would have taken a keener interest in their scoring.