Reductions Only

[Region3]

I played in a competition yesterday, the the CSS was 74 (RO).

I thought that the CSS had to go up 3 before RO could be applied, but our scorecard says SSS from the tees we played from is 72.

Is it possible for CSS to be +2 and RO?

It's all worked out by computer so I'm guessing the software can't do it wrong.

If it helps to see it, it's here.... http://www.masterscoreboard.co.uk/results/CompetitionResult.php?&CWID=1120&Competition=4696

Thanks

 

[Twire]

I was under the same impression as you. I thought the CSS can only go down 1 from SSS and up by 3 Anything above that was reductions only

 

[FairwayDodger]

It's all worked out by computer so I'm guessing the software can't do it wrong.

Oh you naive fool!

:lol:

 

[Region3]

Oh you naive fool!

:lol:

Maybe so, but as far as I know it's a fairly popular software package, and I'd like to think that somebody would've noticed by now if it weren't playing by the rules.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Maybe so, but as far as I know it's a fairly popular software package, and I'd like to think that somebody would've noticed by now if it weren't playing by the rules.

Yeah, only joking. More in respect of software in general than this particular package. (Speaking as a software developer!)

 

[rosecott]

Maybe so, but as far as I know it's a fairly popular software package, and I'd like to think that somebody would've noticed by now if it weren't playing by the rules.

Handicapmaster not only plays by the rules, it helped create most of them. No, 74 (RO) is not possible from SSS 72. I notice that SSS is 70 from your yellow tees so it is not possible from them either. Has your course been re-assessed recently for SSS? That's all I can think of, that SSS has been re-assessed but the scorecard doesn't reflect the change.

Just had a look at the results. A quick tally shows only 3 out of the 35 Cat 1/2/3 players reached buffer. A rough calculation would put CSS as 75 and not Reductions only.

 

[pbrown7582]

is a large number of NR a cause for RO?

 

[rosecott]

Sorry was too late in trying to do another edit. I miscounted and there were only 2 in buffer which gives 5.7% which is on the margin of Reductions Only - roughly 6% and below becomes Reduction Only.

 

[rosecott]

is a large number of NR a cause for RO?

Assuming that none of the NRs had stableford reductions which brought them into buffer, their scores count the same as all the others who failed to make buffer.

 

[Region3]

Sorry was too late in trying to do another edit. I miscounted and there were only 2 in buffer which gives 5.7% which is on the margin of Reductions Only - roughly 6% and below becomes Reduction Only.

Thanks.

So assuming the software can't make a mistake (hopefully), you think the only explanation is that we've had the SSS reassessed to 71?

I will ask at the weekend.

 

[rosecott]

Thanks.

So assuming the software can't make a mistake (hopefully), you think the only explanation is that we've had the SSS reassessed to 71?

I will ask at the weekend.

Unless! If there has been no re-assessment, then whoever has responsibilty for your handicaps needs to contact Handicapmaster support (which, by the way, is excellent and very quick to respond) to ask why it shows 74 (RO). I have done your CSS calculation from the published results and it is 75 (RO) which should mean 0.2 shaved off your handicap - not quite enough for Cat 1.

 

[duncan mackie]

Thanks.

So assuming the software can't make a mistake (hopefully), you think the only explanation is that we've had the SSS reassessed to 71?

I will ask at the weekend.

done the same sums and come to the same conclusion - it could have been SSS+3 or SSS+3/RO it's right on the margin of % roundings etc. it can't be SSS+2/RO

 

[Region3]

Thanks both for taking the trouble to do the calculations.

Something is afoot :mmm:

 

[Region3]

Solved... Our SSS from the white tees has recently been changed to 71.

Bad news for getting cut, but I guess the CSS has as much chance of going up to 72 now as it did of going down to 71 before.

 

[Stub]

I wish I understood this thread.