Supplementary card from away course and who can mark it?

[mikejohnchapman]

1) Cheats will always cheat
2) Markers who allow players to cheat are cheats
3) The major difference from the US is that clubs can control who are acceptable markers.
4) Soft and Hard Caps have been introduced to inter alia help identify cheats
5) There will be more reporting facilities available to h'cap secs to enable them to nip such cheating in the bud.
6) 'Peer Review' means there will be greater access to playing records. Although what that means in practice is not yet clear.
7) I'm not as pessimistic as some

Not sure if a Handicap Secretary gets any discretion between a soft and hard cap to surpress and further increases. Obviously the first "low" score the player makes it will reset the anchor point so the caps will readjust.

When we go to 4BBB (which is inevitable) at least all these events will be swept into the system as Acceptable Rounds under the competition conditions.

 

[Colin L]

Patrick
Your "manipulator" did not get where he is without the "help" of others, mainly it would seem passive help by lack of action on the part of your Handicap Committee which should take non-qualifying scores and results into account. He should have been included in the Annual Review at this time of year. It is quite ridiculous that a player has been allowed to increase his handicap over 60 rounds while there is evidence of a disconnect between his qualifying scores and what he actually does out there in other competitions and social play. The Continuous Review triggers a report after 7 consecutive 0.1 increases (which could be without even an increase in playing handicap) mainly to speed adjustments up for players who are declining faster than the system can deal with but it's also an opportunity to detect and act on the would be sandbagger.

There should be at least three club members on the Handicap Committee and in my view each of them should be leaving consideration of and decisions on his own handicap to the other two.

I am also optimistic about the new system and welcome the introduction of averaging and of slope rating so that we get an appropriate number of strokes for the course we are actually playing. But I'm not naive enough to think it can prevent manipulation by the determined. The system can't deal with them; it's down to other people to do so.

 

[Swango1980]

Patrick
Your "manipulator" did not get where he is without the "help" of others, mainly it would seem passive help by lack of action on the part of your Handicap Committee which should take non-qualifying scores and results into account. He should have been included in the Annual Review at this time of year. It is quite ridiculous that a player has been allowed to increase his handicap over 60 rounds while there is evidence of a disconnect between his qualifying scores and what he actually does out there in other competitions and social play. The Continuous Review triggers a report after 7 consecutive 0.1 increases (which could be without even an increase in playing handicap) mainly to speed adjustments up for players who are declining faster than the system can deal with but it's also an opportunity to detect and act on the would be sandbagger.

There should be at least three club members on the Handicap Committee and in my view each of them should be leaving consideration of and decisions on his own handicap to the other two.

I am also optimistic about the new system and welcome the introduction of averaging and of slope rating so that we get an appropriate number of strokes for the course we are actually playing. But I'm not naive enough to think it can prevent manipulation by the determined. The system can't deal with them; it's down to other people to do so.

I agree with you on first point, it seems odd that such a player has done so well in some comps and yet kept a much higher handicap. It certainly appears there should be enough evidence to reduce that players handicap. If handicap committees don't see that evidence themselves, it is worrying how they may act if the WHS could potentially accelerate such "cheating" by a player (or manipulation to be more politically correct).

Regarding the highlighted point, I wonder how this will be perceived by golfers once it is in place. Because, of course, nobody gets more shots based on the difficulty of the course. They only get more (or less) shots relative to lower (or higher) handicappers on courses that are considered "relatively" more difficult. So, courses may be "relatively" easier (lower slope), yet have higher CR and BR relative to par compared to another course. So, it is "relatively" easier (as the difference between CR and BR is less), but "absolutely" harder (because the absolute values of CR and BR are higher).

So, potentially you may be right, in that the WHS system will be fairer in dealing with the relative difficulty between players (as the current system does not deal with that). But, I honestly don't think golfers in general think that that is how it is going to work, they purely expect that they will get a load more shots at absolutely harder courses (with higher SSS values currently), regardless of whether the are a low or high handicapper. This seems to be the view of 100% of golfers at my club that I have ever asked, and they struggle to get their head around the fact that, for example a 0 handicapper will be of 0 regardless of the course. Golfers simply seem to believe Slope purely indicates absolute difficulty, and we have seen even in this forum where golfers seemed surprised when a golf course they thought was difficult (and is difficult, with a high SSS) has a lower or similar Slope to a course they know is a lot easier according to SSS.

This is the reason I am surprised that, when calculating Course Handicap, a final piece wasn't added where you add (CR-Par) (i.e. Course Handicap = (Index x Slope / 113) + (CR-Par) ). That surely would have tackled this potential confusion amongst golfers. I guess there is a good reason why this might not have been done, but if it is done in USA (so I hear), then seems strange it cannot be done here.

 

[patricks148]

Patrick
Your "manipulator" did not get where he is without the "help" of others, mainly it would seem passive help by lack of action on the part of your Handicap Committee which should take non-qualifying scores and results into account. He should have been included in the Annual Review at this time of year. It is quite ridiculous that a player has been allowed to increase his handicap over 60 rounds while there is evidence of a disconnect between his qualifying scores and what he actually does out there in other competitions and social play. The Continuous Review triggers a report after 7 consecutive 0.1 increases (which could be without even an increase in playing handicap) mainly to speed adjustments up for players who are declining faster than the system can deal with but it's also an opportunity to detect and act on the would be sandbagger.

There should be at least three club members on the Handicap Committee and in my view each of them should be leaving consideration of and decisions on his own handicap to the other two.

I am also optimistic about the new system and welcome the introduction of averaging and of slope rating so that we get an appropriate number of strokes for the course we are actually playing. But I'm not naive enough to think it can prevent manipulation by the determined. The system can't deal with them; it's down to other people to do so.

its not my club as such, i only rejoined last year... so not really seen him though most know of him and complain esp those who play the Winter Allience . the club is a small poor council course that has struggled for years getting people to be involved in running the club and the prev handicap sec have lacked the knowledge to do anything about it TBH. i think a few were hoping the new layout (they moved to a new course last year) will be a leveler as the old was 6000 ish the new is 6600, but he still did rather well in the MP comps
When i was a member some 10 plus years ago i played with him in a couple of drawn comps when he was off 5, steady would be how i would describe, him, he has 3 or 4 reg partners who are quite happy to turn a blind eye as its them that play with him in all the TS and Allience, a few others have refused to play with him... or so i'm told.

lets put it this way nothing is going to happen about it for the next 2 years thats for sure

 

[Old Skier]

One particular handicap manipulator up here has over the years won multiple winter league rounds to the extent he is off 5 in that now (his handicap is 13) Texas scrambles a MP games in the club he’s a member at no one will now play him in a handicap knock out ( he was off 5) now. The winter league Net comp is already in the bag for him with some gross scores that I would be happy with..



Many have tried to do something about it, but how can you prove they manipulate the system, it took him 60 ish rounds to get where he wanted to be, the new system will be far less.



Guess who the handicap sec is at that club this year at his club

We had a well known guy down in Devon and County and EG have sorted him using proper documented procedures. Just takes the relevant people to act and not just sit on their hands.

 

[patricks148]

We had a well known guy down in Devon and County and EG have sorted him using proper documented procedures. Just takes the relevant people to act and not just sit on their hands.

unfortunately Scottish Golf is a whole different beast to the EGU and the County System as such, i'm not sure we even have any sort of county structure up here (highlands) but could be wrong. no one will bedoing anything about it for the next two years anyway... he's M&H sec for that club this year.

The organisers of the Allience stepped up after he won the handicap of that 3 or 4 times running and was pocketing the prize money every week in that. i think a load of guys stopped playing for that reason so something had to be done.

I'm playing in the MP comp there this year and i don't fancy giving him 8 shots

 

[rulefan]

Not sure if a Handicap Secretary gets any discretion between a soft and hard cap to surpress and further increases. Obviously the first "low" score the player makes it will reset the anchor point so the caps will readjust.

When we go to 4BBB (which is inevitable) at least all these events will be swept into the system as Acceptable Rounds under the competition conditions.

EG currently require entrants to open 4BBB and AM/AM comps to return their scores to their home club. There isn't (and won't be) any restriction on a club to require members to return all scores from any form of competitive golf. These can easily be held in the system as a review tool. Handicap committees are required to take any relevant information into account. Including 'Any scores from or performances known in non-authorized formats of play''. Further, the committee may freeze a Handicap Index for a defined period of time.

 

[Old Skier]

EG currently require entrants to open 4BBB and AM/AM comps to return their scores to their home club. There isn't (and won't be) any restriction on a club to require members to return all scores from any form of competitive golf. These can easily be held in the system as a review tool. Handicap committees are required to take any relevant information into account. Including 'Any scores from or performances known in non-authorized formats of play''. Further, the committee may freeze a Handicap Index for a defined period of time.

Could someone in the know clear up how BB will be used in the WHS or will it be th e same as now where cards are used for review purposes only?

 

[doublebogey7]

Could someone in the know clear up how BB will be used in the WHS or will it be th e same as now where cards are used for review purposes only?

Certainly that will be the case in the short term, though I feel that it want be long before they become qualifying competitions.

 

[rulefan]

Initially it will not be 'An Authorized Format of Play' for handicap purposes but likely to become so in a couple of years or so after transition.

 

[patricks148]

this treatd springs to mind someone on here who was allowed to put in a load of bounce game cards to get cat1 handicap... so must be a common thing

 

[Swango1980]

this treatd springs to mind someone on here who was allowed to put in a load of bounce game cards to get cat1 handicap... so must be a common thing

The authorities might well leave the problem in the hands of the club handicap committees to deal with potential bandits. But, I bet things may get a bit more uncomfortable for them if players get down to a mega low handicap and have an impact at county level golf.

A guy at a club down the road never played on comps, and every now and then submitted great cards from social rounds. Got his handicap down to 5. If he could, he'd have continued until he got closer to scratch. No offence to him, he'd have been a dangerous 12 handicapper, but bo where near as good as any other 5 handicapper I know or played against.

 

[patricks148]

The authorities might well leave the problem in the hands of the club handicap committees to deal with potential bandits. But, I bet things may get a bit more uncomfortable for them if players get down to a mega low handicap and have an impact at county level golf.

A guy at a club down the road never played on comps, and every now and then submitted great cards from social rounds. Got his handicap down to 5. If he could, he'd have continued until he got closer to scratch. No offence to him, he'd have been a dangerous 12 handicapper, but bo where near as good as any other 5 handicapper I know or played against.

The authorities might well leave the problem in the hands of the club handicap committees to deal with potential bandits. But, I bet things may get a bit more uncomfortable for them if players get down to a mega low handicap and have an impact at county level golf.

A guy at a club down the road never played on comps, and every now and then submitted great cards from social rounds. Got his handicap down to 5. If he could, he'd have continued until he got closer to scratch. No offence to him, he'd have been a dangerous 12 handicapper, but bo where near as good as any other 5 handicapper I know or played against.

in the scheme of things 5 isn;t low... we have 20 plus players below scratch, at 5 for me you are the high handicaps of the cat 1's, a plus handicap won't even get you in the scratch team

 

[Swango1980]

in the scheme of things 5 isn;t low... we have 20 plus players below scratch, at 5 for me you are the high handicaps of the cat 1's, a plus handicap won't even get you in the scratch team

Yes, but once you get to 5, you can't submit endless supplementary cards to get lower. But, under WHS, that wont be the case. There was no way this guy would ever get lower than 5 once he had to do it in a comp

 

[patricks148]

Yes, but once you get to 5, you can't submit endless supplementary cards to get lower. But, under WHS, that wont be the case. There was no way this guy would ever get lower than 5 once he had to do it in a comp

FYI ..... he didn't

 

[DickInShorts]

unfortunately Scottish Golf is a whole different beast to the EGU and the County System as such, i'm not sure we even have any sort of county structure up here (highlands) but could be wrong. no one will bedoing anything about it for the next two years anyway... he's M&H sec for that club this year.

The organisers of the Allience stepped up after he won the handicap of that 3 or 4 times running and was pocketing the prize money every week in that. i think a load of guys stopped playing for that reason so something had to be done.

I'm playing in the MP comp there this year and i don't fancy giving him 8 shots

you’ll have SGU North as the equivalent of an English County - my e Petrie de of NE a few years ago was dire - one of them told me I could increase my handicap by 0.1 before the comp results - and CSS - were published.
in the NE Alliance we have handicap cuts as follows:
After 5 prizes ( top 5 in 3 divisions - 1 shot cut - after further 3 prizes another shot - then after every prize mother shot.
This seems to slow down anyone with a “high” handicap

 

[patricks148]

you’ll have SGU North as the equivalent of an English County - my e Petrie de of NE a few years ago was dire - one of them told me I could increase my handicap by 0.1 before the comp results - and CSS - were published.
in the NE Alliance we have handicap cuts as follows:
After 5 prizes ( top 5 in 3 divisions - 1 shot cut - after further 3 prizes another shot - then after every prize mother shot.
This seems to slow down anyone with a “high” handicap

i don't play in the Allince myself as Nairn opted out of it, but know they are Non Qual, personally some of the places they go and what the weather is like most of the time is what puts me off

 

[Jacko_G]

1) Cheats will always cheat
2) Markers who allow players to cheat are cheats
3) The major difference from the US is that clubs can control who are acceptable markers.
4) Soft and Hard Caps have been introduced to inter alia help identify cheats
5) There will be more reporting facilities available to h'cap secs to enable them to nip such cheating in the bud.
6) 'Peer Review' means there will be greater access to playing records. Although what that means in practice is not yet clear.
7) I'm not as pessimistic as some

That in bold really is a laughable statement. As a marker you can have a suspicion however unless you can prove anything you cannot do a thing. I would suspect that every golfer the world over that witnesses an infringement of the rules will pull that person up there and then in order to rectify/clarify the position.

 

[Jacko_G]

I'll wager that very very few handicap secretaries up and down the length and breadth of the country know what Joe Bloggs shoots on a regular basis out with his mates or in a weekly sweep/roll up therefore it will be extremely difficult to add them to the annual review process. I can understand to an extend a cut for doing well in a club handicap knock out but general play is not going to be easy to "police".

 

[patricks148]

That in bold really is a laughable statement. As a marker you can have a suspicion however unless you can prove anything you cannot do a thing. I would suspect that every golfer the world over that witnesses an infringement of the rules will pull that person up there and then in order to rectify/clarify the position.

TBH there must be people who play with these guys know exactly what’s going on, its a very small number admittedly, but what do you say to someone who acts in this way???



I’m lucky enough that everyone I play with on a reg basis are all trying to get as low as they can