Supplementary card question...

I started this thread to get clarification as to what happens with supplementary cards and ESR's it was not my intention to knock on the troll bridge and wake them from their slumber ( seriously guys , go and practice get to the same situation)
 
Vanity handicap doesn't exist , it can't the holder will go up or will lose it if the supps aren't in on the allocated time ( even if they are pretty easy to score on)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DCB said:
Val, it was a Clause 23 application that was used not Supp Cards. Handicap bod didn't use clause 23 correctly. It certainly wasn't a Supp card issue that caused the decrease.
Click to expand...

Dave, can you elaborate further on that? Clause 23 that is.

I was user the impression that annual review and ESR did away with that. Surely clause 23 can't be used in bounce games.

OP I'm sorry your thread got hijacked, it wasn't the intention, Mods if you feel this thread is 2 distinct subjects the feel free to split to keep it relevant.
 
Farneyman said:
Going back to my original question, which you haven't answered which I have quoted again , do you know of any course that has yellow tees behind/further from the hole than the whites?
Click to expand...
Fish answered that question last night/early this morning and you obviously saw that as you quoted it. Why ask again? And why is it even relevant to you? You posted that your course only has Whites?

So Supplementary Cards, what this thread is about, at your place will be off the Whites.

For clarification.

Nothing in 'Section 14 Tees' in that Manual prevents it, though there is a description that recommends Tees and Colours From 'Championship' to 'Forward' as Black, White, Yellow, Red, Green/Blue. It alo states that 'Separate SSS ratings
should be obtained for both men and ladies from whichever sets of tees each gender uses for competition
and/or handicap purposes.' so that implies that any tees with an SSS are available/used for competition and/or handicap purposes.

I don't know of any courses that have all Yellows behind all Whites - which would be different from the Congu recommendation - though I have seen at least 1 hole where that's the case.
 
Last edited:
The handicap sec/conv/bod didn't use Clause 23 correctly IMO.

There are again defined conditions that Clause 23 can be used on to effect changes during the season. It actually states

'In exceptional circumstances the Handicap Committee may adjust the handicap of a player in the period between Annual Reviews if
there is compelling evidence that his Exact Handicap does not reflect his current playing ability'.

It goes on to clarify what the exceptional circumstances are...... :)

Powerful tool and needs to be used carefully
 
I have removed some posts which could be considered to impugn the integrity or handicap of a member. This is against the rules, and is derailing a thread started by a member to answer other questions.

Please desist from doing this any more, and the excuse that it is simply a criticism of the handicap sec rather than the player does not wash. There have also been a few asterisked posts. These are not allowed and may result in infractions. Perhaps those thus posting might wish to nip back in and edit them out while we are sorting out other stuff.
 
At the first course i was a member of the yellow tee's were actually a disadvantage on some holes.
There were several long par 4 dogleg holes, from the front tee's it was virtually impossible to cut the dogleg due to the height of the trees on the corner. Further back (off the whites) it was possible to hit a tee shot over the corner of the dogleg, leaving nothing more than a wedge to the green.Playing to the dogleg would leave at least a 4 or 5 iron.
 
OK, someone shoots a 87 and then a 85 off 8.8 and then only 3 weeks later shoots a 76, is that compelling evidence?

If during that 3 weeks prior there were supps or bounce game cards handed in, didn't know you could do that, is that sufficient evidence when no qualifying comps have been played in-between?

I've asked these questions solely to understand the mechanism of supps in this situation but then, if 3 supps were handed in over that 3 week, or 3 bounce rounds all achieving a gross 76, the best score recorded over a 2 year period to date, I still can't get anywhere near a 4 shot cut to 4.8, its 6.6 at best, where does the other 1.8 come from?

This isn't that players fault, unless he had a direct influence with it, the fault clearly lays at the handicap secretary's desk
 
Supps and Bounce games should not be confused.

A Supp may be pre-orgnised for submission as part of a Bounce game, but that changes it from a Bounce game imo. Bounce game scorecards should never be submitted/accepted after the event as Supps!
 
Last edited:
Foxholer said:
Supps and Bounce games should not be confused.

A Supp may be pre-orgnised for submission as part of a Bounce game. But Bounce game scorecards should never be submitted/accepted after the event as Supps!
Click to expand...

I understand that, we have to declare we are going to do a supplementary card before going out and sign a book and get a signed card off the Pro which has to be handed in afterwards.

If you saved up your bounce/sweep rounds cards which were all signed by members, would they not be seen as the "compelling evidence" as is required under Clause 23?

But, should only 3 cards be looked at over 3 weeks no different to the amount of supps would be allowed (1 per week).
 
Ethan said:
I have removed some posts which could be considered to impugn the integrity or handicap of a member. This is against the rules, and is derailing a thread started by a member to answer other questions.

Please desist from doing this any more, and the excuse that it is simply a criticism of the handicap sec rather than the player does not wash. There have also been a few asterisked posts. These are not allowed and may result in infractions. Perhaps those thus posting might wish to nip back in and edit them out while we are sorting out other stuff.
Click to expand...

No point in me editing anything, you've pulled them all already. :rolleyes:
 
Fish said:
If you saved up your bounce/sweep rounds cards which were all signed by members, would they not be seen as the "compelling evidence" as is required under Clause 23?
Click to expand...

If you allowed that, you would immediately lose the element of control which is necessary in any handicap system. All scores returned in qualifiers and Supplementaries - good or bad - paint a picture of the player's general playing ability. The likelihood is that only the "good" saved scorecards would be presented as the player's obvious hope is to have his handicap reduced.
 
Fish said:
If you saved up your bounce/sweep rounds cards which were all signed by members, would they not be seen as the "compelling evidence" as is required under Clause 23?
Click to expand...
Very rarely in my experience. And what do you mean b 'sweep' games. Different from Farneyman's (qulifying) non-Medal comps? Swindle/Fiddles? - which are non-qualifying, though nothing wrong with using a Swindle round for a (pre-stated) Supplementary.

General Play cuts did happen more often in the past - when it was 'Rule 19'. But there ws a lot of inconsistency, both within and across clubs. Congu's approach was to provide mechanisms where a standard approach provides more consistency. For that reason, I can see an argument for the 'Supps aren't the same', though it's not strong imo.

ESRs are the mechanism that reduces the need for General Play cuts. I like the idea, but there are some weakness. The trigger process is bit clumsy imo. - Surely 3 or more at 3 below is at least as compelling as 2 of 4 below with the ESR being governed by the average.
 
Last edited:
Foxholer said:
Very rarely in my experience. And what do you mean b 'sweep' games. Different from Farneyman's (qulifying) non-Medal comps? Swindle/Fiddles? - which are non-qualifying, though nothing wrong with using a Swindle round for a (pre-stated) Supplementary.
Click to expand...

Could you please quote the post I mentioned swindle/fiddles (qualifying), non medal comps.

Oh you wont be able to as I didn't.

Reference the correct person or none at all.

Thanks
 
rosecott said:
If you allowed that, you would immediately lose the element of control which is necessary in any handicap system. All scores returned in qualifiers and Supplementaries - good or bad - paint a picture of the player's general playing ability. The likelihood is that only the "good" saved scorecards would be presented as the player's obvious hope is to have his handicap reduced.
Click to expand...

I gathered as much, I was just removing the element of what could have been construed as "compelling evidence" within only a 3 week period to use Clause 23.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Seniors Golf Committee
Replies
1
Views
408
jim8flog
jim8flog
A
Newb question
Replies
11
Views
3K
GG26
GG26
Orikoru
Why can't slope ratings be more fluid?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
2K
mikejohnchapman
mikejohnchapman
B
Tie resolution
Replies
19
Views
2K
badgergm
B
Orikoru
How much do you spend on practice?
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
9K
Neilds
N
Top