WHS abuse

[Swango1980]

It's shocking how many of these anecdotes there seem to be coming from just a couple of clubs - must be awful having such a culture of cheating there.

Anyway... players have a responsibility to report such incidents - posting on an internet forum and wrongly blaming the system are no use to anyone.

You do realise every club in the UK do not have members on this forum who report all these incidents? Most members would have zero idea this is happening, or even realise it is wrong.

Again, you don't appear to live in the real world. In terms of the guy I am talking about, I know the guy. Not friends, but play golf from time to time and part of my larger group. I've never marked a card for him (although, if he has ever entered scores using howdidido, I'll never know if he put me down as a marker or not), and I've told him multiple times what the point in pre-registration is, and he shouldn't abandon a round just because he is having a bad score. However, I play only a very very small fraction of his total social rounds, I am not his minder, and he will do what he ultimately wants to do.

However, it is obvious he still only enters good GP rounds, and I've heard him tell multiple people he is not submitting his score mid round, after initially saying he was. Always when he is scoring badly.

If you think I, or the others he plays with (and therefore friendly with) are going to go running the the Committee to dob him in, you are having an absolute laugh. We can remind him of his responsibilities, but if he is exploiting the system, then it needs to be made better / Committees given more direction / help in what to look out for.

 

[woofers]

There is a solution the scenario above, assuming you have a tee booking system.
Switch off the ability to submit General Play scores via ISV Apps, e.g. HowDidIDo, IG.
Ask members to use the EG App for General Play scores, or submit cards to the shop / office for input, ensuring a system is in place for registering an intent to submit a General Play score.
Handicap Secretary can run the General Play Scores report from EG. The time the scorecard is downloaded can be verified against the tee booking sheet.
It will be fairly obvious if the score has been entered after the round has commenced or finished.
If so, delete the score from the players record and notify them why.
Run the Deleted Score Intents report and find the reason for non returns, take appropriate action as defined in the EG General Play guidance.
Might take a bit of time initially, but once word is out that there is a procedure and if not followed there are consequences, I believe most players will adhere to the required way of doing things.

 

[Wabinez]

There is a solution the scenario above, assuming you have a tee booking system.
Switch off the ability to submit General Play scores via ISV Apps, e.g. HowDidIDo, IG.
Ask members to use the EG App for General Play scores, or submit cards to the shop / office for input, ensuring a system is in place for registering an intent to submit a General Play score.
Handicap Secretary can run the General Play Scores report from EG. The time the scorecard is downloaded can be verified against the tee booking sheet.
It will be fairly obvious if the score has been entered after the round has commenced or finished.
If so, delete the score from the players record and notify them why.
Run the Deleted Score Intents report and find the reason for non returns, take appropriate action as defined in the EG General Play guidance.
Might take a bit of time initially, but once word is out that there is a procedure and if not followed there are consequences, I believe most players will adhere to the required way of doing things.

now come on, that is far too sensible for these parts.

have you not read all the posts where people say handicap committees have zero time to do any kind of checks etc so let players just do whatever they want?

 

[Swango1980]

There is a solution the scenario above, assuming you have a tee booking system.
Switch off the ability to submit General Play scores via ISV Apps, e.g. HowDidIDo, IG.
Ask members to use the EG App for General Play scores, or submit cards to the shop / office for input, ensuring a system is in place for registering an intent to submit a General Play score.
Handicap Secretary can run the General Play Scores report from EG. The time the scorecard is downloaded can be verified against the tee booking sheet.
It will be fairly obvious if the score has been entered after the round has commenced or finished.
If so, delete the score from the players record and notify them why.
Run the Deleted Score Intents report and find the reason for non returns, take appropriate action as defined in the EG General Play guidance.
Might take a bit of time initially, but once word is out that there is a procedure and if not followed there are consequences, I believe most players will adhere to the required way of doing things.

And, therein lies one of the main problems

I'm sure there are many ways Committees can adapt their own systems to iron out "foul play", but it is the time it takes to implement them, especially with the volume of general play scores now being submitted. And, there would always be other hurdles. For example, asking intent to be registered, when pro shop is closed early morning and evenings (for summer rounds). Asking physical cards to be submitted takes an age for someone to enter scores. Every club will have its own set of hurdles. At my last club, owner refused to have an online booking system, so that he could squeeze groups in between the official tee times (i.e. 8 minute slots became 4 minute slots), all to maximise profit. You definitely would not register scores there either, there was no pro shop and the staff had no idea, or interest in golf.

 

[Swango1980]

now come on, that is far too sensible for these parts.

have you not read all the posts where people say handicap committees have zero time to do any kind of checks etc so let players just do whatever they want?

I definitely don't think anyone said that, you must be making that up to fit an agenda? More accurately, I think people were saying that there is only so much time volunteers have. There have been handicap secretaries that have given their first hand experience at how difficult it is, and yet for some reason their experiences are dismissed. It is like some live in golfing utopia, and they just can't imagine any single thing going wrong, and if things do go wrong, it somehow just takes a minute or 2 for someone to sort out.

 

[woofers]

Well carry on having the problem then.
I did say it would take a bit of time initially but a club with a large volume of general play cards, either has a large number of members so, may I suggest, probably has a decent number of resources to tackle this, or it’s a large volume from a smaller number of players who perhaps need educating (if they are getting it wrong).
All I’m saying is that the ISV methods of submitting General Play scores are not fit for purpose and can be easily used to circumvent the desired route, resulting in the scenarios described here. By using EG there is a much better chance of compliance.
With regard to intent and Pro Shop opening hours, how did you work with the Supplementary Score requirements under UHS? Or did no one submit a supplementary before the Shop opened ?

 

[Banchory Buddha]

now come on, that is far too sensible for these parts.

have you not read all the posts where people say handicap committees have zero time to do any kind of checks etc so let players just do whatever they want?

Well carry on having the problem then.
I did say it would take a bit of time initially but a club with a large volume of general play cards, either has a large number of members so, may I suggest, probably has a decent number of resources to tackle this, or it’s a large volume from a smaller number of players who perhaps need educating (if they are getting it wrong).
All I’m saying is that the ISV methods of submitting General Play scores are not fit for purpose and can be easily used to circumvent the desired route, resulting in the scenarios described here. By using EG there is a much better chance of compliance.
With regard to intent and Pro Shop opening hours, how did you work with the Supplementary Score requirements under UHS? Or did no one submit a supplementary before the Shop opened ?

Deary me. here speaks two guys who've never held a voluntary administrative role in golf.

 

[wjemather]

You do realise every club in the UK do not have members on this forum who report all these incidents? Most members would have zero idea this is happening, or even realise it is wrong.

Again, you don't appear to live in the real world. In terms of the guy I am talking about, I know the guy. Not friends, but play golf from time to time and part of my larger group. I've never marked a card for him (although, if he has ever entered scores using howdidido, I'll never know if he put me down as a marker or not), and I've told him multiple times what the point in pre-registration is, and he shouldn't abandon a round just because he is having a bad score. However, I play only a very very small fraction of his total social rounds, I am not his minder, and he will do what he ultimately wants to do.

However, it is obvious he still only enters good GP rounds, and I've heard him tell multiple people he is not submitting his score mid round, after initially saying he was. Always when he is scoring badly.

If you think I, or the others he plays with (and therefore friendly with) are going to go running the the Committee to dob him in, you are having an absolute laugh. We can remind him of his responsibilities, but if he is exploiting the system, then it needs to be made better / Committees given more direction / help in what to look out for.

I say again. YOU have the responsibility to report any potential issues to the committee - it is an essential part of a peer review system. By not doing so YOU (and anyone else who is turning a blind eye) are responsible for the system failing. Others may not know all this but you do, and yet you still have the nerve to blame the system for the consequences of you not assisting the committee - it's outrageous and indefensible.

 

[Swango1980]

Well carry on having the problem then.
I did say it would take a bit of time initially but a club with a large volume of general play cards, either has a large number of members so, may I suggest, probably has a decent number of resources to tackle this, or it’s a large volume from a smaller number of players who perhaps need educating (if they are getting it wrong).
All I’m saying is that the ISV methods of submitting General Play scores are not fit for purpose and can be easily used to circumvent the desired route, resulting in the scenarios described here. By using EG there is a much better chance of compliance.
With regard to intent and Pro Shop opening hours, how did you work with the Supplementary Score requirements under UHS? Or did no one submit a supplementary before the Shop opened ?

I wasn't at the club pre-WHS, so I do not know what they did. But, I wouldn't be surprised if everything was done based on trust. When I first joined the club, I used the tech to submit my score, and then put the card in the box marked "General Play Cards". A few days later, not only did I see the handicap sec had put my score in (so now it was on my record twice), but he also put in the scores for players B, C and D simply because they were on the card and he could identify them. None of them even pre-registered or had any intent to submit a score. And, this is one of the better clubs in the County, you could say.

 

[Swango1980]

I say again. YOU have the responsibility to report any potential issues to the committee - it is an essential part of a peer review system. By not doing so YOU (and anyone else who is turning a blind eye) are responsible for the system failing. Others may not know all this but you do, and yet you still have the nerve to blame the system - it's outrageous.

You are brilliant at quoting rule books. That is a strength in many respects, you should be proud. You are very helpful when someone is asking for clarification on a rule or a procedure.

However, you are terrible at knowing how things work in the real world, and thus you have zero understanding or empathy when things do not quite work out in the same way your rule book tells you. I think if you went on a life training course or something, you would come on leaps and bounds.

Years ago, in a Shot Gun start competition, a chap was walking to his tee, and saw two other competitors on 2 different greens, practicing their putting before the hooter went off. During the round, he reported this to the competition secretary, who had no choice to tell both these guys they would have to be disqualified. Now, everyone followed the procedures at dealing with this. However, one of the DQed guys would have won the competition, a big one, by about 5 points. He went from being buzzing, to almost physically assaulting the guy who reported him, and having a full scale argument. A decade later, everyone at the club at the time remembers it. And, the biggest thing they remember was that the guy who reported it (who we all still know) was a tell tale, and he is the main guilty party in the whole mess. They all say he should have just had a quiet word to the guys doing it, but never report it. In hindsight, the guy who reported it wish he had never bothered.

So, if I report the chap who I am friendly with to the Committee, for only submitting good scores, where is that going to get me? He'll never trust me again, and everyone we play with will ask "why the hell did you report him?" . In fact, I think most people at the club would not champion me for such actions. So, forgive me for not running and dobbing him in, but I like to think I can use a bit of common sense when dealing with things in the real world.

This particular issue, of course, was a non-issue pre WHS for Cat 1 players. Now, maybe WHS is considered better because low handicappers can submit as many scores as they wish (I'm not sure, after all, what was the logic in prohibiting this before?). But, it has now become a problem with WHS. Coincidence?

The system may be perfect in your eyes. However, it is run by and use by human beings, and whatever flaws we have whether they be by good intentions or bad. It is why there need to be better safeguards in place to ensure it is used as best as it can be. And, as far as I can see, it could be so much better. However, I'm also sure improvements have already been made since the launch date, so I hope these will continue over the years.

 

[Wabinez]

I definitely don't think anyone said that, you must be making that up to fit an agenda? More accurately, I think people were saying that there is only so much time volunteers have. There have been handicap secretaries that have given their first hand experience at how difficult it is, and yet for some reason their experiences are dismissed. It is like some live in golfing utopia, and they just can't imagine any single thing going wrong, and if things do go wrong, it somehow just takes a minute or 2 for someone to sort out.

There are also handicap secretaries who understand how difficult it is, and manage to deal with it by being proactive and dealing with issues as they arise.


Maybe people thought being on the handicap committee would only take 10 minutes a week?

 

[Swango1980]

There are also handicap secretaries who understand how difficult it is, and manage to deal with it by being proactive and dealing with issues as they arise.


Maybe people thought being on the handicap committee would only take 10 minutes a week?

Yeah, like wjemather seems to think

As I said, there all all sorts of people who volunteer their time to do Committee work.

At my last club, if around 500 members, the long term handicap secretary wanted to step away. 4 or 5 years later, we finally got someone who was willing to replace him. Similar for other positions on Committee. Not all clubs are lucky to have volunteers who have stacks of time to invest.

Before WHS I probably only needed to spend an hour or 2 a week doing the handicap duties. After WHS it was taking an hour or 2 a day just to keep on top of things, primarily related to dealing with GP rounds and chasing players (the stupid errors from golfers are plenty, not to mention any misunderstandings on their responsibilities). It became so much, I just had to accept cards would be submitted and errors would not be identified in many cases.

There was a mass of different roles required from the handicap sec at my club as well, which will vary from club to club. For example, sending a welcome email to new members and give them an intro (largely standard email, with variations, e.g. dependent on whether they have a handicap or not).

In a nutshell, being able to keep good track of general play scores has become a much trickier job than it ever was. And, pre WHS it was the key issue that was highlighted by people that could be used for handicaps to be manipulated.

 

[woofers]

Deary me. here speaks two guys who've never held a voluntary administrative role in golf.

And here speaks someone who hasn’t a (Mod Edit) Swearing Infraction Issued) clue as to my background or experience.
And for what it’s worth……you’re wrong.

 

[Ian_George]

...
This particular issue, of course, was a non-issue pre WHS for Cat 1 players. Now, maybe WHS is considered better because low handicappers can submit as many scores as they wish (I'm not sure, after all, what was the logic in prohibiting this before?). But, it has now become a problem with WHS. Coincidence?

The system may be perfect in your eyes. However, it is run by and use by human beings, and whatever flaws we have whether they be by good intentions or bad. It is why there need to be better safeguards in place to ensure it is used as best as it can be. And, as far as I can see, it could be so much better. However, I'm also sure improvements have already been made since the launch date, so I hope these will continue over the years.

The system is designed to ensure to have pre-registration and the subsequent return of a valid, attested card. If that's not happening, then the club's procedures need review/changing.
The way around this issue, imo, is to mention - a quiet word - to the Handicap Secretary that the Pre-Registration system doesn't seem to be working as there seem to be scores that aren't being entered. You can maintain confidentiality as you don't need to actually identify the actual player. The quality of the process/procedures can easily be checked.
If it turns out that the Handicap Sec gets overloaded, so some of the checks/controls have been bypassed, then that's a separate issue that the club should address urgently, as it compromises the 'universality' of the system!

 

[IanM]

Absolutely correct, and another fine example where insufficient thought was given to the impact of a new process.

At this point one of our number will say that general play cards isn't a new process, thereby demonstrating an inability to understand the meaning of the paragrah above!

 

[wjemather]

<patronising remarks removed>

Years ago, in a Shot Gun start competition, a chap was walking to his tee, and saw two other competitors on 2 different greens, practicing their putting before the hooter went off. During the round, he reported this to the competition secretary, who had no choice to tell both these guys they would have to be disqualified. Now, everyone followed the procedures at dealing with this. However, one of the DQed guys would have won the competition, a big one, by about 5 points. He went from being buzzing, to almost physically assaulting the guy who reported him, and having a full scale argument. A decade later, everyone at the club at the time remembers it. And, the biggest thing they remember was that the guy who reported it (who we all still know) was a tell tale, and he is the main guilty party in the whole mess. They all say he should have just had a quiet word to the guys doing it, but never report it. In hindsight, the guy who reported it wish he had never bothered.

So, if I report the chap who I am friendly with to the Committee, for only submitting good scores, where is that going to get me? He'll never trust me again, and everyone we play with will ask "why the hell did you report him?" . In fact, I think most people at the club would not champion me for such actions. So, forgive me for not running and dobbing him in, but I like to think I can use a bit of common sense when dealing with things in the real world.

This particular issue, of course, was a non-issue pre WHS for Cat 1 players. Now, maybe WHS is considered better because low handicappers can submit as many scores as they wish (I'm not sure, after all, what was the logic in prohibiting this before?). But, it has now become a problem with WHS. Coincidence?

The system may be perfect in your eyes. However, it is run by and use by human beings, and whatever flaws we have whether they be by good intentions or bad. It is why there need to be better safeguards in place to ensure it is used as best as it can be. And, as far as I can see, it could be so much better. However, I'm also sure improvements have already been made since the launch date, so I hope these will continue over the years.

Players are responsible for their own actions. Players also have a responsibility to protect the field - something that doesn't involve unilaterally deciding that certain rules infractions can be overlooked, or invoking primary school playground nonsense. The angry man had no-one else to blame but himself and his reaction was utterly shameful - this is actually what people should remember about the incident.

You report him because you are not spineless and he continued cheating the system after already being advised that his actions were against the rules - and can do so anonymously if you so wish.

With golf, players themselves are often the ultimate safeguard; in this case, that's you.

And as usual when these arguments are presented, it's disappointing that zero consideration is given to the players who didn't break the rules but may have missed out on a prize/trophy/entry to an elite event/etc. as a result.

 

[Swango1980]

Players are responsible for their own actions. Players also have a responsibility to protect the field - something that doesn't involve unilaterally deciding that certain rules infractions can be overlooked, or invoking primary school playground nonsense. The angry man had no-one else to blame but himself and his reaction was utterly shameful - this is actually what people should remember about the incident.

You report him because you are not spineless and he continued cheating the system after already being advised that his actions were against the rules - and can do so anonymously if you so wish.

With golf, players themselves are often the ultimate safeguard; in this case, that's you.

And as usual when these arguments are presented, it's disappointing that zero consideration is given to the players who didn't break the rules but may have missed out on a prize/trophy/entry to an elite event/etc. as a result.

"This is what people SHOULD actually remember about the incident"

And yet, they didn't. Sure, they said the guilty party over reacted, but all understood his actions. The main person they looked down on was the guy who reported the incident. Perhaps a lot were "well, it was technically wrong and all he was doing was reporting it, but he should have really had a quiet word instead of going to Committee", while others were not so kind. Goody 2 shoes, teachers pet, etc. Particularly as the breach in question was not one that many would categorise as cheating, but more of a technicality.

Perhaps we need more people like you that are happy to dob in their mates. Golf would maybe be a better place. Just because I know of one guy doing it, it would not suprise me if other low handicappers are doing the same. Maybe in my club, certainly in others. And, then there are the ones manipulating handicap upwards, which it likely more common.

Maybe I'll look for handicap sec at weekend and tell him he is doing a poor job. Tell him he needs to do better at identifying these types of golfers, and he can't expect me to reveal every individual golfer doing it. Tell him it is a piece of cake, 10 mins a week reviewing WHS reports and everything is identified and dealt with. It is his fault completely, not the system and it's implementation.

 

[Tashyboy]

It was our last Q comp yesterday. Our fuddle plays off the whites. Anyway it was bleddering it down with rain and we teed off latter letting the rain slow down a bit. Anyway I made the decision to play off the yellows. My driving has been shocking. I Asked in the club shop and no one had gone in the comp so I thought sod that. I asked about putting in a supplementary card and was shown how to do it on the EG app.I asked a PP to sign the app when I had done. We got down to the first tee and unbeknown to me the fuddle decided to play a team event off the Whites. If I played off the yellows the nine man team comp went belly up so I played off the whites.
whilst going round the course we had a discussion about how a score esp on a supplementary round could be fiddled. I suppose that could of always been the case even before WHS. But the new system has not closed that door. Nor am I aware of a system that could stop wrong scores going in.

 

[CountLippe]

"This is what people SHOULD actually remember about the incident"

And yet, they didn't. Sure, they said the guilty party over reacted, but all understood his actions. The main person they looked down on was the guy who reported the incident. Perhaps a lot were "well, it was technically wrong and all he was doing was reporting it, but he should have really had a quiet word instead of going to Committee", while others were not so kind. Goody 2 shoes, teachers pet, etc. Particularly as the breach in question was not one that many would categorise as cheating, but more of a technicality.

Perhaps we need more people like you that are happy to dob in their mates. Golf would maybe be a better place. Just because I know of one guy doing it, it would not suprise me if other low handicappers are doing the same. Maybe in my club, certainly in others. And, then there are the ones manipulating handicap upwards, which it likely more common.

Maybe I'll look for handicap sec at weekend and tell him he is doing a poor job. Tell him he needs to do better at identifying these types of golfers, and he can't expect me to reveal every individual golfer doing it. Tell him it is a piece of cake, 10 mins a week reviewing WHS reports and everything is identified and dealt with. It is his fault completely, not the system and it's implementation.

From what you have said, the guy sounds like a cheat.

If he didn't know the rule forbidding practice on the course, surely his reaction would have been one of embarrasment rather than anger.

If he thought this rule was optional, what other rules does he also think are optional.

Its good that a member was brave enough to report it as undoubtedly the vast majority wouldn't.

Cheating is abhorrent in golf.

 

[Swango1980]

From what you have said, the guy sounds like a cheat.

If he didn't know the rule forbidding practice on the course, surely his reaction would have been one of embarrasment rather than anger.

If he thought this rule was optional, what other rules does he also think are optional.

Its good that a member was brave enough to report it as undoubtedly the vast majority wouldn't.

Cheating is abhorrent in golf.

He wasn't a cheat (2 guys were DQed also). Just oblivious.

That is what I suspect anyway. I mean, we are always told we don't really have cheats in our game anyway, so all these hypothetical situations we were worried about pre WHS were ones for the fairies. So, for this one guy to capture 2 stone cold cheats in a competition of about 70 odd players would be truly against the odds, especially as he probably only walked past half a dozen to a dozen players of the field on the way to his own tee.

Although, this wasn't the point in the context of bringing it up. What you feel as an individual is irrelevant, although I will congratulate you in your maturity. I'm telling you what the overall general feeling was amongst those present, and how they feel to this day. Just because one can quote a rule book doesn't really hold much gravitas when it comes to human emotions it seems. Not in all circumstances anyway.