WHS abuse

[D-S]

In terms of limiting GP rounds, I guess it is worth consideration if this issue needed to be dealt with. Although, the weakness is that it would effectively punish 99% of honest golfers. For example, it I was to go weeks golf trip to various courses, would be nice to submit scores each day.
.

If your golf trip was to the USA or a jurisdiction which follows their handicapping rules you would have to ‘post’ those scores even if the format of play is unacceptable here.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

If your golf trip was to the USA or a jurisdiction which follows their handicapping rules you would have to ‘post’ those scores even if the format of play is unacceptable here.

No you would not, you're posting to your home jurisdiction under their rules

 

[clubchamp98]

I can’t see the joy of having a card in your hand on your holidays.
Strange course, different grasses, I very rarely play to cap on holiday.
Especially if we’re out on the town the night before.

 

[rulefan]

Who sanctioned a system where I still can't enter a score on a course that is under 10 miles from my house?

Given that you didn't really answer my question I'll just pick up one point.
Is that not a problem with your software developer not WHS?

 

[IanM]

Given that you didn't really answer my question I'll just pick up one point.
Is that not a problem with your software developer not WHS?

With respect. The fact that you think I did not answer it speaks volumes.

Do you not also think the software product is an integral part of whs?

 

[Swango1980]

I can’t see the joy of having a card in your hand on your holidays.
Strange course, different grasses, I very rarely play to cap on holiday.
Especially if we’re out on the town the night before.

We all have different motivations. I love submitting scores from away courses, it adds an extra element to the round. In fact, my best score differential since WHS began was shot at an away course I had never played before.

 

[D-S]

No you would not, you're posting to your home jurisdiction under their rules

By posting, I mean submit for handicap, which of course you would have to do to wherever you handicap is held.

 

[rulefan]

No you would not, you're posting to your home jurisdiction under their rules

2.1a(ii) Round Played Outside a Player’s Jurisdiction.
Subject to other provisions set out within the Rules of Handicapping:
l A score from an authorized format of play within the jurisdiction where the
round was played is acceptable for handicap purposes and must be
submitted, even if the format of play is not authorized in a player’s home
jurisdiction.

 

[AussieKB]

I can’t see the joy of having a card in your hand on your holidays.
Strange course, different grasses, I very rarely play to cap on holiday.
Especially if we’re out on the town the night before.

I go to Thailand twice a year and we play under my handicap system, which is designed to bring all the scores close together.
8 players and the winner won by 2 shots, 5 came second and the last two were not far behind.

I was the lowest handicapper and went from a 5 handicap to 1 for a few games, makes it hard but it's all about enjoying the trip, lot's of banter and enjoying the trip without putting pressure on the high handicappers.

The overall winner was the second highest handicapper, his first ever win and everyone was pleased for him.

 

[Blue in Munich]

2.1a(ii) Round Played Outside a Player’s Jurisdiction.
Subject to other provisions set out within the Rules of Handicapping:
l A score from an authorized format of play within the jurisdiction where the
round was played is acceptable for handicap purposes and must be
submitted, even if the format of play is not authorized in a player’s home
jurisdiction.

And therein lies the issue; those of us who holiday abroad are now effectively abusing the system, even though we know the likely result is a raise in handicap that is not necessarily justified.

My last holiday round was at 2pm, after a vaults tasting session at an Islay distillery starting at 10.30am. We were to be the guide's last tour, consequently dram measures were, how shall we put it, somewhat relaxed. If anyone thinks that round was even vaguely representative of ability I'll have a dram of whatever they are on. Fortunately I was playing on my own with Mrs BiM for company so the card could not be verified, but had I played with someone else then I am in the wrong for not submitting a card. Utterly ridiculous, and I say that as someone who, when playing competitive golf, does submit cards from other courses.

 

[clubchamp98]

I go to Thailand twice a year and we play under my handicap system, which is designed to bring all the scores close together.
8 players and the winner won by 2 shots, 5 came second and the last two were not far behind.

I was the lowest handicapper and went from a 5 handicap to 1 for a few games, makes it hard but it's all about enjoying the trip, lot's of banter and enjoying the trip without putting pressure on the high handicappers.

The overall winner was the second highest handicapper, his first ever win and everyone was pleased for him.

Most sweeps or hols are run like this.
But under WHS you could not do what you do.

 

[clubchamp98]

And therein lies the issue; those of us who holiday abroad are now effectively abusing the system, even though we know the likely result is a raise in handicap that is not necessarily justified.

My last holiday round was at 2pm, after a vaults tasting session at an Islay distillery starting at 10.30am. We were to be the guide's last tour, consequently dram measures were, how shall we put it, somewhat relaxed. If anyone thinks that round was even vaguely representative of ability I'll have a dram of whatever they are on. Fortunately I was playing on my own with Mrs BiM for company so the card could not be verified, but had I played with someone else then I am in the wrong for not submitting a card. Utterly ridiculous, and I say that as someone who, when playing competitive golf, does submit cards from other courses.

Yes on your hols your priorities change and golf should be for pleasure.

 

[rulefan]

I wonder why nobody spotted the 'cheating' opportunities when supplementary scores were introduced.
Does 'requirement' cause the problem that 'opportunity' didn't?

 

[jim8flog]

Limiting the number of GP rounds is something I would be against where I play.

We have quite a few swindles (not organised by the club) all of which get a lot of players. Quite a few insist on players putting a general play card when playing in them.*

The club has actually decided to reduce the number of comps as a direct result of players putting in so many GP cards from these swindles as they do not see the need to run so many.

* I know of one or two players who play in 3 different swindles every week so that is 3 GP cards from them.

 

[Swango1980]

I wonder why nobody spotted the 'cheating' opportunities when supplementary scores were introduced.
Does 'requirement' cause the problem that 'opportunity' didn't?

OK, you must be able to tell the difference, being knowledgeable on the subject!?

1. Pre WHS, handicaps could only go up 0.1 a time. If a player wanted to get their handicap up by 3 or 4 shots, that would be one heck of an effort. Not quite as tricky with WHS, do you not think?
2. Every supplementary score had to be verified by Committee before it touched the player's record. If they started submitting an unusual amount of cards and scoring pattern, there is a good chance the person tasked in approving them might start to get suspicious?

Besides, I did hear stories of alleged cheaters trying to get 0.1 back, knowing their handicap would go to x.5, and they'd at least get a shot back. So, it was still reported as happening to the extent the UHS could be manipulated.

 

[jim8flog]

I wonder why nobody spotted the 'cheating' opportunities when supplementary scores were introduced.
Does 'requirement' cause the problem that 'opportunity' didn't?

One of the basis differences between SSs and GPs is that with SSs you had to sign a book before you went out and all cards went via the office before adding to a players record, the club should have been applying a NR to all players not returning their cards. Now with the apps available for GPs all of this can be avoided and players in the know can delete the app sign up if they do not like the round.

I do not know what other clubs do but we no have requirement for cards to be returned to the office when using the app and I doubt that anything would be done with them anyway with over 40 GPs rounds a day being submitted (too much work for the office).

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Yes on your hols your priorities change and golf should be for pleasure.

Is golf normally not played for pleasure?

 

[IanM]

I wonder why nobody spotted the 'cheating' opportunities when supplementary scores were introduced.
Does 'requirement' cause the problem that 'opportunity' didn't?

I am genuinely confused how with your knowledge of golf rules, you could be asking that question.

In short, it is nothing to do with opportunity versus requirement. It is to do with the infrastructure, means to do so, and impact of doing it.

The "requirement" was poorly implemented, largely misunderstood, and given the diversity of number of rounds people play, inappropriate.

Additionally, social golf and competition golf had clear blue water between them for 500 years. Making all rounds count is a massive cultural change that won't happen by sticking a paragraph or fifty in a document and expecting golfers to just comply!!

I know any answer without a Rule/Decisions paragraph number on it is invalid in your eyes, but it doesn't alter the truth.

The daft thing, is that in managing change, being "right" still doesn't guarantee your stakeholders will do what you want them to do!

 

[IanM]

Is golf normally not played for pleasure?

Not the way some of us play!

 

[wjemather]

Absolutely. But typically, you are looking at the wording of detail. You have to start with the strategy and work down from that.

You could say that the intention of whs isn't too bad, but the implementation has been shocking.

Can you or anyone provide details of the stakeholder engagement that was conducted before the changes were made? I suspect there was none.

The underlying , almost fanatical desire to have all cards count for handicap is questionable. This resulted in all sorts of issues.

Providing the facility to add a qualifying score to your record without actually setting foot on the course is plain silly.

No discussion of cultural and behavioural changes required to make it work effectively were in any of the communications i saw or received from my club. I am not aware of anyone else who had different.

Who sanctioned a system where I still can't enter a score on a course that is under 10 miles from my house?

I read something on here about matchplay and 4 ball scores potentially being used for handicap. Anyone thinking that is sensible clearly doesn't understand golf.

I could go on. But, there's no point. There's a considerable lack of listening in this thread.

It's a great case study in how not to implement change. Imposing anything new on a diverse stakeholder group is hard . Imposing something they never asked for, without engaging them, is even harder.

Issuing a manual and saying "read this" is not communicating.

Just to pick up on 2/3 points...

There was substantial "stakeholder engagement", much of it conducted through local authorities, including focus groups and many public surveys/questionnaires throughout the process.

In the run-up to transition, the unions distributed vast quantities of guidance which included cultural/behavioural differences. This material was redistributed by counties and clubs to their members. Two years on, it remains highly visible at many clubs.

The system facilitates submission of scores from any rated course in the world, including 10 miles away from your home, and did so from day 1. Requiring fully integrated software would have been an unreasonable and unnecessary hurdle that would have delayed implementation by years.


P.S. The R&A and USGA don't understand golf?