WHS and club completions

[wjemather]

So what happens to the score when a player is dq'd from the competition?

It depends on the reason for the DQ, and is covered by Rule 2.1b and Appendix J.

• Some scores remain acceptable for handicapping (e.g. scorecard not signed, undue delay in returning score, etc.)
• Some scores may require adjustment (e.g. by applying nett double bogey on certain holes) to be acceptable (e.g. score on card lower than actual score, failure to hole out, etc.)
• Some scores are not acceptable (e.g. deliberately ignoring a rule or penalty, using non conforming equipment, etc.)

When scores are not acceptable, other actions may also be appropriate for handicapping (e.g. Penalty Score).

 

[rulie]

It depends on the reason for the DQ, and is covered by Rule 2.1b and Appendix J.

• Some scores remain acceptable for handicapping (e.g. scorecard not signed, undue delay in returning score, etc.)
• Some scores may require adjustment (e.g. by applying nett double bogey on certain holes) to be acceptable (e.g. score on card lower than actual score, failure to hole out, etc.)
• Some scores are not acceptable (e.g. deliberately ignoring a rule or penalty, using non conforming equipment, etc.)

When scores are not acceptable, other actions may also be appropriate for handicapping (e.g. Penalty Score).

Thanks. Those outcomes are different than ours - when a player is dq'd from a competition, there is no score entered. And, there is no differentiation in our handicapping record as to which scores are "comp" scores or "general play" scores. Our score entry system does ask if the score is a competition score but there is no requirement to answer that.

 

[wjemather]

Thanks. Those outcomes are different than ours - when a player is dq'd from a competition, there is no score entered. And, there is no differentiation in our handicapping record as to which scores are "comp" scores or "general play" scores. Our score entry system does ask if the score is a competition score but there is no requirement to answer that.

There is no difference in Rule 2.1b, so the outcomes should be the same.

 

[rulie]

There is no difference in Rule 2.1b, so the outcomes should be the same.

Certainly Rule 2.1b is the same, but"should" is a very broad assumption about the outcomes. The second paragraph of (i) below would seem to say that a dq for breach of Rule 3.3 (failure to hole out) is not acceptable for handicap purposes. However, the "Committee" is responsible. But which "Committee" is it - tournament committee or handicapping committee, is not clear and outcomes may be different.

 

[wjemather]

Certainly Rule 2.1b is the same, but"should" is a very broad assumption about the outcomes. The second paragraph of (i) below would seem to say that a dq for breach of Rule 3.3 (failure to hole out) is not acceptable for handicap purposes. However, the "Committee" is responsible. But which "Committee" is it - tournament committee or handicapping committee, is not clear and outcomes may be different.

View attachment 57361

As there's no significant scoring advantage, I'd say failure to hole out comes under the first paragraph.

 

[rulie]

As there's no significant scoring advantage, I'd say failure to hole out comes under the first paragraph.

He's dq'd for failure to finish a hole, no score available to evaluate + or -, and it's "any other breach of the Rules of Golf", not acceptable for handicap purposes.

 

[wjemather]

He's dq'd for failure to finish a hole, no score available to evaluate + or -, and it's "any other breach of the Rules of Golf", not acceptable for handicap purposes.

But "no significant scoring advantage has been gained" and the score can be adjusted for incomplete hole(s) with nett double bogey(s) - as per Stableford scoring - if appropriate (i.e. play of the hole(s) hasn't stopped before NDB has been reached).
This is certainly the case in GB&I, and documented in Appendix J (which is included in the guidance).

 

[rulie]

But "no significant scoring advantage has been gained" and the score can be adjusted for incomplete hole(s) with nett double bogey(s) - as per Stableford scoring - if appropriate (i.e. play of the hole(s) hasn't stopped before NDB has been reached).
This is certainly the case in GB&I, and documented in Appendix J (which is included in the guidance).

I understand that on your side of the "pond", competition scores are entered into the handicap system by the "Committee" in charge of the competition, is this correct? I'm not sure if that happens here, it might be that each player is responsible for entering their scores.
I'll have to check on that (but not many competitions happening here for a couple months).

 

[NearHull]

I understand that on your side of the "pond", competition scores are entered into the handicap system by the "Committee" in charge of the competition, is this correct? I'm not sure if that happens here, it might be that each player is responsible for entering their scores.
I'll have to check on that (but not many competitions happening here for a couple months).

Competition Committees use well established ISV ( Independent Software Vendors) software to manage competitions. These ISVs interface with the EG Database to feed the scores into the handicap records. It is possible for Committees to directly feed scores into the EG Db but it is labour intensive.

There are a few Golf ISV, their products are ClubV1, IG, Golf Genius and others , all of which operate slightly differently with variable attributes.

 

[Whereditgo]

I've NR'd a hole a few times in medal rounds, an unexpectedly lost ball in leaves with an already poor score for e.g., and the score has gone on my handicap record.

Unless @rulie was meaning not holing out on every hole? I would expect someone to be having a word with the player if that were the case.

 

[doublebogey7]

I have tried to be as neutral as possible in my replies, but a lot of what you are saying now is unfortunately nonsensical drivel.

I congratulate you on lasting this long in trying to correct his misunderstandings, I gave up months ago.

 

[D-S]

As instructed on the other thread which got off track, a point re roll up handicaps and EG’s strong message re unacceptability which has certainly been enforced by Homer’s HC following their attendance to the same or similar workshop that I attended.
It is interesting that this point was strongly laboured by the presenter and doubled down on the fact that clubs should withdraw the Handicaps of those in breach, this was a key point (that admittedly caused some muttering in the rooms). However the message was received and Homer’s club has reacted.
The workshop in my county was not particularly well publicised, not organised in association with the County and not very well attended. I would guess that representatives of at most about 10 of our County’s Clubs attended around 25% of all the clubs.
This point (re roll up handicaps) also does not feature on the slides from the workshop either. I also understand that it was not emphasised in certainly one of the other workshops hosted by a different speaker further west than here.
I have also not seen any other club or county wide communication recently on this subject.
If this is a key point for EG, they are certainly choosing an odd way of spreading the word evenly and strongly across all clubs.
This is all about communication and education and there seems to be some key points missed in both these areas.

 

[wjemather]

As instructed on the other thread which got off track, a point re roll up handicaps and EG’s strong message re unacceptability which has certainly been enforced by Homer’s HC following their attendance to the same or similar workshop that I attended.
It is interesting that this point was strongly laboured by the presenter and doubled down on the fact that clubs should withdraw the Handicaps of those in breach, this was a key point (that admittedly caused some muttering in the rooms). However the message was received and Homer’s club has reacted.
The workshop in my county was not particularly well publicised, not organised in association with the County and not very well attended. I would guess that representatives of at most about 10 of our County’s Clubs attended around 25% of all the clubs.
This point (re roll up handicaps) also does not feature on the slides from the workshop either. I also understand that it was not emphasised in certainly one of the other workshops hosted by a different speaker further west than here.
I have also not seen any other club or county wide communication recently on this subject.
If this is a key point for EG, they are certainly choosing an odd way of spreading the word evenly and strongly across all clubs.
This is all about communication and education and there seems to be some key points missed in both these areas.

The regional manager sent us the list of delegates a couple of weeks ago and over 80% will be attending. Of the 5 not yet booked in, two are small 9-hole starter courses, one is in the process of being reinvented, and one of them went to yours instead.

 

[D-S]

The regional manager sent us the list of delegates a couple of weeks ago and over 80% will be attending. Of the 5 not yet booked in, two are small 9-hole starter courses, one is in the process of being reinvented, and one of them went to yours instead.

That’s good news, our one was also meant to cater for other counties north and east of ours but I believe they only had 10 or so people for the evening session.

 

[wjemather]

That’s good news, our one was also meant to cater for other counties north and east of ours but I believe they only had 10 or so people for the evening session.

With it being held in the South-East of the county, there are also a few from Devon, Dorset and Wiltshire on the list for ours.

 

[D-S]

I’ll be interested to know their comments on this as you, I believe, will have a different lead presenter and if this point now features in the slide deck.
It will be good to hear from the Handicapping team re the Irish trial too which had not come to light (although must have been known about by the presenters) when our workshop was given. I would have also liked to ask their opinion re use of Low Handicap Index in Irish inter club GI competitions but didn’t have time to ask (but I think I know what their stance will be).

 

[ExRabbit]

As instructed on the other thread which got off track, a point re roll up handicaps and EG’s strong message re unacceptability which has certainly been enforced by Homer’s HC following their attendance to the same or similar workshop that I attended.
It is interesting that this point was strongly laboured by the presenter and doubled down on the fact that clubs should withdraw the Handicaps of those in breach, this was a key point (that admittedly caused some muttering in the rooms). However the message was received and Homer’s club has reacted.
The workshop in my county was not particularly well publicised, not organised in association with the County and not very well attended. I would guess that representatives of at most about 10 of our County’s Clubs attended around 25% of all the clubs.
This point (re roll up handicaps) also does not feature on the slides from the workshop either. I also understand that it was not emphasised in certainly one of the other workshops hosted by a different speaker further west than here.
I have also not seen any other club or county wide communication recently on this subject.
If this is a key point for EG, they are certainly choosing an odd way of spreading the word evenly and strongly across all clubs.
This is all about communication and education and there seems to be some key points missed in both these areas.

tldr

Use some breaks in there please and I will try to read it again.

 

[slicer79]

I posted this yesterday in another thread but probably more relevant here.

As of April 1st in Ireland there is a change in WHS, being trialled here for 2025 with view to be introduced in other countries in 2026.
Clubs can now decide if they set competition playing handicap as either 85% , 90%, remain the same at 95% or increase to full 100% of course handicap.
My club have decided at 85%
As an example - an 18.0 index player would have a course handicap of 20 off the white tees.
So previously a playing handicap of 19
This will now drop to 17
Will be interesting to see the impact on scoring.

Basically a higher handicap player will lose more shots than lower players.

I know already it's caused issues in clubs in deciding what to introduce, depends really if your committee is made up of mostly low or high handicap players and how they view it

 

[wjemather]

I posted this yesterday in another thread but probably more relevant here.

As of April 1st in Ireland there is a change in WHS, being trialled here for 2025 with view to be introduced in other countries in 2026.
Clubs can now decide if they set competition playing handicap as either 85% , 90%, remain the same at 95% or increase to full 100% of course handicap.
My club have decided at 85%
As an example - an 18.0 index player would have a course handicap of 20 off the white tees.
So previously a playing handicap of 19
This will now drop to 17
Will be interesting to see the impact on scoring.

Basically a higher handicap player will lose more shots than lower players.

I know already it's caused issues in clubs in deciding what to introduce, depends really if your committee is made up of mostly low or high handicap players and how they view it

The real question is whether clubs will follow the guidance and set allowances according to field size and composition to maintain equity, or pander to whichever group complains the loudest and throw fairness out of the window?

Your final paragraph suggests your club have done the latter.

 

[slicer79]

The real question is whether clubs will follow the guidance and set allowances according to field size and composition to maintain equity, or pander to whichever group complains the loudest and throw fairness out of the window?

Your final paragraph suggests your club have done the latter.

I'm not sure, my own clubs committee would be a mix of range in terms of ability. But obviously without being at the meetings where it was discussed I don't know who pushed for the 85% to be implemented.
We've our first comp with it on Saturday, will be interesting to see results.
I'll be getting 1 shot less than I normally would have so not too bad but will certainly impact those losing 2 or more. Even mentally not having a shot where you normally would is bound to unsettle some golfers.