WHS - Handicap Allowances Question

[rulie]

How would you rule if CH & PH were transposed?

The player is only responsible for course handicap; it doesn't matter where it is on the "card", in a required spot or not.
Rule 3.3b(4) could apply.

 

[rulefan]

The player is only responsible for course handicap; it doesn't matter where it is on the "card", in a required spot or not.
Rule 3.3b(4) could apply.

'Could' ?

 

[bunkerblaster]

'Could' ?

"should". The CH will be higher than (or equal to) the PH. Therefore the correct CH is on the card. No DQ no stroke reduction, advice given to player as to how to properly complete the card.

 

[bunkerblaster]

Yes, but the scenario above is that a player put their Playing Handicap on the card, and completely left the Course handicap off. So, technically they'd be disqualified. They'd have to effectively lie, and say that the Playing Handicap on their card was their Course Handicap (they may not be lying, but highly unlikely they'd accidentally put the wrong course handicap on the card in the box for Playing Handicap, that just so happens to be the correct Playing handicap)

If their course handicap was 20, Playing Handicap of 19, and only the 19 appeared in the Playing Handicap box, one could argue that their Course Handicap does not appear on the card, DQ. If they put 20 in the Playing Handicap, one could argue they put the correct Course Handicap on the card, but in the wrong box.

You apply Rule 3, the handicap on the card is the course handicap, handicap shown lower than CH - play off it, CH shown higher than actual CH then player is DQ. Rules of Golf take precedence and must be followed. There is discretion for the Secretary as set out above.
Advice given to player as to how to properly complete the card.

 

[ExRabbit]

.Yes, but the scenario above is that a player put their Playing Handicap on the card, and completely left the Course handicap off. So, technically they'd be disqualified They'd have to effectively lie, and say that the Playing Handicap on their card was their Course Handicap (they may not be lying, but highly unlikely they'd accidentally put the wrong course handicap on the card in the box for Playing Handicap, that just so happens to be the correct Playing handicap)

If their course handicap was 20, Playing Handicap of 19, and only the 19 appeared in the Playing Handicap box, one could argue that their Course Handicap does not appear on the card, DQ. If they put 20 in the Playing Handicap, one could argue they put the correct Course Handicap on the card, but in the wrong box.

Bolded 1 - Surely that would only ever happen if their CH was lower then their PH!

Bolded 2 - Wow - I used to be a comp sec and was briefly on the h/c committee, but I'm pretty blown away by how much trouble there is ahead when h/c secs don't understand the basics.

Just so you know, you can DQ someone if they put in a higher h/c (CH) than they actually have.

Why would you DQ someone for putting in a lower one?

101 h/c rules.

https://www.randa.org/Rog/2019/Rules/Players-Edition/Rule-3

Scoring in Handicap Competition. You are responsible for making sure that your handicap is shown on your scorecard. If you return a scorecard without the right handicap:

• If the handicap on your scorecard is too high and this affects the number of strokes you get, or no handicap is shown, you are disqualified from the handicap competition.
• If the handicap on your scorecard is too low, there is no penalty and your net score stands using the lower handicap.

 

[rulie]

Bolded 1 - Surely that would only ever happen if their CH was lower then their PH!

Bolded 2 - Wow - I used to be a comp sec and was briefly on the h/c committee, but I'm pretty blown away by how much trouble there is ahead when h/c secs don't understand the basics.

Just so you know, you can DQ someone if they put in a higher h/c (CH) than they actually have. Why would you DQ someone for putting in a lower one?[/QUOTE]
There is no penalty, or dq, for putting a lower handicap on the card. Rule 3.3b(4) clearly says, "There is no penalty and the player's net score stands using the lower handicap as shown."

 

[rulie]

How would you rule if CH & PH were transposed?

On further thought, and answering a question with a question - is the player's course handicap on the card? If yes, the Rule has been satisfied, and it's the Committee's responsibility to sort.

 

[Swango1980]

Bolded 1 - Surely that would only ever happen if their CH was lower then their PH!

Bolded 2 - Wow - I used to be a comp sec and was briefly on the h/c committee, but I'm pretty blown away by how much trouble there is ahead when h/c secs don't understand the basics.

Just so you know, you can DQ someone if they put in a higher h/c (CH) than they actually have.

Why would you DQ someone for putting in a lower one?

101 h/c rules.

https://www.randa.org/Rog/2019/Rules/Players-Edition/Rule-3

Scoring in Handicap Competition. You are responsible for making sure that your handicap is shown on your scorecard. If you return a scorecard without the right handicap:

• If the handicap on your scorecard is too high and this affects the number of strokes you get, or no handicap is shown, you are disqualified from the handicap competition.
• If the handicap on your scorecard is too low, there is no penalty and your net score stands using the lower handicap.

I understand the rule. The rule says the Course Handicap must be on the card. If the player has NOT put the course handicap on the card, and only the playing handicap, then they have technically NOT satisfied the rule.

Similarly, if they put the correct INDEX on the card in the Index box, but nothing else, then they have NOT put in the course handicap as required by the rule.

In both cases, one could argue that they will be disqualified, as they haven't satisfied the rule. The only way to not DQ them, is to assume in both cases that the only number they put in was actually meant to be their course handicap, but they got it wrong AND put it in the wrong box, yet it happened to represent the correct playing or index in either case. That is a pretty weak argument when it is pretty clear they have simply ommitted the course handicap in both cases. Otherwise, if they left all handicap boxes blank, what would stop someone arguing one of the numbers in the Date doesn't represent their handicap, whether it be right or wrong (extreme example, but making the point that if course handicap is omitted, can a golfer justify any other non hole score number on the card represents their Course Handicap, even when it is almost certain it doesnt)? Of course, if they put playing handicap in, if they are not DQ then it means the comp sec will manually have to reduce their course handicap to match their playing handicap, thus their playing handicap also reduces. The players score then gets marginally worse. If they get confused, and query why, it would confirm they never put the course handicap on the card in the first place.

It is not a decision I personally need to make, nor would I want to DQ someone in either case. But it is worth discussion, because whether we like it or not, there are now 3 numbers representing a players handicap, rather than just one. Previously it was pretty much a black or white decision. Now it seems a lot greyer, depending on what a competition sec is willing to assume what number is or is not a course handicap.

 

[Swango1980]

Another scenario. Player has an Index of 8, Course Handicap of 10, Playing Handicap of 9.

On scorecard, they put 8 in the Index box. They put 9 in the Playing handicap box. They leave the Course handicap blank.
Do they get DQ. If they do not, do we assume their course handicap is 8 or 9?

If they do get a DQ, would same apply to a scratch golfer, whose course handicap of 0 also happens to be on the card as their index and playing handicap?

I'm not advocating either way I'm just visualising potential issues going forward.

 

[rulie]

Another scenario. Player has an Index of 8, Course Handicap of 10, Playing Handicap of 9.

On scorecard, they put 8 in the Index box. They put 9 in the Playing handicap box. They leave the Course handicap blank.
Do they get DQ. If they do not, do we assume their course handicap is 8 or 9?

If they do get a DQ, would same apply to a scratch golfer, whose course handicap of 0 also happens to be on the card as their index and playing handicap?

I'm not advocating either way I'm just visualising potential issues going forward.

Regarding handicap, the player is only responsible for putting one number on the scorecard, and that number will represent his course handicap. The Committee will use that number in its calculations.
If that number is above his course handicap and it affects the number of strokes he receives, he is DQ.
If that number is lower than his course handicap, he must accept the results, but no DQ.
I'll ask the next question - what if he fails to put any number on the card to represent his course handicap?

 

[Swango1980]

Regarding handicap, the player is only responsible for putting one number on the scorecard, and that number will represent his course handicap. The Committee will use that number in its calculations.
If that number is above his course handicap and it affects the number of strokes he receives, he is DQ.
If that number is lower than his course handicap, he must accept the results, but no DQ.
I'll ask the next question - what if he fails to put any number on the card to represent his course handicap?

Unless it is a trick question, that would be easy. No number representing any type of handicap anywhere, DQ.

I can see quite a few members only putting their Index in the Index box, and assuming the software will do everything else for them. So, presumably it is no DQ, but Committee simply assume the Index is their Course Handicap? From a software standpoint though, I'm not sure how that would technically be done yet. My course has a slope of 133, so take a player with Index 27.5. Gives them a course handicap of 32. If they put 27.5 in Index box, and nothing else, do Committee assume their Course Handicap is simply 27.5 (or 28, because we do not do decimals in England)? If so, when player enters score into system, it will obviously have their correct handicap details. So, the competition secretary will either have to:

a) Reduce the Index in the system until this would give a course handicap of 28 rather than 32. So, they could change the Index to something like 23.8
b) Directly change the Playing handicap from 30 to 27

Not sure which option to pick, will depend on what the software allows. Option b would be easiest. Mind you, in this example, it would seem a lot less hassle if the player was just DQed for clearly not putting their course handicap on the card.

Also, I appreciate the player is only required to put one number on the card. But, if that means that they can avoid a DQ for forgetting CH as long as something appears in Index of Playing (as long as these not higher than CH), then I still would be interested what number would be assumed to be their CH, if they put an Index and Playing Handicap on the card, both of which are different.

 

[Old Skier]

Obviously much of the above may not be an issue if everyone starts using apps and PSIs because we won’t have a clue what the finished card looks like.

 

[Swango1980]

Obviously much of the above may not be an issue if everyone starts using apps and PSIs because we won’t have a clue what the finished card looks like.

I certainly don't envisage any issues during Covid, as we are not handling cards. Only one member in the group hands in a card with all scores on it, so we can't be DQing people if someone put a wrong handicap on the card that they cannot really see.

Presumably, when Covid is a thing of the past, physical scorecards still seem the most important tool for submitting and checking scores. Apart from untidy handwriting, it is fairly easy for someone to check through a card that has been signed by 2 people (and therefore looked at by Player and Marker). With technology, the way it works at the moment, players agree scores with Marker, then enter scores electronically pretty much at their own leisure for themselves. There is no marker to check they have put the correct scores in. And, players have fat fingers, or they rush through score entry and lose what hole they are on, and do not properly correct. This has always been an issue on PSI, so if done on phone likely to be even worse. The only sure fire way for the competition secretary to ensure scores were entered correctly was to check against the physical cards.

What is also interesting is that howdidido asks for you marker when submitting your score electronically. You can then simply select any member from the club. They do not get a say in it, and certainly do not get a message to say they have been allocated as a marker and should therefore check the electronic score entry. It just seems to be a bit of a gimmick of box ticking exercise, rather than providing any real value.

 

[DickInShorts]

Scottish golf apps asks who you are scoring for when you start to use app for your round. It also shows HI CH and PH which you have to verify when checking in to comp.
at completion of round there are boxes for both player and marker to sign(post Covid) .

 

[rulie]

Unless it is a trick question, that would be easy. No number representing any type of handicap anywhere, DQ.

I can see quite a few members only putting their Index in the Index box, and assuming the software will do everything else for them. So, presumably it is no DQ, but Committee simply assume the Index is their Course Handicap? From a software standpoint though, I'm not sure how that would technically be done yet. My course has a slope of 133, so take a player with Index 27.5. Gives them a course handicap of 32. If they put 27.5 in Index box, and nothing else, do Committee assume their Course Handicap is simply 27.5 (or 28, because we do not do decimals in England)? If so, when player enters score into system, it will obviously have their correct handicap details. So, the competition secretary will either have to:

a) Reduce the Index in the system until this would give a course handicap of 28 rather than 32. So, they could change the Index to something like 23.8
b) Directly change the Playing handicap from 30 to 27

Not sure which option to pick, will depend on what the software allows. Option b would be easiest. Mind you, in this example, it would seem a lot less hassle if the player was just DQed for clearly not putting their course handicap on the card.

Also, I appreciate the player is only required to put one number on the card. But, if that means that they can avoid a DQ for forgetting CH as long as something appears in Index of Playing (as long as these not higher than CH), then I still would be interested what number would be assumed to be their CH, if they put an Index and Playing Handicap on the card, both of which are different.

I might suggest that they are not dq'd from the gross competition, and their net score would be their gross score?

On the other, it seems like the Committee and comp secretary are slaves to the computer system and can't do anything manually.

 

[Old Skier]

I certainly don't envisage any issues during Covid, as we are not handling cards. Only one member in the group hands in a card with all scores on it, so we can't be DQing people if someone put a wrong handicap on the card that they cannot really see.

Presumably, when Covid is a thing of the past, physical scorecards still seem the most important tool for submitting and checking scores. Apart from untidy handwriting, it is fairly easy for someone to check through a card that has been signed by 2 people (and therefore looked at by Player and Marker). With technology, the way it works at the moment, players agree scores with Marker, then enter scores electronically pretty much at their own leisure for themselves. There is no marker to check they have put the correct scores in. And, players have fat fingers, or they rush through score entry and lose what hole they are on, and do not properly correct. This has always been an issue on PSI, so if done on phone likely to be even worse. The only sure fire way for the competition secretary to ensure scores were entered correctly was to check against the physical cards.

What is also interesting is that howdidido asks for you marker when submitting your score electronically. You can then simply select any member from the club. They do not get a say in it, and certainly do not get a message to say they have been allocated as a marker and should therefore check the electronic score entry. It just seems to be a bit of a gimmick of box ticking exercise, rather than providing any real value.

What have you been doing over the last 2 years were you have been using the PSI, checking every card. We have just done a % and the top 3.

Also from memory when the ladies did a comp there was a print out sheet that showed who the marker was.

 

[Swango1980]

What have you been doing over the last 2 years were you have been using the PSI, checking every card. We have just done a % and the top 3.

Also from memory when the ladies did a comp there was a print out sheet that showed who the marker was.

Certainly not every card, just the leaders like yourselves. Occasionally though, the result would have been different had we relied on the electronic entry (sometimes subtle, but a couple of times guys had won with about 100 points because they put in Stableford points instead of gross scores)

 

[Swango1980]

I might suggest that they are not dq'd from the gross competition, and their net score would be their gross score?

On the other, it seems like the Committee and comp secretary are slaves to the computer system and can't do anything manually.

Interesting. Certainly no DQ for any gross competition, as this does not effect the number of shots they get.

However, if no handicap is shown, and you are happy to assume their handicap is therefore 0 for the handicap competition, it begs the question why the rules of golf say the player should be disqualified when "Too High or No Handicap Shown". I'd interpret that by saying the player cannot avoid a DQ if no handicap is shown.

 

[Old Skier]

Certainly not every card, just the leaders like yourselves. Occasionally though, the result would have been different had we relied on the electronic entry (sometimes subtle, but a couple of times guys had won with about 100 points because they put in Stableford points instead of gross scores)

Yep I love these members, norm the same guys you don’t want anywhere near a medal card. As your well aware, whatever we put in place its not going to work for all, that’s why we love what we do

 

[Swango1980]

Yep I love these members, norm the same guys you don’t want anywhere near a medal card. As your well aware, whatever we put in place its not going to work for all, that’s why we love what we do

True, it is just relying on technology scares me. Especially due to the very laid back nature of members at our club, where many don't take things very seriously. Cheap club, golf not a top priority or big investment to most in the grand scheme of their lives. That has fantastic benefits, no one takes themselves too seriously. But, I still suspect that it does lead to admin issues that may or may not be seen as much as top golf clubs.

Just out of lockdown today, and already I've had an e-mail from a member sending me a picture of another members card. He used the phrase "I am submitting the email as he struggles with technology". I appreciate that most of us are technology savy, given we are on forums for a start. But, I wonder how many golfers out there are dire using technology, and even I fail to appreciate just how bad they are. Most at least get used to using the PSI screen, but even some (usually older members or new members) still look at it as if it is the control system for sending a space rocket to the moon. And, I have resigned myself to the fact that a huge percentage will simply never register with howdidido or the WHS Portal. I know the Seniors section do not use it at all (except to publish results). They do all booking, score entry, and payment manually. They wouldn't even move to electronic payment during Covid, as they tell us the Seniors generally refuse to use technology and cannot do online banking.