WHS & ISV Issues (Please post only if you are a handicap secretary or involved in admin at your club)

[wjemather]

OK - Martin Hawtree did an interesting design for our place where par and SI are the same for all tees used. Hence:

Lakeland / Parkland course, Red tees - CR = 71.8, SR= 129, Par = 72 Yellow Tees - CR = 71.9, SR = 125, Par = 72

We don't (yet) have gender neutral tees so Red = Ladies and Yellow = Gentlemen

I'm guessing that you are at The Dorset. In which case, according to the CR database and WHS Portal, your ratings are as follows for Lakeland & Parkland:

White: Par 72, CR 71.9, Slope 133​

Yellow: Par 72, CR 70.1, Slope 125​

Red: Par 72, CR 71.8, Slope 129​

As such the ladies will get a 2 stroke adjustment with the men playing from the yellow tees, (ladies "play to handicap" score is 36 points, the men's is 38) which explains the difference you are seeing.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

I'm guessing that you are at The Dorset. In which case, according to the CR database and WHS Portal, your ratings are as follows for Lakeland & Parkland:

White: Par 72, CR 71.9, Slope 133​

Yellow: Par 72, CR 70.1, Slope 125​

Red: Par 72, CR 71.8, Slope 129​

As such the ladies will get a 2 stroke adjustment with the men playing from the yellow tees, (ladies "play to handicap" score is 36 points, the men's is 38) which explains the difference you are seeing.

Sorry - so used to playing the whites

 

[mikejohnchapman]

I'm guessing that you are at The Dorset. In which case, according to the CR database and WHS Portal, your ratings are as follows for Lakeland & Parkland:

White: Par 72, CR 71.9, Slope 133​

Yellow: Par 72, CR 70.1, Slope 125​

Red: Par 72, CR 71.8, Slope 129​

As such the ladies will get a 2 stroke adjustment with the men playing from the yellow tees, (ladies "play to handicap" score is 36 points, the men's is 38) which explains the difference you are seeing.

Oh my - my head is really hurting now!

So if we were playing off white and red tees in a mixed foresomes there would be no adjustment?

 

[wjemather]

Oh my - my head is really hurting now!

So if we were playing off white and red tees in a mixed foresomes there would be no adjustment?

Correct; both men and women would have a "play to handicap" score of 36 points.

 

[IanMcC]

Here is a copy of a query I sent to CSI this morning. Anyone experience anything similar or know how I messed up?

Good morning,

Maybe you can help with a problem that arose this weekend with one of our comps. At R****** Golf Club on Saturday 3rd July we staged the 36 Hole Scratch Club Championships. The 2 rounds were both played on that day.

There was no problem with round 1. All players signed in and entered their scores into the PSI. All players were then signed in for round 2, as can be seen on the Activity Log, but when they completed their round nobody could enter their scores on either the PSI or the HDID app. The PSI stated that they needed to sign in, but the Overview said they were all signed in already. I had to manually input all of the scores myself, which can also be seen on the Activity Log.

Is this a symptom of me setting up the competition parameters incorrectly somehow, or is it a known fault? I know there was issues with the PSI earlier this year with Greensome comps and not using the 'Sign In Immediately' radio button, but I thought these had all been rectified.

We do not run these 2 round competitions very often, but if I made an error I would like to correct it next time.

Many thanks,

 

[Swango1980]

Here is a copy of a query I sent to CSI this morning. Anyone experience anything similar or know how I messed up?

Good morning,

Maybe you can help with a problem that arose this weekend with one of our comps. At R****** Golf Club on Saturday 3rd July we staged the 36 Hole Scratch Club Championships. The 2 rounds were both played on that day.

There was no problem with round 1. All players signed in and entered their scores into the PSI. All players were then signed in for round 2, as can be seen on the Activity Log, but when they completed their round nobody could enter their scores on either the PSI or the HDID app. The PSI stated that they needed to sign in, but the Overview said they were all signed in already. I had to manually input all of the scores myself, which can also be seen on the Activity Log.

Is this a symptom of me setting up the competition parameters incorrectly somehow, or is it a known fault? I know there was issues with the PSI earlier this year with Greensome comps and not using the 'Sign In Immediately' radio button, but I thought these had all been rectified.

We do not run these 2 round competitions very often, but if I made an error I would like to correct it next time.

Many thanks,

Not seen that myself, but we've not had a multi round, single day comp.

Bizarrely, I signed in to our weekend competition on howdidido at the weekend. I can actually guarantee that as well, because every time I sign into a round using my phone, the phone then goes to the howdidido log in page (as if it signs me out, but if I just reopen app I am automatically signed in again). So, I showed my phone to another Committee member to see if they get the same screen when signing in. However, later in the day, the competition secretary said there was no record of me signing in at all. Even though I entered my scores on my Phone as well, and Today's Golf asked for the Score Entry (presumably it already knew I had signed in)

 

[Swango1980]

Really annoying thing with Club V1. It allows a handicap to be directly entered in Club V1, no questions asked. Not known by me, the golf club staff have been directly entering the handicaps if they have been declared by a new member. However, these are in no way linked to WHS, no CDH number, and so are just sitting on Club V1 with no verification that the handicap declared by the new member is accurate. The only way I found out this happened was that a player entered a competition, played in it, I didn't recognise his name and then when I looked at Club V1 saw he had no CDH.

I've now asked the staff NOT to directly enter new member handicaps in Club V1 (despite asking them not to do this on 2 previous Committee meetings). However, surely Club V1 should either not let this happen at all, or flag any member clearly who has no CHD linked to Club V1?

 

[wjemather]

Really annoying thing with Club V1. It allows a handicap to be directly entered in Club V1, no questions asked. Not known by me, the golf club staff have been directly entering the handicaps if they have been declared by a new member. However, these are in no way linked to WHS, no CDH number, and so are just sitting on Club V1 with no verification that the handicap declared by the new member is accurate. The only way I found out this happened was that a player entered a competition, played in it, I didn't recognise his name and then when I looked at Club V1 saw he had no CDH.

I've now asked the staff NOT to directly enter new member handicaps in Club V1 (despite asking them not to do this on 2 previous Committee meetings). However, surely Club V1 should either not let this happen at all, or flag any member clearly who has no CHD linked to Club V1?

Presumably this is to facilitate members who have their handicaps administered in a different jurisdiction without necessitating handicap secs inputting their handicap record into WHS; and also apply fictional handicaps to players who do not have official handicaps (handy for charity days, etc. if running them through ClubV1).

 

[Old Skier]

Really annoying thing with Club V1. It allows a handicap to be directly entered in Club V1, no questions asked. Not known by me, the golf club staff have been directly entering the handicaps if they have been declared by a new member. However, these are in no way linked to WHS, no CDH number, and so are just sitting on Club V1 with no verification that the handicap declared by the new member is accurate. The only way I found out this happened was that a player entered a competition, played in it, I didn't recognise his name and then when I looked at Club V1 saw he had no CDH.

I've now asked the staff NOT to directly enter new member handicaps in Club V1 (despite asking them not to do this on 2 previous Committee meetings). However, surely Club V1 should either not let this happen at all, or flag any member clearly who has no CHD linked to Club V1?

I've had this problem. Check with the new member that they have a CDH No and find them on the WHS DB and enter their CDH on V1.

Our admin have been instructed that if the member has a HC they must have a CDH.

You may also find in their history when you do this that they are still linked to another club.

 

[Swango1980]

I'm on a role today. Presumably if a player fails to hole out in a medal, they are disqualified (Rule 3.3c)? If so, why does Club V1 / howdidido show them on the leaderboard as NR rather than DQ?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I'm on a role today. Presumably if a player fails to hole out in a medal, they are disqualified (Rule 3.3c)? If so, why does Club V1 / howdidido show them on the leaderboard as NR rather than DQ?

Because they have NRd, they can continue to score and are subject to a stableford adjustment on that hole, and any other holes where it is necessary for handicap purposes.

 

[wjemather]

I'm on a role today. Presumably if a player fails to hole out in a medal, they are disqualified (Rule 3.3c)? If so, why does Club V1 / howdidido show them on the leaderboard as NR rather than DQ?

Yes, I reported this some time ago (along with ClubV1 passing 18 NDBs through to WHS for unreturned scores) - at the moment DQs are a manual process (as is correcting the junk that gets put through to WHS when players don't submit any scores) but HDID still shows NR instead of DQ, although ClubV1 reports do show the DQ.

Because they have NRd, they can continue to score and are subject to a stableford adjustment on that hole, and any other holes where it is necessary for handicap purposes.

But that is irrelevant for the competition; as Swango says, they should be DQd under 3.3(c).

 

[Deleted member 30522]

But that is irrelevant for the competition; as Swango says, they should be DQd under 3.3(c).

No it isn't, Appendix J, it's an acceptable score

 

[Deleted member 30522]

 

[Deleted member 30522]

View attachment 37381

 

[rulefan]

No it isn't, Appendix J, it's an acceptable score

Appendix J is for handicap purposes only not competition results.

Appendix J - Disqualified Scores for Handicapping

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Appendix J is for handicap purposes only not competition results.

Appendix J - Disqualified Scores for Handicapping

So you'd go through all your results and amend all acceptable scores to a DQ rather than an NR which has the same outcome? I doubt that, never seen it anywhere.

 

[Swango1980]

So you'd go through all your results and amend all acceptable scores to a DQ rather than an NR which has the same outcome? I doubt that, never seen it anywhere.

As mentioned above, the proper result is DQ, not a No Return. My question was not related to handicaps, that is a separate matter.

One of the problems stating No Return is that it is simply not true. The player may well return their score, but with one or more holes not finished. This causes further confusions (and anger in some cases), when players are now being told that a No Return is not acceptable for handicap purposes. Many believe that means they are no longer allowed to quit on a hole if they are having a disaster, and now blame golf committees of pressuring them to hole out on a hole in which they are having a mental breakdown. That is clearly not the intention, and if the likes of howdidido used the correct terminology, it may address this issue to some extent.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

As mentioned above, the proper result is DQ, not a No Return. My question was not related to handicaps, that is a separate matter.

One of the problems stating No Return is that it is simply not true. The player may well return their score, but with one or more holes not finished. This causes further confusions (and anger in some cases), when players are now being told that a No Return is not acceptable for handicap purposes. Many believe that means they are no longer allowed to quit on a hole if they are having a disaster, and now blame golf committees of pressuring them to hole out on a hole in which they are having a mental breakdown. That is clearly not the intention, and if the likes of howdidido used the correct terminology, it may address this issue to some extent.

Who says this? NRs have been acceptable for as long as I can remember.

 

[Swango1980]

Who says this? NRs have been acceptable for as long as I can remember.

You demonstrate the confusion very well.

It is not acceptable to not return your card (which would fit the definition of "No Return" very well). It is acceptable to not finish a hole(s), this results in DQ for medal, but can still be used for handicap.