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

[Golfie]

I guess the first question is- are they still entering competitions? If so, are they ‘qualifying’ (so their HI might affect PCC)

I guess the first question is- are they still entering competitions? If so, are they ‘qualifying’ (so their HI might affect PCC)?

Most are playing only socially, but there are some taking part in privately arranged competitions where they are using a diffferent handicap method. In the previous system you just lost your C to stay it was current but a player didn’t have their handicap increased when only playing socially or did they?

 

[D-S]

If they are only playing socially and therefore have zero influence on any club competition who cares if their handicap is current or not?
The only way of making their unused official handicap reflect their current ability would be to somehow force them to enter cards/competitions that they have demonstrated they don't wish to play in or to make an adjustment based on their social golf scores - both of these would seem to be a pointless exercise..

 

[wjemather]

A dormant handicap is not a problem until someone decides to enter a competition somewhere using a handicap that doesn't come close to reflecting their ability.

 

[D-S]

Almost all clubs have policies in place that mean that prizes in competitions can only be won by players with some sort of recent scoring history, even if it is 3 cards in the past 12 months.
This is an effective means of insuring those with ‘dormant’ handicaps do not pose a problem when they enter a competition. This is an easier method than trying to ensure these players’ ‘dormant’ handicaps reflect their current ability rather than suspending or withdrawing their handicaps and/or constantly monitoring those whose handicaps might be becoming dormant. If these players do not choose to enter competitions then of course their HI is of no consequence.

 

[wjemather]

Almost all clubs have policies in place that mean that prizes in competitions can only be won by players with some sort of recent scoring history, even if it is 3 cards in the past 12 months.
This is an effective means of insuring those with ‘dormant’ handicaps do not pose a problem when they enter a competition. This is an easier method than trying to ensure these players’ ‘dormant’ handicaps reflect their current ability rather than suspending or withdrawing their handicaps and/or constantly monitoring those whose handicaps might be becoming dormant. If these players do not choose to enter competitions then of course their HI is of no consequence.

Do they? We hear about such things all the time, usually justified by scaremongering stories about handicap cheats being everywhere, but of the 6 opens I've played/entered this year, only one has any such policy.

The easier method is for handicap committees to do their job by identifying any such members at annual review and communicating with them to encourage score submission to ensure that should they ever decide to enter a competition (even if it's just a charity day), there won't be any problem.

 

[D-S]

Do they? We hear about such things all the time, usually justified by scaremongering stories about handicap cheats being everywhere, but of the 6 opens I've played/entered this year, only one has any such policy.

The easier method is for handicap committees to do their job by identifying any such members at annual review and communicating with them to encourage score submission to ensure that should they ever decide to enter a competition (even if it's just a charity day), there won't be any problem.

Patently the clubs whose Opens you entered do not have an issue with visitors who may have ‘dormant’ handicaps winning their prizes - that is entirely their prerogative. Trawling all members who happen not to have played in a comp or submitted a card in the past period every year and then communicating and cajoling them to keep their handicap up to date on the off chance that they may want to enter a competition seems an incredibly time consuming method of ensuring some sort of handicap accuracy for all, irrespective of whether they choose to use it or not.

 

[wjemather]

Patently the clubs whose Opens you entered do not have an issue with visitors who may have ‘dormant’ handicaps winning their prizes - that is entirely their prerogative. Trawling all members who happen not to have played in a comp or submitted a card in the past period every year and then communicating and cajoling them to keep their handicap up to date on the off chance that they may want to enter a competition seems an incredibly time consuming method of ensuring some sort of handicap accuracy for all, irrespective of whether they choose to use it or not.

Or they haven't fallen for the fallacies that it's a problem that is so prevalent that they need to do something/anything and/or that it's a problem that such criteria will be effective against (they aren't).

Looking at a standard WHS report, sending a templated email communication to selected members takes less than ten minutes - hardly "incredibly time consuming", even accounting for dealing with any responses.

 

[D-S]

Or they haven't fallen for the fallacies that it's a problem that is so prevalent that they need to do something/anything and/or that it's a problem that such criteria will be effective against (they aren't).

Looking at a standard WHS report, sending a templated email communication to selected members takes less than ten minutes - hardly "incredibly time consuming", even accounting for dealing with any responses.

Which is absolutely fine dealing with players from their own club.
However, unless you can sure that every other club from whom you accept visitors to your Opens, are as diligent and competent as your own committee, then there is a distinct possibility that many entrants will not have been vetted in the same way. My experience would suggest however that there a a wide spectrum of knowledge, competency, diligence and compliance across Club Handicap Committees - hence the 3 card rule for example is a more comprehensive solution.
But as I pointed out, it is entirely up to clubs who they will and who they won't accept.

 

[wjemather]

Which is absolutely fine dealing with players from their own club.
However, unless you can sure that every other club from whom you accept visitors to your Opens, are as diligent and competent as your own committee, then there is a distinct possibility that many entrants will not have been vetted in the same way. My experience would suggest however that there a a wide spectrum of knowledge, competency, diligence and compliance across Club Handicap Committees - hence the 3 card rule for example is a more comprehensive solution.
But as I pointed out, it is entirely up to clubs who they will and who they won't accept.

Yes, clubs can put whatever (non-discriminatory) conditions in they choose, but they should really identify what they are trying to achieve and whether those conditions do anything to that end.
If all they are looking to achieve is pacify a few vocal complaints about "bandits" from people who don't know anything about handicapping, then it's disproportionate but have at it. However, if they are actually looking to do something about them (the rare actual "bandits"), then a blunt tool such as a "3-card rule" isn't doing anything - the idea that it's any kind of solution (let alone a comprehensive one) to the problem is a fallacy.

 

[D-S]

This part of the thread is about players with dormant handicaps.
It is my suggestion that for Opens a 3 card or similar rule is a far more effective tool, however blunt, at ensuring those with dormant handicaps aren't a 'problem' when they decide to to enter your Open, rather than crossing your fingers and hoping that all handicap committees at all other clubs are as diligent and knowledgeable as your own.

 

[wjemather]

This part of the thread is about players with dormant handicaps.
It is my suggestion that for Opens a 3 card or similar rule is a far more effective tool, however blunt, at ensuring those with dormant handicaps aren't a 'problem' when they decide to to enter your Open, rather than crossing your fingers and hoping that all handicap committees at all other clubs are as diligent and knowledgeable as your own.

3 cards doesn't come remotely close to correcting a dormant handicap that is wildly inaccurate - without further adjustment following a review by the handicap committee.

 

[NearHull]

We also believe that a condition of entry ‘6 scores in the preceding 12 months of which 3 must be from competitions’ helps to achieve relevancy in a players handicap record, as does the Yorkshire Union of Golf Clubs who put a ‘6 competition scores in the preceding 12 months’ condition on their member meetings.

Eta. The condition is to win a monetary prize, it’s not a bar on entry. If a member hasn’t got his minimum 6 scores in his record he can enter a qualifying competition for free,

 

[YandaB]

Is a handicap committee justified in mandating that players entering a General Play card, also have a booked tee-time so that a check can be made for pre-registration of the round?

 

[NearHull]

Is a handicap committee justified in mandating that players entering a General Play card, also have a booked tee-time so that a check can be made for pre-registration of the round?

I understand where the Committee is coming from ( but don’t agree) but they cannot impose it on their members who put a card in from an away course, thereby creating an inconsistent approach.

 

[rulefan]

Is a handicap committee justified in mandating that players entering a General Play card, also have a booked tee-time so that a check can be made for pre-registration of the round?

How do they currently pre-register? And how would a tee time booking help?

 

[YandaB]

How do they currently pre-register? And how would a tee time booking help?

IG or EG. The tee time booking can be used to check if the registration was likely before or after, nothing definitive, but questions can then be asked if there is no match.