badgergm
Newbie
7.2, 2.7, 4.7 , 8.3, 5.2, 6.5, 8.3, 6.5
World Handicap System
- Thread starter balaclava
- Start date
7.2, 2.7, 4.7 , 8.3, 5.2, 6.5, 8.3, 6.5
Colin L
Tour Winner
Thanks - I couldn't quite follow how you were working out your new "calculated" Handicap Index rather than just adding the score differentials up and dividing by 8.
No matter, I'm now entirely with you and appreciate your drawing attention to what you found.
If you average those 8 Score Differentials, round to the nearest tenth as specified in the Rules and then apply the soft cap, the new Handicap index is 5.9.
If you average those 8 Score Differentials, take the exact value, then apply the soft cap, the new Handicap index is 5.8.
I don't know of any mention of using the exact value in the WHS Rules, the CONGU Guidance or the explanations of capping. I don't remember (although my memory is too dodgy a basis for any certainty) anything mentioned about it to this effect in the training I was given.
It looks then as if we have to think of a handicap index as a figure expressed to one tenth ....... except when it isn't? I feel some Victor Meldrew grumpiness coming on.
wjemather
Well-known member
Look at it this way: there is no HI until the calculation is complete, which it isn't until the soft cap has been applied. Rounding introduces errors (look at PH calculations in Eng/Wal/Ire) so it makes sense that it is done only once - at the end of the calculation. This is especially true when there will never be a need for anyone to perform it manually.Thanks - I couldn't quite follow how you were working out your new "calculated" Handicap Index rather than just adding the score differentials up and dividing by 8.
No matter, I'm now entirely with you and appreciate your drawing attention to what you found.
If you average those 8 Score Differentials, round to the nearest tenth as specified in the Rules and then apply the soft cap, the new Handicap index is 5.9.
If you average those 8 Score Differentials, take the exact value, then apply the soft cap, the new Handicap index is 5.8.
I don't know of any mention of using the exact value in the WHS Rules, the CONGU Guidance or the explanations of capping. I don't remember (although my memory is too dodgy a basis for any certainty) anything mentioned about it to this effect in the training I was given.
It looks then as if we have to think of a handicap index as a figure expressed to one tenth ....... except when it isn't? I feel some Victor Meldrew grumpiness coming on.
badgergm
Newbie
Thanks - I couldn't quite follow how you were working out your new "calculated" Handicap Index rather than just adding the score differentials up and dividing by 8.
No matter, I'm now entirely with you and appreciate your drawing attention to what you found.
If you average those 8 Score Differentials, round to the nearest tenth as specified in the Rules and then apply the soft cap, the new Handicap index is 5.9.
If you average those 8 Score Differentials, take the exact value, then apply the soft cap, the new Handicap index is 5.8.
I don't know of any mention of using the exact value in the WHS Rules, the CONGU Guidance or the explanations of capping. I don't remember (although my memory is too dodgy a basis for any certainty) anything mentioned about it to this effect in the training I was given.
It looks then as if we have to think of a handicap index as a figure expressed to one tenth ....... except when it isn't? I feel some Victor Meldrew grumpiness coming on.
See earlier on in thread, Rule 5.2b is pretty explicit that round before applying soft cap (my font colouring).
5.2b For 20 Scores
A Handicap Index is calculated from the lowest Score Differentials in the scoring
record. If a scoring record contains at least 20 Score Differentials, the procedure
for calculating a Handicap Index is:
l Average the lowest 8 of the most recent 20 Score Differentials (which include
any adjustments for exceptional scores and/or a Committee review) and round
to the nearest tenth.
l Compute the difference between the average of the lowest 8 Score Differentials
and the Low Handicap Index.
o If the difference is greater than 3, the soft cap calculation is applied.
o If the difference is greater than 5 after application of the soft cap, then the
hard cap is applied.
So the question would be - is this a s/w bug or should the rule (or guidance) be updated?
All the examples I've seen in presentations have been simple cases.
Wabinez
Journeyman Pro
Why don’t you message England Golf? The WHS queries email address is pretty responsive and helpful…
Colin L
Tour Winner
I would have no issue with using the exact value of the average in calculating soft and hard caps. It would , after all, be the for same reason as applying the 95% stroke play allowance to the exact, not rounded value of the course handicap which Scotland alone in CONGU is doing. But that was made clear in the CONGU Guidance document and and by Scottish Golf.
I do have an issue, however, with a situation where there is a clear procedure laid out in the WHS Rules (see above) and something different done in practice . What bugs me is being put in the position of learning and applying what is written in the rules and of advising people accordingly only to find out that the practice is contradictory. I'll need to check with SG what our practice is.
wjemather
Well-known member
But this is not explicitly laid out in either the rules or the guidance; any inference from what is written there is based on assumption. Ultimately, no-one needs to be doing these calculations by hand, so just let the software get on with it.
badgergm
Newbie
I've worked in bespoke software system requirements, architecture and development all my life. The last thing I'm going to do is just let the s/w get on with it
. It's also not at all unreasonable to want to answer the question of e.g. 'what would my handicap be if I have a really bad round tomorrow?".Besides, it's a golf rules forum - if we weren't interested in the details and nuances of these things, then we wouldn't be on here. My guess is it that it is deliberate - and that's fine, it's probably the right thing to do. But it grates a little that it is inconsistent with the playing handicap calculation that Colin points out.
Old Skier
Tour Winner
I've worked in bespoke software system requirements, architecture and development all my life. The last thing I'm going to do is just let the s/w get on with it
Besides, it's a golf rules forum - if we weren't interested in the details and nuances of these things, then we wouldn't be on here. My guess is it that it is deliberate - and that's fine, it's probably the right thing to do. But it grates a little that it is inconsistent with the playing handicap calculation that Colin points out.
But the only way to get the correct answer is from the respective union. You never know, there might be a glitch in the S/W and the unions haven’t realised it.
badgergm
Newbie
Yep, have sent query.
Old Skier
Tour Winner
Would love to see the response if you get one. I got my knuckles rapped even as Club HC Sec as all queries (our county insist) had to go through them.
Colin L
Tour Winner
There is nothing in the rules which have already been quoted that needs inferences based on assumptions. It is explicit.
There has been no suggestion that anyone needs to do these calculations but there are plenty in my own club alone who take a close and detailed interest in their handicaps. They will want to know what is happening if their HI is capped and it's only right that the method of calculation is known. And since they'll be asking me, it's all the more important that I have the right answer. I don't care what the answer is, provided it's clear. but it would undoubtedly be better if method and rule matched. The very members who will ask are the ones who will have read and tried to apply what's said in the rules.
wjemather
Well-known member
If it was explicit, no-one would be questioning the implementation.
Old Skier
Tour Winner
Refer the good gentlemen to here
https://www.englandgolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Rules-of-Handicapping-17-12-20.pdf
and here
https://www.congu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/WHSDocs/Handicapping-Advice.pdf
not sure anything will be clear but it does get everyone of your back for a while
Colin L
Tour Winner
The rules explicitly state one thing and the implementation is evidently different in badgergm's case. That's all.
3offTheTee
Tour Rookie
Whilst based in England I play some singles in Scotland. Understand WHS is not compatible. What is the position re my handicap if I submit the scores to my home club from a comp played on a Monday, they do not input overnight, and I play again on Tuesday.
I expect I take the handicap from England Golf app rather than work it out.
Thanks
I expect I take the handicap from England Golf app rather than work it out.
Thanks
Colin L
Tour Winner
You have been misled: your WHS handicap is compatible worldwide. The hint is in the W of WHS. (Apologies: there should be "smart ass" emoticon for comments like that
)The hitch at the moment which no doubt you're referring to is that the computer systems don't talk to each other and you have to inform your home club of scores from outwith your country. The answer to your question is that you play to whatever your EG app says your handicap index is. There is no longer a requirement to self-adjust.
Beedee
Assistant Pro
Surely its the Quite Similar In All Parts Of The World But Some Differences For No Good Reason Handicap System, or "QSIAPOTWBSDFNGRHS" for short.
jim8flog
Journeyman Pro
Your handicap index is whatever it says on the EG website on the morning of play. You are not responsible for any alterations to it England Golf is.
Colin L
Tour Winner
Refer the good gentlemen to here
https://www.englandgolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Rules-of-Handicapping-17-12-20.pdf
and here
https://www.congu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/WHSDocs/Handicapping-Advice.pdf
not sure anything will be clear but it does get everyone of your back for a while
How could referring anyone to the rules be of any use when the crux of the problem is that there appears to be a difference between the rules and their application? All it would achieve is to confirm that there is a difference between the rules and their application.
