Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Two interesting motions at the GUI AGM

Options
13567…14

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    J6P
    Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭J6P


    Dr_Colossus wrote: »
    Is that meant as a joke? Where are all the cheap memberships available in Dublin? Cheapest you'll get for full membership is about €800, most of the member owned clubs which typically are in better condition charge upwards of €1,500 which is still stupid money when compared to country rates.

    Not for full memberships but very few of the country memberships are full memberships either. The only reason people got them was for the GUI card and to play open comps.

    The option is there now in Dublin to get your GUI for under €250 and use it in the same way as you would have the country membership.

    Corballis €295 (€245 if you refer a friend..pay and play membership)
    Grange Castle €230 (5 day pay and play)
    Citywest €250 (5 day pay and play)

    The fact is the demand for country memberships is now gone.


  • Options
    #63
    BigChap1759
    Registered Users Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭BigChap1759


    Sandwlch wrote: »
    I dont think so.
    Its just giving golfers back a bit of control to within the rules manage their own handicaps, but with the bias towards being lower rather than higher. If you are on X.4, then it gives you the choice to go up a shot after a bad round or to hang on to your X.4 and work on getting it down whichever you want. Or just to gamble a bit more during the round in the hope of bringing in a good score rather than trying to 'nurse' things along to avoid risking falling out of the buffer zone.
    The rules are the same for everyone, so I dont think its a case of messing anything up.

    Why would you think it's OK to choose to NR? It would be handicap manipulation ie cheating


  • Options
    #64
    Arsenium
    Registered Users Posts: 637 ✭✭✭Arsenium


    So for golfers trying to reduce their handicap, competitions will basically all be "reduction only" if it gets passed. If you are going well push on and try to get the best score possible to get the biggest reduction. If playing poorly, what the hell...just NR the card and try again next week.

    I always find if I am going badly in a competition I revise my target...instead of trying to get a winning score I try to scrape into my buffer zone. With this the second bit of pressure is removed.

    On the first one, it says "a golfer must have returned a minimum of three qualifying scores in his home club the previous year."

    So you could be blocked from competing in opens for a year ?

    EDIT: How do these motions get proposed? Do they come from the clubs? Is it likely that this would get passed if the Union are taking it seriously enough to discuss at the AGM?

    SECOND EDIT: Read it again and I see that they are passed. So it's with Congu now. Interesting.


  • Options
    #65
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    Arsenium wrote: »
    On the first one, it says "a golfer must have returned a minimum of three qualifying scores in his home club the previous year."

    So you could be blocked from competing in opens for a year ?

    Yes, that's it. It would solve at least one problem of players getting a "nice" handicap at a course they will not know and then play lots of team open events with their "nice" handicap and never get cut.


  • Options
    #66
    alxmorgan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭alxmorgan


    SnowDrifts wrote: »
    Yes, that's it. It would solve at least one problem of players getting a "nice" handicap at a course they will not know and then play lots of team open events with their "nice" handicap and never get cut.

    But doesn't solve the issue of people playing team events with inflated handicaps regardless of where they got them. Unless the course they are a member of applies cuts for scores in team events. Which of course they have to find out about and if you are into that sort of thing chances are you are not reporting them


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,519 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Arsenium wrote: »

    On the first one, it says "a golfer must have returned a minimum of three qualifying scores in his home club the previous year."

    So you could be blocked from competing in opens for a year ?
    SnowDrifts wrote: »
    Yes, that's it. It would solve at least one problem of players getting a "nice" handicap at a course they will not know and then play lots of team open events with their "nice" handicap and never get cut.

    So if someone is ill and not able to play for a year, does this mean are banned from playing open competitions in the year they return to action?
    Seems more than a tad harsh!

    A simple solution would be to tweak the wording to:

    a golfer must have returned a minimum of three qualifying scores in his home club in the current or previous year.


    EDIT
    Just after reading to proposed rule:
    In order to be eligible to compete in all Singles Qualifying Competitions at an Away Club, with the exception of all events listed in No. 6 of the Union Bye Laws, a Member of a GUI Affiliated Golf Club must have competed in at least three Singles Qualifying Competitions at his Home Club on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year.

    Which covers both current and prior year. Seems fine


  • Options
    #68
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    blackwhite wrote: »
    So if someone is ill and not able to play for a year, does this mean are banned from playing open competitions in the year they return to action?
    Seems more than a tad harsh!

    A simple solution would be to tweak the wording to:

    a golfer must have returned a minimum of three qualifying scores in his home club in the current or previous year.


    EDIT
    Just after reading to proposed rule:
    In order to be eligible to compete in all Singles Qualifying Competitions at an Away Club, with the exception of all events listed in No. 6 of the Union Bye Laws, a Member of a GUI Affiliated Golf Club must have competed in at least three Singles Qualifying Competitions at his Home Club on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year.

    Which covers both current and prior year. Seems fine

    Think you may have read that incorrectly. It's the previous calendar year.

    Also, don't consider it to be harsh. Surely most players priority is to play competitions at their home club. Open comps should not be the only events you play.


  • Options
    #69
    alxmorgan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭alxmorgan


    SnowDrifts wrote: »
    Think you may have read that incorrectly. It's the previous calendar year.

    Also, don't consider it to be harsh. Surely most players priority is to play competitions at their home club. Open comps should not be the only events you play.

    I must be reading this wrong or does this mean you can't play opens in your first year playing ? i.e. you have no qualifying scores from previous year therefore you need to wait till year 2 to play opens ?


  • Options
    #70
    Dayor Knight
    Registered Users Posts: 743 ✭✭✭Dayor Knight


    J6P wrote: »
    Not for full memberships but very few of the country memberships are full memberships either. The only reason people got them was for the GUI card and to play open comps.

    The option is there now in Dublin to get your GUI for under €250 and use it in the same way as you would have the country membership.

    Corballis €295 (€245 if you refer a friend..pay and play membership)
    Grange Castle €230 (5 day pay and play)
    Citywest €250 (5 day pay and play)

    The fact is the demand for country memberships is now gone.

    Hibernian Golf Club based at the Smurfit Course, K Club, has an annual sub of €195 with a pay as you play arrangement thereafter (€40/€45 for Winter/Summer). Not a bad option.


  • Options
    #71
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    alxmorgan wrote: »
    I must be reading this wrong or does this mean you can't play opens in your first year playing ? i.e. you have no qualifying scores from previous year therefore you need to wait till year 2 to play opens ?

    Yes, that would seem correct - if you have no qualifying scores in your home club the previous calander year, you would have to wait until the following year to play an open event.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,519 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    SnowDrifts wrote: »
    Think you may have read that incorrectly. It's the previous calendar year.

    Also, don't consider it to be harsh. Surely most players priority is to play competitions at their home club. Open comps should not be the only events you play.

    "on or after 1 January in the previous year"

    To me that means at any point since 1 January of last year - not restricted to last year.
    "On or after" defines the timeframe - "in the previous year" is defining which 1 January is being referred to.


  • Options
    #73
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    Dossy wrote: »
    Ya PARlance i agree with you there,

    Bandits will be Bandits, they will always find a way,
    The NR thing has Pro's and Con's
    At 17.4 at the mo i would be very tempted to a NR to stay at 17,
    I can see people saying well i never play that bad normally so not handing that one in etc....

    "on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year"

    As in last year. So if a player wanted to play in open comps, he will have had to play 3 qualifying rounds the year before, not the current year.


  • Options
    #74
    mike12
    Registered Users Posts: 2,331 ✭✭✭mike12


    alxmorgan wrote: »
    But doesn't solve the issue of people playing team events with inflated handicaps regardless of where they got them. Unless the course they are a member of applies cuts for scores in team events. Which of course they have to find out about and if you are into that sort of thing chances are you are not reporting them
    Don't know why they don't make you swipe in every club for team events at least that way it is recorded on your handicap sheet. If they could also add your finishing position it would become apparent very quickly if you were just playing Team events and doing well.
    Thing about team events if you have 4 guys that are bandits playing in them together if they want to win they would just have to write down the score they wanted on each hole rather than what they shot.


  • Options
    #75
    Aesop
    Registered Users Posts: 220 ✭✭Aesop


    I thought this motion was also worthy of mention :-

    Would like to submit the following amended motion to call on CONGU to introduce the following change in the handicap system that would take effect from the 1st January 2016.
    "That no player can receive more than twenty point ones (0.1's) from qualifying competitions during a calendar year"

    This seems like a hugely positive motion in combating the handicap builders.


  • Options
    #76
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,519 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    SnowDrifts wrote: »
    "on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year"

    As in last year. So if a player wanted to play in open comps, he will have had to play 3 qualifying rounds the year before, not the current year.

    It can be interpreted either way TBH, and at the moment they haven't clarified which way they will choose to apply it.

    In general terms, and rules or legal agreements that were intended the way you seem to think this rule is will include the words "previous calendar year" or some such derivation.
    The words "on or after" imply that the period is not restricted to just the year.


  • Options
    #77
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    blackwhite wrote: »
    It can be interpreted either way TBH, and at the moment they haven't clarified which way they will choose to apply it.

    In general terms, and rules or legal agreements that were intended the way you seem to think this rule is will include the words "previous calendar year" or some such derivation.
    The words "on or after" imply that the period is not restricted to just the year.

    Not going to keep on at this but it's the previous calendar year. There is no dual interpretation.

    "on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year" The previous calendar year does not include this year! It ends on the 31st of December.

    Think about it this way... if I said "on or after 1st January in the year 2013" then that would end on the 31st of December 2013.


  • Options
    #78
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,519 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    SnowDrifts wrote: »
    Not going to keep on at this but it's the previous calendar year. There is no dual interpretation.

    "on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year" The previous calendar year does not include this year! It ends on the 31st of December.

    Think about it this way... if I said "on or after 1st January in the year 2013" then that would end on the 31st of December 2013.

    "in the previous calendar year" can be taken to mean last year.

    "on or after 1st January last year" would not be taken to read as last year only.

    If you aren't able to see how the current wording is open to interpretation then you should never sign any legal documents without having someone else read them for you!


    EDIT:
    SnowDrifts wrote: »
    N
    Think about it this way... if I said "on or after 1st January in the year 2013" then that would end on the 31st of December 2013.

    Actually it wouldn't. Legally speaking "on or after 1st January in the year 2013" means the exact same as "on or after 1st January 2013."
    To restrict it to calendar year 2013 it would be "on or after 1st January and in the year 2013" or "on or after 1st January within the year 2013"


  • Options
    #79
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    blackwhite wrote: »
    "in the previous calendar year" can be taken to mean last year.

    "on or after 1st January last year" would not be taken to read as last year only.

    If you aren't able to see how the current wording is open to interpretation then you should never sign any legal documents without having someone else read them for you!

    Again, you're wrong but if you want to take it to PM, please do. I could do with some entertainment.


  • Options
    #80
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,519 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    SnowDrifts wrote: »
    Again, you're wrong but if you want to take it to PM, please do. I could do with some entertainment.

    You'll need to be able to explain beyond a simple "You're wrong" :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #81
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    blackwhite wrote: »
    You'll need to be able to explain beyond a simple "You're wrong" :rolleyes:

    Already done so above. It's fairly simple so just keep reading it and maybe you will get it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,519 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    SnowDrifts wrote: »
    Already done so above. It's fairly simple so just keep reading it and maybe you will get it.

    If you aren't able to refute any of my explanations just say so - fingers in the ears claiming that you're right isn't

    Just in case you missed it (or want to ignore it because it doesn't suit your argument):
    Legally speaking "on or after 1st January in the year 2013" means the exact same as "on or after 1st January 2013."
    To restrict it to calendar year 2013 it would be "on or after 1st January and in the year 2013" or "on or after 1st January within the year 2013"


  • Options
    #83
    BoardsMember
    Registered Users Posts: 4,440 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    PARlance wrote: »
    Teams don't get 0.1's at present, are you thinking the opposite I.e a cut for all winning team members. That would be somthing I think would be good.

    I think both are very good.

    Only slight fear would be the element of vanity handicaps that point 2 might allow. Low guys staying low to qualify to the top
    AM events is one side of it, but the bigger potential is hackers like me NR'ing card(s) that would add a shot at present.

    By and large, when someone tells you their HC, you know that they are around that level and I like that as it stands.
    Have a look at the US system, a lot of Vanicaps flying around and it ruins it I feel.
    It's not going to cost anyone prizes however so that may be the more important thing.

    Personally I would keep 2. as they propose BUT limit it to about 5 NR's a year. I.e The 6th NR gets a 0.1.
    It'd cost the bandits an extra 5 rounds, whilst keeping the integrity of the system IMO.

    No, meant that in order to qualify for a singles event OR a team event you need to have the cards in the previous year.


  • Options
    #84
    BoardsMember
    Registered Users Posts: 4,440 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    mike12 wrote: »
    Don't know why they don't make you swipe in every club for team events at least that way it is recorded on your handicap sheet. If they could also add your finishing position it would become apparent very quickly if you were just playing Team events and doing well.
    Thing about team events if you have 4 guys that are bandits playing in them together if they want to win they would just have to write down the score they wanted on each hole rather than what they shot.

    This is an excellent idea. It's been the elephant in the room for years, they have a centralised database, they have the technology, yet they refuse to do anything about people abusing the system in order to compete to win in team competitions.

    We all know a few high profile perennial challengers, Pebble Beach televised events for example. It's extraordinary that people of good standing agree to play with these bandits.

    I heard of a great approach to one well sponsored, well organised Club Open team event. The club put out the prizes for all to see, best prize was a GPS watch each. But they didn't specify which was which.

    As the prizes were given out, the bandit-boyos were looking delighted with themselves in the corner, but faces dropped as first of all the second place team (of honest endeavor) won the GPS watches, after which they were presented with a sleeve of Top Flites each. F off the clear message. Lovely job!!


  • Options
    #85
    Dossy
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭Dossy


    BoardsMember wrote: »
    This is an excellent idea. It's been the elephant in the room for years, they have a centralised database, they have the technology, yet they refuse to do anything about people abusing the system in order to compete to win in team competitions.

    We all know a few high profile perennial challengers, Pebble Beach televised events for example. It's extraordinary that people of good standing agree to play with these bandits.

    I heard of a great approach to one well sponsored, well organised Club Open team event. The club put out the prizes for all to see, best prize was a GPS watch each. But they didn't specify which was which.

    As the prizes were given out, the bandit-boyos were looking delighted with themselves in the corner, but faces dropped as first of all the second place team (of honest endeavor) won the GPS watches, after which they were presented with a sleeve of Top Flites each. F off the clear message. Lovely job!!

    I would have loved to be there for that :)


  • Options
    #86
    Russman
    Registered Users Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭Russman


    I just reread the first post and hadn't realised these motions have been passed, jaysus I thought they were only proposed !

    Has the limit of twenty 0.1s been passed also ?


  • Options
    #87
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,519 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    BoardsMember wrote: »
    This is an excellent idea. It's been the elephant in the room for years, they have a centralised database, they have the technology, yet they refuse to do anything about people abusing the system in order to compete to win in team competitions.

    I can't understand why they haven't done something like this yet.
    Golfnet already includes results for any non-qualifying singles scores, it can't be that much of a stretch to include a team comps section as well.

    Would make it much easier for handicap secretaries to assess those who don't enter many singles comps.


  • Options
    #88
    Russman
    Registered Users Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭Russman


    blackwhite wrote: »
    I can't understand why they haven't done something like this yet.
    Golfnet already includes results for any non-qualifying singles scores, it can't be that much of a stretch to include a team comps section as well.

    Would make it much easier for handicap secretaries to assess those who don't enter many singles comps.

    Its too much of a grey area though to police effectively. You'd really need all 4 scores for the players to be entered for each hole, otherwise you'd be running the risk of someone being cut or found "guilty" by association.

    The best way to help with the team even issue is to have greatly reduced prizes, thus lessening the temptation for bandits.

    Also, you can't really cut someone just because they don't enter singles comps, there's no requirement to do so. I don't think too many handicap secretaries in real life actually concern themselves with this tbh. I don't say this flippantly but most people doing the job are volunteers and just want to "get in and get out" so to speak, there's more important things in life.


  • Options
    #89
    Aesop
    Registered Users Posts: 220 ✭✭Aesop


    Russman wrote: »
    Has the limit of twenty 0.1s been passed also ?

    Yes although this is ultimately a matter for CONGU so it has to be proposed and accepted by them. Earliest this would be enacted would be Jan 2016.

    To my mind this is the single most important change to the handicapping system and should have been introduced years ago. Perhaps clubs didn't want to lose income on opens from handicap builders claiming 50 or 60 0.1's per year?


  • Options
    #90
    ballyk
    Registered Users Posts: 843 ✭✭✭ballyk


    Russman wrote: »
    I just reread the first post and hadn't realised these motions have been passed, jaysus I thought they were only proposed !

    Has the limit of twenty 0.1s been passed also ?

    See http://www.gui.ie/home/general-documents/press-motions.aspx for confirmation that the twenty 0.1s limit has been passed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    ballyk wrote: »
    See http://www.gui.ie/home/general-documents/press-motions.aspx for confirmation that the twenty 0.1s limit has been passed.

    But still has to be proposed to CONGU.


Advertisement