Two interesting motions at the GUI AGM

SnowDrifts · 19-02-2014 6:50pm

Just to note with regard to the distance membership issue... they are proposing that this comes into effect on the 1st Jan 2015 so if you are a member in any distance clubs... you better get your 3 qualifying rounds in this year!

Also, as I highlighted before, it is the rounds during the previous calender year that count and it also means you will have to play at least 3 home qualifying rounds every year.

"Thus, by returning a minimum of three Qualifying Scores at his Home Club, annually, the player's Handicap Committee and peer information will better contribute to keeping the player's handicap under review leading to a more equitable handicapping system."

BoardsMember · 19-02-2014 6:53pm

Russman wrote: »

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.

I'm not so sure. You're only trying to get serial bandits, so if you have a lad who wins three team events in one season, you can be fairly sure that he's worth losing a .5 or two. In our place we have to post any team event wins for the hcap sec.

SnowDrifts · 19-02-2014 6:55pm

BoardsMember wrote: »

I'm not so sure. You're only trying to get serial bandits, so if you have a lad who wins three team events in one season, you can be fairly sure that he's worth losing a .5 or two. In our place we have to post any team event wins for the hcap sec.

We have to in my club also but I have never seen or heard of an individual cut from team events. I won 3 away team events 2 years ago and recorded my scores in the "away book" hoping to get a cut for myself and got nothing!

blackwhite · 19-02-2014 7:00pm

BoardsMember wrote: »

I'm not so sure. You're only trying to get serial bandits, so if you have a lad who wins three team events in one season, you can be fairly sure that he's worth losing a .5 or two. In our place we have to post any team event wins for the hcap sec.

It'd be great if they brought in a system whereby the club hosting an open team competition was required to notify the home clubs of the winners, and then cuts could be applied.
Relying on people to post their scores themselves is never going to help with bandit detection.

golfwallah · 19-02-2014 7:12pm

SnowDrifts wrote: »

We have to in my club also but I have never seen or heard of an individual cut from team events. I won 3 away team events 2 years ago and recorded my scores in the "away book" hoping to get a cut for myself and got nothing!

blackwhite wrote: »

It'd be great if they brought in a system whereby the club hosting an open team competition was required to notify the home clubs of the winners, and then cuts could be applied.
Relying on people to post their scores themselves is never going to help with bandit detection.

No matter what system you have, ultimately, the human factor comes into it in the form of the club handicap / competition secretary.

Some handicap secs take the job seriously and put in the time to keep club handicaps in line with CONGU rules & recomendations. After that, you're on a scale from good to poor compliance and it's left to GUI audits of the annual handicap reviews, etc.

Additionally, any changes in CONGU rules have to have approval of the other golfing unions in the British Isles and all this takes time. Another factor is that it's only a few years since the system changed to give back .1s for NR cards. This was brought in for good reasons, as handicap building can happen both at the high end and low ends for all sorts of motives. Can't see this decision being reversed so soon after it was implemented.

Miley Byrne · 20-02-2014 12:44am

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!

EDIT:

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"

I must say the more I look at this I tend to think you are correct. It definitely makes more sense than limiting it to just the previous calendar year. The way I understand it now is "on or after 1st of January in the previous calendar year" means 1st January is the start point with no defined end point.

I can't see the logic in not allowing someone play opens in June say, if that person may have played 20 home completions already that year.

Rikand · 20-02-2014 1:24am

I'm sure everything can be sorted out on a case by case basis

Dossy · 20-02-2014 6:00am

Confused.com

Golfgraffix · 20-02-2014 9:29am

Had our committee meeting last night and our Hon Sec was at the GUI meeting and he says the .1 motion was not passed.

???

golfwallah · 20-02-2014 10:07am

Golfgraffix wrote: »

Had our committee meeting last night and our Hon Sec was at the GUI meeting and he says the .1 motion was not passed.

???

He must have been asleep during the passing of that motion because, according to information from the GUI website, this motion is included in "The following motions were passed":

4. Proposed by the Munster Provincial Council

That CONGU UHS clause 20.4 be amended effective from January 1st 2016
Current CONGU clause 20.4

Subject to the provisions of clauses 18.4 and 18.5 , if a player returns a score with a Nett Differential above his Buffer Zone (including clause 19 adjustment if applicable) or records a No Return his exact handicap is increased by 0.1.

Proposed amended CONGU clause 20.4 Subject to the provisions of clauses 18.4 and 18.5, if a player returns a score with a Nett Differential above his Buffer Zone (including clause 19 adjustment if applicable) his exact handicap is increased by 0.1.

If a player fails to return a scorecard his exact handicap shall not be adjusted.

If a player fails to complete the stipulated course, or returns an incomplete scorecard without providing an adequate explanation deemed to be acceptable to the handicap committee his exact handicap shall not be adjusted.

If a player records a No Return in a stroke play competition but has completed the stipulated course and returned a completed scorecard his score shall be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of clause 19 and his exact handicap shall be adjusted accordingly

Motive:

Under the current system (CONGU clause 20.4) Golfers can enter qualifying competitions and be automatically awarded a 0.1 increase in handicap if they;
· Fail to tee off at all
· Leave the course early after playing only a few holes
· Return an incomplete scorecard
· Fail to hand in a scorecard
· Fail to record or enter the score in the computer

It is our view that the automatic upward adjustment in the above circumstances has the potential to facilitate handicap building and, in such cases, goes against the spirit of sportsmanship and fair play inherent in golf.

We propose the CONGU UHS be altered to eliminate the automatic awarding of 0.1 for No Returns and to only award 0.1 in the event of completion of the stipulated round and return of a completed scorecard. Provision can be made in the event that a player has to discontinue his round of golf so long as a satisfactory reason acceptable to the Handicap Committee is provided.

*The changes required in this motion will now be proposed by the GUI to CONGU.

Link: https://www.gui.ie/home/general-documents/press-motions.aspx

That said, there is still a long way to go before this is passed by CONGU.

HB2002 · 20-02-2014 4:15pm

In my own opinion and I know it's been discussed it detail but anything that is done to stop handicap building has to be a good thing.
Only allowing twenty .1's back in a year is again a good start in combating it.

The three card rule I think will only really impact on the bandit teams that do the circuit, they'll now have to play their home course three times which if nothing else at least put's them out.... it will no doubt just mean .3 back on their handicaps of course!

As far as I know there used to be a rule where if you won a team competition you were cut a shot, but I presume this was down to your handicap secretary being informed and him/her actualyl apllying the rule.

I always thought that people not returning their score card messed up the css for the day because the poor scores weren't be put in and that would artificially push up the css making it harder to get cut?

I've more of a problem with people getting their .1's back on purpose than someone who try's to avoid the .1, both should be submitting their cards but there's only one of them who's going to have any effect on other golfers ( cat 1 being except?).

If someone wants to play off an artificially low handicap then fire away mate and I just hope I meet a few of them in the club match play this year!.

I think it's a great idea to make them come before the committee if there are when they reach 3 NR's.

One thing that was set up on the computer system in my old club was that when you signed in you couldn't enter your score for 60 minutes. Was a great way of stopping people only entering their cards when it suited them!

alxmorgan · 20-02-2014 4:49pm

HB2002 wrote: »

The three card rule I think will only really impact on the bandit teams that do the circuit, they'll now have to play their home course three times which if nothing else at least put's them out.... it will no doubt just mean .3 back on their handicaps of course!

My reading of it is that this is not true as it only applies to open singles. They can continue to play team events with abandon.

HB2002 · 20-02-2014 5:05pm

alxmorgan wrote: »

My reading of it is that this is not true as it only applies to open singles. They can continue to play team events with abandon.

Sorry, yeah you're right.
It wont really have any impact on cheaters and team bandits.

Possibly what should have been enforced is that you have to play 3( or more ) qualifying singles events each year in order to retain your GUI card.

Russman · 20-02-2014 5:20pm

HB2002 wrote: »

In my own opinion and I know it's been discussed it detail but anything that is done to stop handicap building has to be a good thing.
Only allowing twenty .1's back in a year is again a good start in combating it.

The three card rule I think will only really impact on the bandit teams that do the circuit, they'll now have to play their home course three times which if nothing else at least put's them out.... it will no doubt just mean .3 back on their handicaps of course!

As far as I know there used to be a rule where if you won a team competition you were cut a shot, but I presume this was down to your handicap secretary being informed and him/her actualyl apllying the rule.

I always thought that people not returning their score card messed up the css for the day because the poor scores weren't be put in and that would artificially push up the css making it harder to get cut?

I've more of a problem with people getting their .1's back on purpose than someone who try's to avoid the .1, both should be submitting their cards but there's only one of them who's going to have any effect on other golfers ( cat 1 being except?).

If someone wants to play off an artificially low handicap then fire away mate and I just hope I meet a few of them in the club match play this year!.

I think it's a great idea to make them come before the committee if there are when they reach 3 NR's.

One thing that was set up on the computer system in my old club was that when you signed in you couldn't enter your score for 60 minutes. Was a great way of stopping people only entering their cards when it suited them!

Totally agree with the 3 card rule, if for no other reason than if its your "home" club, playing 3 rounds there might give at least some validity to its "homeness" !

I agree handicap building should be stopped, but I'm not convinced its a huge issue - when you look at people accused of it, how many of them actually win ? Most don't from what I've seen. I really do think that the actions of a very small percentage of golfers are being allowed to set the agenda/rules for the vast majority. eg. I think there's too much being made of team events, so what if someone wins a few team events ? Its practically expected that they are won by bandits, that's not going to change, so take them and enjoy them for what they are, a nice distraction from the pressures of singles comps IMO.

Not directed at yourself, but there almost seems to be a general view in golf circles at the moment that if you win you should be cut or that winning is somehow a crime - someone has to win each week. You could win with a bad score that just happens to be the best on the day - it doesn't necessarily warrant a cut IMO. Players shouldn't be judged by the bad play of others but by their own play.

Also a handicap that has been built is as much a problem as a handicap that is too low through avoidance of 0.1s - it just might not impact on your particular circumstances, but what about the genuine scratch player who cant get into a championship because a plus handicap, who only holds it through not returning scores, is entered ? That's just as annoying for him as someone off 15 who should by 12 winning a monthly medal.

Cards not returned can mess up the CSS, it means that the percentage of cards counted out of the "total" is greater, so may push the calculation in a certain way.

The 60 minute rule is a superb idea - I'll be suggesting that in my place.

HB2002 · 20-02-2014 5:37pm

Russman wrote: »

I think there's too much being made of team events, so what if someone wins a few team events ? Its practically expected that they are won by bandits, that's not going to change, so take them and enjoy them for what they are, a nice distraction from the pressures of singles comps IMO..

But thats the very problem, so many people say "ah sure what can you do...bandits will always win".... but it's cheating... and for some reason it seems to be accepted in golf and for the life of me I can't figure out why?!. I can't think of any other sport or any other activity where wide spread cheating is almost universally accepted.
As it is when ever we enter a team competition it's normally to get to play a nice course for a reasonable price with no expectation of winning because of bandits.... it really shouldn' be like that.

Quote--
"Not directed at yourself, but there almost seems to be a general view in golf circles at the moment that if you win you should be cut or that winning is somehow a crime - someone has to win each week. You could win with a bad score that just happens to be the best on the day - it doesn't necessarily warrant a cut IMO. Players shouldn't be judged by the bad play of others but by their own play.
--End Quote
Sounds like you don't agree with the idea of a handicap system?!:)
I think it makes sense if someone wins they should get cut??
I know it's what I want more than the winning bit but it would be a nice brucie.

Quote --
Also a handicap that has been built is as much a problem as a handicap that is too low through avoidance of 0.1s - it just might not impact on your particular circumstances, but what about the genuine scratch player who cant get into a championship because a plus handicap, who only holds it through not returning scores, is entered ? That's just as annoying for him as someone off 15 who should by 12 winning a monthly medal.
End Quote--
I'm not sure he'd a gree with you if he finished second in that monthly medal by 1 shot?!:)
I think someone said the Cat 1 golfers are excluded from the NR's

SnowDrifts · 20-02-2014 5:43pm

HB2002 wrote: »

I think someone said the Cat 1 golfers are excluded from the NR's

The guy who came out with that never came back with a source for his info. It is not mentioned in the GUI proposals link so we can presume that Cat 1 golfers are included.

Russman · 20-02-2014 6:22pm

HB2002 wrote: »

But thats the very problem, so many people say "ah sure what can you do...bandits will always win".... but it's cheating... and for some reason it seems to be accepted in golf and for the life of me I can't figure out why?!. I can't think of any other sport or any other activity where wide spread cheating is almost universally accepted.
As it is when ever we enter a team competition it's normally to get to play a nice course for a reasonable price with no expectation of winning because of bandits.... it really shouldn' be like that.

Quote--
"Not directed at yourself, but there almost seems to be a general view in golf circles at the moment that if you win you should be cut or that winning is somehow a crime - someone has to win each week. You could win with a bad score that just happens to be the best on the day - it doesn't necessarily warrant a cut IMO. Players shouldn't be judged by the bad play of others but by their own play.
--End Quote
Sounds like you don't agree with the idea of a handicap system?!:)
I think it makes sense if someone wins they should get cut??
I know it's what I want more than the winning bit but it would be a nice brucie.

Quote --
Also a handicap that has been built is as much a problem as a handicap that is too low through avoidance of 0.1s - it just might not impact on your particular circumstances, but what about the genuine scratch player who cant get into a championship because a plus handicap, who only holds it through not returning scores, is entered ? That's just as annoying for him as someone off 15 who should by 12 winning a monthly medal.
End Quote--
I'm not sure he'd a gree with you if he finished second in that monthly medal by 1 shot?!:)
I think someone said the Cat 1 golfers are excluded from the NR's

My point is that human nature being what it is, you'll never stamp out people trying to find some advantage somewhere.
Cheating is a very strong word for it, and I'm not sure any rule of golf is being broken - happy to stand corrected on this though. I'm single figures myself so I've no real dog in the fight, but I just don't see it as being a massive issue, an issue for sure, but not a huge one. I think its too easy to throw out an accusation of banditry/cheating etc and I've seen many cases of it over the years where its based on how good someone was 20 years earlier and they're expected to be as low or as good now, often its nothing more that bar talk or talk from people who can't handle their own handicaps "....I played with Joe last week and he was on the 9th in two shots, and he's playing off 12, f--king rogue....."

I completely agree with a handicapping system but I don't think a win should automatically give a cut, if you break CSS, then fine, but otherwise its doesn't necessarily follow that there should be a cut IMO. In essence someone's official ability is being set by the poor play of others or by the quality of the field on a given day.

What about the genuine cases where someone loses their game completely ? Isn't the whole idea of a handicap system meant to allow them to still compete ? Surely it makes no sense to say "yes, you can get worse but only twenty 0.1s worth of worse".

Re the medal example, I'd say any low player would rather compete in an East of Ireland than win a monthly medal

I've less of an issue with the NR proposal if Cat 1 players are indeed excluded, but I still think its daft. A bit like the ESR system, an ill thought out idea, and using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and not even the nut being aimed at.

SnowDrifts · 20-02-2014 6:40pm

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!

EDIT:

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"

denisoc16 wrote: »

I must say the more I look at this I tend to think you are correct. It definitely makes more sense than limiting it to just the previous calendar year. The way I understand it now is "on or after 1st of January in the previous calendar year" means 1st January is the start point with no defined end point.

I can't see the logic in not allowing someone play opens in June say, if that person may have played 20 home completions already that year.

Just got an email from the GUI confirming what I knew to be the case. "on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year" means... the previous year.

Oh and Blackwhite.. if you need assistance with any of your own legal documents, I'd be glad to have a look over them for you.

Russman · 20-02-2014 6:44pm

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Just got an email from the GUI confirming what I knew to be the case. "on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year" means... the previous year.

Oh and Blackwhite.. if you need assistance with any of your own legal documents, I'd be glad to have a look over them for you.

To be fair, its very badly worded. I think an equal number of people would have taken denisoc's view of 1st Jan of the previous year as being the start point, with no defined end point. Certainly its the way I would have read it.
I'd say a clarifying circular from GUI may be needed for the clubs.

SnowDrifts · 20-02-2014 6:47pm

Russman wrote: »

To be fair, its very badly worded. I think an equal number of people would have taken denisoc's view of 1st Jan of the previous year as being the start point, with no defined end point. Certainly its the way I would have read it.
I'd say a clarifying circular from GUI may be needed for the clubs.

But you left out the relevant part ..."on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year"

Anyway.. settled now for anyone who was unsure.

Russman · 20-02-2014 6:56pm

SnowDrifts wrote: »

But you left out the relevant part ..."on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year"

Anyway.. settled now for anyone who was unsure.

That's the part that could be read either way IMO. If you were to just bold the "on or after", it reads completely differently. ie on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year.

It would have been so much easier and clearer to leave out the on or after 1st Jan date reference altogether and just say cards returned in the previous calendar year.

But, yes, good that its answered.

alxmorgan · 20-02-2014 7:26pm

SnowDrifts wrote: »

But you left out the relevant part ..."on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year"

Anyway.. settled now for anyone who was unsure.

I think that's ridiculous then and I can't understand the clubs going for it.
You join a club, play 10 rounds and still can't play an open till the following year ? Madness

SnowDrifts · 20-02-2014 7:32pm

alxmorgan wrote: »

I think that's ridiculous then and I can't understand the clubs going for it.
You join a club, play 10 rounds and still can't play an open till the following year ? Madness

I dunno... during my first year after joining my club, my only focus was on practice and getting used to playing home club competitions. It wasn't until the following year that I started looking at and playing in open comps. I could well be in the minority though.

alxmorgan · 20-02-2014 7:39pm

SnowDrifts wrote: »

I dunno... during my first year after joining my club, my only focus was on practice and getting used to playing home club competitions. It wasn't until the following year that I started looking at and playing in open comps. I could well be in the minority though.

I was the same as you but imagine if you took a break from membership and played casual golf for a few years while kids were growing up. Then you re-join and have to wait 12 months to play an open. I just don't get the previous year requirement - surely 3 in the current year would be just as good.

blackwhite · 20-02-2014 8:57pm

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Just got an email from the GUI confirming what I knew to be the case. "on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year" means... the previous year.

Oh and Blackwhite.. if you need assistance with any of your own legal documents, I'd be glad to have a look over them for you.

So we know how the GUI are interpreting their own rule - which settles what it was intended to mean. Good of you to be so polite and non-obnoxious about it too.

It doesn't change the fact that their wording was ambiguous - and if they don't clarify it they can expect to continue receiving queries on it.

SnowDrifts · 20-02-2014 9:08pm

blackwhite wrote: »

So we know how the GUI are interpreting their own rule - which settles what it was intended to mean. Good of you to be so polite and non-obnoxious about it too.

It doesn't change the fact that their wording was ambiguous - and if they don't clarify it they can expect to continue receiving queries on it.

Well in fairness, I didn't think much of your comment quoted above so merely followed tone.

I didn't consider it ambiguous myself but clearly several posters on here do which could well represent a high number of GUI members so as you suggest, perhaps rewording is in order.

GreeBo · 20-02-2014 9:59pm

I don't see the confusion at all myself...
What else could it mean other than the previous year, defined as period that runs from January first Dec 31st...e.g. a calendar year?

Miley Byrne · 21-02-2014 12:44am

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't see the confusion at all myself...
What else could it mean other than the previous year, defined as period that runs from January first Dec 31st...e.g. a calendar year?

I was going to try to explain how there is some ambiguity in the wording but I just don't have the time or the inclination. If you can't see how there is any confusion there fair enough. The rest of us are mere mortals. December 31st is not mentioned anywhere by the way. That's the problem

HB2002 · 21-02-2014 10:07am

Russman wrote: »

My point is that human nature being what it is, you'll never stamp out people trying to find some advantage somewhere.
Cheating is a very strong word for it, and I'm not sure any rule of golf is being broken - happy to stand corrected on this though. I'm single figures myself so I've no real dog in the fight, but I just don't see it as being a massive issue, an issue for sure, but not a huge one. I think its too easy to throw out an accusation of banditry/cheating etc and I've seen many cases of it over the years where its based on how good someone was 20 years earlier and they're expected to be as low or as good now, often its nothing more that bar talk or talk from people who can't handle their own handicaps "....I played with Joe last week and he was on the 9th in two shots, and he's playing off 12, f--king rogue....."

I completely agree with a handicapping system but I don't think a win should automatically give a cut, if you break CSS, then fine, but otherwise its doesn't necessarily follow that there should be a cut IMO. In essence someone's official ability is being set by the poor play of others or by the quality of the field on a given day.

What about the genuine cases where someone loses their game completely ? Isn't the whole idea of a handicap system meant to allow them to still compete ? Surely it makes no sense to say "yes, you can get worse but only twenty 0.1s worth of worse".

Re the medal example, I'd say any low player would rather compete in an East of Ireland than win a monthly medal

I've less of an issue with the NR proposal if Cat 1 players are indeed excluded, but I still think its daft. A bit like the ESR system, an ill thought out idea, and using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and not even the nut being aimed at.

Looks like I was wrong on the Cat 1 players... applies across the board.
I'd imagine they should review it for those players but it's a very good idea for the higher end of things were some people try to get back as many .1's as they can... especially coming up to Winter rules time!

I know what you mean about human nature.... and the temptation is always there for everyone of us during a round but it's what it says about you as a person whether you fall for it or not.
My issue is more with the number of people that blatantly cheat who go around in winter time cleaning up because they wont get cut or playing the team competition circuit and making a fortune on holidays etc.

I know prizes have maybe been cut back a little since the Tiger ( not Eldrick! ) years but there are still really good prizes out there.

I'll give you three examples
Two friend s of mine were playing last year in The Goldcoast in Dungarvan.
Everywhere else was closed but they managed to get out there.
There were two lads on the tee box and they joined them and said they'd play 4 ball better for an interest.... the two lads turned -9... one or other of them birdied every hole... I swear on my life it's a true story... their handicaps... 2 and 5 you might think.... 14 and 18
I don't care how lucky you get on a day but you'd wanted to be sh!tting 4 leaf clovers for a year to get that kind of luck off those handicaps... off any handicap it's ridiculous shooting but off 14 and 18 I dare to say it's impossible..... for me those two lads with those handicaps are cheating.
They mentioned they had won a classic in my mates club.. had won a holiday.. they couldn't remeber which one it was cos they won 4 that year.

Second example
A guy off 19 ( gui handicap ) shoots 47 points this week!
that can happen and does for a lot of guys who are happily making their way down the handicaps.... but this guy only ever appears in the winning circle in his home club during the winter... when his GUI handicap isn't cut, he suffers domestic cuts but still rattles in the scores.... over the winter period he's won I think 6 times... once cutting comes back he doesn't play in the weekend comps but concentrates on the team circuit.
Without a doubt this guy is going around cheating by using that handicap.
I obviosuly blame him and I blame the club for not dealing with him.

Third example
The Volvo Golf Digest 2013.
Maybe I'm a cynic but the guy who won it I think was off 20 something
and put in two ridiculous scores on seriously tough course.
Sure this can happen..... so maybe the guy had two lucky days
but it seriously seriously stretches the bounds of credibility.

Sorry for ranting but it's a personal bug bear of mine.....
I don't get how people have the neck to so blatantly cheat
and I don't understand why something isn't done about it...
It should be a level playing field.... very difficult thing to do
but more effort should be put in to make it as close to it as you can....

alxmorgan · 21-02-2014 11:19am

HB2002 wrote: »

Second example
A guy off 19 ( gui handicap ) shoots 47 points this week!
that can happen and does for a lot of guys who are happily making their way down the handicaps.... but this guy only ever appears in the winning circle in his home club during the winter... when his GUI handicap isn't cut, he suffers domestic cuts but still rattles in the scores.... over the winter period he's won I think 6 times... once cutting comes back he doesn't play in the weekend comps but concentrates on the team circuit.
Without a doubt this guy is going around cheating by using that handicap.
I obviosuly blame him and I blame the club for not dealing with him.

This is the classic cheating b&*tard example. I mean I could have done this when I started playing and I'd be playing off a handicap 6 shots too high and, you'd imagine, winning a few prizes to boot.

What can/should the club do here ? Cut on observation ? This would probably just limit the cheating f*&kwit to team events only which would at least protect his fellow members over the winter.

Two interesting motions at the GUI AGM

Comments