Two interesting motions at the GUI AGM

golfwallah

alxmorgan wrote: »

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.

There is provision under CONGU rules for applying cuts based on general play - even under winter rules.

But, and here's the rub, it takes a bit of work on behalf of the handicap secretary and his committee (if there is one).

Cuts under these CONGU provisions have been applied in our club, but then we have a very diligent handicap secretary.

There's no such thing under the rules as "cuts on observation". Cuts have to be evidence based, are not automatic as applied by the system for "qualifying competitions", and require a bit of manual work (e.g. to get a report from the system of winning scores, looking at the cards involved and applying fair cut for players that have a number of prize winning scores, even in winter).

The real issue, in my experience, is that the handicap secretary can often be the most overworked person on committee, with very little help from the general membership. There is a real resource problem here in many clubs. So, if you feel like contributing, why not volunteer to help (which is how myself and quite a few others first got involved with club committee).

HB2002

alxmorgan wrote: »

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.

Yeah I guess thats all they can do is cut him on observation
they did cut him for the winter but he was still throwing in savage scores for 16 hole comps with a handicap of 4 or 5 less than his GUI.
So imagine him in the summer playing team competitions with like minded individuals.... it's brutal.

I think some of the clubs are wary of hitting those type of members hard for fear of losing the membership money......

golfwallah

HB2002 wrote: »

Yeah I guess thats all they can do is cut him on observation
they did cut him for the winter but he was still throwing in savage scores for 16 hole comps with a handicap of 4 or 5 less than his GUI.
So imagine him in the summer playing team competitions with like minded individuals.... it's brutal.

I think some of the clubs are wary of hitting those type of members hard for fear of losing the membership money......

Appendix M on page 77 of CONGU rules set out "GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL REVIEW / GENERAL PLAY ADJUSTMENT", of which the following are extracts:
http://www.gui.ie/handicap-manual/congu_2012_correct-pdf.aspx

The purpose of the Annual Review is to identify
.........
• In Ireland the frequency of Non-Qualifying Scores, achieved in competitions played over a course for which the Union has allotted a Standard Scratch Score,to and below his Playing Handicap must also be examined.

It should be noted that the majority of Members, particularly those who have returned a reasonable number of Qualifying Scores through the year,will probably have had appropriate handicap alterations applied by the system and do not require further adjustment under Clause 23.

To ensure uniformity in club handicapping, it is important that the Handicap Committee conducts the Annual Review in a structured manner. It is recognised, however, that it is an extremely difficult and time consuming task for the Handicap Committee to carry out a detailed and effective review of the handicaps of all Members in the required manner

Russman

HB2002 wrote: »

Yeah I guess thats all they can do is cut him on observation
they did cut him for the winter but he was still throwing in savage scores for 16 hole comps with a handicap of 4 or 5 less than his GUI.
So imagine him in the summer playing team competitions with like minded individuals.... it's brutal.

I think some of the clubs are wary of hitting those type of members hard for fear of losing the membership money......

I agree with you that these type of players exist, but its very, very hard to do something effective and safe about it. I take the view that they're to be pitied more than anything.

I've been privy to a case a good few years ago when "Rule 19" was more liberally applied and guys were being cut left, right & centre "on observation". Long story short, the H/C Sec had a grudge against a number of players and was even stupid enough to have a list of names who he said would never play for the club - one guy was cut from 10 to 6 for winning a singles that he was cut automatically for ! After much back and forth (legal eagles, GUI, R&A) the cuts were reversed, so I'm always a little biased towards the player and against the idea of cutting on observation - I mean, who amongst us is qualified to judge a person's ability ?

Playing devil's advocate slightly with the 47pts man, maybe placing in the winter really helps him ? Ahhh no, I just think that no matter what system is in place there will always be those trying to abuse it.

I think its also so endemic in the Irish psyche to try and "cheat" a system(no offence), but just look at the winning teams in most of the high/mid handicap range interclub events. You'd need a Junior Cup level team to try to win the Pearce Purcell nowadays. Its a given that you need a team of rogues to get to the latter stages in a lot of events. Clubs don't want to cut their team players to a level that makes them non competitive. For some clubs, certain inter club events are what they live for and they actively "build" their teams over years. If that means they have to put up with Joe winning a few winter comps on a shortened course, they're mostly fine with it. Its not right, but it happens. Its a noble goal to try and fix it but I don't see it ever happening.

My own club hasn't really been competitive in a lot of years, mostly because guys are too low, it saves the club money and there's a sense of the moral high ground, but no pennants to show for it !

GreeBo

denisoc16 wrote: »

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

By definition calendar year is Jan 1 to Dec 31st.
They don't need to spell out Dec 31st the end date.
If they had just said year, there could be confusion, calendar year specific not open interpretation, mortal beings or otherwise.

Benicetomonty

I would agree that an amendment re:category 1 players has to be applied to the motion if it's to have any chance of passing. As was stated earlier, championship entries and qualifying cut offs would become farcical otherwise

To give an example, I started last year off 3.3 handicap, was lucky enough to play a lot of golf, and lost 4.1 shots in cuts. Were it not for the numerous .1s, I'd have ended the year off +1 instead of 1.8 (2).
That puts me in just about all of the championships, despite only ever having qualified on merit for the North of Ireland in the past.

I think there's historically been a lot more tolerance when it comes to lower handicappers 'protecting'. Because they're not winning prizes, they're not regarded as cheaters, but depriving honest golfers from getting into big events based on genuine ability is just that. This motion will make such behaviour a whole lot easier.

HB2002

I take your point about the team competitions and it no doubt happens but I feel in Bruen and Purcell you always are trying to get the guy who is on the way down.... in Bruen you want the guy of 11 last year who'll be down a good few shots this year.... have him paired with a good 6 and you have a great chance.... same in Purcell you want to try and get the guy who's on the move from 16 17 down to 12.... but I agree with you there are without doubt the bandits there too.

As for pitying the cheats... nope.
It's too easy to say that and to let them away with it.... there is no other sport where it would be tolerated.... and it's not like the GUI aren't aware of it every decent golfer and every cheat is aware of the elephant in the room and you and every other golfer fall into one of the two categories.

The only way I can think that it might be possible to do anything is to use the techonology that every club in the land has already.
Use the computer system for every competiton be it 4ball or 4 man team
and have it set up to control the handicaps of every golfer in the country... bring in cutting for every sinlge competition... make golfers register before teeing off and if they don't then disqualify them.

In this day and age it wouldn't be a big ask to have the software do that.

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

By definition calendar year is Jan 1 to Dec 31st.
They don't need to spell out Dec 31st the end date.
If they had just said year, there could be confusion, calendar year specific not open interpretation, mortal beings or otherwise.

Of course its open to interpretation. If you put the emphasis on the bolded parts, it has two different meanings IMO

"on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year" - could be read to suggest the start point for the period is indeed 1st Jan in the previous year.

"on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year" - could be read that the period is in fact, limited to the previous calendar year.

Snowdrifts reply from the GUI has obviously clarified it, but it could be viewed differently depending on how someone reads it. The fact that no part of it was actually in bold left it a little grey IMO. Best if they had just said "in the previous calendar year" and left it at that.

Miley Byrne

GreeBo wrote: »

By definition calendar year is Jan 1 to Dec 31st.
They don't need to spell out Dec 31st the end date.
If they had just said year, there could be confusion, calendar year specific not open interpretation, mortal beings or otherwise.

My point is I can see how there might be confusion & you can't. Fair enough. Lets leave it at that

SnowDrifts

Benicetomonty wrote: »

To give an example, I started last year off 3.3 handicap, was lucky enough to play a lot of golf, and lost 4.1 shots in cuts. Were it not for the numerous .1s, I'd have ended the year off +1 instead of 1.8 (2).
That puts me in just about all of the championships, despite only ever having qualified on merit for the North of Ireland in the past.

But if you return your card for a completed round and you are outside the buffer - you will still get your .1s so it shouldn't make much of a difference to you.

Miley Byrne

SnowDrifts wrote: »

But if you return your card for a completed round and you are outside the buffer - you will still get your .1s so it shouldn't make much of a difference to you.

It will if fellas off a similar handicap don't hand in cards outside the buffer. They will only see downward changes whereas monty will see ups and downs so he will be swimming against the current.

If it is brought in then the only way it would be workable is if NRs are punished. Now I don't know what the sanctions should be but if a golfer goes out with the intention of entering a singles and for whatever reason doesn't return a card then it will have to be followed up more closely than before. I don't know what way it's worked in clubs at the moment but we only started using the equivalent of howdidido last year and there were a serious amount of NRs across each comp. And accross all handicap ranges too. I haven't heard of anyone facing questions over it.

There was one guy who used to sign in, swipe his card and sit in his car and go home. He was reported & dealt with. It seem to be easier deal with that because it's blatant.

Russman

HB2002 wrote: »

I take your point about the team competitions and it no doubt happens but I feel in Bruen and Purcell you always are trying to get the guy who is on the way down.... in Bruen you want the guy of 11 last year who'll be down a good few shots this year.... have him paired with a good 6 and you have a great chance.... same in Purcell you want to try and get the guy who's on the move from 16 17 down to 12.... but I agree with you there are without doubt the bandits there too.

As for pitying the cheats... nope.
It's too easy to say that and to let them away with it.... there is no other sport where it would be tolerated.... and it's not like the GUI aren't aware of it every decent golfer and every cheat is aware of the elephant in the room and you and every other golfer fall into one of the two categories.

The only way I can think that it might be possible to do anything is to use the techonology that every club in the land has already.
Use the computer system for every competiton be it 4ball or 4 man team
and have it set up to control the handicaps of every golfer in the country... bring in cutting for every sinlge competition... make golfers register before teeing off and if they don't then disqualify them.

In this day and age it wouldn't be a big ask to have the software do that.

It could be argued in Bruen and Purcell you want the guy on the way up
But, yeah I agree with your point about that. I think though its more a Metro thing to get the guy on the way down, usually juniors. Most Purcell teams are the same year in year out. Bruen is kind of in a middle ground, but yes, you'd be looking for a good junior who is 3 or 4 shots lower than the qualifying point.

With regard to elephant in the room, I'm not so sure its that big an elephant. Its a fine line between having tight rules, and making what is supposed to be your pastime so onerous and controlled that people turn away from the game and/or competition play.

If there's good evidence for cutting someone, then fine, but as golfwallah I think it was pointed out, it also comes back to the human element. A lot of H/C secs are volunteers and could/would view the benefit for a lot of time consuming work to not be worth it for the sake of cutting the tiny proportion of true bandits that are out there IMO.

Again, playing devils advocate a little, someone could win 3 team events and be on the card 3 times, surely he doesn't deserve a cut ?

Sorry Op, we're a little OT here, but its all related I guess.

I can't see CONGU passing the NR motion unless the Cat1 issue is altered.

Benicetomonty

SnowDrifts wrote: »

But if you return your card for a completed round and you are outside the buffer - you will still get your .1s so it shouldn't make much of a difference to you.

It wont for me but it will for plenty of others who simply wont return the card. Unfortunately a low handicap does not and never has equated to scrupulous honesty. Kim Jong Il springs to mind..

Russman

SnowDrifts wrote: »

But if you return your card for a completed round and you are outside the buffer - you will still get your .1s so it shouldn't make much of a difference to you.

Can I ask, and I'm not sure if its been covered 100% in an earlier post, when NR is referred to, is it meant as in the card wasn't entered in the computer at all, i.e. there's an entry logged, but no score returned ? Or that, say in strokes, someone picked up on the 15th, still entered their score on the computer but its recorded as a NR ? (leaving aside the stableford adjustment)

If someone who didn't want a 0.1 was heading for one, they could just pick up their ball, still enter the score as a NR and thus be safe from getting one ?

Russman

denisoc16 wrote: »

I don't know what way it's worked in clubs at the moment but we only started using the equivalent of howdidido last year and there were a serious amount of NRs across each comp. And accross all handicap ranges too.

+1
We averaged around 18-20% of cards not being returned last summer when I looked at around 10 random Saturday comps out of curiosity. Back to the human element of putting in the work to match off names in the book against entries in the computer, not important enough for most people. Its a huge bugbear of mine, but what can you do.

SnowDrifts

Russman wrote: »

Can I ask, and I'm not sure if its been covered 100% in an earlier post, when NR is referred to, is it meant as in the card wasn't entered in the computer at all, i.e. there's an entry logged, but no score returned ? Or that, say in strokes, someone picked up on the 15th, still entered their score on the computer but its recorded as a NR ? (leaving aside the stableford adjustment)

If someone who didn't want a 0.1 was heading for one, they could just pick up their ball, still enter the score as a NR and thus be safe from getting one ?

Yeah good question - I can only presume that for the purpose of the proposal, it means a card not returned or maybe a round not completed? As a poster pointed out earlier in the thread - you can actually get a cut for a single NR in stokeplay provided you complete your round.

HB2002

Russman wrote: »

With regard to elephant in the room, I'm not so sure its that big an elephant. Its a fine line between having tight rules, and making what is supposed to be your pastime so onerous and controlled that people turn away from the game and/or competition play.

If there's good evidence for cutting someone, then fine, but as golfwallah I think it was pointed out, it also comes back to the human element. A lot of H/C secs are volunteers and could/would view the benefit for a lot of time consuming work to not be worth it for the sake of cutting the tiny proportion of true bandits that are out there IMO.

Again, playing devils advocate a little, someone could win 3 team events and be on the card 3 times, surely he doesn't deserve a cut ?
.

I'm not sure that having tight rules around the handicapping system , that work!, would be in anyway a deterent... in fact they shouldn't impact on you at all... you still have to go out there and chunk the ball around... only difference I see is that the handicap system would be making it a more fair playing ground.... it's impossible to remove all banditry but i just think it's made too easy for the more than tiny proportion ( imo ) of golfers who cheat.

You're dead right about the team thing though... it's possible you might not get on the card at all and end up with a cutting... but if you know the rules before hand then you know the risks... you always have your 20 .1's to fall back on!

Miley Byrne

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Yeah good question - I can only presume that for the purpose of the proposal, it means a card not returned or maybe a round not completed? As a poster pointed out earlier in the thread - you can actually get a cut for a single NR in stokeplay provided you complete your round.

Yeah, I'd be presuming that it's the cards thrown in the bin and not entered in the computer that are the problem.

HB2002

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Yeah good question - I can only presume that for the purpose of the proposal, it means a card not returned or maybe a round not completed? As a poster pointed out earlier in the thread - you can actually get a cut for a single NR in stokeplay provided you complete your round.

I'm pretty sure the NR is to do with a card not being returned at all.
If you look at competition results in Howdidido you'll see how many were not returned each week... and you'll see by who.

SnowDrifts

The proposal covers the above issues..

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

Russman

HB2002 wrote: »

I'm not sure that having tight rules around the handicapping system , that work!, would be in anyway a deterent... in fact they shouldn't impact on you at all... you still have to go out there and chunk the ball around... only difference I see is that the handicap system would be making it a more fair playing ground.... it's impossible to remove all banditry but i just think it's made too easy for the more than tiny proportion ( imo ) of golfers who cheat.

They shouldn't be a deterrent, but if they're perceived as one it could bring more problems. A bit like a big brother is watching kind of mentality.
For example with the ESR I've heard conversations along the lines of "I couldn't be bothered going out today and trying to win, sure if I do I'll get an ESR cut" - admittedly a lot of that can be bravado, but you can get fellas just going out and knocking it around without really paying much attention, simply because they don't want the additional cut that may come if they're lucky enough to do a decent score. I've had one guy ask me mid round what the rules were for the ESR and how much he'd be cut if he had xx points ! As it happens he did the score and got the extra cut, but its not a good mindset IMO.

One man's "handicap cheating" is another man's "managing his handicap". The real bandits will always stay one step ahead of the game.

Russman

SnowDrifts wrote: »

The proposal covers the above issues..

I never knew if you didn't return a card at all, you got a 0.1 - I've never seen that happen in my club.

Its almost much adoo about nothing so, I mean if the proper policing of cards being returned happens, the 0.1 issue for NRs pretty much goes away, i.e. there should be no NRs.

Miley Byrne

Russman wrote: »

I never knew if you didn't return a card at all, you got a 0.1 - I've never seen that happen in my club.

Its almost much adoo about nothing so, I mean if the proper policing of cards being returned happens, the 0.1 issue for NRs pretty much goes away, i.e. there should be no NRs.

You & I both know that that is a big IF. It's going to be carnage for the low guys if it's not policed properly. You will have the smart ass bragging about being a scratch golfer when he should have had 25 .1s along with his cuts and should be playing off 3. Will clubs really have the interest/resources/backbone to sanction these lads. Cos it will happen if not.

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

Of course its open to interpretation. If you put the emphasis on the bolded parts, it has two different meanings IMO

"on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year" - could be read to suggest the start point for the period is indeed 1st Jan in the previous year.

"on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year" - could be read that the period is in fact, limited to the previous calendar year.

Snowdrifts reply from the GUI has obviously clarified it, but it could be viewed differently depending on how someone reads it. The fact that no part of it was actually in bold left it a little grey IMO. Best if they had just said "in the previous calendar year" and left it at that.

Sorry, maybe I'm being thick but i still don't see it.
Both your interpretations state "previous calendar year"
I don't see where the limited plays a part?
The period runs for a calendar year, we have a definition for calendar year.
Both your interpretations mean the same thing, it's limited to a calendar year that starts on Jan 1...I'm honestly lost as to any confusion.
Can you give 2 examples that show how any interpretation end up describing a different time period?

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry, maybe I'm being thick but i still don't see it.
Both your interpretations state "previous calendar year"
I don't see where the limited plays a part?
The period runs for a calendar year, we have a definition for calendar year.
Both your interpretations mean the same thing, it's limited to a calendar year that starts on Jan 1...I'm honestly lost as to any confusion.
Can you give 2 examples that show how any interpretation end up describing a different time period?

I think the first one could be taken that "1st Jan in the previous calendar year" is read as one item, being the starting point for a period in question, rather than defining the period - basically from 1st Jan the previous year up to the current date, whatever that may be.
Whereas the second one could be read that the "in the previous calendar year" is the defining point for the period - that the period is in fact the previous calendar year.

I've probably not explained that very well

shaneon77

Russman wrote: »

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.

Surely you must take the weather conditions into consideration too. A 32 point return in terrible conditions that wins a comp should absolutely be cut as the course should have played the same for everyone. That's just an example though.

Russman

shaneon77 wrote: »

Surely you must take the weather conditions into consideration too. A 32 point return in terrible conditions that wins a comp should absolutely be cut as the course should have played the same for everyone. That's just an example though.

I disagree to be honest. I think singles comps and handicapping by and large runs itself through the CSS mechanism and doesn't need anything additional.

I can't see the justification in cutting someone because everyone else played badly. At least if he breaks CSS there's a baseline used to establish a standard and a cut should follow, but purely because he's the best of a bad lot doesn't seem right to me.

shaneon77

Russman wrote: »

I disagree to be honest. I think singles comps and handicapping by and large runs itself through the CSS mechanism and doesn't need anything additional.

I can't see the justification in cutting someone because everyone else played badly. At least if he breaks CSS there's a baseline used to establish a standard and a cut should follow, but purely because he's the best of a bad lot doesn't seem right to me.

I respect your opinion but my point is that you are assuming everyone else played badly, that is not always the case, you can only score as well as you are able to on the day. The same applies to the best score on a perfect day. The player that plays the best, relative to their handicap, will score the best and by right should get a cut.
Surely that's why css only applies when a set percentage of the field finishes their round?

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

I think the first one could be taken that "1st Jan in the previous calendar year" is read as one item, being the starting point for a period in question, rather than defining the period - basically from 1st Jan the previous year up to the current date, whatever that may be.
Whereas the second one could be read that the "in the previous calendar year" is the defining point for the period - that the period is in fact the previous calendar year.

I've probably not explained that very well

Ahh so you mean in one case it's last Jan 1 to last Dec 31 but the other it's last Jan 1 until "now", thereby giving more time play?
For me calendar year is defined as 1 year, so whatever year is now, the period was entire previous year, Jan to Dec, irrespective of when in current year.

If that's not what you meant then.....argh! :-)

GreeBo

shaneon77 wrote: »

I respect your opinion but my point is that you are assuming everyone else played badly, that is not always the case, you can only score as well as you are able to on the day. The same applies to the best score on a perfect day. The player that plays the best, relative to their handicap, will score the best and by right should get a cut.
Surely that's why css only applies when a set percentage of the field finishes their round?

It's still relative to css, otherwise you are not cutting people against course, rather against everyone else.
It's supposed to be how everyone played against course.
Prizes are for how everyone played against each other.