New Rule for eligibility to Away Opens

pete4pool

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Agreed - I tried to address this point back at post #177 but it seems the actuall motive for the new rule is not up for discussion.

The thread moved to this because most people believe that this rule was to tackle the distance memberships and not handicaps as the GUI have put it.

Do you think that because people are distance members that they have an easier way of getting an untrue handicap?
If so, do you not think that the golfnet system does not take care of this?

GreeBo

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Agreed - I tried to address this point back at post #177 but it seems the actuall motive for the new rule is not up for discussion.

Why do you think its not up for discussion?

SnowDrifts

GreeBo wrote: »

Why do you think its not up for discussion?

Quite simply... because since I posted the motive back at post #177 .... no one has discussed it. The sole motive of the proposal was the monitoring of handicaps.... I didn't read anything about nama courses, state funded courses, trying to revive local courses etc. yet that is all that has been discussed here.

PARlance

gokster wrote: »

This seems to have become a discussion on cost of and access to membership which I understand but the intent of the rule is more to do with the integrity of the handicap system which is the bigger issue here

As a rule I don't think it brings anymore integrity into the handicap system.
A bandit will see it as 3 plus 1's and I'd fear that it may create bandits out of people that are borderline.... If they take the hump with having to fork out €60,70,80 in fuel to play these 3 rounds.

As a rule. It does nothing with regards improving the intergrity of the game imo.

gokster

In my own case I am still a member of my home on the west coast....dont want to give it up.. as a result though I was able to get country membership of a club in leinster (cost of both together is less than most subs) on the condition that my handicap was maintained at my home club and up to this year my competition golf would have been a even split home club - adopted club - opens..I joined the other club to be able to play 9 after work....but played the odd week comp

However the arrival of kids has meant that playing a lot less in the last two years but I have no issue with having to play regularly in my home club...yes my choice is driven by a financial element but I believe firmly that most of my rounds should be played on my home course to ensure my handicap is managed correctly...this to me is the intent of the rule. If a side effect is to ensure that people are playing a reasonable number of rounds on their 'home' course with the possibility of some ancillary revenue then this can only be good.

I would go further and say 5 rounds but 3 seems to be the magic number for handicaps

gokster

PARlance wrote: »

As a rule I don't think it brings anymore integrity into the handicap system.
A bandit will see it as 3 plus 1's and I'd fear that it may create bandits out of people that are borderline.... If they take the hump with having to fork out €60,70,80 in fuel to play these 3 rounds.

As a rule. It does nothing with regards improving the integrity of the game imo.

Regardless of the where the rounds are played bandits will be bandits...but by forcing rounds on their home course there is more opportunity for them to be 'observed' and other mechanisms such as general play adjustments be available to handicap committees. This can only be positive and certainly doesn't make the situation any worse

Russman

PARlance wrote: »

As a rule I don't think it brings anymore integrity into the handicap system.
A bandit will see it as 3 plus 1's and I'd fear that it may create bandits out of people that are borderline.... If they take the hump with having to fork out €60,70,80 in fuel to play these 3 rounds.

As a rule. It does nothing with regards improving the intergrity of the game imo.

Agree.
All it is is 3 more 0.1s for someone, with a bit of an inconvenience thrown in.
Mind you it could be handy for someone if they need a few in the run up to a holiday, big comp etc. Head down for a long weekend, get one Friday, one Saturday, and maybe play a 36 hole scratch cup on the way back up Sunday for another two.......:D

PARlance

gokster wrote: »

Regardless of the where the rounds are played bandits will be bandits...but by forcing rounds on their home course there is more opportunity for them to be 'observed' and other mechanisms such as general play adjustments be available to handicap committees. This can only be positive and certainly doesn't make the situation any worse

If you believe that will happen then I'd have to call you a dreamer.
General play adjustments... Monitoring guys.... Over 3 rounds!!!! From a club that has no financial interest to do so.
Not going to happen imo.

gokster

Dreamer maybe..

Not saying it is going to happen but the more rules push people to play in their home clubs then the more chance there is to improve things, all I'm saying is the principle of the rule is positive....

First Up

PARlance wrote: »

If you believe that will happen then I'd have to call you a dreamer.
General play adjustments... Monitoring guys.... Over 3 rounds!!!! From a club that has no financial interest to do so.
Not going to happen imo.

Personally I don't gove a toss about the bandit side of it. If people play golf to con their way to a few prizes - poor them. A miserable way to live.
I don't know if the GUI was thinking about the distance membership aspect when they introduced this but as far as I'm concerned, it would be a good
outcome, whether intended or not.

kilbaha

I have some issues with this GUI initiative. I can't see it's purpose. It will make no difference whatsoever to 0.1 merchants. Is the intention to bring some integrity to handicaps? The GUI has done absolutely nothing through this initiative to instill honesty and integrity into golf. If the intention is to address bandits, then go address bandits- don't mess around any further by pussy-footing around the issue.
Genuine honest golfers are now going to be punished for the sins of the bandits. Take a club golfer who, for whatever reason, doesn't play 3 club competitions this year. So the GUI has now prohibited him from playing any singles away from home next year - and also expects the golfer to subsidize the GUI by paying his levy!!! Seems daft to me.

First Up

kilbaha wrote: »

I have some issues with this GUI initiative. I can't see it's purpose. It will make no difference whatsoever to 0.1 merchants. Is the intention to bring some integrity to handicaps? The GUI has done absolutely nothing through this initiative to instill honesty and integrity into golf. If the intention is to address bandits, then go address bandits- don't mess around any further by pussy-footing around the issue.
Genuine honest golfers are now going to be punished for the sins of the bandits. Take a club golfer who, for whatever reason, doesn't play 3 club competitions this year. So the GUI has now prohibited him from playing any singles away from home next year - and also expects the golfer to subsidize the GUI by paying his levy!!! Seems daft to me.

You think being required to justify your membership (and handicap) is “punishment“?

kilbaha

How are you required to justify your handicap? Ask any club golfer if a bandit has won a major competition in their club recently and see what the response is. Are bandit's handicaps justified? I know lots of bandits who believe they are fully entitled to inflated handicaps simply because they paid for them. I'm saying that the GUI has ignored the problem for years and are now tinkering at the edges rather than addressing the issues.
As for "justifying"membership, I don't know where you're coming from on that one. I simply pay the sub.

SnowDrifts

pete4pool wrote: »

Do you think that because people are distance members that they have an easier way of getting an untrue handicap?

Yes, I have had first hand experience of a guy who handed in 3 "nice" cards down the country without ever even playing the course in order to receive a "nice" handicap and subsequently does the round of team events with his buddies. Anything to make it harder for him is good.

Does this new proposal prevent the above? No, it doesn't. In my opinion it should be 10 rounds in your home club but more importantly, there needs to be a system where all team event scores are monitored and reported back to one's home club so that cuts can be applied.

Provisions are in place now for players to be cut for home/away team scores but it relies on 1) the player reporting back his team score and 2) the handicap secretary applying cuts. I have yet to see a cut applied for a team comp.

First Up

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Yes, I have had first hand experience of a guy who handed in 3 "nice" cards down the country without ever even playing the course in order to receive a "nice" handicap and subsequently does the round of team events with his buddies. Anything to make it harder for him is good.

Does this new proposal prevent the above? No, it doesn't. In my opinion it should be 10 rounds in your home club but more importantly, there needs to be a system where all team event scores are monitored and reported back to one's home club so that cuts can be applied.

Provisions are in place now for players to be cut for home/away team scores but it relies on 1) the player reporting back his team score and 2) the handicap secretary applying cuts. I have yet to see a cut applied for a team comp.

Is it not computerised and centrally managed? If you enter an Open, you swipe your card to sign in and you swipe it again to enter your score. Does that not then lead to a handicap adjustment?

I can see how a bandit could travel around with a phony handicap in the days when the system relied on people reporting away scores to their home club. But has the BRS system not done away with that?

SnowDrifts

First Up wrote: »

Is it not computerised and centrally managed? If you enter an Open, you swipe your card to sign in and you swipe it again to enter your score. Does that not then lead to a handicap adjustment?

I can see how a bandit could travel around with a phony handicap in the days when the system relied on people reporting away scores to their home club. But has the BRS system not done away with that?

That is how it works for singles competitions but not for teams events. Team competitions are not logged and computed in a database unfortunately. The BRS system is only for booking golf.

blackwhite

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Does this new proposal prevent the above? No, it doesn't. In my opinion it should be 10 rounds in your home club but more importantly, there needs to be a system where all team event scores are monitored and reported back to one's home club so that cuts can be applied.

I think 10 is pushing it to a ridiculous number, or even 5 is more reasonable.

Either way it's to do f*ck all to catch bandits.


Like you said, team competitions are the nub of the issue. The new rule is ridiculous in that it doesn't touch team competitions at all, it only restricts entry into open singles competitions. People with "generous" handicaps are still free to play zero singles competitions anywhere, and can enter any team competition that they see fit with a dodgy handicap that they know will never be review.


In relation to increasing the number of required competitions - here's why (IMO) it doesn't work:
I've only managed 9 qualifying "home" competitions this year and I've played in three "away" opens whilst on weekends away with friends. I'm going to end up spending a good chunk of the rest of the year in either France or Sweden, so there's a chance that I won't be able to play another one before the end of October.

Due to work I've had a lot of Sundays this year where I've been in the airport, and that's the designated competition day. I work Monday to Friday so I can't play in the midweek competition.

I'm paying a full membership sub to my club, so I can't be claimed not to be contributing to the costs.

If the number of comps was increased to 10, as it stands I could go out next March/April and play 10 qualifying comps in my home club, and yet still would be banned from opens until 2016.
Does nothing to solve the problem of bandits, but does everything to f*ck over a full member who's had to make some sacrifices for their job.

First Up

SnowDrifts wrote: »

That is how it works for singles competitions but not for teams events. Team competitions are not logged and computed in a database unfortunately. The BRS system is only for booking golf.

Whatever its called, it should stop most of the abuse. How many team opens are there anyway?

GreeBo

blackwhite wrote: »

I think 10 is pushing it to a ridiculous number, or even 5 is more reasonable.

Either way it's to do f*ck all to catch bandits.


Like you said, team competitions are the nub of the issue. The new rule is ridiculous in that it doesn't touch team competitions at all, it only restricts entry into open singles competitions. People with "generous" handicaps are still free to play zero singles competitions anywhere, and can enter any team competition that they see fit with a dodgy handicap that they know will never be review.


In relation to increasing the number of required competitions - here's why (IMO) it doesn't work:
I've only managed 9 qualifying "home" competitions this year and I've played in three "away" opens whilst on weekends away with friends. I'm going to end up spending a good chunk of the rest of the year in either France or Sweden, so there's a chance that I won't be able to play another one before the end of October.

Due to work I've had a lot of Sundays this year where I've been in the airport, and that's the designated competition day. I work Monday to Friday so I can't play in the midweek competition.

I'm paying a full membership sub to my club, so I can't be claimed not to be contributing to the costs.

If the number of comps was increased to 10, as it stands I could go out next March/April and play 10 qualifying comps in my home club, and yet still would be banned from opens until 2016.
Does nothing to solve the problem of bandits, but does everything to f*ck over a full member who's had to make some sacrifices for their job.

The problem is that the same rule that screws you, the honest member, over also prevents the bandit from operating so easily.

Its not possible to tell the difference.

whitefoot

kilbaha wrote: »

So the GUI has now prohibited him from playing any singles away from home next year

Has this actually been introduced though by the GUI? Where can I see the details?

There are boards.ie threads discussing this same topic from 2009 giving the impression that the 3 round Home club rule was an imminent implementation which I assume did not happen back in 2009.

Is anyone sure this will actually happen for the Opens in 2015?

kilbaha

My club recently emailed the GUI documentation on this to every member. I deleted it but I'll get a copy and post it here if I can.

pete4pool

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Yes, I have had first hand experience of a guy who handed in 3 "nice" cards down the country without ever even playing the course in order to receive a "nice" handicap and subsequently does the round of team events with his buddies. Anything to make it harder for him is good. .

My question was "Does having a distance membership make it easier to get an untrue handicap" Your response gives nothing to say it does. This guy, was he a distance member? If so, how did being a distance member let him play 3 nice rounds that a full member wouldn't?
A full member can go and pretend to play 3 nice rounds in away clubs and get away with it also.

Have you reported this guy to the club he pretended to play in / the GUI / his home club?

FixdePitchmark

pete4pool wrote: »

My question was "Does having a distance membership make it easier to get an untrue handicap" Your response gives nothing to say it does. This guy, was he a distance member? If so, how did being a distance member let him play 3 nice rounds that a full member wouldn't?
A full member can go and pretend to play 3 nice rounds in away clubs and get away with it also.

Have you reported this guy to the club he pretended to play in / the GUI / his home club?

Sorry. If a lad got a handicap in that way. It is a shocking indictment of that club.
And sadly would lead people into maybe a wrong conclusion that it is common enough


That club should never be able to issue handicaps again.

blackwhite

GreeBo wrote: »

The problem is that the same rule that screws you, the honest member, over also prevents the bandit from operating so easily.

Its not possible to tell the difference.

How exactly does it do anything to stop the bandit though?

If a bandit enters a Qualify Open Singles (the only one that is impacted by this rule), then he gets cut off the back of any wins.

In my experience, the main problem with bandits is that they avoid singles altogether, and clean up in team events and classics.

This rule does absolutely nothing to stop that.

It's a half-ar*ed attempt at paying lip-service to tackling bandits, but does more to potentially impact upon genuine full members than anything else.

If the true intent is to cut down on distance membership abusing the system then they could at least be honest and say that, and maybe then go and do something proper about it.

blackwhite

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Sorry. If a lad got a handicap in that way. It is a shocking indictment of that club.
And sadly would lead people into maybe a wrong conclusion that it is common enough


That club should never be able to issue handicaps again.

I've heard stories of similar before, and not just at "distance" clubs.

Some guy joins a club where a few of his mates are already members - they "know" how he normally plays so they are quite happy to sign off on a few cards that they didn't actually play with him.

TBH, I'm not sure how a club can combat this - they could check the cards against the timesheet, but if they claim they just showed up at a quiet time without booking then I'm not sure what can be done about it.

whitefoot

kilbaha wrote: »

My club recently emailed the GUI documentation on this to every member. I deleted it but I'll get a copy and post it here if I can.

Thank you Kilbaha. I do not think my club has any Distance Members which may be why I have seen nothing on this new GUI directive but I would certainly like to understand it especially in the context of any Opens my Club are running.

Some of the posts this morning imply this GUI directive only affects Single Qualifying Opens and not Team Opens, is that correct?

I am very confused now as I had thought based on all the previous posts this directive meant without the 3 Home Scorrs you effectively did not have a valid handicap in 2015 for Away Open competitions.

I would imgaine you either have a valid Away handicap or you do not. Team or Single should not be a differentiator.

blackwhite

whitefoot wrote: »

Thank you Kilbaha. I do not think my club has any Distance Members which may be why I have seen nothing on this new GUI directive but I would certainly like to understand it especially in the context of any Opens my Club are running.

Some of the posts this morning imply this GUI directive only affects Single Qualifying Opens and not Team Opens, is that correct?

I am very confused now as I had thought based on all the previous posts this directive meant without the 3 Home Scorrs you effectively did not have a valid handicap in 2015 for Away Open competitions.

I would imgaine you either have a valid Away handicap or you do not. Team or Single should not be a differentiator.

The wording from this link https://www.gui.ie/home/general-documents/press-motions.aspx implies that it only impacts on Singles at an away club.

3. Proposed by the Leinster Provincial Council
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.

Motive:
The CONGU UHS requires each player to return three cards at their Home Club to be allocated a handicap. In addition to this initial requirement a further fundamental basis of the UHS is that every player will return a sufficient number of Qualifying Scores to provide reasonable evidence of current ability. 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. If passed, this motion may result in increased participation by players in Qualifying Competitions at the Home Club as players will have to compete in at least three such competitions to ensure that they are eligible to compete in Open Qualifying Competitions at Away Clubs. However delegates should also weigh the extent to which this may result in a reduction in the number of golfers competing in Open Qualifying Competitions at Away Clubs.

kilbaha

As I recall, these rules apply to open singles competitions only. A player must play a minimum of 3 home competitions in 2014 to be eligible to enter away singles competitions in 2015. As I said, I'll put up the full wording when I get a copy. That might be today, but if I don't have it before lunchtime I will not be able to post it until late Sunday.

Dr_Colossus

Pdf doc attached which my club sent out.
I'm not against the idea of having to play 3 qualifying competitions at your home club but it's farcical that the restriction does not apply to team events which is at the crux of the problem imo. First question from the doc:

"Q1. Does this condition apply to entry to all Open or Semi-Open Competitions?
A1. No. The condition applies to Singles Qualifying Competitions played at an Away Club
in which the entrant is not a member. It does not apply to any other format of Open
Competition (Four Ball, Foursomes, Team Events etc.)."

I was nervous that the restriction would affect members moving club but it looks like once you play 3 competitions per year at your then home club you'll be eligible to play away competitions. It may involve some difficulty however in proving your eligibility as your old membership and thus Golfnet login will no longer be valid. Questions 6, 8 and 9 in the attached.

kilbaha

The link posted by Dr Colossus is the same as was sent out to the members of my club. Thanks, Dr Colossus.