New Rule for eligibility to Away Opens

Uncle Ben

This thread appears to have drifted into the topic of the price of full and distance memberships and the loss of said members also.

And there was I being led to believe that this ruling was about preventing banditry in the game. Nah, I never believed that in the first place.

Norfolk Enchants_

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Could all those clubs in Ireland who perhaps are against this proposal put forward motions to either reverse or amend this ruling?

Yes they could, but it won't be carried because of the way the GUI is set up, i.e. the "big boys" in their ivory towers in Leinster call the shots.
More importantly though it still wouldn't address the real issues facing all golf clubs.

charlieIRL

Alright enough, back on topic now lads thanks

Putt it there

I have what seems to be called by some here a "distance" membership . I Didn't play 3 opens in my home course last year and has never been an issue in any open i've played in "away" courses so far this year. Pay the money , sign in , play away , no problem.

Just sayin

alxmorgan

For me this new rule lost any pretense of being about banditry when they excluded team comps from it. It seems to be about clubs "selling" handicaps.

And if that is the case why not just come out and say it.

First Up

Putt it there wrote: »

I have what seems to be called by some here a "distance" membership . I Didn't play 3 opens in my home course last year and has never been an issue in any open i've played in "away" courses so far this year. Pay the money , sign in , play away , no problem.

Just sayin

Early days.

And it isn't three opens in your "home" course. It is three qualifying competitions.

First Up

alxmorgan wrote: »

For me this new rule lost any pretense of being about banditry when they excluded team comps from it. It seems to be about clubs "selling" handicaps.

And if that is the case why not just come out and say it.

Softly softly catchee monkey. Teams consist of players with handicaps. Tackle the individual handicap issue and the team handicap problem takes care of itself. It isn't an overnight thing.

I don't think anyone doubts that it is also about clubs selling handicaps.

alxmorgan

First Up wrote: »

Softly softly catchee monkey. Teams consist of players with handicaps. Tackle the individual handicap issue and the team handicap problem takes care of itself. It isn't an overnight thing.

I don't think anyone doubts that it is also about clubs selling handicaps.

I don't see how. I can buy my handicap off a club selling it and still play in a team comp despite this new rule. If anything it is almost saying do whatever ye like when it comes to team comps lads as we know it is the wild west anyway but we need the cash.

First Up

alxmorgan wrote: »

I don't see how. I can buy my handicap off a club selling it and still play in a team comp despite this new rule. If anything it is almost saying do whatever ye like when it comes to team comps lads as we know it is the wild west anyway but we need the cash.

Unless members play the required number of competitions in their "home" club, those handicaps will eventually lapse.

bobster453

On the same point but from another angle.
What constitutes a contract?
Offer Consideration and Acceptance
So...a club offers to allow a golfer to play in an open competition
The golfer accepts the offer
The consideration is the entry fee paid and the right to play in the competition and maybe win a prize.
Happens every time you play an open.
Under this rule even tho the golfer has accepted the offer and paid the consideration the club could refuse to award him/her their prize if they won one.
Is this a breach of contract??
Yes unless the offer specifically states you need to have complied with this rule to enter the open comp and also ONCE THE CLUB DOES NOT ACCEPT THE ENTRY FEE
If the club accepts the entry fer without first confirming the golfet was eligible it could well be argued that the club willingly altered the consideration therefore would be in breach of contract if it refused to award a prize...a point 1 unfortunately for too many people could also be construed as a prize.
While case law in other sports determined that when you join a club or organisation you were duty bound to accept its rules and regulations this would not necessarily be a defence in contract law.
Sorry for the long post but just wanted to put that one out there.
Dont know too many clubs that stipulate the above...maybe they should

First Up

bobster453 wrote: »

On the same point but from another angle.
What constitutes a contract?
Offer Consideration and Acceptance
So...a club offers to allow a golfer to play in an open competition
The golfer accepts the offer
The consideration is the entry fee paid and the right to play in the competition and maybe win a prize.
Happens every time you play an open.
Under this rule even tho the golfer has accepted the offer and paid the consideration the club could refuse to award him/her their prize if they won one.
Is this a breach of contract??
Yes unless the offer specifically states you need to have complied with this rule to enter the open comp and also ONCE THE CLUB DOES NOT ACCEPT THE ENTRY FEE
If the club accepts the entry fer without first confirming the golfet was eligible it could well be argued that the club willingly altered the consideration therefore would be in breach of contract if it refused to award a prize...a point 1 unfortunately for too many people could also be construed as a prize.
While case law in other sports determined that when you join a club or organisation you were duty bound to accept its rules and regulations this would not necessarily be a defence in contract law.
Sorry for the long post but just wanted to put that one out there.
Dont know too many clubs that stipulate the above...maybe they should

Interesting point that could be explored. It could be argued as a rule transgression, the same as not signing a card or some other offence that merits a d/q.

The booking sheet (online) for Opens at our club now features prominent notices saying "Visitors must have current GUI cards for entry & have played 4 qualifying comps last year." So the intention is to only allow entry if this condition is met.

Russman

bobster453 wrote: »

On the same point but from another angle.
What constitutes a contract?
Offer Consideration and Acceptance
So...a club offers to allow a golfer to play in an open competition
The golfer accepts the offer
The consideration is the entry fee paid and the right to play in the competition and maybe win a prize.
Happens every time you play an open.
Under this rule even tho the golfer has accepted the offer and paid the consideration the club could refuse to award him/her their prize if they won one.
Is this a breach of contract??
Yes unless the offer specifically states you need to have complied with this rule to enter the open comp and also ONCE THE CLUB DOES NOT ACCEPT THE ENTRY FEE
If the club accepts the entry fer without first confirming the golfet was eligible it could well be argued that the club willingly altered the consideration therefore would be in breach of contract if it refused to award a prize...a point 1 unfortunately for too many people could also be construed as a prize.
While case law in other sports determined that when you join a club or organisation you were duty bound to accept its rules and regulations this would not necessarily be a defence in contract law.
Sorry for the long post but just wanted to put that one out there.
Dont know too many clubs that stipulate the above...maybe they should

Interesting indeed. Puts it back on the club accepting the entry, if correct. I'm sure somewhere there is a GUI stipulation the lines of "by using a gui handicap you are accepting the rules of the gui, bla, bla......"


If contract law is where golf is heading though I think we're all wasting our time.

alxmorgan

First Up wrote: »

Unless members play the required number of competitions in their "home" club, those handicaps will eventually lapse.

Is this also part of the new rule or is it an existing scenario ?

First Up

alxmorgan wrote: »

Is this also part of the new rule or is it an existing scenario ?

The rule exists but to date has not been enforced by the GUI. Logic would say that it will now come into effect - along the lines of how it is practiced in England/Wales or Scotland. See below:

Clause 25.1 of the CONGU Unified Handicapping System 2008-2011 gives a Union the right to ‘direct that the handicap of any player, in whatever Category, who fails to return a stipulated minimum number of Qualifying Scores in a period between Annual Reviews shall lapse.’

The English, Welsh and Scottish Golf Authorities have introduced different schemes to administer this rule. At the moment the Irish do not use this clause.

England & Wales
The start of 2010 saw the English and Welsh Golfing Unions introducing a systems of Active and Inactive Handicaps for both Gents and Ladies. In short, at the beginning of every year each club will check the number of qualifying rounds all players have returned in the previous year. If that number is less than three, the player's handicap is marked with an 'i' to show that it is 'Inactive'. The club may then choose to limit entry (or the award or prizes) to golfers who's handicaps display that mark.

To remove this 'i' Inactive status, a player must return three qualifing scores in the current playing year.

Points to remember;
This process is run at the start of a calendar year.
Players' handicaps are marked 'i' Inactive, not Lapsed as in Scotland.
Players' handicaps are still adjusted up and down as usual.
To remove the 'i' Inactive status you must return three qualifying scores in the current year.
It is at the competition organising committee's discretion whether 'i' Inactive handicaps may either participate or win prizes in a competition.
If you wish to read the detailed specifications issued by the EGU/EWGA please click here to visit the Club Systems CLUB2000 website.

Scotland
The Scottish Golf Union requires that at each Annual Review, following the close of the playing season, players who have not returned three Qualifying Scores since the previous review shall have their handicap ‘starred’.

Players with handicaps ‘starred’ in this manner shall not be entitled to enter a competition (Home or Away) for which a CONGU handicap is required. ‘Starred’ handicaps may, however, be used for social golf and the like.

A 'starred' CONGU Handicap may be certified by a player's home golf club, allowing the member to use their handicap certificate for access to play golf courses where handicap restrictions apply, holiday golf etc.

To remove this '*' Lapsed status, a player must submit cards to the handicapping committee.

Points to remember;
This process is often run at the start of a calendar year, although it is stipulated that the relevant period is the period 'between Annual Reviews'.
Players' handicaps are marked '*' Lapsed not Inactive as in England & Wales.
Player's handicaps are not valid for entry to qualifying competitions.
To remove the '*' Lapsed status, you must re apply to the handicap committee for a handicap.

bobster453

Any idea why England and Scotland adopted the above?

In a scenario where clubs are struggling to survive putting handicaps..so to speak..in the way of prispective customers seems shortsighted imo

I know quite a few people who are membets of clubs but rarely play in competitions.Does this preclude them from playing in comps if they wished..seems so

First Up

bobster453 wrote: »

Any idea why England and Scotland adopted the above?

In a scenario where clubs are struggling to survive putting handicaps..so to speak..in the way of prispective customers seems shortsighted imo

I know quite a few people who are membets of clubs but rarely play in competitions.Does this preclude them from playing in comps if they wished..seems so

What obstacles are being put in peoples' way?

thelostboys23

Genuine question here but what happens if you were injured for a year and didn't play three qualifying events?

First Up

thelostboys23 wrote: »

Genuine question here but what happens if you were injured for a year and didn't play three qualifying events?

I imagine you could make a case for a medical exemption or something along those lines.

blackwhite

First Up wrote: »

Unless members play the required number of competitions in their "home" club, those handicaps will eventually lapse.

There's no additional provisions for lapsed handicaps in the new rules.
The CONGU systems allows the GUI to bring something in, but to date they haven't.

The new rules do nothing to address the problem of bandits in team events.

First Up

blackwhite wrote: »

There's no additional provisions for lapsed handicaps in the new rules.
The CONGU systems allows the GUI to bring something in, but to date they haven't.

The new rules do nothing to address the problem of bandits in team events.

As mentioned above, the rule (clause 25.1) already exists, so all that is needed is for the GUI to follow their English, Welsh and Scottish counterparts in implementing it and that would be a logical next step after the recent new rule.

All of these issues revolve around individual handicaps. Teams comprise individuals; solve one and you also solve the other.

alxmorgan

First Up wrote: »

As mentioned above, the rule (clause 25.1) already exists, so all that is needed is for the GUI to follow their English, Welsh and Scottish counterparts in implementing it and that would be a logical next step after the recent new rule.

All of these issues revolve around individual handicaps. Teams comprise individuals; solve one and you also solve the other.

Be interesting to see if they follow through with this. Hopefully.

ForeRight

PARlance

First Up wrote: »

All of these issues revolve around individual handicaps. Teams comprise individuals; solve one and you also solve the other.

How do you envisage this rule solving anything to do with banditry?
Very eager to know as I can't see it improving things in any way but you seem fairly certain.

First Up

PARlance wrote: »

How do you envisage this rule solving anything to do with banditry?
Very eager to know as I can't see it improving things in any way but you seem fairly certain.

Just that a better system to capture and record every round at whatever course will make it harder to maintain an inflated handicap. Not all bandits are distance members who just play lucrative team events. They won't get cut for their team scores but if someone is so obsessed with prizes that they are willing to play below their ability every time they have to turn in a singles score, I feel more pity for them than anything else.

PARlance

First Up wrote: »

Just that a better system to capture and record every round at whatever course will make it harder to maintain an inflated handicap. Not all bandits are distance members .

Agree with the rest.

But re above and going back to my question. The current system captures and records every round. All that has changed is that someone now has to play 3 rounds.

Now, a bandit isnt going to slip up and have a good round in one of these and there's nothing to force the club to analyse these three rounds... not that there's much that they could deduce from them imo.

First Up

PARlance wrote: »

Agree with the rest.

But re above and going back to my question. The current system captures and records every round. All that has changed is that someone now has to play 3 rounds.

Now, a bandit isnt going to slip up and have a good round in one of these and there's nothing to force the club to analyse these three rounds... not that there's much that they could deduce from them imo.

I agree that it is easier for distance members because they are under much less scrutiny - no risk of being cut on observation. But I'm not sure the current system is managed as tightly as it could be - are all "away" scores returned and do the distance membership flogging clubs always adjust handicaps as a result?

A fully automated system will reduce the scope for taking a soft line with banditry but, yes the true bandit is hard to catch.

But none of that makes it wrong for the GUI to fully implement the rules as has been done elsewhere.

Slicemeister

First Up wrote: »

I agree that it is easier for distance members because they are under much less scrutiny - no risk of being cut on observation. But I'm not sure the current system is managed as tightly as it could be - are all "away" scores returned and do the distance membership flogging clubs always adjust handicaps as a result?

A fully automated system will reduce the scope for taking a soft line with banditry but, yes the true bandit is hard to catch.

But none of that makes it wrong for the GUI to fully implement the rules as has been done elsewhere.

As a former distance member of Slievnamon in 2013 EVERY away score was accounted for and handicap adjustment applied. In praise of the handicap Secretary(or systems operator not sure), she was well up to speed on her job, play today, handicap adjusted within hours of score returned.
Just only Tuesday gone I played with a competitor who was still waiting for his .6 cut to be applied from a month ago. That after informing his club handicap Secretary and ringing Golfnet themselves to absolutely no avail. He's a full member of a well run club in Munster.

This notion that observational cuts are applied only to home members is also a load of pie in the sky. ONCE is all I've heard of an observational cut in over 5 years playing the game. Now observational adjustments, don't start.

jamesbondings

But even normal members can be bandits....got my first real experience of a "bandit" last week.

Played a "friendly" game of golf with a lady off 22 me off 24 my dad off 4 and another guy off "22".....this guy got two eagles 5 birdies and only one double bogey....

It ruined the whole day out for me, i was delighted to get a par on a par 5 but it was overshadowed by his 3. He gloated quite a bit about how it "wasnt bad for a 22 handicapper"....

I will never play a comp in his home club now as he mentioned he wins most comps ...how do people like him get away with it? Honestly.

I was always brought up to believe golf was an honorable game, played by gentlemen (and ladies of course) and i have never wrote the wrong score on a card intentionally! Nor have i intentionally duffed shots etc....

When I came back i will be looking at distance memberships in either boyne or skarc with a mate or two.

Anything that can help to hinder bandits in my eyes is a great thing.

blackwhite

First Up wrote: »

As mentioned above, the rule (clause 25.1) already exists, so all that is needed is for the GUI to follow their English, Welsh and Scottish counterparts in implementing it and that would be a logical next step after the recent new rule.

All of these issues revolve around individual handicaps. Teams comprise individuals; solve one and you also solve the other.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'm making the point that the new rules about eligibility for opens have nothing to do with tackling banditry.

They are simply an attack on the growth of distance memberships which is, on balance, probably a good thing for the long term sustainability of golf in Ireland.

I'd just prefer if they were honest about their motives for it

bobster453

As i have already stated we received in the region of 20 away scores via Golfnet last year so obviously a lot of clubs eitherdont know how to use Golfnet properly or dont care..imo the latter rather than the former
As regards observation be interested to hear other posters experience of how many if any members they know that were cut on that alone..a very slippery slope again imo
And btw what evidence is there to show bandits are distance members apart from hearsay??..imo thats another cop out fallacy used by certain clubs to beat other clubs with
Biggest banditry i have ever seen apart from holiday prize team events was in the Pierce Purcell a few years ago that won a regional final and the same players the following year had higher handicaps afterbeing told to mind them...and this from a well established club in Munster