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.
GreeBo wrote: » Why do you think its not up for discussion?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
pete4pool wrote: » Do you think that because people are distance members that they have an easier way of getting an untrue handicap?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
kilbaha wrote: » So the GUI has now prohibited him from playing any singles away from home next year
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. .
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
