Two interesting motions at the GUI AGM

Mr. Larson · 07-04-2014 02:05PM

What was the outcome to this does anyone know?

I have observed that numerous people were on the receiving end of a 0.1 who played 3 holes at the weekend. Before I throw a hissy fit about this to the club and kick up a stink about this, I better make sure I have my facts straight and that this is not ok.

SnowDrifts · 07-04-2014 02:18PM

Mr. Larson wrote: »

What was the outcome to this does anyone know?

I have observed that numerous people were on the receiving end of a 0.1 who played 3 holes at the weekend. Before I throw a hissy fit about this to the club and kick up a stink about this, I better make sure I have my facts straight and that this is not ok.

It has to get final approval from CONGU and all going well, will come into effect January 2016. A big shame it's not sooner. Being a member in the same club as yourself, I was thinking the exact same last night. The usual candidates notching up a string of .1s before big events just pisses me right off.

The 3 games at your home club qualification to play an opens is due to come into effect January 2015.

Russman · 07-04-2014 02:18PM

I could be wrong but I thought the motions now had to go to CONGU for approval (proposed by the GUI), and they can't come in until 2015 at the earliest.

IIRC one of them isn't proposed to come in until Jan 2016 - that might be the twenty 0.1s though.

Mr. Larson · 07-04-2014 02:43PM

SnowDrifts wrote: »

It has to get final approval from CONGU and all going well, will come into effect January 2016. A big shame it's not sooner. Being a member in the same club as yourself, I was thinking the exact same last night. The usual candidates notching up a string of .1s before big events just pisses me right off.

The 3 games at your home club qualification to play an opens is due to come into effect January 2015.

Russman wrote: »

I could be wrong but I thought the motions now had to go to CONGU for approval (proposed by the GUI), and they can't come in until 2015 at the earliest.

IIRC one of them isn't proposed to come in until Jan 2016 - that might be the twenty 0.1s though.

OK thanks lads.

Slicemeister · 07-11-2014 01:19PM

So everyone eligible to play next year in GUI comps? Know of one case where he can't.

D Hayes · 07-11-2014 01:47PM

Slicemeister wrote: »

Know of one case where he can't.

Why not?

alxmorgan · 07-11-2014 03:03PM

Slicemeister wrote: »

So everyone eligible to play next year in GUI comps? Know of one case where he can't.

We've managed to secure a lot of new members through a recruitment drive late this year but I'm guessing most would not have had time to play 3 qualifying comps so unless they moved club and did so there all the guys will not be able to.

Slicemeister · 07-11-2014 03:14PM

alxmorgan wrote:

We've managed to secure a lot of new members through a recruitment drive late this year but I'm guessing most would not have had time to play 3 qualifying comps so unless they moved club and did so there all the guys will not be able to.

Obviously all eligible to play in the open comps? Not singling out your club wondering are clubs asking the question regarding the 3 opens in previous clubs for new members?

alxmorgan · 07-11-2014 03:42PM

Slicemeister wrote: »

Obviously all eligible to play in the open comps? Not singling out your club wondering are clubs asking the question regarding the 3 opens in previous clubs for new members?

You've lost me I'm afraid

And do you mean 3 comps in home club as opposed to 3 opens ?

Slicemeister · 07-11-2014 04:46PM

alxmorgan wrote:

And do you mean 3 comps in home club as opposed to 3 opens ?

Sorry yeah that's what I meant. I'm just thinking of how stringent clubs would be as regards new members who wouldn't have played 3 comps in their previous club this year.

alxmorgan · 07-11-2014 04:56PM

Slicemeister wrote: »

Sorry yeah that's what I meant. I'm just thinking of how stringent clubs would be as regards new members who wouldn't have played 3 comps in their previous club this year.

Will individual clubs have any say ? I mean it seems the idea is to make the rule automated. If not then I'd imagine a lot of clubs may well let it slide for fear of revenue loss or just let lads out at the comp rate but not enter the comp.

Who knows....I guess we'll see.

PARlance · 07-11-2014 05:11PM

alxmorgan wrote: »

Will individual clubs have any say ? I mean it seems the idea is to make the rule automated. If not then I'd imagine a lot of clubs may well let it slide for fear of revenue loss or just let lads out at the comp rate but not enter the comp.

Who knows....I guess we'll see.

Can't remember for certain but I think it was stated that it's wouldn't be automated and the onus was on the player & club hosting the open.

inthehole1 · 07-11-2014 07:27PM

PARlance wrote: »

Can't remember for certain but I think it was stated that it's wouldn't be automated and the onus was on the player & club hosting the open.

Is it just open competition you cant play in or is it weekend comps at your home club aswell

alxmorgan · 07-11-2014 07:31PM

inthehole1 wrote: »

Is it just open competition you cant play in or is it weekend comps at your home club aswell

Opens only.

Unglika Norse · 13-11-2014 09:56PM

I see that the leinster board are amending their constitution this year which will make it a closed shop as to getting elected as an officer of the board.

Poker Face · 26-11-2014 11:38AM

The following motion below was carried as the Munster AGM last night. Hopefully the other provinces follow suit

MUNSTER MOTIONS
THURLES GOLF CLUB
Thurles Golf Club proposes that the following system is introduced to achieve a uniform means of dealing with players recording notable performances in golf classics or similar team events (i.e. teams of four, teams of three, rumbles, scrambles etc.):

Mandatory Adjustments, under Clause 23 (B), for each notable performance:
Winners Runners-up Third Place
Category 1 0.0 0.0 Noted as a score for consideration under Clause 23 (A)
Category 2 -0.4 -0.2 Noted as a score for consideration under Clause 23 (A)
Category 3 -0.6 -0.3 Noted as a score for consideration under Clause 23 (A)
Category 4 -0.8 -0.4 Noted as a score for consideration under Clause 23 (A)

Rationale:
To strive for uniformity of all handicap committees in implementation of handicapping in respect of all Non-Qualifying returns.
CARRIED

big_drive · 26-11-2014 11:58AM

Looks like a good motion. Would make it easier for clubs to deal with those who win. when its down as a rule nobody can complain and it means all clubs are following the same system instead of leaving it at the discretion of a club

alxmorgan · 26-11-2014 12:05PM

big_drive wrote: »

Looks like a good motion. Would make it easier for clubs to deal with those who win. when its down as a rule nobody can complain and it means all clubs are following the same system instead of leaving it at the discretion of a club

I agree. Will be those that say that you can play crap on a winning team so getting cut is harsh. But I reckon the greater good is served by this. The alternative is what we have now....team events being an absolute joke in terms of honest golfers having a hope of winning.

HighLine · 26-11-2014 12:18PM

Good motion but.... why couldn't it have included fourballs/foursomes?? Also... it should have followed suit and have a .2 and .1 cut for cat 1 players.

FixdePitchmark · 26-11-2014 12:19PM

How much more of a cut can 23 give.

Because they are still very small reductions . Or is that per shot ?

From talking to lads . Who know . Not just rumours.

You have lads with 7/8 shots in bag going into team events.
Even yesterday was told that lad is off 15 enters team events can play to about 8.

Well done Thurles. They clearly have a pain in their balls with clubs near to them .
I've seen them in action.

big_drive · 26-11-2014 12:26PM

It would be hard on those who are only "passengers" on a team and maybe don't contribute to the score but overall it would be better than the present set up.

Norfolk Enchants_ · 26-11-2014 12:38PM

Poker Face wrote: »

The following motion below was carried as the Munster AGM last night. Hopefully the other provinces follow suit

MUNSTER MOTIONS
THURLES GOLF CLUB
Thurles Golf Club proposes that the following system is introduced to achieve a uniform means of dealing with players recording notable performances in golf classics or similar team events (i.e. teams of four, teams of three, rumbles, scrambles etc.):

Mandatory Adjustments, under Clause 23 (B), for each notable performance:
Winners Runners-up Third Place
Category 1 0.0 0.0 Noted as a score for consideration under Clause 23 (A)
Category 2 -0.4 -0.2 Noted as a score for consideration under Clause 23 (A)
Category 3 -0.6 -0.3 Noted as a score for consideration under Clause 23 (A)
Category 4 -0.8 -0.4 Noted as a score for consideration under Clause 23 (A)

Rationale:
To strive for uniformity of all handicap committees in implementation of handicapping in respect of all Non-Qualifying returns.
CARRIED

Terrible motion, next to impossible to police and doesn't address the core issue at all, it just adds another layer for red tape for overworked HC secretary's, guaranteed not to be carried at national congress.

Dealerz · 26-11-2014 01:25PM

Did I also hear that the 3 qualifying comps rule from last year has been amended so that you can play the 3 comps in same year as your qualifying away comp and not in prior year ?

alxmorgan · 26-11-2014 01:49PM

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

Terrible motion, next to impossible to police and doesn't address the core issue at all, it just adds another layer for red tape for overworked HC secretary's, guaranteed not to be carried at national congress.

Why hard to police ? Each member enters with own GUI number and software could hopefully handle the heavy lifting ?

Russman · 26-11-2014 02:43PM

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

Terrible motion, next to impossible to police and doesn't address the core issue at all, it just adds another layer for red tape for overworked HC secretary's, guaranteed not to be carried at national congress.

Totally agree it's a terrible, terrible motion. Handicap is supposed to reflect ability versus the course not versus the other competitors on a given day.
How can it be right that someone is cut for winning a team event with, say, 92 points and down the road another team shoot 103 points and finish 5th and don't get cut ? Ill thought out and smacking of begrudgery IMHO.

Not suggesting team events don't have problems but this isn't the way to deal with them IMO. Don't forget it's easier to pay well when you have 3 team mates there as backup.

It's a can of worms, especially including scrambles, where the ball is actually picked up and brought to a better position, how can you cut someone based on how they play from someone else's drive and their own may well have been out of bounds ?? What about the guy who does nothing from tee to green, but holes the putts ? Outrageous on so many levels.

Norfolk Enchants_ · 26-11-2014 02:48PM

alxmorgan wrote: »

Why hard to police ? Each member enters with own GUI number and software could hopefully handle the heavy lifting ?

Afaiaa the HC software doesn't have the capability to process scores other than singles and fourball BB, although it's true to say yes it could be built into future software releases/updates, that still wouldn't address the core issue IMO.

alxmorgan · 26-11-2014 03:14PM

Russman wrote: »

Totally agree it's a terrible, terrible motion. Handicap is supposed to reflect ability versus the course not versus the other competitors on a given day.
How can it be right that someone is cut for winning a team event with, say, 92 points and down the road another team shoot 103 points and finish 5th and don't get cut ? Ill thought out and smacking of begrudgery IMHO.

Not suggesting team events don't have problems but this isn't the way to deal with them IMO. Don't forget it's easier to pay well when you have 3 team mates there as backup.

It's a can of worms, especially including scrambles, where the ball is actually picked up and brought to a better position, how can you cut someone based on how they play from someone else's drive and their own may well have been out of bounds ?? What about the guy who does nothing from tee to green, but holes the putts ? Outrageous on so many levels.

Interesting points made. Would you/how would you address team events then ? Throw your hat at it and accept they are for bandits ?

Benicetomonty · 26-11-2014 03:32PM

I think it's a necessary step. The same people win a dis-proportionate number of team events in my place and dont get cut. Its true that some will perhaps be cut unfairly but I expect theyll be in the minority

Golf is about trying to improve. If you win an event you should expect and welcome a cut. Otherwise, avoid playing with known bandits. Win-win

PARlance · 26-11-2014 03:39PM

I would have no issue getting a cut for a team event win or placing, even if I played poorly. Get a prize, get cut. That's fine with me.

In fact, I suggested the same motion some time ago, delight and surprised to see the home of links golf, Thurles, forwarding it.

alxmorgan · 26-11-2014 03:41PM

Russman wrote: »

Not suggesting team events don't have problems....

I think this is understating it somewhat. I am not at this game long but it hasn't taken me long to figure out that team events are rife with cheats. You will of course get cheats in singles comps but less so as they know they will get cut.

The vast majority of golfers i know won't enter team comps or only do so for the craic as they know, being honest, that even their best day will hardly even get them near the podium. Perhaps I'm overstating but I don't think so.

And the fact that this has been accepted for so long both reflects badly on the GUI and also perhaps reflects clubs fear of losing money by upsetting the current situation even if they know the score.

Two interesting motions at the GUI AGM

Comments