WHS Rule Changes for 2024

[larrybud]

On 10/24/2023 at 8:40 AM, davep043 said:

Either way, many US golfers will continue to post whatever they choose, without any requirement for attestation.

I've said it before, that's one change I'd like to see adopted in the USGA-controlled areas, pre-registration and attestation for non-competition scores.  From what I understand, it works pretty simply in England, all done through their phone app.  For anyone who complains about sandbagging, that should be eagerly accepted.

 

The correct solution to sandbagging in tournaments is have a Tournament Index which is an index of only "T" scores (or whatever they call it now). So you would have two indexes: The current index which includes all scores (I'll call it the General Index), and the tournament index, or T-Index. Only T scores can be posted by tournament committees, so there's your attestation.

If two buddies want to play with their Saturday nassau with their G-Index then they can still do that, but still have a "valid" index for tournaments.

[larrybud]

On 10/24/2023 at 8:19 PM, klebs01 said:

Behavior may change, not sure playing stroke play will be the change. May be posting outside the rules or using an alternate system. 

 

Exactly. I know SOOOO many players who don't follow posting guidelines. Not posting 9 hole scores is a big one.

[larrybud]

On 10/26/2023 at 12:00 AM, 2bGood said:

 

It is just one players' data. I would suspect that the ruling bodies have statisticians running this kind of data all the time to guide their decision making. 

 

Most people padding their cap, are not doing it on the course, they are doing by not posting scores or posting false scores. At the end of the day there are blatantly dishonest people, that helpfully you discover through peer review and handicap committees. 

 

 

 

LOL. You guys and your handicap committees. My index is "held" at a course I haven't played in 2 years. There is no review, there is no committee, and unless you're a member at a private club, this doesn't happen EVER in the US. You guys live in a different golfing world. Hell, my own home club fired the GM and pro this year and is run by the office manager that knows jack about golf

 

Most people's sandbagging is discovered when you play a net tournament and the "12" shoots 76.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by larrybud

[Newby]

3 hours ago, larrybud said:

 

LOL. You guys and your handicap committees. My index is "held" at a course I haven't played in 2 years. There is no review, there is no committee, and unless you're a member at a private club, this doesn't happen EVER in the US. You guys live in a different golfing world. Hell, my own home club fired the GM and pro this year and is run by the office manager that knows jack about golf

 

Most people's sandbagging is discovered when you play a net tournament and the "12" shoots 76.

 

 

Why do those guys even bother with handicaps?

Edited October 28, 2023 by Newby

[Nels55]

2 hours ago, Newby said:

Why do those guys even bother with handicaps?

Because it works.  Most folks are actually honest believe it or not.  The sandbaggers tend to stand out and get sorted eventually.  For me it is all for fun and if someone 'beats' me in a tournament because they sandbagged so what?  It's not like winning a handicap tournament is a big accomplishment or something.  The money involved is trivial and if someone wants to steal money by sandbagging karma gonna get em in the end anyway.

[bcjim]

3 hours ago, Newby said:

Why do those guys even bother with handicaps?

Because you need one to enter many events?

 

The PP is right as well, handicap committees are not a thing for "commoners" in the US. 

 

I bet a venn diagram of HC Committee members and HOA board members is a perfect circle. 😆

 

(Im joking a bit there, I'm sure some oversight is good at clubs with lots of net games going on.)

[Shilgy]

On 10/26/2023 at 10:07 AM, bluedot said:

Wow!  I have NO idea what the possibilities or work arounds are for an operation that size.  I’ll find out the name of the software package we’re getting; maybe the company has ideas for you?
 

The only good news I can think of is that on the bad weather days, the total number of rounds is far less than what was on the tee sheets, so cross checking should be at least marginally easier.  

Doesn’t matter the size…if you use ForeTees at your club it integrates with GHIN and a report can be run showing when each player played in the date window chosen AND whether or not a score was posted.

[TheDominator273]

31 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Doesn’t matter the size…if you use ForeTees at your club it integrates with GHIN and a report can be run showing when each player played in the date window chosen AND whether or not a score was posted.

This.  We utilized this function in Foretees for the first time this year and despite some hiccups with people not telling us when they only played 9 and were down for an 18 hole round, the "nasty gram" emails that members would get for missing a posting were very successful in getting people to post scores and as a result have a more accurate handicap for our club events.

 

We have it set up where a player will receive an email for either a missed score posting or posting a mismatched amount of holes vs the tee sheet every other day for 10 days or until the score is posted. I'm looking forward to the posting change since it should reduce the amount of emails I get from members asking to change the tee sheet from 18 to 9 holes after they got another email.

[North Butte]

I find it ludicrous anyone could imagine this kind of nonsense will keep sandbaggers from sandbagging.

[2bGood]

On 10/28/2023 at 5:17 AM, larrybud said:

 

LOL. You guys and your handicap committees. My index is "held" at a course I haven't played in 2 years. There is no review, there is no committee, and unless you're a member at a private club, this doesn't happen EVER in the US. You guys live in a different golfing world. Hell, my own home club fired the GM and pro this year and is run by the office manager that knows jack about golf

 

Most people's sandbagging is discovered when you play a net tournament and the "12" shoots 76.

 

 

Since you are in the US, I will point you to the USGA, rules of handicapping. Anybody issuing handicaps has to have a handicap committee or they lose their ability to issue handicaps. You might have really crappy, inactive handicap committee, that exist only on paper, but someone is checking the box that your home course or where ever you keep your index has a committee. If they weren't they would (eventually) lose the ability to issue handicaps. 

 

Handicap Committee

The entity established by a golf club or an Authorized Association which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the obligations of the golf club or Authorized Association under the Rules of Handicapping (see Rule 1.3 Responsibilities of Player, Handicap Committee and Authorized Association and Appendix A: Rights and Responsibilities).

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by 2bGood

[Augster]

2 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Since you are the US, I will point you to the USGA, rules of handicapping. Anybody issuing handicaps has to have a handicap committee or they lose their ability to issue handicaps. You might have really crappy, inactive handicap committee, that exist only on paper, but someone is checking the box that your home course or where ever you keep your index has a committee. If they weren't they would (eventually) lose the ability to issue handicaps. 

 

Handicap Committee

The entity established by a golf club or an Authorized Association which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the obligations of the golf club or Authorized Association under the Rules of Handicapping (see Rule 1.3 Responsibilities of Player, Handicap Committee and Authorized Association and Appendix A: Rights and Responsibilities).

 

100%

 

If you have a GHIN handicap, you have a handicap committee. It’s really that simple. Any other claims are pure nonsense. 
 

Even if you don’t know who they are, you could just email your club president and ask. The handicap committee can afford to be “lazy” and minimal oversight should be involved. It’s a game of honesty after all. 
 

What is the process when you fat-finger a score and need it changed? Who do you contact? THAT’S the committee. 

[North Butte]

7 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Since you are the US, I will point you to the USGA, rules of handicapping. Anybody issuing handicaps has to have a handicap committee or they lose their ability to issue handicaps. You might have really crappy, inactive handicap committee, that exist only on paper, but someone is checking the box that your home course or where ever you keep your index has a committee. If they weren't they would (eventually) lose the ability to issue handicaps. 

 

Handicap Committee

The entity established by a golf club or an Authorized Association which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the obligations of the golf club or Authorized Association under the Rules of Handicapping (see Rule 1.3 Responsibilities of Player, Handicap Committee and Authorized Association and Appendix A: Rights and Responsibilities).

 

Your belief in the efficacy of Rules is touching but hopelessly out of touch with the reality of golf for most USA golfers. 

 

And your imagination that USGA is going around shutting down places whose "committee" fails to perform "peer review" is laughable!

 

 

[bluedot]

10 hours ago, North Butte said:

I find it ludicrous anyone could imagine this kind of nonsense will keep sandbaggers from sandbagging.

It will help.  
 

By far the most common way that sandbagging is accomplished is by simply not posting scores.  You’re right that someone who is determined to cheat will still be able to find ways to do that, but another part of the software monitors and flags competitive results that are out of line with a player’s index. 

 

I think it’s fair to say that clubs with a very active and aggressive peer review system already have a pretty good success rate in at least reducing sandbagging.  At my club, the Handicap Committee regularly checks posted scores against the tee sheet and then directly contacts individuals who aren’t posting all their scores. The committee then follows up by having a “watch list” of these individuals and monitoring them all the time; we’ve even had players suspended from club tournaments for up to a year for repeated violations.  The result of this for us is that the number of complaints about sandbagging are minimal.

 

The software turns a pretty labor intensive job into a matter of a few keystrokes, AND also works on the much larger number of golfers with vanity indexes.  Does any of this eliminate inaccurate indexes? Of course not, but it helps quite a bit.

 

And if all of this sounds excessive and like a golf police state, remember that there are three VERY easy ways to not be impacted by peer review.  One is to simply play fully under The Rules of Golf and post ALL scores.  Another, of course, is not to have an index at all.  And a third is to have an index, perhaps to just keep up with improvements (or the lack there of) over time, but NOT play in competition.

[North Butte]

13 minutes ago, bluedot said:

It will help.  
 

By far the most common way that sandbagging is accomplished is by simply not posting scores.  You’re right that someone who is determined to cheat will still be able to find ways to do that, but another part of the software monitors and flags competitive results that are out of line with a player’s index. 

 

I think it’s fair to say that clubs with a very active and aggressive peer review system already have a pretty good success rate in at least reducing sandbagging.  At my club, the Handicap Committee regularly checks posted scores against the tee sheet and then directly contacts individuals who aren’t posting all their scores. The committee then follows up by having a “watch list” of these individuals and monitoring them all the time; we’ve even had players suspended from club tournaments for up to a year for repeated violations.  The result of this for us is that the number of complaints about sandbagging are minimal.

 

The software turns a pretty labor intensive job into a matter of a few keystrokes, AND also works on the much larger number of golfers with vanity indexes.  Does any of this eliminate inaccurate indexes? Of course not, but it helps quite a bit.

 

And if all of this sounds excessive and like a golf police state, remember that there are three VERY easy ways to not be impacted by peer review.  One is to simply play fully under The Rules of Golf and post ALL scores.  Another, of course, is not to have an index at all.  And a third is to have an index, perhaps to just keep up with improvements (or the lack there of) over time, but NOT play in competition.

So some guy shoots 73 and doesn't post his score because it would lower his 5.2 index. Nobody he played with checks, notices or complains. 

 

The next day he gets a nag message from some automated system telling him he has to post.

 

You do realize he could just as easily post any number he likes instead of 73, right? If nobody noticed he didn't post at all then nobody a few days later is going to notice if he posts 77 instead of 73. 

 

If peer review (by the golfers he actually played with) does not take place, no after the fact automated nagware is going to takes its place. 

 

There's a fourth way, one that actually would work. Design actual peer review into the damned GHIN app. Don't accept any score unless it is electronically attested by one of the golfers the round was played with. Stop allowing GHIN subscribers to literally type any number they like, any time they like and create their own bespoke index. 

 

P.S. I'd say roughly 60-65% of the tee times I make in a year are for rounds played totally solo, with no intention of keeping score or posting. If I start getting nagware emails from GHIN two or three times a week they're going straight into the Spam bucket like all the other junk mail.

Edited October 29, 2023 by North Butte

[bluedot]

2 minutes ago, North Butte said:

So some guy shoots 73 and doesn't post his score because it would lower his 5.2 index. Nobody he played with checks, notices or complains. 

 

The next day he gets a nag message from some automated system telling him he has to post.

 

You do realize he could just as easily post any number he likes instead of 73, right? If nobody noticed he didn't post at all then nobody a few days later is going to notice if he posts 77 instead of 73. 

 

If peer review (by the golfers he actually played with) does not take place, no after the fact automated nagware is going to takes its place. 

 

There's a fourth way, one that actually would work. Design actual peer review into the damned GHIN app. Don't accept any score unless it is electronically attested by one of the golfers the round was played with. Stop allowing GHIN subscribers to literally type any number they like, any time they like and create their own bespoke index. 

 

As I said, I agree with you that someone intent on cheating will find a way to do so.  I think the goal of both the software and peer review in general is to make that more difficult, AND to then check competitive results against indexes.

 

As to the hypothetical that you wrote, again, we don’t disagree about that, either; it happens all too frequently.  BUT in my experience at least, guys like that become unwelcome pretty quickly in a club with money games and competitions; the GHIN app lets you follow other golfers, and I think a lot of us routinely check the scores of other players after a round.  And second, if this guy frequently does this, and then shoots lower scores in competitions, he WILL get caught and outed in some form or fashion.  My club would simply ban him from club competitions; the Carolinas Golf Association, on the other hand, maintains an “Exceptional Score” list and would reduce his index by either one or two shots in subsequent competitions for the next year.  The CGA also has a “10 stroke” rule in tournaments; if a player betters his index by 10 or more shots, he cannot win that competition, no matter what he shot.

 

Again, the key to all of this is constant and aggressive peer review.  The software is meant to make that review more consistent and less labor intensive; that won’t eliminate cheating, just like effective police work doesn’t eliminate all crime, but it helps.  A lot…

[TheDominator273]

23 minutes ago, North Butte said:

So some guy shoots 73 and doesn't post his score because it would lower his 5.2 index. Nobody he played with checks, notices or complains. 

 

The next day he gets a nag message from some automated system telling him he has to post.

 

You do realize he could just as easily post any number he likes instead of 73, right? If nobody noticed he didn't post at all then nobody a few days later is going to notice if he posts 77 instead of 73. 

 

If peer review (by the golfers he actually played with) does not take place, no after the fact automated nagware is going to takes its place. 

 

There's a fourth way, one that actually would work. Design actual peer review into the damned GHIN app. Don't accept any score unless it is electronically attested by one of the golfers the round was played with. Stop allowing GHIN subscribers to literally type any number they like, any time they like and create their own bespoke index. 

 

P.S. I'd say roughly 60-65% of the tee times I make in a year are for rounds played totally solo, with no intention of keeping score or posting. If I start getting nagware emails from GHIN two or three times a week they're going straight into the Spam bucket like all the other junk mail.

If you are solo on the tee sheet you don't get the emails because the system is smart enough to know that round isn't eligible for posting.

 

I agree with your other points though. 

[DLiver]

At my club, any member who is on the tee sheet and doesn't post a score gets a reminder-to-post email that evening. If a score isn't posted in the next day or two, the pro shop calls them. Any time you miss posting a score, that occurance is entered into a spreadsheet, and that list of "missed postings" is reviewed every month. If you are a habitual offender, you get increased scrutiny by the staff and committee. Unusual handicap movement will get you a soft or hard cap, which limits the upward movement of you index (this is built into the WHS system). If you shoot a good score just before a net tournament and don't post that score until after handicaps are frozen for the tournament, you get a call from the head pro and face possible sanctions. If the movement of your handicap is suspicious/unusual, you will get additional scrutiny from the committee.

 

The staff, committee and other members know who the sandbaggers are. As others have said, you can't prevent sandbagging. But you can make it harder and more uncomfortable for those that do sandbag.

[DaveLeeNC]

2 hours ago, bluedot said:

One is to simply play fully under The Rules of Golf and post ALL scores.  Another, of course, is not to have an index at all.  And a third is to have an index, perhaps to just keep up with improvements (or the lack there of) over time, but NOT play in competition.

 

Just to be pedantic here, having an index in the system but posting incorrect (or late) scores is still an issue with the PCC calculation (affecting everyone even if the player never/ever plays in a competition (formal or informal) that makes handicap adjustments or uses handicap for qualification or placement purposes. Yeah, I feel pedantic today. 

 

dave

[Shilgy]

3 hours ago, bluedot said:

It will help.  
 

By far the most common way that sandbagging is accomplished is by simply not posting scores.  You’re right that someone who is determined to cheat will still be able to find ways to do that, but another part of the software monitors and flags competitive results that are out of line with a player’s index. 

 

I think it’s fair to say that clubs with a very active and aggressive peer review system already have a pretty good success rate in at least reducing sandbagging.  At my club, the Handicap Committee regularly checks posted scores against the tee sheet and then directly contacts individuals who aren’t posting all their scores. The committee then follows up by having a “watch list” of these individuals and monitoring them all the time; we’ve even had players suspended from club tournaments for up to a year for repeated violations.  The result of this for us is that the number of complaints about sandbagging are minimal.

 

The software turns a pretty labor intensive job into a matter of a few keystrokes, AND also works on the much larger number of golfers with vanity indexes.  Does any of this eliminate inaccurate indexes? Of course not, but it helps quite a bit.

 

And if all of this sounds excessive and like a golf police state, remember that there are three VERY easy ways to not be impacted by peer review.  One is to simply play fully under The Rules of Golf and post ALL scores.  Another, of course, is not to have an index at all.  And a third is to have an index, perhaps to just keep up with improvements (or the lack there of) over time, but NOT play in competition.

Agreed….and with all respect to @bladehunter (from another thread he hates electronic scoring) that is why the group I run at my club uses golf genius.  I have a very honest roster of players but everyone can make mistakes…or forget..to post.  With golf genius all scores are accurately posted that day.

[nsxguy]

On 10/25/2023 at 10:55 PM, 2bGood said:

I play about 100 match play rounds per year and about 30 competitive stroke play rounds per year.

 

Is that true ? 75% of your competitive rounds are match play ? "Pure" match play; that is you vs. opponent with no other "action" going on - other than possibly a 2nd match play in the same group ?

 

Frankly, and maybe I'm an anomaly (too ?), I've never played a "pure" match play round. In the CC match play tournament at my (muni) club every year, players in a match were part of a stroke play team event as well as being in their match.

 

So each player was still being used as the 4th guy on a team, playing in a separate group with his score merged with his teammates after the round.

 

 

[2bGood]

4 hours ago, North Butte said:

Your belief in the efficacy of Rules is touching but hopelessly out of touch with the reality of golf for most USA golfers. 

 

And your imagination that USGA is going around shutting down places whose "committee" fails to perform "peer review" is laughable!

 

 

Did you read the words I posted? I did not state the USGA would shut down handicapping if the committee failed to perform perform "peer review". I said they would get shut down if they did if they did not state they had a handicap committee. You need to sign off every year that you have a committee to keep your ability to issue and keep handicaps when do your USGA paperwork.

 

I was clear you committee may do a bad job, but there is no club issuing handicaps that does not have handicap committee. 

[nsxguy]

On 10/25/2023 at 11:08 PM, rogolf said:

Good job on bring facts and data to the table.  At work, we say that facts and data kill arguments.

 

My dear ol' daddy once told me "Figures don't lie but liars figure".

 

Last year ABC company made 35% more profit than the year before.

 

This year ABC company made 20% more profit than last year.

 

Did ABC company have a good year this year ?

[Newby]

Ir seems to me that a major deficiency in the USGA's implementation is the apparent non requirement to attest and verify scores. I am not aware that any other ruling authority has this situation.

 

Certainly here in the UK we generally do not trust American's handicaps.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Newby

[bladehunter]

35 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Agreed….and with all respect to @bladehunter (from another thread he hates electronic scoring) that is why the group I run at my club uses golf genius.  I have a very honest roster of players but everyone can make mistakes…or forget..to post.  With golf genius all scores are accurately posted that day.

It automatically posts to ghin ?  

[bladehunter]

8 minutes ago, Newby said:

Ir seems to me that a major deficiency in the USGA's implementation is the apparent non requirement to attest and verify scores. I am not aware that any other ruling authority has this situation.

 

Certainly here in the UK we generally do not trust American's handicaps.

Agree. 99 % of all USA rounds are NOT attested.  Only rounds I’ve ever had attested are in USga events , state and county am events and the club championship at home.  That’s roughly 6 rounds a year to my average of 85-90 played. 

[2bGood]

37 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Is that true ? 75% of your competitive rounds are match play ? "Pure" match play; that is you vs. opponent with no other "action" going on - other than possibly a 2nd match play in the same group ?

 

Frankly, and maybe I'm an anomaly (too ?), I've never played a "pure" match play round. In the CC match play tournament at my (muni) club every year, players in a match were part of a stroke play team event as well as being in their match.

 

So each player was still being used as the 4th guy on a team, playing in a separate group with his score merged with his teammates after the round.

 

 

Yes and no. Our club is basically all match play for day to day play. If you joined a threesome you would be asked if you want to play a match. It is not organised competitive play, it a game for $5-$500 kind of thing - competitive due to the money. In addition to that you can play around 20 rounds of organised match play as part of annual tournaments. You get a division and arrange the time of the match on some of them, other one's we play against other clubs. It is singles or best ball, but all match play.

 

In addition to this we have at least one organised stroke play tournament a week during the active season, but average closer two.

Edited October 29, 2023 by 2bGood

[ThinkingPlus]

6 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

It automatically posts to ghin ?  

It can at the discretion of the committee. 

[ThinkingPlus]

17 minutes ago, Newby said:

Ir seems to me that a major deficiency in the USGA's implementation is the apparent non requirement to attest and verify scores. I am not aware that any other ruling authority has this situation.

 

Certainly here in the UK we generally do not trust American's handicaps.

It varies. Our weekly women's group play is all attested. I also play monthly comps which are attested. Of course all state and national comps are attested as @bladehunter indicated.

[Shilgy]

31 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

It automatically posts to ghin ?  

No…I press one button to post all scores.  So essentially yes.

 

edited to add…with guidance from the USGA our club only posts the various club championships as C (competition) scores.  Not events where it’s better ball.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Shilgy

[mark m]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

Ir seems to me that a major deficiency in the USGA's implementation is the apparent non requirement to attest and verify scores. I am not aware that any other ruling authority has this situation.

 

Certainly here in the UK we generally do not trust American's handicaps.

 

How are things going in the former CONGU areas since the implementation of the WHS?

 

I will be specific: my question is in regards to the perception by the majority of club players in regards to open net scoring competitions? I am speaking of comps that are open to participation from more than one club. 

 

Has the implementation of the WHS been received as positive, basically neutral, or negative? Have the number of these events stayed roughly the same, grown, or shrunk? And the same for participation level per event?

 

I ask because I believe you had a better competitive system and culture than we had prior to the WHS, and I am curious as to what has occurred since.

 

I hope you can respond.

 Thanks 

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by mark m