Two interesting motions at the GUI AGM

J6P

Isn't the country membership thing almost a thing of the past with all the cheap memberships available in dublin??

I think the GUI have missed the boat on that one by about 5 years. The only reason there was people buying country memberships was because of clubs in Dublin charging stupid money.

As for the .1's.. the new proposal is a joke. I would be embarassed to go with that proposal to the CONGU and seeing what they think of it.

Russman

josie19 wrote: »

Percentage of the field is referenced to the number that signed in (deemed to have played). Check howdidido under course analysis under times played. NRs are always counted as competitors so if they throw away the card it still counts as a qualifying score worse than SSS +2.

One of the issues we have (or used to have before the main culprits left), was that many of them wouldn't sign in at the beginning of their round and would leave it until they had played to decide whether to log in or not.

Much like bandits keeping a high handicap, the iffy low men will find a way to stay low.

In practice though is this really only going to effect strokes comps as you can't really NR in stableford or v-par ? You might finish 18 down but its still a score ?
Do we mean by NR that the card itself isn't returned or that halfway through the round the player essentially picked up his ball/didn't go back when he lost a ball etc ?

josie19

Russman wrote: »

One of the issues we have (or used to have before the main culprits left), was that many of them wouldn't sign in at the beginning of their round and would leave it until they had played to decide whether to log in or not.

Much like bandits keeping a high handicap, the iffy low men will find a way to stay low.

In practice though is this really only going to effect strokes comps as you can't really NR in stableford or v-par ? You might finish 18 down but its still a score ?
Do we mean by NR that the card itself isn't returned or that halfway through the round the player essentially picked up his ball/didn't go back when he lost a ball etc ?

In strokes you can NR a single or multiple scores and still complete the round. The NR scores go back to Nett double bogey - know as a stableford adjustment for bad scores. You can't win the comp if you NR a score but you can still be cut (and I have been !!).

e.g. A par 5 where you have a shot and you score a 10 will go back 8 (for handicap purposes). The lowest stableford score where you get zero points.

PARlance

josie19 wrote: »

Percentage of the field is referenced to the number that signed in (deemed to have played). Check howdidido under course analysis under times played. NRs are always counted as competitors so if they throw away the card it still counts as a qualifying score worse than SSS +2.

Great, thanks for clearing that up so.
My CSS concern is gone, cheers again.

Still not in favour of the second proposal all the same.

PARlance

josie19 wrote: »

In strokes you can NR a single or multiple scores and still complete the round. The NR scores go back to Nett double bogey - know as a stableford adjustment for bad scores. You can't win the comp if you NR a score but you can still be cut (and I have been !!).

e.g. A par 5 where you have a shot and you score a 10 will go back 8 (for handicap purposes). The lowest stableford score where you get zero points.

Wasn't aware of this until late last summer myself, think it is called Clause 19(?) and you will see that on your HC record from time to time....

Dr_Colossus

J6P wrote: »

Isn't the country membership thing almost a thing of the past with all the cheap memberships available in dublin??

I think the GUI have missed the boat on that one by about 5 years. The only reason there was people buying country memberships was because of clubs in Dublin charging stupid money.

Is that meant as a joke? Where are all the cheap memberships available in Dublin? Cheapest you'll get for full membership is about €800, most of the member owned clubs which typically are in better condition charge upwards of €1,500 which is still stupid money when compared to country rates.

SnowDrifts

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Is that meant as a joke? Where are all the cheap memberships available in Dublin? Cheapest you'll get for full membership is about €800, most of the member owned clubs which typically are in better condition charge upwards of €1,500 which is still stupid money when compared to country rates.

Yeah I don't think you are going to find anywhere in Dublin that will offer membership with a GUI handicap for €150. It's definitely not to late to clamp down on this and they should do even more. Make it 10 qualifying rounds.

alxmorgan

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Yeah I don't think you are going to find anywhere in Dublin that will offer membership with a GUI handicap for €150. It's definitely not to late to clamp down on this and they should do even more. Make it 10 qualifying rounds.

Which would completely kill distance membership pretty much. Which may be the intent which is fine

Out of interest what is the issue with lack of playing in your distance club ? Is it just being against the idea of buying a handicap or is there something more sinister going on that people are trying to stop ?

SnowDrifts

alxmorgan wrote: »

Which would completely kill distance membership pretty much. Which may be the intent which is fine

Out of interest what is the issue with lack of playing in your distance club ? Is it just being against the idea of buying a handicap or is there something more sinister going on that people are trying to stop ?

Here is their motive quoted from the link I provided earlier...

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.

I consider killing the distance membership to be good. I just don't think it's right that players quit their local clubs and join a club they will never play for €150 so that they can get their handicap.

Paulusmaximus

not sure i agree entirely with either amendment, but back what they are trying to do.

First one, why not change it to have to have played 5 qualifying rounds in the previous year. why do they have to be at your home club? if someone plays a minimum of 5 rounds, anywhere, then in majority of cases that is sufficient backup to justify a handicap.

second one, what is the biggest issue in golf, people entering singles competitions to get shots back or people who are holding their handicap to try get lower. this rule favours one and opposes the other. there needs to be a middle ground. How about if you complete 9 holes or more and then NR you are liable to a 0.1. if you play less than 9 holes you are exempt from the 0.1. ok, this can still be abused, but at least those guys who are trying to get cut and if its not going their way and want to save their handicap will have had to abondon ship before the 9th.

Also, then bring in penalties for anyone who has three NR's within a calendar year. Lastly, Category 1 is exempt from this.

J6P

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Is that meant as a joke? Where are all the cheap memberships available in Dublin? Cheapest you'll get for full membership is about €800, most of the member owned clubs which typically are in better condition charge upwards of €1,500 which is still stupid money when compared to country rates.

Not for full memberships but very few of the country memberships are full memberships either. The only reason people got them was for the GUI card and to play open comps.

The option is there now in Dublin to get your GUI for under €250 and use it in the same way as you would have the country membership.

Corballis €295 (€245 if you refer a friend..pay and play membership)
Grange Castle €230 (5 day pay and play)
Citywest €250 (5 day pay and play)

The fact is the demand for country memberships is now gone.

BigChap1759

Sandwlch wrote: »

I dont think so.
Its just giving golfers back a bit of control to within the rules manage their own handicaps, but with the bias towards being lower rather than higher. If you are on X.4, then it gives you the choice to go up a shot after a bad round or to hang on to your X.4 and work on getting it down whichever you want. Or just to gamble a bit more during the round in the hope of bringing in a good score rather than trying to 'nurse' things along to avoid risking falling out of the buffer zone.
The rules are the same for everyone, so I dont think its a case of messing anything up.

Why would you think it's OK to choose to NR? It would be handicap manipulation ie cheating

Arsenium

So for golfers trying to reduce their handicap, competitions will basically all be "reduction only" if it gets passed. If you are going well push on and try to get the best score possible to get the biggest reduction. If playing poorly, what the hell...just NR the card and try again next week.

I always find if I am going badly in a competition I revise my target...instead of trying to get a winning score I try to scrape into my buffer zone. With this the second bit of pressure is removed.

On the first one, it says "a golfer must have returned a minimum of three qualifying scores in his home club the previous year."

So you could be blocked from competing in opens for a year ?

EDIT: How do these motions get proposed? Do they come from the clubs? Is it likely that this would get passed if the Union are taking it seriously enough to discuss at the AGM?

SECOND EDIT: Read it again and I see that they are passed. So it's with Congu now. Interesting.

SnowDrifts

Arsenium wrote: »

On the first one, it says "a golfer must have returned a minimum of three qualifying scores in his home club the previous year."

So you could be blocked from competing in opens for a year ?

Yes, that's it. It would solve at least one problem of players getting a "nice" handicap at a course they will not know and then play lots of team open events with their "nice" handicap and never get cut.

alxmorgan

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Yes, that's it. It would solve at least one problem of players getting a "nice" handicap at a course they will not know and then play lots of team open events with their "nice" handicap and never get cut.

But doesn't solve the issue of people playing team events with inflated handicaps regardless of where they got them. Unless the course they are a member of applies cuts for scores in team events. Which of course they have to find out about and if you are into that sort of thing chances are you are not reporting them

blackwhite

Arsenium wrote: »

On the first one, it says "a golfer must have returned a minimum of three qualifying scores in his home club the previous year."

So you could be blocked from competing in opens for a year ?

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Yes, that's it. It would solve at least one problem of players getting a "nice" handicap at a course they will not know and then play lots of team open events with their "nice" handicap and never get cut.

So if someone is ill and not able to play for a year, does this mean are banned from playing open competitions in the year they return to action?
Seems more than a tad harsh!

A simple solution would be to tweak the wording to:

a golfer must have returned a minimum of three qualifying scores in his home club in the current or previous year.


EDIT
Just after reading to proposed rule:
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.

Which covers both current and prior year. Seems fine

SnowDrifts

blackwhite wrote: »

So if someone is ill and not able to play for a year, does this mean are banned from playing open competitions in the year they return to action?
Seems more than a tad harsh!

A simple solution would be to tweak the wording to:

a golfer must have returned a minimum of three qualifying scores in his home club in the current or previous year.


EDIT
Just after reading to proposed rule:
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.

Which covers both current and prior year. Seems fine

Think you may have read that incorrectly. It's the previous calendar year.

Also, don't consider it to be harsh. Surely most players priority is to play competitions at their home club. Open comps should not be the only events you play.

alxmorgan

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Think you may have read that incorrectly. It's the previous calendar year.

Also, don't consider it to be harsh. Surely most players priority is to play competitions at their home club. Open comps should not be the only events you play.

I must be reading this wrong or does this mean you can't play opens in your first year playing ? i.e. you have no qualifying scores from previous year therefore you need to wait till year 2 to play opens ?

Dayor Knight

J6P wrote: »

Not for full memberships but very few of the country memberships are full memberships either. The only reason people got them was for the GUI card and to play open comps.

The option is there now in Dublin to get your GUI for under €250 and use it in the same way as you would have the country membership.

Corballis €295 (€245 if you refer a friend..pay and play membership)
Grange Castle €230 (5 day pay and play)
Citywest €250 (5 day pay and play)

The fact is the demand for country memberships is now gone.

Hibernian Golf Club based at the Smurfit Course, K Club, has an annual sub of €195 with a pay as you play arrangement thereafter (€40/€45 for Winter/Summer). Not a bad option.

SnowDrifts

alxmorgan wrote: »

I must be reading this wrong or does this mean you can't play opens in your first year playing ? i.e. you have no qualifying scores from previous year therefore you need to wait till year 2 to play opens ?

Yes, that would seem correct - if you have no qualifying scores in your home club the previous calander year, you would have to wait until the following year to play an open event.

blackwhite

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Think you may have read that incorrectly. It's the previous calendar year.

Also, don't consider it to be harsh. Surely most players priority is to play competitions at their home club. Open comps should not be the only events you play.

"on or after 1 January in the previous year"

To me that means at any point since 1 January of last year - not restricted to last year.
"On or after" defines the timeframe - "in the previous year" is defining which 1 January is being referred to.

SnowDrifts

Dossy wrote: »

Ya PARlance i agree with you there,

Bandits will be Bandits, they will always find a way,
The NR thing has Pro's and Con's
At 17.4 at the mo i would be very tempted to a NR to stay at 17,
I can see people saying well i never play that bad normally so not handing that one in etc....

"on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year"

As in last year. So if a player wanted to play in open comps, he will have had to play 3 qualifying rounds the year before, not the current year.

mike12

alxmorgan wrote: »

But doesn't solve the issue of people playing team events with inflated handicaps regardless of where they got them. Unless the course they are a member of applies cuts for scores in team events. Which of course they have to find out about and if you are into that sort of thing chances are you are not reporting them

Don't know why they don't make you swipe in every club for team events at least that way it is recorded on your handicap sheet. If they could also add your finishing position it would become apparent very quickly if you were just playing Team events and doing well.
Thing about team events if you have 4 guys that are bandits playing in them together if they want to win they would just have to write down the score they wanted on each hole rather than what they shot.

Aesop

I thought this motion was also worthy of mention :-

Would like to submit the following amended motion to call on CONGU to introduce the following change in the handicap system that would take effect from the 1st January 2016.
"That no player can receive more than twenty point ones (0.1's) from qualifying competitions during a calendar year"

This seems like a hugely positive motion in combating the handicap builders.

blackwhite

SnowDrifts wrote: »

"on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year"

As in last year. So if a player wanted to play in open comps, he will have had to play 3 qualifying rounds the year before, not the current year.

It can be interpreted either way TBH, and at the moment they haven't clarified which way they will choose to apply it.

In general terms, and rules or legal agreements that were intended the way you seem to think this rule is will include the words "previous calendar year" or some such derivation.
The words "on or after" imply that the period is not restricted to just the year.

SnowDrifts

blackwhite wrote: »

It can be interpreted either way TBH, and at the moment they haven't clarified which way they will choose to apply it.

In general terms, and rules or legal agreements that were intended the way you seem to think this rule is will include the words "previous calendar year" or some such derivation.
The words "on or after" imply that the period is not restricted to just the year.

Not going to keep on at this but it's the previous calendar year. There is no dual interpretation.

"on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year" The previous calendar year does not include this year! It ends on the 31st of December.

Think about it this way... if I said "on or after 1st January in the year 2013" then that would end on the 31st of December 2013.

blackwhite

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Not going to keep on at this but it's the previous calendar year. There is no dual interpretation.

"on or after 1st January in the previous calendar year" The previous calendar year does not include this year! It ends on the 31st of December.

Think about it this way... if I said "on or after 1st January in the year 2013" then that would end on the 31st of December 2013.

"in the previous calendar year" can be taken to mean last year.

"on or after 1st January last year" would not be taken to read as last year only.

If you aren't able to see how the current wording is open to interpretation then you should never sign any legal documents without having someone else read them for you!


EDIT:

SnowDrifts wrote: »

N
Think about it this way... if I said "on or after 1st January in the year 2013" then that would end on the 31st of December 2013.

Actually it wouldn't. Legally speaking "on or after 1st January in the year 2013" means the exact same as "on or after 1st January 2013."
To restrict it to calendar year 2013 it would be "on or after 1st January and in the year 2013" or "on or after 1st January within the year 2013"

SnowDrifts

blackwhite wrote: »

"in the previous calendar year" can be taken to mean last year.

"on or after 1st January last year" would not be taken to read as last year only.

If you aren't able to see how the current wording is open to interpretation then you should never sign any legal documents without having someone else read them for you!

Again, you're wrong but if you want to take it to PM, please do. I could do with some entertainment.

blackwhite

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Again, you're wrong but if you want to take it to PM, please do. I could do with some entertainment.

You'll need to be able to explain beyond a simple "You're wrong" :rolleyes:

SnowDrifts

blackwhite wrote: »

You'll need to be able to explain beyond a simple "You're wrong" :rolleyes:

Already done so above. It's fairly simple so just keep reading it and maybe you will get it.

blackwhite

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Already done so above. It's fairly simple so just keep reading it and maybe you will get it.

If you aren't able to refute any of my explanations just say so - fingers in the ears claiming that you're right isn't

Just in case you missed it (or want to ignore it because it doesn't suit your argument):

Legally speaking "on or after 1st January in the year 2013" means the exact same as "on or after 1st January 2013."
To restrict it to calendar year 2013 it would be "on or after 1st January and in the year 2013" or "on or after 1st January within the year 2013"

BoardsMember

PARlance wrote: »

Teams don't get 0.1's at present, are you thinking the opposite I.e a cut for all winning team members. That would be somthing I think would be good.

I think both are very good.

Only slight fear would be the element of vanity handicaps that point 2 might allow. Low guys staying low to qualify to the top
AM events is one side of it, but the bigger potential is hackers like me NR'ing card(s) that would add a shot at present.

By and large, when someone tells you their HC, you know that they are around that level and I like that as it stands.
Have a look at the US system, a lot of Vanicaps flying around and it ruins it I feel.
It's not going to cost anyone prizes however so that may be the more important thing.

Personally I would keep 2. as they propose BUT limit it to about 5 NR's a year. I.e The 6th NR gets a 0.1.
It'd cost the bandits an extra 5 rounds, whilst keeping the integrity of the system IMO.

No, meant that in order to qualify for a singles event OR a team event you need to have the cards in the previous year.

BoardsMember

mike12 wrote: »

Don't know why they don't make you swipe in every club for team events at least that way it is recorded on your handicap sheet. If they could also add your finishing position it would become apparent very quickly if you were just playing Team events and doing well.
Thing about team events if you have 4 guys that are bandits playing in them together if they want to win they would just have to write down the score they wanted on each hole rather than what they shot.

This is an excellent idea. It's been the elephant in the room for years, they have a centralised database, they have the technology, yet they refuse to do anything about people abusing the system in order to compete to win in team competitions.

We all know a few high profile perennial challengers, Pebble Beach televised events for example. It's extraordinary that people of good standing agree to play with these bandits.

I heard of a great approach to one well sponsored, well organised Club Open team event. The club put out the prizes for all to see, best prize was a GPS watch each. But they didn't specify which was which.

As the prizes were given out, the bandit-boyos were looking delighted with themselves in the corner, but faces dropped as first of all the second place team (of honest endeavor) won the GPS watches, after which they were presented with a sleeve of Top Flites each. F off the clear message. Lovely job!!

Dossy

BoardsMember wrote: »

This is an excellent idea. It's been the elephant in the room for years, they have a centralised database, they have the technology, yet they refuse to do anything about people abusing the system in order to compete to win in team competitions.

We all know a few high profile perennial challengers, Pebble Beach televised events for example. It's extraordinary that people of good standing agree to play with these bandits.

I heard of a great approach to one well sponsored, well organised Club Open team event. The club put out the prizes for all to see, best prize was a GPS watch each. But they didn't specify which was which.

As the prizes were given out, the bandit-boyos were looking delighted with themselves in the corner, but faces dropped as first of all the second place team (of honest endeavor) won the GPS watches, after which they were presented with a sleeve of Top Flites each. F off the clear message. Lovely job!!

I would have loved to be there for that

Russman

I just reread the first post and hadn't realised these motions have been passed, jaysus I thought they were only proposed !

Has the limit of twenty 0.1s been passed also ?

blackwhite

BoardsMember wrote: »

This is an excellent idea. It's been the elephant in the room for years, they have a centralised database, they have the technology, yet they refuse to do anything about people abusing the system in order to compete to win in team competitions.

I can't understand why they haven't done something like this yet.
Golfnet already includes results for any non-qualifying singles scores, it can't be that much of a stretch to include a team comps section as well.

Would make it much easier for handicap secretaries to assess those who don't enter many singles comps.

Russman

blackwhite wrote: »

I can't understand why they haven't done something like this yet.
Golfnet already includes results for any non-qualifying singles scores, it can't be that much of a stretch to include a team comps section as well.

Would make it much easier for handicap secretaries to assess those who don't enter many singles comps.

Its too much of a grey area though to police effectively. You'd really need all 4 scores for the players to be entered for each hole, otherwise you'd be running the risk of someone being cut or found "guilty" by association.

The best way to help with the team even issue is to have greatly reduced prizes, thus lessening the temptation for bandits.

Also, you can't really cut someone just because they don't enter singles comps, there's no requirement to do so. I don't think too many handicap secretaries in real life actually concern themselves with this tbh. I don't say this flippantly but most people doing the job are volunteers and just want to "get in and get out" so to speak, there's more important things in life.

Aesop

Russman wrote: »

Has the limit of twenty 0.1s been passed also ?

Yes although this is ultimately a matter for CONGU so it has to be proposed and accepted by them. Earliest this would be enacted would be Jan 2016.

To my mind this is the single most important change to the handicapping system and should have been introduced years ago. Perhaps clubs didn't want to lose income on opens from handicap builders claiming 50 or 60 0.1's per year?

ballyk

Russman wrote: »

I just reread the first post and hadn't realised these motions have been passed, jaysus I thought they were only proposed !

Has the limit of twenty 0.1s been passed also ?

See http://www.gui.ie/home/general-documents/press-motions.aspx for confirmation that the twenty 0.1s limit has been passed.

SnowDrifts

ballyk wrote: »

See http://www.gui.ie/home/general-documents/press-motions.aspx for confirmation that the twenty 0.1s limit has been passed.

But still has to be proposed to CONGU.

SnowDrifts

Just to note with regard to the distance membership issue... they are proposing that this comes into effect on the 1st Jan 2015 so if you are a member in any distance clubs... you better get your 3 qualifying rounds in this year!

Also, as I highlighted before, it is the rounds during the previous calender year that count and it also means you will have to play at least 3 home qualifying rounds every year.

"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."

BoardsMember

Russman wrote: »

Its too much of a grey area though to police effectively. You'd really need all 4 scores for the players to be entered for each hole, otherwise you'd be running the risk of someone being cut or found "guilty" by association.

The best way to help with the team even issue is to have greatly reduced prizes, thus lessening the temptation for bandits.

Also, you can't really cut someone just because they don't enter singles comps, there's no requirement to do so. I don't think too many handicap secretaries in real life actually concern themselves with this tbh. I don't say this flippantly but most people doing the job are volunteers and just want to "get in and get out" so to speak, there's more important things in life.

I'm not so sure. You're only trying to get serial bandits, so if you have a lad who wins three team events in one season, you can be fairly sure that he's worth losing a .5 or two. In our place we have to post any team event wins for the hcap sec.

SnowDrifts

BoardsMember wrote: »

I'm not so sure. You're only trying to get serial bandits, so if you have a lad who wins three team events in one season, you can be fairly sure that he's worth losing a .5 or two. In our place we have to post any team event wins for the hcap sec.

We have to in my club also but I have never seen or heard of an individual cut from team events. I won 3 away team events 2 years ago and recorded my scores in the "away book" hoping to get a cut for myself and got nothing!

blackwhite

BoardsMember wrote: »

I'm not so sure. You're only trying to get serial bandits, so if you have a lad who wins three team events in one season, you can be fairly sure that he's worth losing a .5 or two. In our place we have to post any team event wins for the hcap sec.

It'd be great if they brought in a system whereby the club hosting an open team competition was required to notify the home clubs of the winners, and then cuts could be applied.
Relying on people to post their scores themselves is never going to help with bandit detection.

golfwallah

SnowDrifts wrote: »

We have to in my club also but I have never seen or heard of an individual cut from team events. I won 3 away team events 2 years ago and recorded my scores in the "away book" hoping to get a cut for myself and got nothing!

blackwhite wrote: »

It'd be great if they brought in a system whereby the club hosting an open team competition was required to notify the home clubs of the winners, and then cuts could be applied.
Relying on people to post their scores themselves is never going to help with bandit detection.

No matter what system you have, ultimately, the human factor comes into it in the form of the club handicap / competition secretary.

Some handicap secs take the job seriously and put in the time to keep club handicaps in line with CONGU rules & recomendations. After that, you're on a scale from good to poor compliance and it's left to GUI audits of the annual handicap reviews, etc.

Additionally, any changes in CONGU rules have to have approval of the other golfing unions in the British Isles and all this takes time. Another factor is that it's only a few years since the system changed to give back .1s for NR cards. This was brought in for good reasons, as handicap building can happen both at the high end and low ends for all sorts of motives. Can't see this decision being reversed so soon after it was implemented.

Miley Byrne

blackwhite wrote: »

"in the previous calendar year" can be taken to mean last year.

"on or after 1st January last year" would not be taken to read as last year only.

If you aren't able to see how the current wording is open to interpretation then you should never sign any legal documents without having someone else read them for you!


EDIT:


Actually it wouldn't. Legally speaking "on or after 1st January in the year 2013" means the exact same as "on or after 1st January 2013."
To restrict it to calendar year 2013 it would be "on or after 1st January and in the year 2013" or "on or after 1st January within the year 2013"

I must say the more I look at this I tend to think you are correct. It definitely makes more sense than limiting it to just the previous calendar year. The way I understand it now is "on or after 1st of January in the previous calendar year" means 1st January is the start point with no defined end point.

I can't see the logic in not allowing someone play opens in June say, if that person may have played 20 home completions already that year.

Rikand

I'm sure everything can be sorted out on a case by case basis

Dossy

Confused.com

Golfgraffix

Had our committee meeting last night and our Hon Sec was at the GUI meeting and he says the .1 motion was not passed.

???

golfwallah

Golfgraffix wrote: »

Had our committee meeting last night and our Hon Sec was at the GUI meeting and he says the .1 motion was not passed.

???

He must have been asleep during the passing of that motion because, according to information from the GUI website, this motion is included in "The following motions were passed":

4. Proposed by the Munster Provincial Council

That CONGU UHS clause 20.4 be amended effective from January 1st 2016
Current CONGU clause 20.4

Subject to the provisions of clauses 18.4 and 18.5 , if a player returns a score with a Nett Differential above his Buffer Zone (including clause 19 adjustment if applicable) or records a No Return his exact handicap is increased by 0.1.

Proposed amended CONGU clause 20.4 Subject to the provisions of clauses 18.4 and 18.5, if a player returns a score with a Nett Differential above his Buffer Zone (including clause 19 adjustment if applicable) his exact handicap is increased by 0.1.

If a player fails to return a scorecard his exact handicap shall not be adjusted.

If a player fails to complete the stipulated course, or returns an incomplete scorecard without providing an adequate explanation deemed to be acceptable to the handicap committee his exact handicap shall not be adjusted.

If a player records a No Return in a stroke play competition but has completed the stipulated course and returned a completed scorecard his score shall be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of clause 19 and his exact handicap shall be adjusted accordingly

Motive:

Under the current system (CONGU clause 20.4) Golfers can enter qualifying competitions and be automatically awarded a 0.1 increase in handicap if they;
· Fail to tee off at all
· Leave the course early after playing only a few holes
· Return an incomplete scorecard
· Fail to hand in a scorecard
· Fail to record or enter the score in the computer

It is our view that the automatic upward adjustment in the above circumstances has the potential to facilitate handicap building and, in such cases, goes against the spirit of sportsmanship and fair play inherent in golf.

We propose the CONGU UHS be altered to eliminate the automatic awarding of 0.1 for No Returns and to only award 0.1 in the event of completion of the stipulated round and return of a completed scorecard. Provision can be made in the event that a player has to discontinue his round of golf so long as a satisfactory reason acceptable to the Handicap Committee is provided.

*The changes required in this motion will now be proposed by the GUI to CONGU.

Link: https://www.gui.ie/home/general-documents/press-motions.aspx

That said, there is still a long way to go before this is passed by CONGU.