This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Unsportsmanlike Conduct – Part I


I


can’t begin to tell you how often I am contacted by Handicap Chairmen regarding “problem” golfers at their clubs. Come rain or shine, these individuals always seem to save their very best play for the most important events to a point where half the club has quit entering tournaments. The club wants to know what they can and should do to set the handicaps right. I would even go so far as to say that many clubs are looking for the NCGA to make the deci- sion for them. Unfortunately, that’s not


going to happen. The NCGA is more than happy to offer input and advice, but in real- ity, the USGA Handicap System does not grant the NCGA the power to touch an individual golfer’s handicap. That power lies solely with the club. . .and rightly so. After all, the club is the entity that knows the golfer best and it is uniquely qualified to make the most intelligent decision. The NCGA is happy to help, but the club has to be the one to pull the trigger. So what responsibility


does a club have and what


By Jim Cowan Director of


Course Rating & Handicapping


E-mail: jcowan@ncga.org


can it do to set a handicap right?


In the simplest terms,


the club is charged with ensuring that each member is issued a Handicap Index which best represents the golfer’s “potential” ability. That’s a pretty lofty respon- sibility; some would say too lofty, if it were not for the fact that the standard math- ematics of handicapping (best 10 of 20 most recent rounds) does the trick for all but a tiny sliver of golfers. But what about that tiny


sliver?


The cold hard truth is that if the normal computa- tional methods do not set


In my mind, the single


greatest cause of inflated handicaps might be the non-posting of scores. Namely, golfers who post their crummy rounds without issue or delay, yet somehow draw a blank when it comes to their good scores. I wonder why? Penalty scores are the


The single greatest cause of inflated handicaps might be the non-posting of scores.


a handicap at the proper level, the club has an obligation to step in and “place” the handicap where it needs to be. Sadly, most clubs shirk


this responsibility and just hope that the problem will go away. Trust me, it won’t. That is, it won’t unless the club intervenes. Various penalty options


have been created to facilitate such an interven- tion. Each option is more abrupt than the previous based upon the severity of the golfer’s offense. The first line of defense is my personal favorite: Penalty scores.


58 / NCGA.ORG / WINTER 2012


perfect solution for such an amnesiac.


By definition, if a player fails to post a score as soon as practical, the Handi- cap Committee should post it for them and/or a penalty score equal to the best round within his or her scoring record. As you might suspect, I am a big fan of the “and” portion of “and/or.” I advocate post- ing the actual score to set the golfer’s record straight AND THEN posting a penalty score for the transgression. For multiple infractions, multiple penalty scores. It doesn’t take a ge- nius to realize that the input


of such low penalty scores will place drastic downward pressure on the golfer’s handicap. Penalty scores are easy to implement (at the push of a button, the software and online programming will reproduce the details of the golfer’s best round) and they are fair across all handicap levels (as opposed to, for ex- ample, applying a set score of even par to both a 1 and 31 handicapper). Penalty scores will do


more than just jog the golfer’s memory. I am absolutely convinced that when a dishonest golfer comes to realize that each and every time he is caught not posting a round, that score will be posted anyway AND he will be dinged by a low penalty score, he will get his act together and start abiding by the spirit of the Handicap System. So don’t be bashful;


spread the joy of penalty scores. You will see a com- plete reversal in behavior (and a truer handicap). Next issue: modifying or withdrawing a handicap


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132