In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy 
shower of rain.

The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose 
not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were 
disqualified for failing to complete the round.

I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed 
before play was suspended.

Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS 
calculation?
Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or > 
9)
I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.

Many thanks,

Malcolm

On Jun 20, 11:04 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy
> shower of rain.
>
> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose
> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were
> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
>
> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed
> before play was suspended.
>
> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS
> calculation?
> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or >
> 9)
> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.

Malcolm, from memory only (so possibly wrong), NRs are included in the
totals.  This will of course decrease the percentage of "good" scores,
although much may depend on which categories were most affected.  (If
all the Cat 1 and 2 players went back out, you may find CSS is largely
determined by how well they played.)

The online CONGU manual lacks appendices, in which the calculations
are laid out.  I know Nick Perkins' splendid piece of software
actually summarises the calculations, but most commercial packages
don't, along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".

HTH.  I can't lay my hands on my CONGU booklet at the moment.

--
"No sense being pessimistic.  It wouldn't work anyway."

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1182407197.717030.190830@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 11:04 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a 
>> heavy
>> shower of rain.
>>
>> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field 
>> chose
>> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were
>> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
>>
>> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed
>> before play was suspended.
>>
>> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS
>> calculation?
>> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or 
>>  >
>> 9)
>> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
>> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.
>
> Malcolm, from memory only (so possibly wrong), NRs are included in the
> totals.  This will of course decrease the percentage of "good" scores,
> although much may depend on which categories were most affected.  (If
> all the Cat 1 and 2 players went back out, you may find CSS is largely
> determined by how well they played.)
>
> The online CONGU manual lacks appendices, in which the calculations
> are laid out.  I know Nick Perkins' splendid piece of software
> actually summarises the calculations, but most commercial packages
> don't, along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".
>
> HTH.  I can't lay my hands on my CONGU booklet at the moment.
>
> --
> "No sense being pessimistic.  It wouldn't work anyway."
>

You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they 
may push the CSS up,
but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they 
may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.

Regards,
Malcolm

On Jun 21, 7:43 am, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
>
> You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
> When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they
> may push the CSS up,
> but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they
> may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.

No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
but I think it's frowned upon at best.

--
"Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."

John Laird wrote:
> On Jun 21, 7:43 am, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>> You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
>> When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they
>> may push the CSS up,
>> but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they
>> may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.
> 
> No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
> blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
> but I think it's frowned upon at best.
> 
> --
> "Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."
> 

Likewise, I can't put my hands on one of those little illusive books at 
the moment but I do recall it allowing me to disregard NRs for 
uncompleted rounds when just people walked in or discontinued play for 
various reasons. It seems ridiculous to 'give' someone 0.1 back to their 
advantage and bias the CSS for everybody else. Though I didn't use this 
discretion with Cat 1 golfers unless it was for injury. It was always a 
handicap committee decision though ;-)

I am of the opinion that one shouldn't lose sight of what we are trying 
to achieve here, in that we are trying to create an as fair as possible 
playing field and with handicapping which reflects a golfer's ability. 
The Scheme seems to agree by putting in the famous Clause 19.

--
Durram

Malcolm,

Look at page 27...Procedure...Item number 1.

You will find your answer written in bold type!

Regards

Pat


> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy 
> shower of rain.
> 
> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose 
> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were 
> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
> 
> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed 
> before play was suspended.
> 
> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS 
> calculation?
> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or > 
> 9)
> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Malcolm 
> 
>

> 
> No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
> blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
> but I think it's frowned upon at best.

I feel that it does not, John.

By definition a qualifying competition is one which is played under medal 
conditions. That's all.

Pat

On Jun 20, 11:04 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy
> shower of rain.
>
> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose
> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were
> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
>
> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed
> before play was suspended.
>
> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS
> calculation?
> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or >
> 9)
> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.

Malcolm, from memory only (so possibly wrong), NRs are included in the
totals.  This will of course decrease the percentage of "good" scores,
although much may depend on which categories were most affected.  (If
all the Cat 1 and 2 players went back out, you may find CSS is largely
determined by how well they played.)

The online CONGU manual lacks appendices, in which the calculations
are laid out.  I know Nick Perkins' splendid piece of software
actually summarises the calculations, but most commercial packages
don't, along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".

HTH.  I can't lay my hands on my CONGU booklet at the moment.

--
"No sense being pessimistic.  It wouldn't work anyway."

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1182407197.717030.190830@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 11:04 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a 
>> heavy
>> shower of rain.
>>
>> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field 
>> chose
>> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were
>> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
>>
>> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed
>> before play was suspended.
>>
>> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS
>> calculation?
>> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or 
>>  >
>> 9)
>> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
>> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.
>
> Malcolm, from memory only (so possibly wrong), NRs are included in the
> totals.  This will of course decrease the percentage of "good" scores,
> although much may depend on which categories were most affected.  (If
> all the Cat 1 and 2 players went back out, you may find CSS is largely
> determined by how well they played.)
>
> The online CONGU manual lacks appendices, in which the calculations
> are laid out.  I know Nick Perkins' splendid piece of software
> actually summarises the calculations, but most commercial packages
> don't, along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".
>
> HTH.  I can't lay my hands on my CONGU booklet at the moment.
>
> --
> "No sense being pessimistic.  It wouldn't work anyway."
>

You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they 
may push the CSS up,
but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they 
may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.

Regards,
Malcolm

On Jun 21, 7:43 am, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
>
> You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
> When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they
> may push the CSS up,
> but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they
> may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.

No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
but I think it's frowned upon at best.

--
"Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."

John Laird wrote:
> On Jun 21, 7:43 am, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>> You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
>> When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they
>> may push the CSS up,
>> but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they
>> may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.
> 
> No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
> blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
> but I think it's frowned upon at best.
> 
> --
> "Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."
> 

Likewise, I can't put my hands on one of those little illusive books at 
the moment but I do recall it allowing me to disregard NRs for 
uncompleted rounds when just people walked in or discontinued play for 
various reasons. It seems ridiculous to 'give' someone 0.1 back to their 
advantage and bias the CSS for everybody else. Though I didn't use this 
discretion with Cat 1 golfers unless it was for injury. It was always a 
handicap committee decision though ;-)

I am of the opinion that one shouldn't lose sight of what we are trying 
to achieve here, in that we are trying to create an as fair as possible 
playing field and with handicapping which reflects a golfer's ability. 
The Scheme seems to agree by putting in the famous Clause 19.

--
Durram

Malcolm,

Look at page 27...Procedure...Item number 1.

You will find your answer written in bold type!

Regards

Pat


> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy 
> shower of rain.
> 
> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose 
> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were 
> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
> 
> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed 
> before play was suspended.
> 
> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS 
> calculation?
> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or > 
> 9)
> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Malcolm 
> 
>

> 
> No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
> blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
> but I think it's frowned upon at best.

I feel that it does not, John.

By definition a qualifying competition is one which is played under medal 
conditions. That's all.

Pat

On Jun 20, 11:04 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy
> shower of rain.
>
> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose
> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were
> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
>
> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed
> before play was suspended.
>
> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS
> calculation?
> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or >
> 9)
> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.

Malcolm, from memory only (so possibly wrong), NRs are included in the
totals.  This will of course decrease the percentage of "good" scores,
although much may depend on which categories were most affected.  (If
all the Cat 1 and 2 players went back out, you may find CSS is largely
determined by how well they played.)

The online CONGU manual lacks appendices, in which the calculations
are laid out.  I know Nick Perkins' splendid piece of software
actually summarises the calculations, but most commercial packages
don't, along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".

HTH.  I can't lay my hands on my CONGU booklet at the moment.

--
"No sense being pessimistic.  It wouldn't work anyway."

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1182407197.717030.190830@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 11:04 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a 
>> heavy
>> shower of rain.
>>
>> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field 
>> chose
>> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were
>> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
>>
>> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed
>> before play was suspended.
>>
>> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS
>> calculation?
>> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or 
>>  >
>> 9)
>> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
>> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.
>
> Malcolm, from memory only (so possibly wrong), NRs are included in the
> totals.  This will of course decrease the percentage of "good" scores,
> although much may depend on which categories were most affected.  (If
> all the Cat 1 and 2 players went back out, you may find CSS is largely
> determined by how well they played.)
>
> The online CONGU manual lacks appendices, in which the calculations
> are laid out.  I know Nick Perkins' splendid piece of software
> actually summarises the calculations, but most commercial packages
> don't, along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".
>
> HTH.  I can't lay my hands on my CONGU booklet at the moment.
>
> --
> "No sense being pessimistic.  It wouldn't work anyway."
>

You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they 
may push the CSS up,
but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they 
may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.

Regards,
Malcolm

On Jun 21, 7:43 am, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
>
> You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
> When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they
> may push the CSS up,
> but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they
> may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.

No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
but I think it's frowned upon at best.

--
"Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."

John Laird wrote:
> On Jun 21, 7:43 am, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>> You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
>> When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they
>> may push the CSS up,
>> but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they
>> may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.
> 
> No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
> blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
> but I think it's frowned upon at best.
> 
> --
> "Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."
> 

Likewise, I can't put my hands on one of those little illusive books at 
the moment but I do recall it allowing me to disregard NRs for 
uncompleted rounds when just people walked in or discontinued play for 
various reasons. It seems ridiculous to 'give' someone 0.1 back to their 
advantage and bias the CSS for everybody else. Though I didn't use this 
discretion with Cat 1 golfers unless it was for injury. It was always a 
handicap committee decision though ;-)

I am of the opinion that one shouldn't lose sight of what we are trying 
to achieve here, in that we are trying to create an as fair as possible 
playing field and with handicapping which reflects a golfer's ability. 
The Scheme seems to agree by putting in the famous Clause 19.

--
Durram

Malcolm,

Look at page 27...Procedure...Item number 1.

You will find your answer written in bold type!

Regards

Pat


> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy 
> shower of rain.
> 
> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose 
> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were 
> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
> 
> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed 
> before play was suspended.
> 
> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS 
> calculation?
> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or > 
> 9)
> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Malcolm 
> 
>

> 
> No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
> blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
> but I think it's frowned upon at best.

I feel that it does not, John.

By definition a qualifying competition is one which is played under medal 
conditions. That's all.

Pat

On Jun 20, 11:04 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy
> shower of rain.
>
> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose
> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were
> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
>
> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed
> before play was suspended.
>
> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS
> calculation?
> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or >
> 9)
> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.

Malcolm, from memory only (so possibly wrong), NRs are included in the
totals.  This will of course decrease the percentage of "good" scores,
although much may depend on which categories were most affected.  (If
all the Cat 1 and 2 players went back out, you may find CSS is largely
determined by how well they played.)

The online CONGU manual lacks appendices, in which the calculations
are laid out.  I know Nick Perkins' splendid piece of software
actually summarises the calculations, but most commercial packages
don't, along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".

HTH.  I can't lay my hands on my CONGU booklet at the moment.

--
"No sense being pessimistic.  It wouldn't work anyway."

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1182407197.717030.190830@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 11:04 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a 
>> heavy
>> shower of rain.
>>
>> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field 
>> chose
>> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were
>> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
>>
>> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed
>> before play was suspended.
>>
>> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS
>> calculation?
>> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or 
>>  >
>> 9)
>> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
>> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.
>
> Malcolm, from memory only (so possibly wrong), NRs are included in the
> totals.  This will of course decrease the percentage of "good" scores,
> although much may depend on which categories were most affected.  (If
> all the Cat 1 and 2 players went back out, you may find CSS is largely
> determined by how well they played.)
>
> The online CONGU manual lacks appendices, in which the calculations
> are laid out.  I know Nick Perkins' splendid piece of software
> actually summarises the calculations, but most commercial packages
> don't, along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".
>
> HTH.  I can't lay my hands on my CONGU booklet at the moment.
>
> --
> "No sense being pessimistic.  It wouldn't work anyway."
>

You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they 
may push the CSS up,
but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they 
may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.

Regards,
Malcolm

On Jun 21, 7:43 am, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
>
> You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
> When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they
> may push the CSS up,
> but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they
> may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.

No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
but I think it's frowned upon at best.

--
"Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."

John Laird wrote:
> On Jun 21, 7:43 am, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>> You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
>> When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they
>> may push the CSS up,
>> but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they
>> may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.
> 
> No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
> blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
> but I think it's frowned upon at best.
> 
> --
> "Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."
> 

Likewise, I can't put my hands on one of those little illusive books at 
the moment but I do recall it allowing me to disregard NRs for 
uncompleted rounds when just people walked in or discontinued play for 
various reasons. It seems ridiculous to 'give' someone 0.1 back to their 
advantage and bias the CSS for everybody else. Though I didn't use this 
discretion with Cat 1 golfers unless it was for injury. It was always a 
handicap committee decision though ;-)

I am of the opinion that one shouldn't lose sight of what we are trying 
to achieve here, in that we are trying to create an as fair as possible 
playing field and with handicapping which reflects a golfer's ability. 
The Scheme seems to agree by putting in the famous Clause 19.

--
Durram

Malcolm,

Look at page 27...Procedure...Item number 1.

You will find your answer written in bold type!

Regards

Pat


> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy 
> shower of rain.
> 
> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose 
> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were 
> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
> 
> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed 
> before play was suspended.
> 
> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS 
> calculation?
> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or > 
> 9)
> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Malcolm 
> 
>

> 
> No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
> blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
> but I think it's frowned upon at best.

I feel that it does not, John.

By definition a qualifying competition is one which is played under medal 
conditions. That's all.

Pat

"Pat Williams"  wrote in message 
news:467a62aa$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>  Malcolm,
>
> Look at page 27...Procedure...Item number 1.
>
> You will find your answer written in bold type!
>
> Regards
>
> Pat
>
Many thanks for the help given by John, Demetri and Pat.

I have now found Clause 20.6
It seems from that, that possibly the Committee might be permitted not to 
abandon the competition (i.e. still announce winners) but nevertheless 
declare the CSS to be the SSS allowing decreases in handicap but no 
increases.
Do you think this would be acceptable in circumstances where the number of 
NRs resulting from not resuming play, would otherwise distort the CSS?

Malcolm

On Jun 20, 11:04 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy
> shower of rain.
>
> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose
> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were
> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
>
> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed
> before play was suspended.
>
> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS
> calculation?
> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or >
> 9)
> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.

Malcolm, from memory only (so possibly wrong), NRs are included in the
totals.  This will of course decrease the percentage of "good" scores,
although much may depend on which categories were most affected.  (If
all the Cat 1 and 2 players went back out, you may find CSS is largely
determined by how well they played.)

The online CONGU manual lacks appendices, in which the calculations
are laid out.  I know Nick Perkins' splendid piece of software
actually summarises the calculations, but most commercial packages
don't, along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".

HTH.  I can't lay my hands on my CONGU booklet at the moment.

--
"No sense being pessimistic.  It wouldn't work anyway."

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1182407197.717030.190830@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 11:04 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a 
>> heavy
>> shower of rain.
>>
>> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field 
>> chose
>> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were
>> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
>>
>> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed
>> before play was suspended.
>>
>> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS
>> calculation?
>> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or 
>>  >
>> 9)
>> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
>> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.
>
> Malcolm, from memory only (so possibly wrong), NRs are included in the
> totals.  This will of course decrease the percentage of "good" scores,
> although much may depend on which categories were most affected.  (If
> all the Cat 1 and 2 players went back out, you may find CSS is largely
> determined by how well they played.)
>
> The online CONGU manual lacks appendices, in which the calculations
> are laid out.  I know Nick Perkins' splendid piece of software
> actually summarises the calculations, but most commercial packages
> don't, along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".
>
> HTH.  I can't lay my hands on my CONGU booklet at the moment.
>
> --
> "No sense being pessimistic.  It wouldn't work anyway."
>

You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they 
may push the CSS up,
but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they 
may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.

Regards,
Malcolm

On Jun 21, 7:43 am, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
>
> You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
> When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they
> may push the CSS up,
> but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they
> may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.

No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
but I think it's frowned upon at best.

--
"Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."

John Laird wrote:
> On Jun 21, 7:43 am, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>> You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
>> When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they
>> may push the CSS up,
>> but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they
>> may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.
> 
> No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
> blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
> but I think it's frowned upon at best.
> 
> --
> "Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."
> 

Likewise, I can't put my hands on one of those little illusive books at 
the moment but I do recall it allowing me to disregard NRs for 
uncompleted rounds when just people walked in or discontinued play for 
various reasons. It seems ridiculous to 'give' someone 0.1 back to their 
advantage and bias the CSS for everybody else. Though I didn't use this 
discretion with Cat 1 golfers unless it was for injury. It was always a 
handicap committee decision though ;-)

I am of the opinion that one shouldn't lose sight of what we are trying 
to achieve here, in that we are trying to create an as fair as possible 
playing field and with handicapping which reflects a golfer's ability. 
The Scheme seems to agree by putting in the famous Clause 19.

--
Durram

Malcolm,

Look at page 27...Procedure...Item number 1.

You will find your answer written in bold type!

Regards

Pat


> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy 
> shower of rain.
> 
> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose 
> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were 
> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
> 
> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed 
> before play was suspended.
> 
> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS 
> calculation?
> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or > 
> 9)
> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Malcolm 
> 
>

> 
> No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
> blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
> but I think it's frowned upon at best.

I feel that it does not, John.

By definition a qualifying competition is one which is played under medal 
conditions. That's all.

Pat

"Pat Williams"  wrote in message 
news:467a62aa$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>  Malcolm,
>
> Look at page 27...Procedure...Item number 1.
>
> You will find your answer written in bold type!
>
> Regards
>
> Pat
>
Many thanks for the help given by John, Demetri and Pat.

I have now found Clause 20.6
It seems from that, that possibly the Committee might be permitted not to 
abandon the competition (i.e. still announce winners) but nevertheless 
declare the CSS to be the SSS allowing decreases in handicap but no 
increases.
Do you think this would be acceptable in circumstances where the number of 
NRs resulting from not resuming play, would otherwise distort the CSS?

Malcolm

On Jun 20, 11:04 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy
> shower of rain.
>
> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose
> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were
> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
>
> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed
> before play was suspended.
>
> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS
> calculation?
> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or >
> 9)
> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.

Malcolm, from memory only (so possibly wrong), NRs are included in the
totals.  This will of course decrease the percentage of "good" scores,
although much may depend on which categories were most affected.  (If
all the Cat 1 and 2 players went back out, you may find CSS is largely
determined by how well they played.)

The online CONGU manual lacks appendices, in which the calculations
are laid out.  I know Nick Perkins' splendid piece of software
actually summarises the calculations, but most commercial packages
don't, along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".

HTH.  I can't lay my hands on my CONGU booklet at the moment.

--
"No sense being pessimistic.  It wouldn't work anyway."

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1182407197.717030.190830@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 11:04 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a 
>> heavy
>> shower of rain.
>>
>> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field 
>> chose
>> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were
>> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
>>
>> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed
>> before play was suspended.
>>
>> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS
>> calculation?
>> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or 
>>  >
>> 9)
>> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
>> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.
>
> Malcolm, from memory only (so possibly wrong), NRs are included in the
> totals.  This will of course decrease the percentage of "good" scores,
> although much may depend on which categories were most affected.  (If
> all the Cat 1 and 2 players went back out, you may find CSS is largely
> determined by how well they played.)
>
> The online CONGU manual lacks appendices, in which the calculations
> are laid out.  I know Nick Perkins' splendid piece of software
> actually summarises the calculations, but most commercial packages
> don't, along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".
>
> HTH.  I can't lay my hands on my CONGU booklet at the moment.
>
> --
> "No sense being pessimistic.  It wouldn't work anyway."
>

You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they 
may push the CSS up,
but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they 
may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.

Regards,
Malcolm

On Jun 21, 7:43 am, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
>
> You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
> When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they
> may push the CSS up,
> but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they
> may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.

No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
but I think it's frowned upon at best.

--
"Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."

John Laird wrote:
> On Jun 21, 7:43 am, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>> You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
>> When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they
>> may push the CSS up,
>> but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they
>> may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.
> 
> No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
> blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
> but I think it's frowned upon at best.
> 
> --
> "Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."
> 

Likewise, I can't put my hands on one of those little illusive books at 
the moment but I do recall it allowing me to disregard NRs for 
uncompleted rounds when just people walked in or discontinued play for 
various reasons. It seems ridiculous to 'give' someone 0.1 back to their 
advantage and bias the CSS for everybody else. Though I didn't use this 
discretion with Cat 1 golfers unless it was for injury. It was always a 
handicap committee decision though ;-)

I am of the opinion that one shouldn't lose sight of what we are trying 
to achieve here, in that we are trying to create an as fair as possible 
playing field and with handicapping which reflects a golfer's ability. 
The Scheme seems to agree by putting in the famous Clause 19.

--
Durram

Malcolm,

Look at page 27...Procedure...Item number 1.

You will find your answer written in bold type!

Regards

Pat


> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy 
> shower of rain.
> 
> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose 
> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were 
> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
> 
> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed 
> before play was suspended.
> 
> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS 
> calculation?
> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or > 
> 9)
> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Malcolm 
> 
>

> 
> No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
> blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
> but I think it's frowned upon at best.

I feel that it does not, John.

By definition a qualifying competition is one which is played under medal 
conditions. That's all.

Pat

"Pat Williams"  wrote in message 
news:467a62aa$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>  Malcolm,
>
> Look at page 27...Procedure...Item number 1.
>
> You will find your answer written in bold type!
>
> Regards
>
> Pat
>
Many thanks for the help given by John, Demetri and Pat.

I have now found Clause 20.6
It seems from that, that possibly the Committee might be permitted not to 
abandon the competition (i.e. still announce winners) but nevertheless 
declare the CSS to be the SSS allowing decreases in handicap but no 
increases.
Do you think this would be acceptable in circumstances where the number of 
NRs resulting from not resuming play, would otherwise distort the CSS?

Malcolm

On Jun 20, 11:04 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy
> shower of rain.
>
> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose
> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were
> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
>
> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed
> before play was suspended.
>
> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS
> calculation?
> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or >
> 9)
> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.

Malcolm, from memory only (so possibly wrong), NRs are included in the
totals.  This will of course decrease the percentage of "good" scores,
although much may depend on which categories were most affected.  (If
all the Cat 1 and 2 players went back out, you may find CSS is largely
determined by how well they played.)

The online CONGU manual lacks appendices, in which the calculations
are laid out.  I know Nick Perkins' splendid piece of software
actually summarises the calculations, but most commercial packages
don't, along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".

HTH.  I can't lay my hands on my CONGU booklet at the moment.

--
"No sense being pessimistic.  It wouldn't work anyway."

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1182407197.717030.190830@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 11:04 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a 
>> heavy
>> shower of rain.
>>
>> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field 
>> chose
>> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were
>> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
>>
>> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed
>> before play was suspended.
>>
>> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS
>> calculation?
>> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or 
>>  >
>> 9)
>> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
>> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.
>
> Malcolm, from memory only (so possibly wrong), NRs are included in the
> totals.  This will of course decrease the percentage of "good" scores,
> although much may depend on which categories were most affected.  (If
> all the Cat 1 and 2 players went back out, you may find CSS is largely
> determined by how well they played.)
>
> The online CONGU manual lacks appendices, in which the calculations
> are laid out.  I know Nick Perkins' splendid piece of software
> actually summarises the calculations, but most commercial packages
> don't, along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".
>
> HTH.  I can't lay my hands on my CONGU booklet at the moment.
>
> --
> "No sense being pessimistic.  It wouldn't work anyway."
>

You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they 
may push the CSS up,
but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they 
may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.

Regards,
Malcolm

On Jun 21, 7:43 am, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
>
> You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
> When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they
> may push the CSS up,
> but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they
> may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.

No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
but I think it's frowned upon at best.

--
"Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."

John Laird wrote:
> On Jun 21, 7:43 am, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>> You may well be right, John, that all these NRs have to be included.
>> When NRs occur from poor play it seems sensible they are included as they
>> may push the CSS up,
>> but when the NRs are a result of failing to resume play, it is possible they
>> may unduly increase the CSS causing unwarranted cuts in handicaps.
> 
> No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
> blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
> but I think it's frowned upon at best.
> 
> --
> "Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."
> 

Likewise, I can't put my hands on one of those little illusive books at 
the moment but I do recall it allowing me to disregard NRs for 
uncompleted rounds when just people walked in or discontinued play for 
various reasons. It seems ridiculous to 'give' someone 0.1 back to their 
advantage and bias the CSS for everybody else. Though I didn't use this 
discretion with Cat 1 golfers unless it was for injury. It was always a 
handicap committee decision though ;-)

I am of the opinion that one shouldn't lose sight of what we are trying 
to achieve here, in that we are trying to create an as fair as possible 
playing field and with handicapping which reflects a golfer's ability. 
The Scheme seems to agree by putting in the famous Clause 19.

--
Durram

Malcolm,

Look at page 27...Procedure...Item number 1.

You will find your answer written in bold type!

Regards

Pat


> In a medal round, play was interrupted by lightning accompanied by a heavy 
> shower of rain.
> 
> The Committee suspended play but on resumption about 20% of the field chose 
> not to resume play and submitted "no returns".  Consequently they were 
> disqualified for failing to complete the round.
> 
> I do not know how many holes those who were disqualified had completed 
> before play was suspended.
> 
> Are the competitors who failed to resume play included in the CSS 
> calculation?
> Would it make a difference how many holes they had completed (e.g. <9 or > 
> 9)
> I could not find an answer in the CONGU Unified Handicap System booklet.
> Can some one help and also give the CONGU reference if there is one.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Malcolm 
> 
>

> 
> No system is perfect ;-)  I can't recall if the committee has carte
> blanche to declare a competition as "not counting" after the event -
> but I think it's frowned upon at best.

I feel that it does not, John.

By definition a qualifying competition is one which is played under medal 
conditions. That's all.

Pat

"Pat Williams"  wrote in message 
news:467a62aa$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>  Malcolm,
>
> Look at page 27...Procedure...Item number 1.
>
> You will find your answer written in bold type!
>
> Regards
>
> Pat
>
Many thanks for the help given by John, Demetri and Pat.

I have now found Clause 20.6
It seems from that, that possibly the Committee might be permitted not to 
abandon the competition (i.e. still announce winners) but nevertheless 
declare the CSS to be the SSS allowing decreases in handicap but no 
increases.
Do you think this would be acceptable in circumstances where the number of 
NRs resulting from not resuming play, would otherwise distort the CSS?

Malcolm