1. CONGU® Unified Handicap System Manual 2012 – 2015
Effective 1 January 2012 1

2. 2012 – 2015 Changes CSS Calculation (Clause 18)
CSS and Small Fields (Clause 18)
Nine–hole Scores (Clause 22)
Exceptional Scoring (Clause 23)
Annual Review (Clause 23)
Look at 5 main changes first.
(More detailed notes will be available at the end of the session)
Briefly (as covered in next slides):
CSS Calculation (Clause 18) – now based on SSS+BZ
CSS and Small Fields – Table B introduced
Nine–hole Scores (Clause 22) – clause extended
Exceptional Scores - additional reductions calculated automatically
Annual Review (Clause 23) – now in line with 3 scores minimum needed for an active handicap 2

3. CSS Calculation – Clause 18
CSS calculation based on SSS + Buffer Zone
Improved precision – especially in fields with a high percentage of Cat 3[4] players
Minimal change on CSS outcome otherwise
Gives players across all Handicap Categories a more intuitive focus
Maintains consistency with EGA
The current CSS process uses SSS+2 as a target (partly for historical reasons) and compares how the players have performed against this target. The composition of ladies’ fields contains a relatively large number of category 4 players, who are more volatile as a group. The current CSS algorithm does not appear as stable when compared to its use in typical men’s fields, producing more occasions where CSS goes up.
The suggestion was made to investigate the feasibility of BZ as a target. With the widespread use of computers this is now feasible. The same statistical model used for the current CSS table was used to derive the new BZ target percentage values. Data samples from actual competitions were then analysed. We’ll have a look at some of the analysis data.
It was concluded that the use of BZ for the CSS calculation will significantly improve the precision of the Ladies’ calculations without significantly affecting the Men’s.
Intuitively, the use of BZ to assess performance makes sense. This change also brings us into line with EGA practise. 3 3

4. CSS Nett Score Assessment
CSS calculation now based on assessing the percentage of the field attaining
SSS + Category Buffer Zone
Example: if SSS is 72
Cat 1 Nett 73 and better Cat 2 Nett 74 and better Cat 3 Nett 75 and better Cat 4 Nett 76 and better (Previously 74 across all categories)
Using buffer zone as a target, the calculation assesses the number of players in each category achieving the nett scores shown above. The number of players is calculated and accumulated, then converted to a percentage of the overall Category 1-3[4] field size. 4 4

5. SSS+2 versus SSS+BZ Comparing a typical Ladies’ field (0/10/90)
SSS+2 targets from current CSS table:
SSS+BZ targets from new CSS table:
How will this affect us? The composition of a typical Ladies’ field for Cat1/Cat2/Cat3[4] is 0/10/90.
(A typical Men’s field is 10/40/50)
Comparing this line in the new Appendix B – Table A (Competition Scratch Score Table) with the old Appendix B shows the impact of the new targets. For instance:
Currently the target for CSS=SSS is 16-32%.
The target when BZ is used becomes 23-45%.
So although you might expect more ladies in a typical field to play within their BZ than would play to SSS+2, the target has become proportionately tougher. 5

6. Appendix B Table A – CSS Table (extract)

7. CSS and Small Fields Defined as fewer than 10 players
A disproportionate number of Reduction Only results
This is self-perpetuating as players are then under-handicapped
If CSS=SSS+3 R/O (no player achieves score within BZ) then Table B is applied
Table B: examines the next best score relative to BZ
For fields of 1-5 players, minimum CSS is SSS
(as now)
Small fields are defined as less than 10 players and at this level the precision of the CSS calculation is affected – one player can have a significant impact on the CSS outcome. Currently if no players are within their buffer zone a disproportionate number of Reduction Only results can occur and this is self-perpetuating as players are then under-handicapped.
In order to try and assess more accurately the conditions affecting play on the day, if no player is within BZ the next best score (relative to BZ) is examined.
Reductions Only results will be reduced both through this analysis of “best score over buffer zone” in the very small field situation, coupled with the already increased precision achieved through using the target of “SSS+buffer zone”
(Aside: Analysing 1198 qualifiers across 183 clubs retrieved at random from Club Systems revealed that 47% consisted of 1-9 players and of those small fields 35% resulted in a Reduction Only CSS outcome prior to this change). 7

8. Lowest Net Score Relative to Category Buffer Zone
Appendix B
Table B – Small Field CSS Table
Lowest Net Score Relative to Category Buffer Zone
Field Size +4 +3 +2 +1
R/O
SSS+3
SSS+2
SSS+1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(CSS estimate = R/O
Cat Pts BZ
Example:
As an example a field of 7 players of which only 2 are in cat 1, 2, 3 or 4 produces a R/O CSS. As you can see one of the players achieved a net score just 1 outside BZ. This is used to identify that CSS will be SSS+1. 8 8

9. Nine-Hole Scores – Clause 22
9 hole qualifying competitions may now be submitted at any club at which the player holds playing membership (previously Home Club only)
Allocation of a CONGU handicap now permissible from the submission of 9-hole scores.
The 9-hole competitions have proved to be very popular.   The restriction that 9-hole scores can only be returned at a players Home Club has been lifted - 9-hole scores may now be recorded for handicap purposes at a players Home Club from all other clubs at which they are a playing member. 
In addition, scores for allotment of handicap will be allowed over 9-holes, or a combination 9-hole and 18-hole scores. The best submitted cards will represent a total 54 holes as required currently by the return of three 18 hole cards.
(Supplementary Scores must still be played over 18 holes). 9

10. Allocation of Handicap Based on Nine-Hole Scores
Can use a combination of 18-hole and 9-hole scores
3 x 18-holes
2 x 18-holes plus 2 x 9-holes
1 x 18-holes plus 4 x 9-holes
6 x 9-holes
Handicap allocated based on the best 54 holes submitted (not best individual holes).
Adjustments use same rules as those for
18-hole scores
Authorisation for a 9-hole SSS required
The best cards of those submitted are used for the handicap calculation
Adjustments to 2[3] over par are unchanged 10

11. Exceptional Scoring Aimed at rapid improvers
Removes pressure on the handicap committee to decide a General Play adjustment
Automatic process (click to accept) -
triggered when a player returns a nett differential of -4 or better
Reduction based on second such score within a specified number of qualifying rounds
Not applicable to Category 1
Category 2 can only be reduced to 5.5
Takes the pressure off handicap committees in reaction to exceptionally low scores, by using the computer to help automate the process. The Committee still have to sanction the reduction rather than it being completely automatic as it is a screen click to accept. They MUST consider the reduction.
Aimed at rapid improvers (typically juniors), the process will be triggered when a player first returns an exceptional score (defined as a Nett Differential of -4 or better).
If in the period between Annual Reviews the player then returns a second exceptional score, the 2 scores are averaged and an additional decrease of handicap may be applied.
For each successive exceptional score in the period, the process is repeated.
This does not apply to Catogeory 1 players and Category 2 players can only be reduced to 5.5. 11

12. Exceptional Scoring Handicap Reduction Table
Average of the two Low Score Nett Differentials
4 or less qualifying scores in the sequence
5 to 9 qualifying scores in the sequence
10 or more qualifying scores in the sequence
-4.0 to -5.0
1 stroke
0.5 stroke
No change
-5.5 to -9.5
2 strokes
-10 or less
3 strokes
Calculate the average of the two exceptional scores.
Calculate how many scores have taken place in the sequence from the previous to the current exceptional score.
The table identifies the additional reduction ESR that can be actioned.
The process does not apply to Category 1
Any reduction recommended for a Category 2 player will be limited to reducing the player’s handicap to 5.5 12

13. Exceptional Scoring Reduction
Present System  
Exceptional Scoring Process  ND
H/cap
Change
New Exact -5
16.2
-(5*0.3)
14.7 -7
-(7*0.3)
12.6
Average -6 over 2 scores results in further adjustment under ESR of 2.0
10.6 5
0.1
12.7 7
10.7 -3
-(1*0.3+2*0.2)
12.0 -1
-0.2
10.5 6
12.1
12.2 8
-(5*0.2)
11.2 -4
-(4*0.2)
9.9
Average -5.5 over 6 scores results in further adjustment under ESR of 1.0
8.9
In the period the player (an improving junior (boy)) is cut from 16.2 to 11.2.
Under the new process:
As soon as the exceptional score of -5 is returned, the process is triggered.
The second such score of -7 results in an additional reduction of 2.0
The next such score (last line) results in an additional reduction of 1.0.
The final handicap over the period is therefore 8.9 instead of 11.2. 13

14. Annual Review – Clause 23
Existing process can recommend handicap decreases with 3 qualifying scores or more for a player
However, increases are only recommended if a player has at least 7 qualifying scores
Process changed to consider players for handicap increase when they have 3,4,5 or 6 qualifying scores
In addition, further guidance and explanations will be provided in the Manual
(NB: Formula for handicap review can be found on the CONGU website)
The Annual Review process checks Actual performance versus Target performance using a formula based on a players’ Median Nett Differential (see detail below).
For players with 3 or more qualifying scores the current process recommends consideration of a handicap decrease if their actual performance is more than 3 better than expected.
However checks for handicap increase recommendations are currently only made against players with at least 7 qualifying scores, which is out of sync with the 3 scores required to maintain an active handicap.
The Annual review will now consider players for handicap increase if they have 3, 4 -5, or 6 qualifying scores.
In addition, further guidance and explanations will be provided in the Manual.
Detail: The Review is based on a mathematical model that compares ACTUAL performance versus TARGET performance (for a statistically perfect player). The process calculates the Median Gross Differential (MGD) from the player’s scores and subtracts their Final Handicap (FH) to arrive at their ‘Nett of the MGD’ ACTUAL. This is then compared to their statistical TARGET (an approximation of which can be calculated as
0.237*FH+1.57. 14

15. Other Issues Four-Ball Handicap Allowance
Reviewed using simulations based on actual individual scores. Further research being undertaken
Active vs. Inactive handicaps
CDH data shows:
93% of ladies are active
85% of men are active
No intention at present to increase required number of qualifying scores
2 topics in particular will see no change in this cycle:
Four-Ball Handicap Allowance:
There is general comment that the use of ¾ handicap may well be too much where the pairing is of two high handicap players and that 7/8 (90%) may be better. Similarly, full handicap is generally considered to be biased towards the high handicap players winning disproportionately.
Simulations based on individual hole-by-hole scores returned in men's and ladies competitions were carried out. The findings were inconclusive and data from actual 4BBB competitions is needed to research this issue further.
Slope
There is evidence that the use of slope could introduce problems both in application to competition stroke allowances (where analysis resulted in distortion of results) and also if integrated with the CONGU calculation of handicaps (as has been carried out elsewhere in Europe).
Looking at these 2 issues in more detail: 15

16. Other Issues - SLOPE
Whereas SSS is a course rating measured for a scratch golfer, Slope is a course rating measured for an 18-handicap golfer
A course of average slope is rated as 113. The higher the rating, the more difficult the course
Application of Slope to the calculation of CONGU handicaps in Europe is showing evidence of problems that may be aggravated by the use of Slope
Application of Slope for adjustment of stroke allowance when playing away from home was reviewed using scores from Ladies’ competitions
2 topics in particular will see no change in this cycle:
Four-Ball Handicap Allowance:
There is general comment that the use of ¾ handicap may well be too much where the pairing is of two high handicap players and that 7/8 (90%) may be better. Similarly, full handicap is generally considered to be biased towards the high handicap players winning disproportionately.
Simulations based on individual hole-by-hole scores returned in men's and ladies competitions were carried out. The findings were inconclusive and data from actual 4BBB competitions is needed to research this issue further.
Slope
There is evidence that the use of slope could introduce problems both in application to competition stroke allowances (where analysis resulted in distortion of results) and also if integrated with the CONGU calculation of handicaps (as has been carried out elsewhere in Europe).
Looking at these 2 issues in more detail: 16

17. Other Issues - SLOPE
Analysis of the application of Slope for adjustment of stroke allowance:
On average, the visitors from ‘easier’ courses who were therefore in receipt of additional strokes achieved far better scores than the other players
On average, the visitors from ‘tougher’ courses who were therefore conceding strokes achieved far worse scores than the other players
The original unadjusted data confirmed that on average visitors’ scores were 1-2 shots worse than Home players’ scores, regardless of the Slope of the courses
Unless substantial new evidence comes forward it is difficult to see how Slope, in its present form, could realistically be introduced into the CONGU system
Could the introduction of Slope produce more deserving winners in competitions involving ‘away’ players?
Previous analysis of scores from men’s competitions did not find any worthwhile evidence that away players might gain some advantage when their handicaps were adjusted for Slope. It did however find that, on average, the away player played 1-2 shots worse, irrespective of the Slope of their home course (leading to the Home/Visitors separate CSS calculations we have currently).
The analysis has been repeated using data from 1500 ladies’ competitions in England.
On average, the visitors from ‘easier’ courses who were therefore in receipt of additional strokes achieved far better scores than the other players.
On average, the visitors from ‘tougher’ courses who were therefore conceding strokes achieved far worse scores than the other players.
This distortion was NOT present before Slope was applied.
The original unadjusted data also confirmed that, on average, the away players were 1-2 shots worse than the home players, regardless of the slope of their home course.

18. Central Database of Handicaps (CDH) Checklist
Have all members within the handicapping system been identified as either ‘Home’ or ‘Away’ players?
Have ‘Away’ players’ CDH numbers been included in your handicapping software?
Do you always ensure that ex-members are removed from your handicapping database?
Are new members always asked for their CDH number?
Is your handicapping data on multiple systems? If so, do you ensure that multiple uploads of data are not occurring?
Is your system automatically set to send data to the CDH?
Do you check for Away scores on a regular basis?
Have you notified all your members of their CDH numbers?
James to explain each question and the reasons for the actions 18 18

19. CDH – New For 2012 Identify that scores have been sent via CDH
Facility to search for an event on CDH
Facility to submit one single score rather than re-open the event and submit all scores
Confirmation to be received to identify submitted scores
Home Club Not Set – CDH id number deleted after 6 months
Retention of records – current and previous two calendar years (as per Clause 6.11)
James tp present 19

20. Changes/Additions to 2012 CONGU Manual
Appendix O: Mixed Golf
Combined CSS is now mandatory for handicap alteration purposes
For mixed competitions an adjustment is required to take into account any difference between SSS or Par of the courses being played
For Gross competitions or when awarding a Gross prize a similar adjustment is required to take into account any difference between SSS of the courses being played
The Combined CSS (taking all scores into account to calculate a common CSS adjustment to both men’s and ladies’ SSS) is now .
See Note 2 to Appendix O
Where SSS or PAR varies for men and ladies playing in the same competition, an adjustment is required to take into account the difference between SSS or Par of the courses being played
Following slide: (example)
And then: Similarly when a gross score prize is involved 20

21. ADJUSTMENT IS MANDATORY
Appendix O: Mixed Golf
Example: Handicap competitions
SSS Par ‘to handicap’
Men net 71 (37pts)
Ladies net 74 (36pts)
For result purposes only, in this example, the ladies will have a reduction to their score of 3 strokes for a stroke play competition
Similarly, the ladies will have 1 stroke added to their handicap, prior to play, for a Stableford competition
ADJUSTMENT IS MANDATORY
Players to play from their respective tees using their own SI
Explain what would happen if ladies played from men’s tees in terms of SSS calculation. 21

22. ADJUSTMENT IS MANDATORY
Appendix O: Mixed Golf
Example: Gross Competitions
SSS Gross Score Men Ladies
For result purposes only an adjustment equivalent to the difference in SSS is to be applied to the gross score
In this example, the lady’s gross score is adjusted to 70 declaring her the winner
ADJUSTMENT IS MANDATORY

23. Changes/Additions to 2012 CONGU Manual - 1
English version
Also an online version (without the CSS tables)
CONGU Calendar Year
to start January 1st
Clause 10: Establishing Par
extended to include Par 6
Clause 16.3d: Allotment of Handicap
clause to be deleted
Clause 17: extended to include Medford competitions
(9 holes Medal/ 9-holes Stableford)
Clause 21.5: Supplementary Scores
Period between Annual Review date to be January 1st
New Decision: Supplementary Score to be first of the day
CONGU Calendar Year - to start January 1st
Clause 10: Establishing Par – extended to include Par 6
Clause 16.3d: Allotment of Handicap – clause to be deleted
Clause 17: - extended to include Medford competitions (9 holes Medal and 9-holes Stableford)
Clause 21.5: Supplementary Scores
Period between Annual Review date to be January 1st
New Decision: Supplementary Score to be first of the day
Clause 25: Lapse of Handicap – heading changed to ‘Status of Handicap’
Appendix P: DQ Scores in Qualifying Competition
adds ‘no handicap on card – score still to be accepted’
Decisions: 1j - wording strengthened
New Decision: Scratch competition - no handicap on card is now a Committee responsibility 23

24. Changes/Additions to 2012 CONGU Manual - 2
Clause 25: Lapse of Handicap
changed to ‘Status of Handicap’
Appendix P: DQ Scores in Qualifying Competition
addition: no handicap on card – score still to be accepted
Decision 1j: wording strengthened
a player must play off full handicap
correct Playing Handicap must be used for calculation of the CSS
the Committee may adjust the scores for the purpose of awarding prizes
New Decision: Scratch competition
no handicap on card is now a Committee responsibility for calculation of the CSS (no DQ)
CONGU Calendar Year - to start January 1st
Clause 10: Establishing Par – extended to include Par 6
Clause 16.3d: Allotment of Handicap – clause to be deleted
Clause 17: - extended to include Medford competitions (9 holes Medal and 9-holes Stableford)
Clause 21.5: Supplementary Scores
Period between Annual Review date to be January 1st
New Decision: Supplementary Score to be first of the day
Clause 25: Lapse of Handicap – heading changed to ‘Status of Handicap’
Appendix P: DQ Scores in Qualifying Competition
adds ‘no handicap on card – score still to be accepted’
Decisions: 1j - wording strengthened
New Decision: Scratch competition - no handicap on card is now a Committee responsibility 24

25. CONGU® Unified Handicap System Manual 2012 – 2015
Effective 1 January 2012 25