The power of the "R"

[Club Rat]

Recently a friend asked me why his USGA Index has had the letter "R" the past couple of revisions.

Not fully understanding the power of the "R" used in calculating, I thought it mainly is used to prevent a players handicap from escalating quickly in a short period of time.
I assumed it was when "tournament scores" used, the differential would prevent a players handicap from rising "more than a certain amount" for the revision period.

Know I have better understanding after reviewing the guidelines and system used by the USGA.
But, I'm still uncertain about a stipulation in the rules?
The USGA has criteria which a player can ask the handicap committee to review their revision and request the "R" to be removed.
I know the committee can penalize, assign Temp Indexes and under certain circumstances ban a player and remove the "R"

An "R" can effect a players Index for a long duration, a full year under certain conditions.
So given the power of the "R" when would a handicap committee, remove the "R" ?

[bkuehn1952]

32 minutes ago, Club Rat said:

So given the power of the "R" when would a handicap committee, remove the "R" ?

During my service on our handicap committee, we have never removed an "R" or modified the index of a player with an "R" index.  The Handicap manual gives an example of when a committee might remove the reduction.

8-4 ...• Override the reduction. For example, the Handicap Committee may override, or cancel a reduction of the Handicap Index of a player who has returned, say, 50tournament scores, and whose Handicap Index reduction was based on early scores.

[Club Rat]

Thank you @bkuehn1952 
I agree it is very rare, I do not ever recall ever seeing a players receive a modified index either.

The situation with my friend is due to three tournament scores, two which give him a low differential average.
They will keep his index at 7 or below until they expire or he participates in additional events that meet the "T" requirements.
I suggested he speak with the committee and request a review.
Below is what I suggested he read and present to the committee.

Quote

• Decrease the amount of the reduction. The Committee may decide that the player's full 10-3 reduction does not reflect the player's potential ability, but a reduction is still necessary. In this case, the Committee may modify the amount of the reduction and the player's Handicap Index as calculated by Section 10-2. For example, if the player's 10-3 calculation is a 10.0R, but the 10-2 calculation is 15.0, the Committee could change the player's reduced value to a value of 12.5M. This does not completely override the player's reduction.

Our club in the past has granted "T's" to several players and also handed out a few "P's" to some who neglect to post scores.
I suggested he request a score history for a full year to show the two "exceptional tournaments" were indeed, exceptional.
They more than likely were his two best rounds in several years if not best of his best.
I'm just curious if anyone on TST who has served on a committee has ever had similar situations and how they were handled.

 

[iacas]

Maybe your friend deserves the "R".

9 hours ago, Club Rat said:

The situation with my friend is due to three tournament scores, two which give him a low differential average.
They will keep his index at 7 or below until they expire or he participates in additional events that meet the "T" requirements.

That sounds like your friend may be a bit of a sandbagger. Why did he have two out of three "low differential"s in tournaments?

[DaveP043]

17 hours ago, Club Rat said:

The situation with my friend is due to three tournament scores, two which give him a low differential average.
They will keep his index at 7 or below until they expire or he participates in additional events that meet the "T" requirements.
I suggested he request a score history for a full year to show the two "exceptional tournaments" were indeed, exceptional.
They more than likely were his two best rounds in several years if not best of his best.

I'm with @iacas, if his performance in a very limited number of tournaments is that much better than the rest of his scores, he probably SHOULD be adjusted.  Not to suggest that he's intentionally sandbagging, but the real value of a handicap is in a tournament setting.  If he scores well below his "typical" scores in 67% of his tournament rounds, that's significant.  If he can play a few more tournament rounds, he'll get a little more leeway for unusually low scoring.  And to clarify something, the Handicap Committee is required to review every player whose HI is reduced for exceptional tournament scores.  It doesn't hurt to ask for a review, he might get a different answer if he does.

I think the system is good for bring potential sandbaggers to the attention of a handicap committee.  I think that there can be a somewhat unfair effect for those whose scores vary seasonally.  As their handicap rises through the winter and early spring (we post year-round here in Virginia), they can run into that "Tournament Score ceiling" and have their "Reduced" handicap index go down even as they're playing worse.  This effect is usually short-lived, as once their play improves later in the spring, their R handicap will actually go up as they play better.  Weird, huh.  My opinion, I'd be a little more willing to Modify those Reduced Handicaps, based on long-term scoring, seasonal fluctuation, reputation for honest effort even in casual rounds, reputation for complete posting, etc, but the USGA really discourages this type of leniency.  For those who are interested, take the USGA Handicap Seminar online at:

http://www.usga.org/HDCPLicClubSeminar/index.asp