• HOME
  • CLUBS
  • NWFCC LEAGUES
  • YOUR FED
    • Everything about NWFCC
    • Mileages Between League Clubs
    • NWFCC HONOURS BOARD
    • Handicapping in the NWFCC
    • NWFCC Documents
  • WHO’S WHO
  • COACHING
    • Croquet Coaching for You
    • Association Croquet
    • Golf Croquet Videos
    • Croquet Magic
    • Croquet “Matches of the Day”
    • Northern Croquet Academy
  • EVENTS
    • NWFCC LEAGUES
    • North West Festival of Croquet
    • National Inter Club Croquet Tournaments

Croquet in the North West

North West Federation of Croquet Clubs - for everything Croquet in the north west

You are here: Home / Archives for 2014

Golf Croquet Handicap System Changing

26 February 2014 by Don Williamson

Latest Update: 

Details finally appeared on the CA website on 19 March: https://www.croquet.org.uk/?p=golf/gchandicapping

They have changed yet again !!!!!!!


Changes in the Golf Croquet Handicap System for 2014

Don Williamson (member of CA GC Handicap Committee) summarises new situation as at 27 February 2014

Results from play with the handicap system over the last few years have highlighted two significant problems.

  • Using the present handicap system with level play games has produced a situation where the bottom level is becoming log jammed and we have a massive range of abilities on the bottom handicap.
  • Using the present handicap system with handicap play produces players with much lower handicaps than those produced by level play.

The New Lower Handicaps

The first problem shows itself by the best players building up a massive handicap index above the top trigger point of 1000. The solution is quite obvious; introduce some new lower handicap levels so that the gain of points is then restricted as the top player’s handicaps will automatically fall and this is precisely what we have done.

The new handicap levels are introduced; -1, -2 and -3. They will be separated by trigger points 200 apart, setting the trigger point for -3 at 1600. It is not considered that we will need the lowest handicap but its introduction makes the handicap scale effectively open ended at the lower end and the next lower handicap is already there if required. This extension to the range will have no effect on the procedure for completing handicap cards other than an extended matrix has to be used. A copy of the new matrix is given at the end of this memo. The present matrix is still accurate for the range it covers.

It is not the committee’s intention that those with indices over 1200 will retain their present totals but that the most senior players will be allocated with new handicaps and a starting index as below:

Now -2 with index of 1400; Stephen Mulliner, Reg Bamford, Rutger Beiderwellan and William Gee

Now -1 with index of 1200; Mark Avery, Pierre Beaudry, Jacob Carr, Jeff Dawson, Harry Dodge, Martin French, James Goodbun, Howard Cheyne, Rachel Rowe, Tobi Savage and Lionel Tibble.

 Any player with an index of over 1200 and not included in the above list should forward a copy of their card to the Handicap Committee as instructed at the end of this memo. All other players retain their present index and handicap.

 Handicap Play Problems

These came to light whilst looking at actual handicap cards in the exercise to introduce the new handicap levels. The reason it has only recently been noticed is that it affects only a very few of our players. It is the good club player with a present handicap of 0 or 1 who plays both level play and handicap games. Unfortunately there are very few in this category. The problem is probably best understood by taking two actual examples.

A very good club player who takes part in both the national level play circuit and also plays a similar number of handicap games, managed to accumulate over 2200 handicap index points over the years. His 2013 record shows, he played 53 handicap games against opponents with the full range of handicaps, winning 45 of them and gained 370 index points. During the same period he played 68 level games and lost 76 index points. Had we introduced the new lower handicaps, his handicap would have probably fallen to -3 but then it would have been totally out of line with players of similar ability who only play level. He personally agrees his handicap on the extended system should still be 0. The lack of any lower handicaps levels managed to hide this problem.

Similarly we have another good club player who mainly plays handicap Golf Croquet in his own Federation and is not exposed to play in the national level play circuit. He has managed quite legitimately to reduce his handicap to 0 but again agrees that if he compares himself to players on the national circuit he would most likely be a 2. There is just one conclusion that can be drawn from all these figures. Players with the present low handicaps of say 0 or 1 are simply not giving away sufficient additional shots in handicap games to give a fair contest. We must therefore take steps to adjust this balance by increasing the bias against the lower handicap players. With luck this should make handicaps produced by the two formats of the game very similar.

The Solution to the Different Handicap Problems

In trying to solve this problem the Handicap Committee looked for a solution that would only have effect in handicap GC play and only where one or more players with handicaps of less than 4 were involved. Our answer was found by using a concept that has already been very successful in handicap one ball and that is what can be called “Effective Handicap” This is very simple to apply and only changes the number of additional turns that a low handicapper gives to a higher handicapper in GC handicap play, this number being equal to the difference between the two player’s effective handicaps. As all players with handicaps of 4 and above will have an Effective Handicap equal to their actual handicap, it will not affect play where no low handicapper is involved. The Effective Handicap table is given below.

Handicap Effective H/C Handicap Effective H/C

3

2

0

-4

2

0

-1

-5

1

-2

-2

-6

 

 

 

 

 

Taking the example of our player who does not play in the level play circuit; if his handicap is increased from 0 to 2, his effective handicap will be 0 and he will still give away the same number of additional stroke and hopefully will remain stable as a 2 handicap. Our other player will retain his 0 handicap but will give away an additional 4 shots. Whether the above figures are exactly right is of course a matter for conjecture but it is a move in the right direction and a years trial will let us know whether we have gone too far or not far enough.

The Change Over Period

As with the changes caused by the introduction of the new low handicaps, we do not want players to have to spend all next season losing every game to get their handicaps in line with the new system and would advise CA Handicappers to make the step changes in the normal manner. Where handicaps have been gained almost exclusively from handicap play, the following changes should be considered.

0 H/C should become 2 with a starting index of 750, 1 H/C should become 2 with a starting index of 650; 2 H/C should become  3 with a starting index of  500; 3 H/C should become a 4 with a starting index of  475. These are suggested values and the handicapper will have to make his own judgement call if there is some content of level play. If there are specific problems, Bill Arliss has agreed to act as the senior CA Handicapper for the Handicap Committee and all details should be sent to bill.arliss@ntlworld.com.

There are in fact some very good mathematical reasons why the effective handicaps are needed to correct an obvious flaw in our old system. For the theoretically minded readers a much more detailed explanation of the changes will be included in a handicapping manual which is being prepared for our web site.

 

The Extended Points Exchange Matrix for Level Play        

                                                  LOSER’S Handicap  

  

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

-3

10

7

4

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-2

14

10

6

2

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-1

18

14

10

6

2

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

19

18

14

10

6

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

19

19

18

14

10

7

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

19

19

19

16

13

10

7

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

3

20

19

19

18

15

13

10

8

7

6

5

4

4

3

3

2

4

20

19

19

19

17

15

12

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

4

3

5

20

19

19

19

17

16

13

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

4

6

20

20

19

19

18

16

14

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

7

20

20

19

19

18

17

15

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

8

20

20

20

19

19

17

16

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

9

20

20

20

19

19

18

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

10

20

20

20

19

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

11

20

20

20

19

19

19

17

16

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

12

20

20

20

19

19

19

18

17

16

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

 

 

 

2014, Coaching, Federation, News

2014 – Combined Handicaps in Double Croquet Games

CALCULATING COMBINED HANDICAP OF A DOUBLES PAIRING FOR HANDICAP AND MIDWEEK CROQUET LEAGUES

 

Following a successful one year trial by the CA, the method of calculating the Combined Handicap of a doubles pairing, in Handicap Croquet has now been changed.  Previously, doubles handicaps were calculated by adding the handicaps of the two players and dividing by two, which favours pairings where one player has a very low handicap and the other has a high handicap.  To counter this, the new format totals the trigger index of each player’s handicap, divides that by two and uses it as a trigger point to look-up the combined handicap. This produces the same result as before if players have fairly similar handicaps.  The new method, whilst slightly more complex, reduces the bisques formerly given to very low handicap players, so creating a fairer doubles contest.  This change has been incorporated into the Laws of the game and so will be used in Federation Handicap Leagues.

To calculate the Combined Handicap of a Doubles Pairing you need to refer to a chart of Handicap Trigger Points (there is one on your Scorecard) and take the following three steps:

(i)                 Calculate the mean of the pair indexes associated with their Trigger Points.

(ii)                Find the nearest Trigger Point with an equal or lower Index.

(iii)               Use the Handicap associated with this nearest Trigger Point.

 Here is an example for you:

 

Handicaps:

Mean Index assoc.
with Trigger Point:

Nearest
Trig Point:

Combined
Handicap:

Pair X

20 and -1

(950 + 2250)/ 2 = 1600

1600

4

Pair Y

14 and 10

(1250+1100)/ 2 = 1175

1150

12

 

 

 

 

 

The former system of calculating Combined Handicaps of a Doubles Pairing using mean Handicaps would have resulted in 8.5 for Pair X and 6.5 for Pair Y, i.e. 2.5 bisques difference.  The new system based on trigger indexes results in combined handicaps of 4 for Pair X and 12 for Pair Y, i.e. 8 bisques difference.  So under the old system Pair Y would get 2.5 bisques but under the new system they get 8 bisques.

Handicap Trigger Points for reference:

HCP:

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4.5

T.P.

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

                               

HCP:

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

T.P.

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

2100

2250

2400

2600

2800

3050

With grateful acknowledgement to the Oxford Croquet website and the CA website.

To simplify the calculations, here is a chart that will do the sums for you:

[gview file=”http://www.croquetnw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HandicapDoublesCalculator.pdf”]

 

 

 

Croquet Association Gets View from ‘Up North’

15 February 2014 by Chris Alvey

CA CONSULTATION CONFERENCE ON WORKING PARTY REPORT ON FEDERATIONS

Canalside Sports Complex, Huddersfield.  Saturday 15 February 2014

2014 - Huddersfield Venue for CA ConferenceThe Working Party Report on Federations generated further debate today at a CA organised Consultation Conference at the superb Huddersfield FC sports complex.  Surprisingly, only about 45 delegates attended this event, representing clubs from the North West, North, Yorks and Humberside, West Midlands, East Midlands and East Anglian Federations.  About 14 north west members were in attendance representing: Bowdon; Bury; Chester; Crake Valley; Fylde; Liverpool; Pendle; Southport; Westmorland.

The meeting was led by CA Chairman, Jeff Dawson, assisted by CA Secretary, Dr Ian Vincent and Vice Chairman of Council, Dr Tim King.

Jeff Dawson welcomed everyone explaining this was the second meeting organised by the CA to explain the issues and engage in consultation with clubs, it was not a decision making forum.  He set out the Agenda for the meeting, focussing on: (i) Federations as Members of CA Council; (ii) Federation Boundary Changes; (iii) Fee Structure for Clubs and Players.

Federations as Members of CA Council.

The current constitutional position allows for Federations to elect a person to serve on CA Council who then becomes a ‘Club Representative’ rather than a Federation representative.  These ‘Club Representatives’ make up one third of Council and means Federations are completely independent of Council.  The proposed change in the Constitution would simplify election procedures and change these ‘Club Representatives’ to ‘Federation Representatives’.

Whilst it was stressed that in practice, this alteration would not change anything, it has to be recognised some Federation independence would be lost and there is always the possibility of unintended consequences.  The discussion ranged from the logical need for more integration, advantages of full independence (especially when bidding for Grants), advantages of closer links to Council, more coherent framework for the development of Croquet, the status of clubs within Federations.  One interesting idea emerged that if Federations became affiliated to the CA, this could lead to a practical solution.

A straw poll indicated a majority in the room favoured constitutional change.

Federation Boundary Changes

The nine Federations vary significantly in size ranging from 41 clubs to 8 clubs.  This situation creates differing opportunities for competitive play resulting in some clubs becoming members of more than one Federation in order to participate in appropriate level and quantity of league play.  Issues of representation were discussed, should larger Federations have more places (or votes) on Council?  Is the balance on Council equitable?

The meeting seemed to agree the issue needed addressing but could be progressed by the CA facilitating discussion and negotiation between Federations.

Fee Structure for Clubs and Players

At present 57% of CA income is derived from individual tournament members (paying about £40 each, totalling £56,000) in addition to a levy imposed on CA tournament fees (£13,000).  The remaining £46,000 is generated from clubs paying about £8 per playing member.  Whilst there is no intention to increase revenue streams the long term trend is a reducing tournament income, consequently the WP proposals are attempting to change the balance between the income streams and at the same time reduce barriers to players entering tournaments.

Whilst the number of players entering CA tournaments has decreased, the number of Federation tournaments and league games has increased.  Delegates highlighted the high cost of travelling and subsistence when entering national weekend tournaments, (notwithstanding family commitments), compared to the low costs of local one day competitive league play.

Over lunch, delegates, in four groups, discussed these financial issues including increasing the club player levy and the concept of a levy on all competitive games in Federations (Pay to Play concept).

The majority of delegates supported the strategy of making all club players, members of the CA,  through replacing the individual tournament member fee by an increased club levy on members.  A strong viewpoint emerged that since every club member benefits from the CA infrastructure so everyone should pay for it.  It is estimated club individual membership fees would need to increase by about £10pa to cover this.  Whether this should happen in one step or be introduced gradually caused much debate but conference seemed to favour the one step approach.  Pleas also emerged that the CA should spend more on Development and be more active in marketing the Association.

There was concern in the room about whether there should be a differential levy depending on the status or size of clubs.  However, one small club stated they were in favour of the one step approach and would use a fund raising event to pay for it rather than increase membership fees.

A proposal that clubs should pay their individual member levies to Federations, who then paid the CA, received no support; clubs not having any problems about paying the CA in addition to paying their Federation Membership Fees separately.

The concept of Pay to Play received no support if applied to Federation league games but some limited support if applied to Federation tournaments.  Jeff Dawson also reported that at club level, the concept was probably now a ‘non starter’.

If all players became CA members, they would each be entitled to receive the Croquet Gazette, increasing its circulation to about 6000.  Whilst this could generate increased sponsorship or advertising income, there would be significant increases in distribution (postage) costs.  There were positive suggestions about offering the Gazette both electronically as well as hard copies, even if members had to pay extra for hard copy.  It was also pointed out there would be increased VAT expenditure if the Gazette was distributed by email.  It was also suggested that a ‘News and Article’ website could be set up,  updated on an ongoing basis, as opposed to a bi-monthly magazine format.

Jeff Dawson brought the meeting to a close, stressing the need for further consultation and invited clubs to convey the views of their members to him over the next few weeks.  He also stressed the next steps would be to offer every club and every CA member a vote on each of the separate proposals – only after this exercise would a ‘roadmap’ be designed for consideration by CA Council and AGM in November.

Tony Thomas (Personal Interpretation of Meeting)

 

 

2014, Croquet Association, Federation, News

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • Next Page »

Find a Category

Search Box

Webmaster – Chris Alvey (webmaster@croquetnw.co.uk)

Copyright © 2020 · North West Federation of Croquet Clubs