Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Chris Roselle on January 21, 2011, 11:25:04 AM
-
http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=6044348&campaign=rss&source=GOLFHeadline
TV Rules Officials are becoming more and more popular this year......
-
I buy the defenses of the DQ rule as applied to Villegas, who knew that he did something but did not realize it violated a rule. I think it's horribly draconian as applied to Harrington, who apparently had no idea that his ball moved. He literally did nothing wrong, except failing (along with everyone else in his group and actually at the course) to notice that his ball moved. If someone on site had noticed, they would have told Harrington, he would have taken his penalty, and life would have gone on. This is a situation that could not have existed, at least among people behaving in a reasonable manner, but for TV coverage, and now that it's apparently becoming common practice for viewers to call in infractions I think the rule has to be changed to reflect that.
-
In a Rules context this one seems right on the money (the correct ruling). I assume it was on tape and reviewable by the tournament Rules Committee (to determine that he really did move his ball and failed to replace it).
Harrington sure didn't seem to have a problem with the outcome. If there was any question at all in Harrington's mind that the ball moved he should've just remarked it, lifted and replaced it again, even if he felt it was to the same place. That, at least, would've removed all question of a violation of Rule 20-3, and then what followed after that fact.
If players really want to protect themselves from potential penalities like this they just have to understand all the ramifications involved with situations like this and how the Rules of Golf really do provide for these situations but you do have to really understand the Rules and these kinds of situational ramifications.
I seem to remember another situation like this with Harrington where there seemed to be some question that his ball may've moved slightly on the green due to really high wind. I think I remember that Harrington just stepped away after he had addressed the ball and watched it and then stepped back and addressed it again. What he should've done after he stepped away was mark his ball again, lift it and then replace it again and at least that would have gotten him off the hook if his ball actually had moved subsequently. For some reason he didn't seem to be aware of that in a Rules context or else he just forgot to avail himself of that particular potential penalty protection.
-
Golf narcs on the rise. Disturbing, at best.
-
I hope they strip him of his appearance money.
-
I think it's horribly draconian as applied to Harrington, who apparently had no idea that his ball moved.
Pure speculation,but I'd bet he did know it.
There is no more meticulous (anal retentive) group of people--especially with regard to how they line up a putt.They set the ball down exactly the same way every time.
Again,pure speculation,but when those guys look down,they know when a dimple is in the wrong place.
-
That's the first thing that popped into my mind JME, unless Harrington just puts the ball down totally random (as Shivas would like us all to do...) there is no way not to recognize a difference.
Isn't Harrington a leading cheater-line pratctitioner?
-
Canned response from rules worshipers:
1) The rules of golf are a great thing.
2) Those who criticize the rules of golf dont understand the rules of golf.
3) Correct rulings, above anything else, are the purpose and goal of the game of golf.
Reasonable person response:
His card was accurate to the best of his knowledge at the time he signed it. If the tour is going to allow some rules reject to call in and affect a player's score then they should re-open the card, assess the penalty and have the player re-sign the card.
-
Reasonable person response:
His card was accurate to the best of his knowledge at the time he signed it. If the tour is going to allow some rules reject to call in and affect a player's score then they should re-open the card, assess the penalty and have the player re-sign the card.
Yeah, there's no downside to this...
-
That's the first thing that popped into my mind JME, unless Harrington just puts the ball down totally random (as Shivas would like us all to do...) there is no way not to recognize a difference.
Isn't Harrington a leading cheater-line pratctitioner?
When you find a Tour Pro who does anything randomly,let me know.
-
Reasonable person response:
His card was accurate to the best of his knowledge at the time he signed it. If the tour is going to allow some rules reject to call in and affect a player's score then they should re-open the card, assess the penalty and have the player re-sign the card.
Yeah, there's no downside to this...
A well articulated response laying out some well reasoned and persuasive counterpoints. :) ;)
-
Reasonable person response:
His card was accurate to the best of his knowledge at the time he signed it. If the tour is going to allow some rules reject to call in and affect a player's score then they should re-open the card, assess the penalty and have the player re-sign the card.
I promise I'm trying not to be a prick,I just can't think of another way to phrase this question.
Have you ever played or officiated tournament golf?
I ask because there seems to be a pretty good split of opinion (on this DG and elsewhere).I always wonder whether those who argue for rules change have ever really been in a "rules" situation.
Again,I'm just curious but I understand that my question seems snarky.
-
Pure speculation,but I'd bet he did know it.
If he knew it ... why wouldn't he have remedied it, then and there?
As far as I can see, there's absolutely no basis for suspecting that he knew the ball had moved -- and any such speculation is quite impure.
Am I wrong?
-
Pure speculation,but I'd bet he did know it.
If he knew it ... why wouldn't he have remedied it, then and there?
As far as I can see, there's absolutely no basis for suspecting that he knew the ball had moved -- and any such speculation is quite impure.
Am I wrong?
My speculation was just based on my personal experience being around some of those guys.I have never once seen a Tour Pro look down at a putt without knowing EXACTLY how his ball was positioned--because they position it the same way each and every time.
-
Dan King for Rules official.
"Don't touch the ball until it is in the hole!"
-
My speculation was just based on my personal experience being around some of those guys.I have never once seen a Tour Pro look down at a putt without knowing EXACTLY how his ball was positioned--because they position it the same way each and every time.
"I have never once seen a Tour Pro look down at a putt without knowing EXACTLY how his ball was positioned."
That almost defies analysis -- but I'll settle for simply this:
How would you know that you'd seen a Tour Pro look down at a putt without knowing EXACTLY how his ball was positioned?
And this: I know this is a mere discussion group -- but you're suggesting that Padraig Harrington broke the Rules of Golf purposely, when he had absolutely nothing to gain in doing so.
And even though this is a mere discussion group: 'tain't fittin'.
-
My speculation was just based on my personal experience being around some of those guys.I have never once seen a Tour Pro look down at a putt without knowing EXACTLY how his ball was positioned--because they position it the same way each and every time.
"I have never once seen a Tour Pro look down at a putt without knowing EXACTLY how his ball was positioned."
That almost defies analysis -- but I'll settle for simply this:
How would you know that you'd seen a Tour Pro look down at a putt without knowing EXACTLY how his ball was positioned?
And this: I know this is a mere discussion group -- but you're suggesting that Padraig Harrington broke the Rules of Golf purposely, when he had absolutely nothing to gain in doing so.
And even though this is a mere discussion group: 'tain't fittin'.
Assuming he noticed,he did have something to gain.He'd already picked up his marker.At that point,he can either call the penalty on himself or just ignore it and hope nobody else noticed.
Just curious,what do you think they're doing when they spend so much time behind their ball before picking up their marker?
-
Has anyone seen the video in question? It's hard for me to imagine that he didn't know the ball moved, if the officials were confident concluding it did move. Harrington did admit to touching the ball, he said he didn't think it moved.
Kind of reminds me of an incident DLIII relays in Every Shot.... He mentions that he once called a penalty on himself because he wasn't certain if he correctly replaced his ball when someone else asked him to move it out of his putting line. Not that he DIDN'T replace it, just that he couldn't remember one way or the other. Since he was in doubt, he called the penalty on himself and didn't play the weekend.
It also reminds me of last year at HH, where Brian Davis (I think, someone correct me if I have the wrong player), called a penalty on himself in the playoff. Others have suggested that no one would have seen it. Yet he called it.
Yep, by all means, let's make it easier for folks to do the wrong thing... That will certainly help us retain the honor in golf.
-
No one cheats like a has been. I know a bunch of cheaters and to a man they are people in desperate need of approval. If anyone has a reason to cheat in this point of their career it would be Harrington.
-
No one cheats like a has been. I know a bunch of cheaters and to a man they are people in desperate need of approval. If anyone has a reason to cheat in this point of their career it would be Harrington.
Except that he was in the middle of shooting 65. A ludicrous post but at least less offensive than your post about tipping. Old habits die hard.
-
The rules official quoted in the story said that Harrington did not know that the ball moved. Now, maybe the rules official made that up, or maybe Harrington lied to the rules official. But I think it is only fair to give someone who, by all accounts, is one of the real gentlemen of the game the benefit of the doubt here.
A common attitude seems to be that, because the threat of DQ encourages players to do the right thing by calling penalties on themselves when they know they may have broken the rules. I agree completely that is a benefit, but that can't be the only goal of the rules here. Fairness has to play a part too, especially when it's entirely possible to have a situation where a player does not realize he has taken an action that might violate a rule (whether or not you think that's what happened here).
Would anyone defend a fellow competitor who, after seeing Harrington's ball move, didn't say anything until after Harrington signed his scorecard so that he would get DQ'ed instead of just penalized? After all, having fellow competitors do that would encourage players to do the right thing by calling the penalty on themselves.
-
My speculation was just based on my personal experience being around some of those guys.I have never once seen a Tour Pro look down at a putt without knowing EXACTLY how his ball was positioned--because they position it the same way each and every time.
"I have never once seen a Tour Pro look down at a putt without knowing EXACTLY how his ball was positioned."
That almost defies analysis -- but I'll settle for simply this:
How would you know that you'd seen a Tour Pro look down at a putt without knowing EXACTLY how his ball was positioned?
And this: I know this is a mere discussion group -- but you're suggesting that Padraig Harrington broke the Rules of Golf purposely, when he had absolutely nothing to gain in doing so.
And even though this is a mere discussion group: 'tain't fittin'.
Assuming he noticed,he did have something to gain.He'd already picked up his marker.At that point,he can either call the penalty on himself or just ignore it and hope nobody else noticed.
Just curious,what do you think they're doing when they spend so much time behind their ball before picking up their marker?
From europeantour.com:
Andy McFee, European Tour Senior Referee, explained the ruling in a statement which said: “Harrington was disqualified for a breach of Rule 6-6d for signing for the wrong score on hole seven during the first round of the Abu Dhabi HSBC Golf Championship.
“On the seventh green, Padraig replaced his ball and as he began to remove his marker, his finger was seen on TV to brush the ball, causing it to move. The movement of the ball during the specific act of replacing it is covered by Rule 20-3a and there is no penalty to this movement, but the ball must be replaced.
“Because the ball was not replaced, there is a breach of Rule 20-3a, the penalty for which is two strokes. As this penalty was not included in the score for hole seven, Padraig was disqualified for a breach of Rule 6-6d, signing for the wrong score on hole seven.”
Harrington said: "I was aware I hit the ball picking up my coin. I looked down at the time and was pretty sure it had just oscillated and had not moved, so I continued on.
"In slow motion it's pretty clear the ball has moved three dimples forward and it's come back maybe a dimple and a half.
"At the end of the day that's good enough, but I wouldn't have done anything differently yesterday - there was nothing I could do about it at that moment in time.
"If I'd called a referee over it would have been pointless because if he'd asked me where my ball was I'd have said it was there. As far as I was concerned it didn't move."
He added: “I felt I knew the rule at the time. I applied the rule as best I could in the situation but looking at the video today, it's pretty clear that it, you know, it's a hundred per cent looks like the ball has moved forward and not far enough back, and that's the issue at heart.
“I do believe that the rule is correct in terms of we have to be very precise about how we mark our golf balls and position the golf ball is in, and I do agree, I do fully agree, even though it's only a dimple and a half, in the end of the day, you know, somebody down the road could use five dimples as being okay and the next guy would use an inch as being okay.
“So I think it's fair enough that the penalty is there on the face of it.”
-
No one cheats like a has been. I know a bunch of cheaters and to a man they are people in desperate need of approval. If anyone has a reason to cheat in this point of their career it would be Harrington.
Except that he was in the middle of shooting 65. A ludicrous post but at least less offensive than your post about tipping. Old habits die hard.
So did this happen on the 18th hole? Maybe his cheater guilt rallied him like the people who say adultery is good for your marriage.
What is offensive about tipping both poor and excellent service equally well? It must be the union contractor in me.
-
1. Golf is a game policed by it's participants. if the player stated he did not see the ball move, this is his belief. if he saw it move, he would have taken the appropriate action.
2. The "call in the infraction" penalty must be amended. Rules broekn observed on the course should carry the penalites currently in effect per the Rules of the game. Rules "violations" called in by viewers should be a 2 stoke penalty in medal play and loss of hole in match play with no DQ.
How many of us disagree with video of infractions called or not called in sporting events? Offsides and penalites called in the box in football are notoriously subjective and inaccurate.
-
JMEvensky said - He'd already picked up his marker.At that point,he can either call the penalty on himself or just ignore it and hope nobody else noticed.
JM - Actually that's incorrect. His ball moved as he removed his marker. R20-3a allows him to replace the ball without penalty.
Andrew
-
No one cheats like a has been.
Gotta disagree here too John. For every has been cheater, there's a dozen or more never-were-but-wannabe cheaters.
My point is that even the wanna-be had glory once in his life that he is trying to recapture. Poor ole Harrington was wrongly chosen for the Ryder Cup team on the world stage. If you put the weight of the world on your shoulders its hard to drown out the Devil.
-
http://www.europeantour.com/videoaudio/video/videoid=133226.html
Here's the video. I've watched it ten times and in 'normal' time it looks like the ball rocked back to it's original position. In slo'mo it looks like it remained a fraction forward of its place.
I'd say that it was perfectly logical for him to believe he'd done nothing wrong, and that the ball had come back to its original position.
-
Another version from TGC in slow motion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9Bh-ZVAz48
Close call, but it did move; I can see how Harrington could have thought otherwise.
-
Dan Kelly,I really don't want to get into whether Diogenes would stop at Harrington's house.
Whether his peers believe him or not is their business.It doesn't really matter what I think.
-
But JME you were wrong. Harrington could have replaced the ball withour penalty. He had nothing to gain by not calling that it had moved and replacing it.
-
It doesn't really matter what I think.
I respectfully disagree.
I think it matters what each of us thinks, and what each of us alleges.
-
Suppose he had called an official over and told him what he believed happened. Would he then have been absolved?
Or similarly, what if he had mentioned it while reviewing his scorecard?
-
It doesn't really matter what I think.
I respectfully disagree.
I think it matters what each of us thinks, and what each of us alleges.
That's why I specifically said that I was purely speculating--not making an allegation.
-
George,
I believe the official being called would have absolved the "crime".
-
I asy the rules committee botched it. Whether the ball moved is a question of fact. The committee could have decided that the ball did not move, and there dcision could not be questioned.
-
He didn't call an official over, the bad 'call' was his.
-
No let me see if I understand this correctly. If Harrington called over a rules official and told him: "I might have touched my ball as I lifted the marker but I don't believe that it moved," then he would have been okay and no penalty would have been imposed even after the video was viewed after he signed his scorecard. So the logic in this is what?
-
It doesn't really matter what I think.
I respectfully disagree.
I think it matters what each of us thinks, and what each of us alleges.
That's why I specifically said that I was purely speculating--not making an allegation.
I amend my remarks.
I think it matters what each of us thinks, and what each of us "speculates" in public.
-
"The rules official quoted in the story said that Harrington did not know that the ball moved. Now, maybe the rules official made that up, or maybe Harrington lied to the rules official. But I think it is only fair to give someone who, by all accounts, is one of the real gentlemen of the game the benefit of the doubt here."
Jay Cox:
I'm very glad you mentioned that and mentioned it that way. Since you did I think it offers the perfect opportunity to explain both how the Rules of Golf really do work and are supposed to work.
You see, even if Harrington did not know his ball moved or was not even aware of it that in and of itself does not prevent him from being penalized as he was.
I realize that that probably does sound virtually insane and perhaps massively unfair or inequitable to various players in various situations but that is essentially the way the Rules of Golf are supposed to work and were originally designed to work. Intention of the player essentially has nothing to do with it, at least not in the classic, purist or perhaps conservative approach and interpretation of the Rules of Golf and their principles, and yes, SPIRIT.
The only thing that matters and is determinant is the FACT of whether or not something happened, period. In Harrington's case that sole determinant and FACT is whether the ball moved or not and if it did then the FACT that he did not replace it as he must do with a ball at rest that has been moved by a player. And this is still the case even if Harrington had zero idea or suspicion that his ball might have been moved by him.
I realize that last part is completely misunderstood by most golfers and even with some who do understand the Rules of Golf massively disagreed with. But that is the way the Rules of Golf work and were designed to work. THAT is the way they are supposed to work! The only determinant is did the ball move or didn't it and obviously in this day and age it is more possible than it ever has been before for the ultimate authority in any tournamant rules situation----the Tournament Rules Committee----to determine it; via video tape and such.
If one really thinks about it there is a beautiful reason the Rules of Golf are this way and are supposed to be this way. If it were otherwise it would bring in ever argument under the sun such as what is or was in a player's mind when something happens---something like this.
And so in a massive application of eternal EQUITY the Rules of Golf just do away with considerations like that and go straight to the FACT of whether something happened or whether it did not (like a ball moved by a player and not replaced) whether he was aware of all of it, any of it, or none of it!!
I realize our inherent sense of things like individual situational unfairnesses of one kind or another almost always enters into these things but the true beauty of the real spirit and principles of the Rules of Golf, and certainly traditonally and classically, is that the Rules of Golf do not EVEN GO THERE----they were not designed to go there and they are not supposed to go there!!! ;)
Thankfully, Harrington, even with his seemingly frequent lapses in situational incidences of this kind truly understands this and I'm quite sure THAT is why he said he is fine with what happened to him and seemingly endorses it. I just wish that more golfers, including some on here, could see that part as he apparently does, as well as why the Rules of Golf are supposed to be that way.
-
I seem to remember another situation like this with Harrington where there seemed to be some question that his ball may've moved slightly on the green due to really high wind. I think I remember that Harrington just stepped away after he had addressed the ball and watched it and then stepped back and addressed it again. What he should've done after he stepped away was mark his ball again, lift it and then replace it again and at least that would have gotten him off the hook if his ball actually had moved subsequently. For some reason he didn't seem to be aware of that in a Rules context or else he just forgot to avail himself of that particular potential penalty protection.
That occurred 2 or 3 years ago on the 15th green at the Masters. A very windy day. The rules official on the hole (sadly, he died last year) had once been the pro at Athens CC and was an old friend. I ran into him at a reception later that night and we talked about it for an hour or so. I was dubious of the ruling initially, but he convinced me (after only two drinks) that the ruling was correct, as TEP notes above. He also mentioned that Harrington did not seem to know the rule and was upset with him when the penalty was assessed.
This situation is more interesting because Harrington might not have known he bumped the ball. Assuming PH had no knowledge of an infraction, the penalty might appear to be unfair. But should the rules attempt to fit each penalty to the crime? To what extent should apparently inequitable outcomes be remedied by a series of codiciles to the rules? The complications would spin into low earth orbit.
The rules are complicated enough. To introduce 'knowledge' as a condition to a penalty here is to ask for a mess in interpreting and enforcing the rule. Sometimes the rules aren't fair. But that seems to me better than the alternative in this case.
Bob
-
Jerry,
If he called the referee over the officials could have immediately gone 'under the hood' and determined if the ball had moved.
This is a non-issue pre TV, and without any contrary information the player's word would have been good enough.
-
Jerry,
If he called the referee over the officials could have immediately gone 'under the hood' and determined if the ball had moved.
This is a non-issue pre TV, and without any contrary information the player's word would have been good enough.
Would Harrington have thrown a red flag on the green?
-
JME,
I had thought of adding that, but left the door open instead.(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
-
JME,
I had thought of adding that, but left the door open instead.(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
Maybe the best way to resolve all this is to give a red flag and a cell phone to each walking official.The Tour could publish the phone number so people watching on TV could call in.Each time the cell phone rings,the official throws his flag and they go "under the hood".
What could possibly go wrong?
-
Don't forget that sometimes TV helps pro golfers e.g. by pinpointing where a ball went into a bush. So there really shouldn't be too much criticism when it doesn't help.
-
where does this all stop?
I didn't see that mushroom head on the splash center column.. sorry, a camera at 33 microseconds frame timing saw it... YOU'RE DQ'd HUMAN!
(http://archive.poyi.org/archive/fullsize/84_c5e045f07b.jpg)
-
HOW does one even call in a rules violation on TV?
Do you call TGC or CBS and what?, ask to be transferred to the truck?
When a now major winner dug a trench behind his ball at Harbor Town several years ago, I called the tournament office the next day and said what had happened was wrong IMO, the secretary was not impressed with my complaint. I got nowhere. He still won the event.
Since there seems to be no statute of limitations on these things (after the card is signed or next day) , can we go back and look at past events?
-
HOW does one even call in a rules violation on TV?
Do you call TGC or CBS and what?, ask to be transferred to the truck?
When a now major winner dug a trench behind his ball at Harbor Town several years ago, I called the tournament office the next day and said what had happened was wrong IMO, the secretary was not impressed with my complaint. I got nowhere. He still won the event.
Since there seems to be no statute of limitations on these things (after the card is signed or next day) , can we go back and look at past events?
Bruce
Rule 34-1b
Claims and penalties
In stroke play, a penalty must not be rescinded, modified or imposed after the competition was closed. A competition is closed when the result has been officially announced.
There is a limit as to when penalties can be imposed. It's after the competition has closed. In this instance it's when the offical result is posted on the European Tour notice board at the event after the final round.
-
JME,
Not bad idea, but I only like to watch golf in prime time when they're playing in Hawaii. (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/wink.gif)
-
I'm curious if this sort of thing happens alot at state/local/regional golf events? Maybe not to the extent of someone calling in a violation but someone other than a member of the Tournament Staff notifying the Rules Committee of an infraction.
-
Padraig, Thanks. I accept that. In my example the event occured during the last round. So, a viewer can't call in if the trophy has been awarded?
Does PH get dq'd if the current event happened on day 4 vs day 2 of the event?
-
Padraig, Thanks. I accept that. In my example the event occured during the last round. So, a viewer can't call in if the trophy has been awarded?
Does PH get dq'd if the current event happened on day 4 vs day 2 of the event?
Bruce if the trophy is awarded, the viewer's call is too late.
He could still get DQ'ed on day 4 but again it would have to after he signed his card and before the result was announced.
-
Guys:
I realize this whole idea of allowing spectators or even television viewers into the decision making process of the "Committee" may seem strange or unfair to some but that's the way it's been for quite some time and obviously it gets more prevalent and complex with technology. JVB may know better than me when this ramification first came into the Rules of Golf (accepting spectator knowledge or testimony) but it's been in The Rules of Golf as long as I've been familiar with them. Below is how it is addressed and explained in the Rules (in the Decisions on the Rules of Golf, which are all considered to be part of golf's 34 Rules). Ironically or coincidentally, the following Decision which addresses this issue in detail is the very last decision in the Decisions book (of the actual 34 Rules);
Here it is----Decision 34-3/9:
DEC. 34-3/9 Resolution of Questions of Fact; Referee and Committee Responsibility
Resolving questions of fact is among the most difficult actions required of a referee, an individual Committee member or the Committee as a whole. For example, these situations include a broad array of incidents such as determining whether a player caused a ball to move (Decisions 18/10, 18-2a/30 and 18-2a/30.5), whether a player played from outside the teeing ground (Decision 34-3/4), whether a stroke was made (Decision 14/1.5), the hole at which a wrong ball was played (Decision 15-1/3) and the state of a match (Decision 34-3/5).
In all situations involving questions of fact, resolution of the doubt must be made in light of all the relevant circumstances and evaluation of the weight of the evidence, including the balance of probabilities where applicable (Decision 15-1/3). When the Committee is unable to determine the facts to its satisfaction, it must resolve the matter in the fairest way (Decision 34-3/5).
Testimony of the players involved is important and must be given due consideration. In some situations where the facts are not decisive, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the player (Decisions 15-1/2 and 19-1/4.1); in others, the doubt should be resolved against the player (Decision 13-4/35.5 and 21/3). There is no hard-and-fast rule for evaluating the testimony of the players or for assigning the weight to be given to such testimony and each situation must be treated on its own merits. The proper action depends on the circumstances in each case and must be left to the judgment of the referee, Committee member or the Committee as a whole.
Testimony of those who are not a part of the competition, including spectators, must be accepted and evaluated (Decision 27/12). It is also appropriate to use television footage and the like to assist in resolving doubt.
It is important that any questions of fact be resolved in a timely manner such that the competition may proceed in an orderly way. Thus, the referee in match play or Committee member in stroke play may be limited to evaluating the evidence available to him in a timely manner. Any such ruling is always subject to further review by the referee, Committee member or Committee as a whole as additional evidence becomes available.
If a judgment is made by a referee or Committee member, the player is entitled to proceed on the basis of that ruling whether it is an interpretation of the Rules of Golf (Decision 34-3/1.5) or a resolution of a question of fact (Decision 34-3/7). In situations arising in both circumstances, if the ruling is found to be incorrect, the Committee may have the authority to make a correction (Decisions 34-3/1 and 34-3/7). However, in all circumstances, including both match play and stroke play, the referee or Committee is limited in its ability to make corrections by the guidance contained in Decisions 34-2/5, 34-2/6,
34-2/7, 34-3/3 and 34-3/3.3.
-
At what point will the players begin to put enough pressure on the tour's management to do away with taking call in/emails? I'm guessing that is happening now and will get ratcheted up as more and more DQ's happen to the point where it will get changed. The tipping point will be when, not if, a player gets a major taken away from him after the wife and kids have hugged and kissed him on the 18th green or the player has bombed a 50 footer and the crowd went wild.. Ask anyone about the Dustin Johnson situation last year and everyone will say "thank god he didn't make that putt! (I know, a little different situation but you get the point)
The Tours already have major image and PR issues right now with a No.1 who has never won a major and who is not playing The Players because of a dumb rule, plus the fact that there seems to be a turf war brewing between the Tours. Couple this with the economics of events not getting sponsorships (Harbour Town) AND a TV contract renewal in the works. All it will take is for one high level TV exec to say "research shows that today's xyz demographic views golf as out of touch and the rules are a joke, look at the call in DQ's as an example. So, we're only going to pay you "X" tens of millions less because that's all we think golf is worth." Remember, TV golf is driven by demographics and viewership buying power, not love of the game, it's rules and traditions. It's who's watching, what can we sell to them and how.
The rule will get changed then....
Keeping in mind of course, that each tour is "using" the Rules of Golf as they see fit and regularly change/amend them before the season and during individual weekly events with "local rules" anyway.
So, the PGA or Euro Tours could make a policy change and say "we aren't answering phone call or taking emails about rules violations". This wouldn't change the Rules of Golf, only the rules of competition for the Tour(s).
Another example why there is golf and there is Professional Tournament Golf...be careful if you confuse the two too much.
-
I'm curious if this sort of thing happens alot at state/local/regional golf events? Maybe not to the extent of someone calling in a violation but someone other than a member of the Tournament Staff notifying the Rules Committee of an infraction.
Yes.Every parent following their child in junior tournaments is certain that the other kid broke the rules.They may not know exactly which rule or how it was broken,but they're certain anyway.
-
Is there a difference in perspective if you change your view from the specific act of a golfer in a tournament to all golfers in all tournaments? While it has been financially hurtful to Villegas and Harrington in the last two instances, they still both respect the game.
Eventually, over a career it will tend to even out.
Any time you intend to lift and replace a ball you have the risk of incurring a penalty two times. At the very least your caddy should be nearby to stop any glitch.
-
Brian
"Keeping in mind of course, that each tour is "using" the Rules of Golf as they see fit and regularly change/amend them before the season and during individual weekly events with "local rules" anyway."
Rule 33-8b
A Rule of Golf must not be waived by a local rule.
The Tours play by the rules of golf.
-
Bruce if the trophy is awarded, the viewer's call is too late.
Didn't Hale Irwin try to return a winner's check after he realized he'd unwittingly broken some local rule but was told the tournament was over?
-
Brian
"Keeping in mind of course, that each tour is "using" the Rules of Golf as they see fit and regularly change/amend them before the season and during individual weekly events with "local rules" anyway."
Rule 33-8b
A Rule of Golf must not be waived by a local rule.
The Tours play by the rules of golf.
Ok, I'm not going to get into that discussion which will take the thread WAY off course. Just note my other points, the phone will stop being answered some day.
-
Perhaps the ball didn't move but the camera angle makes it look like it did. Maybe the ball moved but 10 humans standing over the ball couldn't tell, only a slow motion replay could show the ball moved 1/100 of an inch. Maybe the ball rocked forward and then rocked back into position. If Harrington is such a cheater line guy, don't you think he'd know if his cheater line was off?
-
What's simpler from a Rules perspective:
- Making decisions from any and all available evidence?
or
- Making arbitrary decisions as to what constitutes evidence?
The test of anyone's principles is making a decision based on the facts, not what they want to happen. I don't think anyone wants to see a player DQ'd, though admittedly I can see how others would take that from these incidents (though I don't agree with that read).
-
It barely moved off its spot... wat a 1/64th of a revolution if at all, but rules are rules.... Harsh tho, perhaps there needs to be the equity rule that could sort these issues. He took it well didn't he.
-
Mac posted this on the Nicklaus thread but it is more appropriate here:
http://www.golfweek.com/news/2011/jan/21/harrington-dq-highlights-golfs-rules-flaw/
The best is when the European Tour Senior Rules Official who disqualified Harrington disagrees with the outcome. My guess is that he doesn't really understand the rules of golf and if he did, he wouldn't have a problem.
-
Mac posted this on the Nicklaus thread but it is more appropriate here:
http://www.golfweek.com/news/2011/jan/21/harrington-dq-highlights-golfs-rules-flaw/
The best is when the European Tour Senior Rules Official who disqualified Harrington disagrees with the outcome. My guess is that he doesn't really understand the rules of golf and if he did, he wouldn't have a problem.
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
My guess is that the increasing frequency of call ins has the ruling bodies in a lather. Continuing on the present course will only make the sport look silly, and that can have a negative effect on viewers. I would think the whole issue could be solved by a smartly worded local rule, stating that call in violations that are reported after the violator signs his or her card do not necessarily result in disqualification if the breach is considered minor.
-
"The best is when the European Tour Senior Rules Official who disqualified Harrington disagrees with the outcome. My guess is that he doesn't really understand the rules of golf and if he did, he wouldn't have a problem."
JC:
Not necessarily. Under the Rules of Golf (Rule 34-3---Committee's Decision) there is a procedure for this. I haven't read all the details of how this whole thing played out but it is certainly possible that when the "Tournament Committee" reviewed this situation, including the video tape, that the vote of the committee was that the ball moved. The actual official who technically informed Harrington of his DQ may've voted that he didn't think the ball moved but if a majority of the "Tournament Committee" voted that it did move then that would become the Committee Decision and the decision made. This is all part of Rules procedure and it is all found within the USGA/R&A Rule Book and the Decision Book which is part of the over-all official R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.
I realize that very few golfers ever read the section of the Rules Book that essentially deals with "The Committee" (Rules 33 and 34 and Appendix I) because it rarely concerns them unless they also do Rules officiating or get involved in some odd situation. But Rules officials are sure familiar with it because essentially that's why they are out there officiating. With any golf tournament there are always some odd things that come up and we are often even given boilerplate sheets to fill out after competitions to record these things so they can be reviewed later for educational and efficiency purposes.
-
Tom,
His issue, per the article, was that a 2 stroke penalty assessed after a player has turned in his card (which was correct at the time he signed it), results in a disqualification and NOT a 2 stroke penalty.
-
Another sad day for the golf rules! In Harrington's case, did the ball change position? did he gain from it if the ball did change position?
Nicklaus is right on about need for simpler fairer rules interuptations.
-
In the same way I cannot phone the premier league to point out an infringement I thought the ref missed, why should the viewer have a say at a golf event. The rules do not need changed. All we need to say is that TV video evidence cannot be used to make a ruling after a round.
Maybe rules need to be made for pro golf like how long after a round, if at all, tv replays can be used to make a decision. Should we go back through the whole history of golf tv footage to and disqualify all those who are seen making an error? Of course not but why are there no guidelines on when TV can be used?
-
JC:
At first I couldn't open that link but I just did. Andrew McFee, the referee or Rules official only said that philosophically he would rather see a two stroke penalty applied after the fact in situations like this. That is fine, and if he happens to be a member of the Joint R&A/USGA Rules Committee that in all cases make the decisions to change the Rules of Golf (every fourth year) then he could propose and vote for that if the Joint R&A/USGA Committee decided to put it to a vote and the voted to change the Rules of Golf to that effect.
But McFee did not say it should've been done at Abu Dhabai with Harrington because if it was then that Tournament Committee would have been waiving an existing Rule of Golf and Rule 33-1 makes it patently clear that a Committee does not have the power to waive a Rule of Golf!
By the way, the Joint R&A/USGA Rules Committee is made up of some members of the individual R&A and USGA Rules Committees and they generally meet 2-3 times a year to go over prospective Rules of Golf changes which come out every fourth year. They generally meet at the US Open, British Open and Masters.
Here's a bonus point trivia question for you. Who was the first man to serve on both the individual USGA and R&A Rules of Golf Committees?
-
In viewing the video, I noticed he bumped it in the same way both in marking it and unmarking it.
Maybe his fingers need to go on a diet.
-
Ralph,
You should take another look, it's only one mark of the ball.
-
If we'd just bring back the stymie, this would never happen.
-
Ralph,
You should take another look, it's only one mark of the ball.
I am with you now. Didn't realize they showed it three times in that u-tube clip. Guess I assumed that first one was him marking it.
thanks for the correct.
-
Ralph,
That You Tube video can be confusing, the one from the European Tour is not.
-
In the same way I cannot phone the premier league to point out an infringement I thought the ref missed, why should the viewer have a say at a golf event. The rules do not need changed. All we need to say is that TV video evidence cannot be used to make a ruling after a round
It wouldn't matter what the rules said, if a player was found to have broken a rule by a TV viewer, he would be morally obliged to withdraw from the tournament when alerted to his error. So changing the rule would not change anything.
-
The Rules of Golf are written and structured so that they apply to all levels of the game played competitively. The perception that professionals play under an amended set of Rules is incorrect. Local Rules for tournaments are put in place to effectively allow play to take place, and they too are written within the Rules framework - officials know what can and can't be written as a local rule (I am not talking about ignorant club committees here, but Rules officials who know their way around the Rules). There seems to be a misconception here by some that Local Rules are outside the Rules framework to allow the professionals to play their game. Not so.
PGA tours in all countries also have "permanent" local Rules known as the Hardcard. Nothing surprising on the Hardcard, but the professionals who play week in and week out will be able to expect that like situations on different courses will be treated the same, and the pros do not have to wonder "what can I do with this type of fence", or "what does this white line on the ground mean" etc.
I am not against the idea of "re-opening" a player's card if tv evidence shows a breach after the card has been signed and returned. This will require amendment to Rule 6-6d or somewhere within R34-1b, unless a "hardcard" local rule can be agreed upon by the tour. But that would move away from the premise that the Rules as written are the same for everyone. However, I do hope that it happens so that such situations as Harrington and Villegas can be avoided in the future.
Regards from Norway
Andrew
-
When you find a Tour Pro who does anything randomly,let me know.
Tiger for starters.
Sorry but I could not resist.
On topic for the thread...I'm sick of people calling in rules violations. It's stupid and makes golf look stupid. The only people that should be able to call violations are the players, caddies, and officials.
-
I propose a new section to Rule 34.
"The committee shall take information only from people physically present" (poorly worded, but you get the idea)
------------------
And golf wonders why people quite playing and watching. What a joke this was.
-
In the same way I cannot phone the premier league to point out an infringement I thought the ref missed, why should the viewer have a say at a golf event. The rules do not need changed. All we need to say is that TV video evidence cannot be used to make a ruling after a round
It wouldn't matter what the rules said, if a player was found to have broken a rule by a TV viewer, he would be morally obliged to withdraw from the tournament when alerted to his error. So changing the rule would not change anything.
Surely we an only expect the players to at as honestly as possible within what we can reasonably expect them to observe. For example Harrington's ball moved 3 dimples forward and over 1.5 dimples back. Yes you can see that with HD tv on slow mo back can the player really be expected to observe that in the heat of battle?
-
I propose a new section to Rule 34.
"The committee shall take information only from people physically present" (poorly worded, but you get the idea)
------------------
And such information is received before the card is turned in? Is the next day ok? What counts as "information" worthy of being adjudicated? Should video replays be allowed as evidence, pro or con if eye witness information is received? What counts as 'receiving' the information? Telling the player? Telling a rules official in person? A twitter to the host club? To the PGA offices that might be ignored for days? Should there be an exception if the violation was egregious but took place where it was only clear on TV? What about lesser players who have no galleries?
I'm not saying that there are no answers to these (and lots of other) similar questions. I only mean to suggest that a solution is not easy, obvious or simple. It's possible that the current rule is the most workable rule. If there is reasonably clear evidence a violation occurred, whether the player had knowledge or not, a penalty is assessed. Sometimes that rule leads to outcomes that are not equitable in some abstract sense, but that might be an acceptable price for a relatively straightforward rule.
Bob
-
Andrew Brown:
Your #79 is a very good one, particularly the first paragraph.
I get the feeling that there will be some changes made in the procedures for how these kinds of things (such as the situations with Harrington and Villegas and numerous other ones before it) will be handled in the future. It seems they are already under consideration with the essential "Rules Makers" in golf.
But I think what will be most instructive to see is how these considerations and issues (Rules and Local Rules changes) will play out through the official world-wide structure of the accepted Rules of Golf.
To date and perhaps over the last fifty to sixty years, and particularly after the so-called Rules Unification conferences of the early 1950s between the R&A and USGA, it seems most all golf has operated in a fairly unified structure, certainly including the world wide professional tours.
There is language throughout the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf (Rule Book and Decisions Book and to some extent the R&A/USGA manual known as "How to Conduct a Competition") that addresses all these issues and situational possibilities.
The whole structure of R&A/USGA Local Rules are addressed in Appendix I of the Rules Book. They include Parts A (Local Rules), Part B (Specimen Local Rules) and Part C (Conditions of Competition).
They also reference Rule 33-8a as to what can and cannot be used under the Rules of Golf as far as the "Committee's latitude in applying the various Local Rules in Appendix I. At this time essentially or theoretically any Local Rule can be used provided it does not waive a Rule of Golf (Rule 33-1).
The concept and reality of the "Committee" within the structure and language of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf is actually only a bit more than a century old and it is constantly evolving.
I think this is an issue that the will be taken up by the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee. That is an actual official committee made up of R&A and USGA Rules of Golf Committee members and they are the only people who actually consider and make (vote) the decisions to change the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf. I suspect all the other tournament entities around the world will ultimately look to them to resolve these kinds of issue within the official structure and language of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf for essentially the fundamental reason that all these situations can operate in the same unified way.
Nevertheless, who really does control and have latitude within the framework of the "Committee" concept in golf (Rule 33, 34 and Appendix I within the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf) and particularly with the writing and application of various "Local Rules" I think is still very much an evolving issue and question with the R&A, USGA and other entities of golf.
There are a number of issues, ideas, problems etc, etc that come up and have come up in this basic context (who is the ultimate authority for golf's Rules?) that include ones like the subject of this thread but include others on the horizon like what to do within the "Local Rules" and "Commttee" with something like a "Competition Ball."
-
There is a limit as to what the human eye can see....
People sitting at home watching on TV with Super Slo Mo...Minolta Biz Hub technology can see the hair on a gnats ass move.
I think its absolute bullcrap that they are allowed to phone in their technology aided opinons and have action that happened hours previous be altered.
It surely makes golf look like a ridiculous sport....and is NOT keeping with the "spirit of th game".
-
"What counts as "information" worthy of being adjudicated?"
Bob:
Within the structure and language of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf (The Rules Book and the Decisions Book) that is addressed in Rule 34-3 (Committee's Decision) with the language "In the absence of a referee, any dispute or doubtful point on the Rules must be referred to the COMMITTEE, whose decision is final." (It is also possible given various situations that even with a referee a doubtful point or situation may be referred to the "Committee" as a whole for a final decision and resolution).
You should also refer to Decision 34-3/9 (Resolution of Questions of Fact; Referee and Committee Responsibilty) for a more comprehensive explanation of these kinds of situations, informational and otherwise.
-
Craig,
That is exactly what these rules freaks want. Have you read the posts? The rules ARE the spirit of the game. But for the rules, golf would not exist. The rules have replaced the reason for the rules. The purpose of the rule Harrington violated is to prevent one player from gaining an advantage over another. Did Harrington's ball moving 1/100th of an inch give him an advantage? Or, were the rest of the players given an advantage because Harrington's 65 was no longer on the board?
The game is becoming a public embarrassment. Anyone paying attention to anything other than a rule book has seen people from Brad Klein to Jack Nicklaus speak out against the rules this week. Hell, even the rules official who DQ'd Harrington was against the decision he had to make. I just wish this were Phil or Tiger, then something might actually happen. Then again, the rules with there singular interpretation let Tiger take a free drop from OB at Firestone and let Phil avoid disqualification at Torrey for doing what Villegas did.
-
The game is becoming a public embarrassment. Anyone paying attention to anything other than a rule book has seen people from Brad Klein to Jack Nicklaus speak out against the rules this week. Hell, even the rules official who DQ'd Harrington was against the decision he had to make. I just wish this were Phil or Tiger, then something might actually happen. Then again, the rules with there singular interpretation let Tiger take a free drop from OB at Firestone and let Phil avoid disqualification at Torrey for doing what Villegas did.
Jason...is this when Tiger hit his ball on top of a roof and was subsequently found by the chef (or something like that)? What a joke!! I agree with you and your post 100%.
-
Golf is full of cheaters on every level, you guys just hate being reminded of the times you have done the exact same thing. It is not uncommon for us to waive the ball moving rule on windy days to speed up play and clear our conscience. How many guys need to get caught before you admit at least one of them, like you, is a cheat.
-
I fully admit that I am the worst kind of cheat when it comes to protecting the field by calling penalties on my playing partners. I simply hate snitches even more than golf cheats.
-
In my opinion, if there is not some final and ultimate authority within the context and philosophy of the Rules of Golf, even if it is an idea, that most all golfers will CHOOSE to defer to, there will never again be a true "Spirit" within the game of golf, as some say there once was!
-
John, I freely admit that I violate rules of golf on almost every round I play.
-
Here's a bonus point trivia question for you. Who was the first man to serve on both the individual USGA and R&A Rules of Golf Committees?
Since you went to the trouble to type the question,I'll guess John Morrissett.
-
JME,
I'm pretty sure the answer comes from nearly a century ago and pertains to one the most well known amateur player/architects of the day.
-
JME,
I'm pretty sure the answer comes from nearly a century ago and pertains to one the most well known amateur player/architects of the day.
I was trying for Brownie points.
Is it too late to guess CBM?
-
I'll take a stab as well...CB Macdonald?
JC Jones,
I asked you several days ago and you vanished and now you're carrying the idea of the game dictating the rules a step further so please do me a favor and tell me about the game of golf you and I could play with no rules. Make it any game if you're stuck.
As to the TV viewers calling in, the best and easiest answer is to just not answer the phone. Any idea why that doesn't happen?
-
I swear I had CBM written before seeing those last two posts...
-
JME,
I'm pretty sure the answer comes from nearly a century ago and pertains to one the most well known amateur player/architects of the day.
I was trying for Brownie points.
Is it too late to guess CBM?
From who? (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
-
Jim,
I believe you. (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/wink.gif)
...and there are just too many phones to hang up.
-
I am going to TIVO the Super Bowl...and if there is holding by an offensive lineman on the game winning drive...a violation missed by an offical, but a violation I spotted after repeated viewings of the game in slow motion....I am going to call the NFL and point out this infraction.
Do you think they will change the outcome of the game?
-
Give it a shot Craig.
By the way, what would the NFL's respose to you tell you about the Golf Tours?
-
Jim Sullivan,
I didn't vanish, you didn't like my answer.
You can continue to distract from the purpose of these threads if you'd like but the discussion here is involving the current rules of golf as promulgated by the USGA and the R&A and their merits or lack thereof.
-
You did vanish, we were discussing the playing of any game/sport without rules and your closing salvo was..."so I can't go out in the yard and hit a ball with a stick without using the USGA rule book".
Also, these threads are not discussing the merits of the rules, unless you're really suggesting people think a guy should be allowed to move their ball around on the green or clear debris out of the way of their rolling ball so it doesn't rest against it. These threads are bitchfests about the people that call in to report violations.
Sure, there's some overlap, but there's no arguing that both Harrington and Villegas broke the rules.
Just out of curiosity, is this your idea of enhancing the purpose of these threads..."That is exactly what these rules freaks want. Have you read the posts? The rules ARE the spirit of the game. But for the rules, golf would not exist. The rules have replaced the reason for the rules. The purpose of the rule Harrington violated is to prevent one player from gaining an advantage over another. Did Harrington's ball moving 1/100th of an inch give him an advantage?"?
-
There are some breaches of the rules, like….
Exerting influence on the ball – if a serious breach
Failure to hole out
Playing with non-conforming equipment
Applying foreign material to the ball
More than one caddy
Scoring/score card violations
Slow play, if in effect –third offense
Unauthorized discontinuation/resumption of play
On course practice during event
Playing out of turn to gain advantage
Playing from the wrong tee box
Playing from outside the teeing ground and not correcting mistake before hitting from next tee
Using Artificial Devices, Unusual Equipment and Unusual Use of Equipment
Playing wrong ball/ not correcting mistake before teeing off on next hole
Playing from wrong place/ not correcting mistake - if it’s deemed a serious mistake
Agreeing not to lift a ball that might assist any competitor
….where the penalty is always going to be a DQ during an event, before or after a card is signed. I may have missed a couple, but the result of all other infractions is only a one or two stroke penalty if reported before a card is signed.
It was not possible for the rule makers to foresee the impact of TV on the game. The problem it creates needs to be addressed from a modern perspective, even if the number of instances where it’s had an effect is few and far between.
The whole late-reporting issue should be looked at, no matter where it comes from. That includes TV, on-course spectators, other players, and rules officials themselves. As it stands right now its penalty, DQ, harbors the potential for serious abuse.
-
Jim,
Hence my question of how about just not answering the phone?
I didn't understand your other phone comment until I wrote this...
How is it a net negative to have strangely / extremely passionate viewers that can actually influence the outcome of an event?
-
I'd be curious to know the percentage of callers who are correct as opposed to those just trying to play gotcha.
Has the Tour ever said how many phone calls they get? I'd guess the call volume is going higher.
-
If penalties applied = a consistent ratio of calls made, it certainly seems there are alot more today than ever before...I'm still amazed by the Cink deal in the waste bunker at Hilton Head a few years ago...I actually thought about calling someone, for a blink.
-
One of the curious things is that we are now getting tour players saying that spectator testimony shouldn't be taken with regards to potential rules infractions, how would the same tour players feel if spectators weren't allowed to look for lost balls or give information about where a ball might be lost?
-
I have heard a lot of whining, but no workable solutions to this perceived problem. If you are playing for millions of dollars I have little sympathy for you. Put on your man pants and pay more attention to what you are doing.
-
If penalties applied = a consistent ratio of calls made, it certainly seems there are alot more today than ever before...I'm still amazed by the Cink deal in the waste bunker at Hilton Head a few years ago...I actually thought about calling someone, for a blink.
Jim
The Cink incident is easily explained by the definiton of a loose impediment, stones are loose impediments and they can be moved through the green.
-
My reading of the guys hit by these calls is that they take it really well when it happens. Harrington certainly did and my recollection of Villegas is that he did as well.
Other players might be fearing the day it hits them, so hoping to cease the practice now. It's undeniably clumsy in practice but how can anyone justify ignoring a rule just because a wished for statute of limitations should have been in place?
-
Padraig,
I understood it, but the result was a ball basically on a tee. I probably mistated what I meant by "amazed" because I just don't know how many people called in. To JME's point, it was probably 1,000 and they were actually wrong.
-
I have heard a lot of whining, but no workable solutions to this perceived problem. If you are playing for millions of dollars I have little sympathy for you. Put on your man pants and pay more attention to what you are doing.
All said and done,I think I agree.
The only "solution" is the official in the TV truck.IMO,the players will probably choose this as the least repellant option.
-
My reading of the guys hit by these calls is that they take it really well when it happens. Harrington certainly did and my recollection of Villegas is that he did as well.
Other players might be fearing the day it hits them, so hoping to cease the practice now. It's undeniably clumsy in practice but how can anyone justify ignoring a rule just because a wished for statute of limitations should have been in place?
The cynic in me just sees PR spin.What else could they say?
-
Fair enough, I'm sure they weren't looking for a reason to fly home, so I'll agree...
-
I believe random drug testing works well in curbing drug use in the work place. This method of preventing cheating works the same way. You won't catch them all but the fear of getting caught is worth an ounce of cure.
-
Padraig,
I understood it, but the result was a ball basically on a tee. I probably mistated what I meant by "amazed" because I just don't know how many people called in. To JME's point, it was probably 1,000 and they were actually wrong.
Jim
I'd guess this incident illustrates that a knowledge of the rules can be helpful. It's just strange to find an area on a golf course with thousands of little pebbles that's not a hazard and a golfer could do something like Cink did.
-
"Here's a bonus point trivia question for you. Who was the first man to serve on both the individual USGA and R&A Rules of Golf Committees?"
It was indeed CBM!
(This was reputedly the primary reason Travis became pretty pissed off at CBM which apparently contributed to their falling out or at least CBM's dropped of Travis from the original NGLA design committee).
-
"Here's a bonus point trivia question for you. Who was the first man to serve on both the individual USGA and R&A Rules of Golf Committees?"
It was indeed CBM!
(This was reputedly the primary reason Travis became pretty pissed off at CBM which apparently contributed to their falling out or at least CBM's dropped of Travis from the original NGLA design committee).
Do I have to split the prize with Jim Kennedy?
Sullivan buzzed in too late.Several people have called in to point out his infraction.
-
Can I presume anything from the fact that no one gave me an answer to my question or shall I try it again: Let's say Harrington called over an official and told him that he touched his ball when he picked up his marker and he doesn't believe the ball moved but he's isn't sure - what happens? Say the official makes a ruling that it is inconclusive so no penalty - is Harrington okay? What if he's wrong do they fire the official, but seriously, does that override what the later viewing of the tape shows - if that's the case then the whole concept is, pardon the expression, STUPID. If Harrington was wrong then he's DQ'd but what if the official takes his word then he's not - let's get serious.
-
Jerry,
I answered previously that I'm pretty sure the official being called in, and making a ruling/judgement is the best that can be hoped for and overrides the actual correct ruling as later viewed in slo-mo replay. I say pretty sure because that's all I am on it.
The goal should be to get the correct answer. Short of that, the goal should be to get an answer signed off on by the rules committee based on all available information. The worst answer is to wing it and figure that should be good enough. Harrington winged it.
-
Maybe the caddies job description needs to be expanded to paying attention to the player. WHAT was he doing when this happened that HE didn't see it and tell his player? As much as it moved, I find it amazing Harrington didn't notice. How could he not have felt it when he bumped it? Lets keep the responsability on the player and not place blame on external agencies. I am considering the caddy an element of the player. Can they hire a second caddy just to watch their actions?
How is this GCA and not OT?
-
Maybe the caddies job description needs to be expanded to paying attention to the player. WHAT was he doing when this happened that HE didn't see it and tell his player? As much as it moved, I find it amazing Harrington didn't notice. How could he not have felt it when he bumped it? Lets keep the responsability on the player and not place blame on external agencies. I am considering the caddy an element of the player. Can they hire a second caddy just to watch their actions?
How is this GCA and not OT?
Last year I had to call a two stroke penalty on myself because my caddie was moving sticks in a lateral hazard. He begged me not to because he didn't know the rule. It was only the third hole of the round which gave me a chance to press. No brainer.
-
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2011/1/22/usga-to-re-open-discussions-about-rule-on-scorecard-dqs.html
Looks like they are going to look into it. I wonder why?
-
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2011/1/22/usga-to-re-open-discussions-about-rule-on-scorecard-dqs.html
Looks like they are going to look into it. I wonder why?
Why would they re-open discussions when the downside is so obvious?
-
You did vanish, we were discussing the playing of any game/sport without rules and your closing salvo was..."so I can't go out in the yard and hit a ball with a stick without using the USGA rule book".
Also, these threads are not discussing the merits of the rules, unless you're really suggesting people think a guy should be allowed to move their ball around on the green or clear debris out of the way of their rolling ball so it doesn't rest against it. These threads are bitchfests about the people that call in to report violations.
Sure, there's some overlap, but there's no arguing that both Harrington and Villegas broke the rules.
Just out of curiosity, is this your idea of enhancing the purpose of these threads..."That is exactly what these rules freaks want. Have you read the posts? The rules ARE the spirit of the game. But for the rules, golf would not exist. The rules have replaced the reason for the rules. The purpose of the rule Harrington violated is to prevent one player from gaining an advantage over another. Did Harrington's ball moving 1/100th of an inch give him an advantage?"?
Who said anything about enhancing the purpose?
-
Maybe the caddies job description needs to be expanded to paying attention to the player. WHAT was he doing when this happened that HE didn't see it and tell his player? As much as it moved, I find it amazing Harrington didn't notice. How could he not have felt it when he bumped it? Lets keep the responsability on the player and not place blame on external agencies. I am considering the caddy an element of the player. Can they hire a second caddy just to watch their actions?
How is this GCA and not OT?
Of course it's OT. Does the thread title really need an OT before it? For the record, the ball moved forward about 2 dimples. Harrington saw it move, but thought it oscillated hence why he thought there was no point in bringing the referee over - why did he think it oscillated? Because the move was so miniscule that his ball appeared to be lined up in exactly the same way - we're talking tiny margins here - noones whining here, worst case scenario, people are calling for common sense...
Great point. Should we judge whether it moved based on what a human can see or based on what a konica minolta super zoom slow motion camera can see?
-
Maybe the caddies job description needs to be expanded to paying attention to the player. WHAT was he doing when this happened that HE didn't see it and tell his player? As much as it moved, I find it amazing Harrington didn't notice. How could he not have felt it when he bumped it? Lets keep the responsability on the player and not place blame on external agencies. I am considering the caddy an element of the player. Can they hire a second caddy just to watch their actions?
How is this GCA and not OT?
Of course it's OT. Does the thread title really need an OT before it? For the record, the ball moved forward about 2 dimples. Harrington saw it move, but thought it oscillated hence why he thought there was no point in bringing the referee over - why did he think it oscillated? Because the move was so miniscule that his ball appeared to be lined up in exactly the same way - we're talking tiny margins here - noones whining here, worst case scenario, people are calling for common sense...
I believe the site rules require the OT. So, yes, I am calling a rules infraction.
-
Jim,
I not a big fan of the TV situation in particular because of the obvious inequities of who's being taped, and it's probably the brother in law of the guy who shot 66 to Paddy's 65 that's making the call.
edit: JC,
Tiger isn't alone, Gary Hallberg hit one off the roof of the clubhouse at Indian Wells Country back in '82. He liked the lie up there better than what he'd have gotten in the drop area.
-
JC Jones,you seem to venerate the ODG architects and take issue when others attempt to alter their courses.Yet,you're not an architect--just someone who plays the golf courses socially.You're an amateur architecture-observer with an amateur architecture-observer's opinion.
The same is true of your rules opinions.
The guys who actually write and administer the rules know better than you.They've actually been in the game--not spectating from the cheap seats.
-
JC Jones,you seem to venerate the ODG architects and take issue when others attempt to alter their courses.Yet,you're not an architect--just someone who plays the golf courses socially.You're an amateur architecture-observer with an amateur architecture-observer's opinion.
The same is true of your rules opinions.
The guys who actually write and administer the rules know better than you.They've actually been in the game--not spectating from the cheap seats.
JMEvensky,
You have no idea of what my feelings on ODG architects, modern architects, nor the alteration of golf courses are.
Your personal attack on me is completely non-responsive and irrelevant to the issues discussed here.
The guys who actually write and administer the rules also have a vested interested in the complexity of the rules. It is called job security. Yet nonetheless, the European Tour Senior rules official and the USGA (per Shackelford's link) agree with my position that the rule preventing the re-opening of the scorecard should be re-evaluated.
-
JC Jones,you seem to venerate the ODG architects and take issue when others attempt to alter their courses.Yet,you're not an architect--just someone who plays the golf courses socially.You're an amateur architecture-observer with an amateur architecture-observer's opinion.
The same is true of your rules opinions.
The guys who actually write and administer the rules know better than you.They've actually been in the game--not spectating from the cheap seats.
JMEvensky,
You have no idea of what my feelings on ODG architects, modern architects, nor the alteration of golf courses are.
Your personal attack on me is completely non-responsive and irrelevant to the issues discussed here.
The guys who actually write and administer the rules also have a vested interested in the complexity of the rules. It is called job security. Yet nonetheless, the European Tour Senior rules official and the USGA (per Shackelford's link) agree with my position that the rule preventing the re-opening of the scorecard should be re-evaluated.
JC
There already is a rule preventing reopening of the scorecard, Rule 34-1b. A penalty cannot be added when the competition is closed.
Guys what do you think goes on at the Rules of Golf Committee. All these kind of instances have been discussed many times. There are many downsides to changing the rules, in my opinion it would be a mistake to change this one.
-
Can I presume anything from the fact that no one gave me an answer to my question or shall I try it again: Let's say Harrington called over an official and told him that he touched his ball when he picked up his marker and he doesn't believe the ball moved but he's isn't sure - what happens? Say the official makes a ruling that it is inconclusive so no penalty - is Harrington okay? What if he's wrong do they fire the official, but seriously, does that override what the later viewing of the tape shows - if that's the case then the whole concept is, pardon the expression, STUPID. If Harrington was wrong then he's DQ'd but what if the official takes his word then he's not - let's get serious.
Jerry
A referee's decision is final, Rule 34-2
-
Maybe the caddies job description needs to be expanded to paying attention to the player. WHAT was he doing when this happened that HE didn't see it and tell his player? As much as it moved, I find it amazing Harrington didn't notice. How could he not have felt it when he bumped it? Lets keep the responsability on the player and not place blame on external agencies. I am considering the caddy an element of the player. Can they hire a second caddy just to watch their actions?
How is this GCA and not OT?
Of course it's OT. Does the thread title really need an OT before it? For the record, the ball moved forward about 2 dimples. Harrington saw it move, but thought it oscillated hence why he thought there was no point in bringing the referee over - why did he think it oscillated? Because the move was so miniscule that his ball appeared to be lined up in exactly the same way - we're talking tiny margins here - noones whining here, worst case scenario, people are calling for common sense...
Brian, he played the ball from a wrong position. When is playing the ball from a wrong position ok? If it's ok at any stage, why can't I move my ball a fraction of an inch when it's hanging on the lip of the hole.
-
Can I presume anything from the fact that no one gave me an answer to my question or shall I try it again: Let's say Harrington called over an official and told him that he touched his ball when he picked up his marker and he doesn't believe the ball moved but he's isn't sure - what happens? Say the official makes a ruling that it is inconclusive so no penalty - is Harrington okay? What if he's wrong do they fire the official, but seriously, does that override what the later viewing of the tape shows - if that's the case then the whole concept is, pardon the expression, STUPID. If Harrington was wrong then he's DQ'd but what if the official takes his word then he's not - let's get serious.
It would depend on what the official did. If he asked Harrington if the ball came to rest in a different location and Harrington said no, and then played from where it lay, then Harrington would still incur a penalty.
If the official asked him if any potential movement of the ball was directly attributable to the act of marking or replacing, and Harrington said yes; and then the official wisely told Harrington to lift and replace the ball in its original position, then Harrington would be absolved of any penalty.
-
Can I presume anything from the fact that no one gave me an answer to my question or shall I try it again: Let's say Harrington called over an official and told him that he touched his ball when he picked up his marker and he doesn't believe the ball moved but he's isn't sure - what happens? Say the official makes a ruling that it is inconclusive so no penalty - is Harrington okay? What if he's wrong do they fire the official, but seriously, does that override what the later viewing of the tape shows - if that's the case then the whole concept is, pardon the expression, STUPID. If Harrington was wrong then he's DQ'd but what if the official takes his word then he's not - let's get serious.
Jerry
A referee's decision is final, Rule 34-2
They don't use referees in stroke play.
-
Can I presume anything from the fact that no one gave me an answer to my question or shall I try it again: Let's say Harrington called over an official and told him that he touched his ball when he picked up his marker and he doesn't believe the ball moved but he's isn't sure - what happens? Say the official makes a ruling that it is inconclusive so no penalty - is Harrington okay? What if he's wrong do they fire the official, but seriously, does that override what the later viewing of the tape shows - if that's the case then the whole concept is, pardon the expression, STUPID. If Harrington was wrong then he's DQ'd but what if the official takes his word then he's not - let's get serious.
Jerry
A referee's decision is final, Rule 34-2
They don't use referees in stroke play.
John
A referee is defined in the definitions of the Rules of Golf. What are the Rules Officials on the course? Are they not referees?
-
Ruels officials typically are part of the tournament committee. Referees are a different category. Very few stroke play tournaments, incluidng all PGA Tour events that I have been involved with, appoint referees. While there is nothing in the rules that precludes a referee in stroke play, I have never seen one
-
I watch on youtube the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9Bh-ZVAz48&feature=aso
and I would be ready to challenge the call... if that's possible. ¸
the challenge: Harrington's ball did move, yes... but it moved while his coin was still on the ground, when the coin was up in the air, the ball did not change position.
As far as i'm concerned, the ball should be place as close as possible from the ball, maybe the initial position was too-close and that's why it moved...
My red flag is on the ground... will golf need super slo-mo replay in the future
-
Maybe the caddies job description needs to be expanded to paying attention to the player. WHAT was he doing when this happened that HE didn't see it and tell his player? As much as it moved, I find it amazing Harrington didn't notice. How could he not have felt it when he bumped it? Lets keep the responsability on the player and not place blame on external agencies. I am considering the caddy an element of the player. Can they hire a second caddy just to watch their actions?
How is this GCA and not OT?
Of course it's OT. Does the thread title really need an OT before it? For the record, the ball moved forward about 2 dimples. Harrington saw it move, but thought it oscillated hence why he thought there was no point in bringing the referee over - why did he think it oscillated? Because the move was so miniscule that his ball appeared to be lined up in exactly the same way - we're talking tiny margins here - noones whining here, worst case scenario, people are calling for common sense...
Brian, he played the ball from a wrong position. When is playing the ball from a wrong position ok? If it's ok at any stage, why can't I move my ball a fraction of an inch when it's hanging on the lip of the hole.
Hi Padraig - in fairness, those aren't comparable scenarios as if it was hanging on the lip, the tiny move would have put it in the hole, the ball was 30 feet away! The point here (as I see it anyway) is that the move was so minute that Harrington thought it oscillated - the really sad thing is he actually knew that he could have replaced with no penalty if it had moved but as he didn't think it did, why would he replace it? I'm not calling for a drastic overhaul of the rules here - but some minor refinements will help while still ensuring that people don't take liberties - I wonder if we are having this conversation in a few months time when the R&A and USGA have enacted small but significant changes to the DQ rules in situations such as these, maybe when changes are enacted into the official rules of golf you won't have the same problems advocating them? I agree, by and large, that the rules must be respected - 100% - but just saying "the rules are the rules" in every scenario isn't good enough in my opinion - we have to closely examine all of these incidents to see how we can make things better - and this should happen as a matter of course - not just because a high profile player like Harrington gets DQ'd...
Brian, how are the situations not alike? If it's ok to play a ball that moved fractionally closer to the hole 30 feet away, why is it not ok when the ball is on the lip? The ball has been moved the same amount.
I have great sympathy for Harrington. He thought at the time that the ball hadn't come to rest in a different position. When he was shown that it had moved fractionally he had no problem accepting the decision. Why do so many people have a problem when the main protagonist doesn't?
I have no problem defending the rules, if they are changed I will play by the new ones and defend them as well. This is not the first incident when an inadvertent breach has lead to a DQ, not even the first incident for Harrington. I don't see this as a case that will have the rules changed.
-
I watch on youtube the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9Bh-ZVAz48&feature=aso
and I would be ready to challenge the call... if that's possible. ¸
the challenge: Harrington's ball did move, yes... but it moved while his coin was still on the ground, when the coin was up in the air, the ball did not change position.
As far as i'm concerned, the ball should be place as close as possible from the ball, maybe the initial position was too-close and that's why it moved...
My red flag is on the ground... will golf need super slo-mo replay in the future
Phillipe, the issue that the coin is on the ground has no bearing on this case. If a ball is moved in the process of placing or replacing the ball there is no penalty and the ball is to replaced. Harrington wasn't deemed to have replaced it after it moved so the ball was played from the wrong spot which is a two shot penalty.
In any event a ball is in play as soon it has been replaced and is at rest, so having a coin or marker on the ground doesn't mean a ball is not in play.
-
This incident basically exemplifies the notion that if you go looking for trouble, you'll find it.
I saw the video replay. Ask yourself if you could determine if the ball moved from one single view of the video. Harrington didn't think it moved, and he was closer than anyone to it. We can assume his fellow competitors would say it did not move (PGA Tour players ALWAYS back each other up on these things.) One view of a replay was to me not determinative. The rules committee should have looked no further. If they had stopped there, this whole thing would have vanished. The problem is not the rules, it was that the committee had an expectation of complete perfection by the player. The rules do not demand perfect compliance
The committee did not think this through, and now the tours have a mess to deal with. Hi def television and the tivo are going to drive them crazy
-
To me in both slow motion, as well as in real time, it is clear the ball had moved forward. While it didn't move much, I don't see how this is difficult to see that is moved forward, it is rather clear. Obviously he didn't gain an advantage from a length perspective. However when you listen to his interview he makes a good observation which is that many time a ball comes to rest in an indentation on the green. This is true, and it also means that even a slight bump forward can "remedy" this situation and provide a minor improvement. The rule is a good one.
All that being said, Harrington really appears to be a good guy. One of the best out there playing. I would take him at his word that he didn't believe it had moved.
-
John,
That's what should have happened. There is no way that the naked eye could see what was a nearly imperceptible change in the position of the ball.
If it wasn't filmed in HD the officials probably wouldn't have been able to see it, even with a slo-mo viewing.
-
I have looked at some aspects of this situation with Harrington and how it all played out but not all. I have participated on this thread but not very comprehensively.
I was just looking through some of the posts and some of the reporting on this particular Harrington issue and it occurred to me that for a number of reasons this particular situation may be a whole lot more complicated than has heretofore been known or discussed on here and for various reasons, both technical and otherwise.
For these reasons alone I think this particular situation is very likely to go all the way to the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee and be thoroughly discussed in all its ramifications and technicalities. I would even predict that this particular situation will generate a new decision in the next Decisions Book, at least, and it may even generate new language in the next Rules change sequence (every fourth year to actually change the language of the Rules within the official R&A/USGA Rules book).
A few items I just noticed:
1. Was Andy McFee really considered to be a "Referee" in the context of the Harrington group or otherwise and within the context and definition of a "Referee" within the Rules of Golf including the latitude of the rights and duties a Referee holds within the Rules as opposed to just a "Rules Official" within the Tournament "Committee" structure? And if he was then the next question may be how long do a Referee's duties and powers extend? In other words do they end within that group when that group has finished playing or returned their cards? I am not aware if this question has ever actually even come up amongst the official Rules makers----the individual R&A and USGA Rules Committee and then the final arbiter, the Joint R&A/USGA Rules Committee.
2. It seems that even if a "Committee" may not waive a Rule of Golf under the Rules of Golf (33-1---Conditions; Waiving Rule), the Committee (the Tournament Committee of the Abu Dhabai Tournament) may have had some latitude and within the Rules of Golf to waive a DQ penalty for Harrington under a particular interpretation of Rule 33-7---(Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion), and within its language of---"A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or impose if the Committee considers such action warranted."
In other words, given all the circumstances involved here would the Committee have been within its rights in the context of the Rules of Golf, and particularly in the above language of Rule 33-7 cited above, to consider this Harrington situation to be a "exceptional individual case" that could warrant and allow his DQ penalty to be waived (within the context of that language of Rule 33-7)? This essentially goes right to the heart of how much latitude the ultimate Rules makers and authority (R&A and USGA) want to give the "Committee" in individual cases and particularly under the language of Rule 33-7.
This may also go to the heart of some other principles within the Rules----eg a Rule of this type (ball moved by the player not in accordance with the Rules) is simply a question of fact, period; and that such things as intention or even knowledge or even the question of whether or not it disadvantaged the "Field" is not always the driving question and determinant and perhaps not even always case relevant.
I think for various other reasons the whole concept of the "Committee" in golf and also its latitude is going to be up for general review by the Rules makers anyway for various reason but this situation with Harrington just may lend some added impetus to that general review.
This one may really be interesting in what-all it results in going forward. It is most definitely complicated and interrelated with a number of other Rules, principles and concepts and interpretations within the Rules of Golf and all that may carry this one far past most other incidents that have appeared to be somewhat like this one.
-
The DQ penalty for cannot be modified for infractions under 33-7/4 - Modifying Penalty for Returning Wrong Score; and 33-7/4.5 - Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified.
Harrington was 'guilty' of both.
The easiest way for this to be decided, and the way that causes less disruption in the existing rules, is by an ongoing 'local' rule specific to the Tour(s) for televised events.
-
Jim, the rules, as presently written, do not allow such a local rule, it is contrary to the rules themselves. Rule 33-8 governs local rules and contains 45 decisions on what is and what is not allowed for local rules. A careful reading of that rule and 33-7 makes it clear such a local rule is not permitted.
TEPaul, et al. - The Committee did not have the right to waive the penalty of disqualification in this case, there is a decision - d 33-7/4.5 - specifically states a DQ penalty cannot be waived or modified for failure to include a penalty.
Regarding the status of Andy McPhee, he is one of two Chief Referees employed by the European Tour (the other being John Paramour). He has final authority at European Tour events in rules matters. He would be the final arbitrator for issues, such as this one, at the tournament site.
BTW, he and JP are world class officials, highly respected by the players and other officials. If there was a way for him to avoid imposing a penalty of DQ on Harrington, he would not only have know of it, he would have used it.
Geoff Shackleford has some interesting comments from McPhee, Mike Davis from the USGA and Grant Moir of the R&A on this issue.
-
Dale,
Thanks for the info.
I don't see why TV couldn't be considered as "interfering with the proper playing of the game to the extent that it is necessary to make a Local Rule that modifies the Rules of Golf", one that would be satifactory to the USGA for televised Tour events.
-
Am I the only one who sees this as totally ridiculous? TEP seems to come around to that point and what happens, someone else points to the ultimate source of confusion - decisions on the rules of golf. Come on guys - get real. The situation is really hurting the game.
-
Jerry: I have opined on the silliness of the DQ earlier and with the DQ @ Kapalua 2 weeks ago. Mistakes happen and penalties are assigned. In football, unless just agrregious, the match official issues a yellow card for a foul - a 2nd yellow in the match has you dismissed. Penalty strokes assigned in golf are a yellow card, but dismissal for signing for the wrong score, especially if you did not believe a penanly had occurred, is silly. Dismissed for a penalty withoput being shown any card by the referree!
Imagine the Olympic Medal or World Cup Final playing by these Rules ? A Yellow Card and your down to 10 men!
I only wish something this silly in golf happens on national TV in a major tournament with huge media coverage and a high profile leader board. That would have the men in blue blazers attempting to save the game they are protecting from the media onslaught.
-
Am I the only one who sees this as totally ridiculous? TEP seems to come around to that point and what happens, someone else points to the ultimate source of confusion - decisions on the rules of golf. Come on guys - get real. The situation is really hurting the game.
I will ask the same question that was ignored earlier:
Does it simplify or complicate the rules to allow subjectivity? To place conditions upon what evidence is deemed acceptable?
If Harrington had given ANY indication that he knew the ball moved and thought it was in the same place - by calling over an official, by remarking, whatever - my money is on the Committee ruling that he followed the rule properly. Instead, they are left with an impossible position - either DQ a guy on a call-in, or leave the rest of the players wondering if Harrington got preferential treatment.
I do not believe those objecting to the ruling are properly considering the notion of like situations requiring like rulings (or however it's phrased), but that's of course just mho.
-
It's time to start DQing the playing partners of these cheaters who do not call them out on their infractions. Ignorance is no excuse from protecting the field. Nothing worse than that group of buddies who always play the first day of a tournament together and find magic, year after year after year.
-
George: I asked this before and never got a straight answer - let's say Harrington followed your suggestion and called over an official - what happens then? Harrington says I touched my ball as I lifted my coin but I don't think it moved from its original position - what is the official going to do, not believe him? So he says go ahead and no penalty. Later TV review shows the ball moved - is all forgiven because the official said okay? If that is the case then my suggestion is the only reasonable solution - there shall be a presumption that the player did not intentionally violate the rules and if there is a rules infraction the player shall be assessed the appropriate penalty provided the infraction is realized prior to the last player turning in his score for that day's round.
I agree with Barney that any deliberate cheating or knowing failure to bring a rules violation to the attention of the Committee should be dealt with very harshly.
-
Jerry,
The problem with that solution is that Villegas did not intentionally violate the rules a few weeks ago? He intentionally moved the divot, but not in a concious effort to cheat, how would you handle his case?
I do not see how we can make judgements on what was and was not intentional cheating. Either the rule was broken or it was not.
-
George: I asked this before and never got a straight answer - let's say Harrington followed your suggestion and called over an official - what happens then? Harrington says I touched my ball as I lifted my coin but I don't think it moved from its original position - what is the official going to do, not believe him? So he says go ahead and no penalty. Later TV review shows the ball moved - is all forgiven because the official said okay? If that is the case then my suggestion is the only reasonable solution - there shall be a presumption that the player did not intentionally violate the rules and if there is a rules infraction the player shall be assessed the appropriate penalty provided the infraction is realized prior to the last player turning in his score for that day's round.
Jerry,
Doesn't work for a couple of reasons. First, it makes it about intent and knowledge and becomes impossible to police. In this case, the ball, if it did move, moved millimetres. What if it had moved half and inch? Six inches? Where does it become impossible to believe that the player didn't realise the ball had moved. Anyway, in this case Harrington could, as has been pointed out, have removed all doubt simply by re-marking and replacing his ball.
Second, this was called in over night and so the last player had already turned in his card for the round.
-
Anyway, in this case Harrington could, as has been pointed out, have removed all doubt simply by re-marking and replacing his ball.
This is the simplest, clearest, and most equitable solution, imho.
Jerry, I don't believe it is likely the Tour or whoever made the decision would have DQ'd Paddy had he called over the official and explained the situation. He didn't, they were forced to make a tough decision, and as usual, the player accepted it better than most on here. :)
-
I have looked at some aspects of this situation with Harrington and how it all played out but not all. I have participated on this thread but not very comprehensively.
I was just looking through some of the posts and some of the reporting on this particular Harrington issue and it occurred to me that for a number of reasons this particular situation may be a whole lot more complicated than has heretofore been known or discussed on here and for various reasons, both technical and otherwise.
For these reasons alone I think this particular situation is very likely to go all the way to the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee and be thoroughly discussed in all its ramifications and technicalities. I would even predict that this particular situation will generate a new decision in the next Decisions Book, at least, and it may even generate new language in the next Rules change sequence (every fourth year to actually change the language of the Rules within the official R&A/USGA Rules book).
A few items I just noticed:
1. Was Andy McFee really considered to be a "Referee" in the context of the Harrington group or otherwise and within the context and definition of a "Referee" within the Rules of Golf including the latitude of the rights and duties a Referee holds within the Rules as opposed to just a "Rules Official" within the Tournament "Committee" structure? And if he was then the next question may be how long do a Referee's duties and powers extend? In other words do they end within that group when that group has finished playing or returned their cards? I am not aware if this question has ever actually even come up amongst the official Rules makers----the individual R&A and USGA Rules Committee and then the final arbiter, the Joint R&A/USGA Rules Committee.
2. It seems that even if a "Committee" may not waive a Rule of Golf under the Rules of Golf (33-1---Conditions; Waiving Rule), the Committee (the Tournament Committee of the Abu Dhabai Tournament) may have had some latitude and within the Rules of Golf to waive a DQ penalty for Harrington under a particular interpretation of Rule 33-7---(Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion), and within its language of---"A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or impose if the Committee considers such action warranted."
In other words, given all the circumstances involved here would the Committee have been within its rights in the context of the Rules of Golf, and particularly in the above language of Rule 33-7 cited above, to consider this Harrington situation to be a "exceptional individual case" that could warrant and allow his DQ penalty to be waived (within the context of that language of Rule 33-7)? This essentially goes right to the heart of how much latitude the ultimate Rules makers and authority (R&A and USGA) want to give the "Committee" in individual cases and particularly under the language of Rule 33-7.
This may also go to the heart of some other principles within the Rules----eg a Rule of this type (ball moved by the player not in accordance with the Rules) is simply a question of fact, period; and that such things as intention or even knowledge or even the question of whether or not it disadvantaged the "Field" is not always the driving question and determinant and perhaps not even always case relevant.
I think for various other reasons the whole concept of the "Committee" in golf and also its latitude is going to be up for general review by the Rules makers anyway for various reason but this situation with Harrington just may lend some added impetus to that general review.
This one may really be interesting in what-all it results in going forward. It is most definitely complicated and interrelated with a number of other Rules, principles and concepts and interpretations within the Rules of Golf and all that may carry this one far past most other incidents that have appeared to be somewhat like this one.
http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=6048752&campaign=rss&source=GOLFHeadlines
Tom, it looks like the Powers That Be are going to take a look at this situation....
-
Mark: If we begin with the presumption that the player did not intentionally violate the rules we have no problems until we see a player being involved with rules violations more than once and perhaps the presumption is rebutted. There are other players with him who have the obligation to protect the field and point out rules violations. The fact that the infraction was discovered overnight is simply the way it is under my scenario - You can impose a penalty but not DQ.
Jim: The presumption of no intent in violating the rule only means that you impose the penalty but no DQ.
I should point out again that my view concerning intentional rules violation would be automatic DQ and suspension of privileges for a substantial period of time.
-
Jerry,
But you haven't addressed the real problem with your approach. Who decides, and how, whether a violation is deliberate or not? In an ideal world this wouldn't be a problem but, unfortunately, in the real world, your approach is a cheat's charter and there are enough cheats on the tour to make this a problem. Also, your approach makes trying to get away with it worthwhile and places temptation in the way of many players who have sufficient motivation (holding on to a card, getting that first top 10, first win, whatever) but under the current rules understand the downside of infringing a rule, even if they know they couldn't be proved to have infringed deliberately.
-
Mark: You begin with a presumption of innocence. The player did not intentionally violate the rules unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Remember, the player is not out there alone and it is the absolute obligation of his playing partner/s to point out rules violations as well as any rules official who might observe a violation. You want to begin with the presumption that all players will cheat if given the opportunity and I won't subscribe to that. Keep in mind that I also recommend that deliberate violations result in substantial suspensions which would make it extremely difficult to keep your card and the ridicule would be incredible.
I should also mention that it is my belief, although I have no facts to supports this, that the other competitors would not have objected if both of the recent incidents had not resulted in disqualification.
-
I should also mention that it is my belief, although I have no facts to supports this, that the other competitors would not have objected if both of the recent incidents had not resulted in disqualification.
I would guess that,if true,it's likely a case of "there but for the grace of God...".Also without facts,I'd wager that many guys are very pleased with the decision--especially the ones who have taken the time to learn the rules and be aware of the possibilities.
These guys are playing for money and their opinions of the relative Draconian nature of the rules have to be looked at through this prism.
-
So it's a better world when everyone can see someone blatantly violating a rule, with no apparent downside? That will do wonders to keep the honor in golf.
-
But you only need one, Shivas.
Jerry,
Would you have called the Villegas incident an intentional or unintentional breach? Not the incorrect signing, which we was DQ'd for, but the actual breach.
Also, in your scenario, how would you handle inadvertant, incorrect scorecards that are discovered after the days play, but before the tournament is over?
-
Well, first of all, if it's clear, the guy will get caught. People still pay attention...we as humans haven't outsourced all thinking to computers just yet you know...
So why didn't anyone catch Villegas? It certainly wasn't as visually challenging as Harrington's infraction. It was obvious to anyone who watched the broadcast and knew the rule, and apparently wouldn't have merited a mention under your scenario.
If we start with the presumption that almost all violations are apparent and would be caught anyway, why do these call-ins even exist?
I still have yet to read a satisfactory answer to my question, what is simpler? I've read a lot of rationalizations that introduce subjectivity, but that doesn't work for me, sorry if that makes me a sycophant.
-
Players basically never dime out other player unless it's incredibly egregious...they're not Bears Quarterback's afterall...
I understand the protecting the field argument, just don't see it applied all that often.
How would a player be wrongly hit with a penalty? I'm sure it's possible, but I can't envision the circumstance.
-
I still have yet to read a satisfactory answer to my question, what is simpler? I've read a lot of rationalizations that introduce subjectivity, but that doesn't work for me, sorry if that makes me a sycophant.
Nothing is simpler.
If the wheel was so easy to reinvent,it would have been reinvented by now.The USGA/R & A rules guys are pretty sharp.
George,who are we brown nosing?
-
Well, first of all, if it's clear, the guy will get caught. People still pay attention...we as humans haven't outsourced all thinking to computers just yet you know...
So why didn't anyone catch Villegas? It certainly wasn't as visually challenging as Harrington's infraction. It was obvious to anyone who watched the broadcast and knew the rule, and apparently wouldn't have merited a mention under your scenario.
If we start with the presumption that almost all violations are apparent and would be caught anyway, why do these call-ins even exist?
I still have yet to read a satisfactory answer to my question, what is simpler? I've read a lot of rationalizations that introduce subjectivity, but that doesn't work for me, sorry if that makes me a sycophant.
George
Okay, yer a syco.
My issue with "dems the rules so help me god" is when we get a situation (extreme I know) where DeVicenzo has earned a playoff spot with Ford, but he signed to a score higher than what he had and was forced to keep it. EVERYBODY knew he wasn't cheating to take a higher score and EVERYBODY knew DiVicenzo desrved to go the 19th. Instead, a dems the rules situation occurred and we get losers all round. I believe that the Rules Comm should have the ability to over rule a rule (in effect, have the rule removed until it can be further reviewed). I am not saying Harrington's situation warranted Comm intervention, but I believe the power to do so should exist.
Ciao
-
I don't know anything about Villegas's infraction, but if he did something wrong, and none of is fellow-competitors called him on it and the on course referee didn't call him on it, then I really don't think the Committee should even bother to respond to what some clown calling in on TV says. Even if there is clear video evidence of it, the Committee shouldn't bother to even look at it just based on what one clown (or for that matter 10,000 clowns) calling in says.
And how long do you think your hypothetical 10X guys would keep doing the right thing if the wrong thing gets ignored when it's on the tube?
"Well, no one saw it live, so it didn't happen..."
Yep, that's the formula to keep things clean. That will definitely keep honor in golf. There's no way anyone will try to gain any sort of advantage. There's no way anyone will see someone doing something wrong on tv and think, well, he didn't mean to do that, he's a good guy, that was an isolated incident.
It's almost like you guys want to see golf go the way of the nfl, where every wide receiver who drops a pass gets up crying for a flag.
-
Sean,
That's very true. If I was in Bob Goalby's shoes I'd be very proud that I won The Masters, but I'd have gotten sick of hearing about DeVincenzo by now.
-
How would a player be wrongly hit with a penalty? I'm sure it's possible, but I can't envision the circumstance.
Five people see a player take a backswing under a tree from a distance in the fall and colorful leaves fall off. They're sure of it. Even another player and a caddie see it, too. Even the player sees the leaves fall in his periphrial vision, so he assumes he must have clipped leaves....
What none of them bothers to think about is the fact that a gust of wind came at the same time and every tree in the area also lost leaves in the gust at the same time..
How in the world could video clear the guy in that scenario?
-
George
Okay, yer a syco.
My issue with "dems the rules so help me god" is when we get a situation (extreme I know) where DeVicenzo has earned a playoff spot with Ford, but he signed to a score higher than what he had and was forced to keep it. EVERYBODY knew he wasn't cheating to take a higher score and EVERYBODY knew DiVicenzo desrved to go the 19th. Instead, a dems the rules situation occurred and we get losers all round. I believe that the Rules Comm should have the ability to over rule a rule (in effect, have the rule removed until it can be further reviewed). I am not saying Harrington's situation warranted Comm intervention, but I believe the power to do so should exist.
Ciao
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, then. To me, a syco, adding subjectivity will only further complicate an already complicated situation. I see simple beauty in treating like situations alike, I don't see where adding subjectivity will do anything but add stress to an already difficult situation.
Would you like to see a whole list of decisions where committees ruled one way in one instance, and another way in another? I sure wouldn't. That's how you end up with a 20,000 page tax code, btw.
Hey, maybe it will create a whole new industry and stimulate the economy... Yippee!
-
Players basically never dime out other player unless it's incredibly egregious...they're not Bears Quarterback's afterall...
Strike the word basically.The players know the ones who tend to take maximum advantage--but they ain't ever going to say it out loud.
-
Every once in a while you see it, but not very often. Maybe it does track the players reputation, I don't know.
-
Several people have suggested that Harrington could have avoided this by simply remarking his ball - but how would that work? He thought the ball returned to its original spot when in fact it did not. Therefore, had he marked his ball again, he would've replaced the ball in the new position, NOT the original position, and he still would have played from the new position.
Isn't that still a violation of the rules?
I do not see a way out of this for Harrington unless he was given access to the video right at that moment so he could determine if his ball in fact moved and if so, replace his ball back in its original spot.
-
Shivas,
Two things...the camera would have to be right in his business to see where the clubhead goes if a branch is close enough to be hit...think about when you're flirting with a tree branch, a camera on the television stand isn't going to see the top of the swing, nor is one in the middle of the fairway. Second, if the guy argues that he didn't hit the tree branch to cause the leaves to fall (because he would know best!) isn't that good enough right now? Are we taking the whole player responsibility thing away?
-
Jim: The Villegas incident was unintentional which in my scenario would mean that he would be assessed the penalty anytime before the conclusion of the competition but not DQ'd. If it might have changed a cut line, etc., so be it but every player starts the event knowing that is what will happen if there is an unintentional rules violation.
-
If we tracked every mark & replace down to the dimple, nobody would ever win any golf tournament anywhere in the world. Everybody would be DQ'd, usually within 4-5 holes, if even that far.
It is an impossible standard to meet. And if we allow this kind of ticky-tack, one or two dimple crap to continue every time some dimwit with an HDTV can prove it, the game will be destroyed.
If this is true, then the simple answer would have been for the committee to rule that Harrington's ball moved forward and then came to rest in the same position, or at least as close as possible to the naked eye. That's why I made my statement earlier that if he had shown ANY indication - calling an official, remarking, etc - then he likely would have been absolved.
This is not to you, Shiv, but for everyone else, talk to a Rules Official sometime - they go out of their way to believe players. If Paddy had indicated to ANYONE that he knew he moved his ball, but that he believed it rocked back into the original position, I just can't believe he wouldn't have been given a green light. The official probably would have advised him to re-mark, and the committee would likely have concluded that he replaced the ball in the position he believed it was, as required by the rule. Heck, the emailer probably wouldn't have even sent in an email!
As it stands, the simple facts in evidence are that he moved his ball and did not replace it. Would it help golf at all if they instituted some sort of standard of "well, it moved X dimples forward - X and under is okay, but X plus epsilon is a penalty and then a DQ if the scorecard is incorrect".
If you want to see Rules crap really start embarrassing golf, then introduce subjectivity, and ignore evidence when it is plainly visible.
By all means, let's have a Tuck Rule for golf!
-
If we tracked every mark & replace down to the dimple, nobody would ever win any golf tournament anywhere in the world. Everybody would be DQ'd, usually within 4-5 holes, if even that far.
It is an impossible standard to meet. And if we allow this kind of ticky-tack, one or two dimple crap to continue every time some dimwit with an HDTV can prove it, the game will be destroyed.
Who gets to define ticky-tack?
IMO,the ruling bodies are correct on the sanctity of the signed scorecard--it's the thing that guarantees a player being responsible.Has any player ever been DQ'ed in error?
I can't believe the guy who rails against the cheater line would allow a mis-marked ball to go unpunished.
-
Jim: The Villegas incident was unintentional which in my scenario would mean that he would be assessed the penalty anytime before the conclusion of the competition but not DQ'd. If it might have changed a cut line, etc., so be it but every player starts the event knowing that is what will happen if there is an unintentional rules violation.
Jerry,
Well then it was a whole different version of "unintentional" than Harrington in that he knew he swatted a divot out of the way of a rolling ball. Harrington didn't know he was playing from a wrong spot. Villegas didn't swat the divot with the intent of cheating, but it was a very intentional act that would cost two strokes no matter when it was discovered and he would not have argued if his playing competitor had come over and said..."hey bro, you can't do that, it's two shots"...whereas Harrington would have had a very reasonable argument against a fellow pro coming over from across the greenarguing that his ball had moved a dimple and a half...and it has to come down to the player themself.
-
As I always I follow these rules discussions with interest, and occasionally chime in. Chime time with a few points!
1. This DG, other DGs and conversations around innumerable water coolers have been fixated by a handful of incidents the past few months that led to penalties (usually DQ) being assessed. Please keep in mind that the rules need to apply to all golf, televised or not, and the vast majority of golf is nowhere near a television camera. The focus of those responsible for reviewing the rules remains all of golf, and not just the high profile incidents on television.
2. Several have made the suggestion that TV evidence not be used. And the countervailing point has been made that to ignore clear evidence of a breach available through TV coverage would tarnish a victory and the game itself. In my judgement ignoring television evidence will, in the long term, bring far more controversy and discredit than allowing its use. It is easy to come up with numerous examples where a player may breach the rules without realizing it, and gain a significant advantage that in all probability leads to a lower score. Inevitably and occasionally a player in such a situation will go on to win a tournament by one stroke. If television catches that infraction but the rules do not permit the use of the evidence, the player's victory is forever tarnished in the minds of fans, his fellow competitors and the player himself. The integrity of the game is seriously damaged as fans - serious and casual alike - have their faith in the game eroded. As this happens on multiple occasions as time passes real damage to one of the pillars of the game - the integrity and honesty of the game and players - is undermined.
Are some of the results of using television unfair and unfortunate? Unquestionably, and the Harrington incident is a perfect illustration of that. But no one is questioning the integrity of the game today, they are complaining about a specific application of a rule under specific circumstances. To not allow the use of all evidence would inevitably result in an erosion in the integrity of the game.
3. Some are calling for the introduction of intent and subjectivity into the rules and on course rulings. As an official who has worked at the highest levels of tournament golf I beg you not to require me to make judgement calls, that is an impossible task. Rules Officials are responsible for interpreting and applying the rules, we cannot be responsible for determining the intent of a player, whether they knew they had breached a rule or whether they did so intentionally or not. If you want fairness and consistency, do not ask different human beings to interpret rules, statements and actions subjectively, you invite sure disaster! Being a good official is difficult enough, do not saddle us with the impossible task of looking into the heart and mind of the players.
4. The USGA and R&A have both indicated they will be looking at incidents like Harrington's to see if a fairer way forward can be found. You should know that is not a new initiative but one that has been under consideration for some time. But the rules makers will, and should, be guided by finding a solution that is proper and legitimate, not a quick fix. Their mandate is the long term integrity and health of the game, not a reflex answer to a very, very few incidents.
-
Shivas,
How about the lost ball searches? Or crossing a hazard line questions? Do we only use TV when the player thinks it will help?
-
Jim: I must admit that I don't follow your argument. Villegas clearly violated the rule and the act which he performed was intentional but that doesn't mean that he intentionally violated the rule. I don't believe he said to himself: I know I am not allowed to this but I am going to move these items while the ball is in motion. If his playing partner or his caddie or someone in the gallery said to him: Dummy, what you just did is a rules violation, I would bet that he would then realize what he had done and accept the penalty. My point is, who cares if he realizes it before or after he signs his card. Now, if a player intentionally violates a rule while fully realizing that he is breaking a rule then it is quite a different story, but other than that, no DQ.
-
As this happens on multiple occasions as time passes real damage to one of the pillars of the game - the integrity and honesty of the game and players - is undermined.
How the heck can this game be forever tarnished for the non-calling of the same violations that were not called in the pre-TV Stadler incident era? By that logic, there were no televised violations from the very first George S. May tournament through 1981 or whenever that Stadler incident was. Does anybody really believe that there were no televised, uncalled rules infractions during that era? Of course there were. Did the game implode as a result? Of course not. Any golfer that noticed a violations on TV prior to the Stadler incident did what golfers do best - he muttered "sh*t happens" to himself and moved on....
[/quote]
Did violations happen pre television or pre Stadler television (not sure which time period you are referring to)? Of course, just like infractions happen at non-televised events all the time. My point is that if you do not permit their use, but the coverage of rules breaches exists and is widely available (as certainly will be with You Tube etc.) that will have a worse effect on the game of golf than allowing their use.
BTW, how can a person who can reference Joan Baez and, especially Peter Green, in their posts be so wrong!!!
-
Are some of the results of using television unfair and unfortunate? Unquestionably, and the Harrington incident is a perfect illustration of that. But no one is questioning the integrity of the game today, they are complaining about a specific application of a rule under specific circumstances. To not allow the use of all evidence would inevitably result in an erosion in the integrity of the game.
Beautiful point, Dale, well said.
...Now, if a player intentionally violates a rule while fully realizing that he is breaking a rule then it is quite a different story, but other than that, no DQ.
And how do you intend to differentiate the two?
-
Mark: You begin with a presumption of innocence. The player did not intentionally violate the rules unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Remember, the player is not out there alone and it is the absolute obligation of his playing partner/s to point out rules violations as well as any rules official who might observe a violation. You want to begin with the presumption that all players will cheat if given the opportunity and I won't subscribe to that. Keep in mind that I also recommend that deliberate violations result in substantial suspensions which would make it extremely difficult to keep your card and the ridicule would be incredible.
I should also mention that it is my belief, although I have no facts to supports this, that the other competitors would not have objected if both of the recent incidents had not resulted in disqualification.
Jerry,
I begin with the presumption that a small number of players, mayber even just one, might cheat. You rely on the entire field, every single week, being utterly honest, despite temptation. It's a lovely thought but doesn't correspond to the real world.
-
Jim: The Villegas incident was unintentional which in my scenario would mean that he would be assessed the penalty anytime before the conclusion of the competition but not DQ'd. If it might have changed a cut line, etc., so be it but every player starts the event knowing that is what will happen if there is an unintentional rules violation.
So Villegas shouldn't be D'Qed because he was ignorant of the rules? Doesn't that make it beneficial to players to not know the rules? How can that be a good thing for golf?
-
Mark: 1. It's always good to know the rules and if you violate a rule a penalty is assessed. I just believe the punishment doesn't fit the crime if DQ is the punishment. 2. One player cheats so you want to DQ any player who violates a rule and doesn't assess himself with a penalty before signing his card which is illogical to me. The PGATour has been around for a long time and how many players have been accused of cheating - I don't any, so I think my presumption of honesty has a basis in fact. But let's say a player is caught cheating by a rules official or a fellow competitor, what will happen - I don't know how he would ever be able to face the other guys and it is a label that will stick with him for life - I am sure that the punishment imposed by the Tour would be substantial as well.
-
Is all that easier than just not answering the phone?
-
As a self confessed player who has had some issues over the years of which I remain totally ashamed and continue to rehab , I do wonder about the value of TV call ins.
I accept the long used "golf has more integrity than any other sport" and as such we allow this to happen, but once a scorecard is signed that really should be the end of the issue.
The examples being cited here nearly all are honest"mistakes" and once the card is signed that should be it.
Tell the player and hope he learns from it, but if the penlaty cannot be applied prior to signing, then it should not result in a dq...in my opinion.
-
I can't accept that Villegas should have escaped punishment for deliberately improving his likely lie, even if he didn't realise he hadn't infringed a rule.
-
I agree with Shivas on this, and the more I saw of the slow motion the more it looked like it oscillated and not moved.
I think the player should get the benefit of the doubt.
As for the Villegas incident..again it was a violation, clearly not of intent and had he been penalised prior to signing his card great..but a dq for that via TV ..I just have a problem with it...
-
Dave and Mike,
You've both played plenty of tournament golf so you've undoubtedly seen the case where a scorecard was signed incorrectly, lower, and not recognized until it was on the scoreboard or pairings sheet or even the next days tee time sheet. How do you handle that once you've taken away, or at least reduced, the responsibility of signing a correct card?
-
Mark: AHA! I now see where you're coming from - you get pleasure from punishing people. It's not enough that he is assessed a two stroke penalty - he must be punished.
Shivas: I think the absurdity of it is even more evident when you consider the fact, at least as I understand it, that if Harrington had called over an official and told him what he believed to be the situation, he would have been okay even if TV later proved him to be incorrect. Or does confession somehow cleanse the sins of the golfer?
-
Jim,
Once again I agree with Shivas..this is not good twice in one day.
Then I would dq myself, in fact that happened to me in the State Am about 5 years ago.
Two out of the lead going into the final round, and showed up on Sunday to see that my score from the previous day was posted one lower than it should have been.
Sure enough my playing partner had me down for 4 instead of a 5 on a hole...dq
I just think that is a little different to an unintentional breach...but that is just me.
-
Not that I am saying the previous scenario was intentional...that was not one of my black days.....
-
Shivas,
I guess what you're saying is that this wouldn't cause an incorrect card because if the penalty isn't handled prior to the signing it isn't being applied? Regardless of who brought it up? Do I have this right? Is the case closed once the card is signed?
Just saw Mike's response as well...what about the guy that doesn't come forward to DQ himself?
That question might be answered by your answers to the first...can I call you on an incorrect card the following day?
-
By ignoring TV evidence, you are penalizing the rest of the field, plain and simple. Period. How is it going to look the first time someone wins an event and he clearly broke a rule?
As for the DQ being too harsh, I think it has to be to strongly encourage accuracy and integrity. You are only going to encourage more mistakes in the future, more people being careless with the rules, if the penalty is maybe you get caught and only then is there a penalty. Again, you are penalizing those with knowledge and/or integrity in favor of those with ignorance and/or malice.
You can deride those who take the rules seriously all you want, it doesn't change the above. Allowing more subjectivity into the rules is only going to make what seems complicated now far far worse.
-
Is all that easier than just not answering the phone?
I bet everyone involved wishes the phone hadn't been answered the first time.
-
Shivas,
You know that's not true...Harrington, the other player and the official work it out right there until everyone's on the same page with "best facts" and the case is closed. Calling in that night with new evidence doesn't re-open the case.
-
I just am not convinced the players integrity has anything to so with the issue, that is why I am against the TV interference.
The scorecard scenario is a no brainer, if the numbers dont add up..dq.
But the incidents we are talking about are not player integrity issues, just honest mistakes that I do not think should result in a player losing his weeks livelihood.
-
Then I don't understand how the goal should not be to just get the ruling's right no matter how much hair is on it...
Seemingly, the only negative in all this is that some joker is actually able to call in (or email for god's sake...) and impact the results...again, why not just stop answering the damn phone if it's agreed that that process is a major negative?
-
Mark: AHA! I now see where you're coming from - you get pleasure from punishing people. It's not enough that he is assessed a two stroke penalty - he must be punished.
Jerry,
I just don't understand where you are coming from. Have you seen the Villegas incident? Come to that, has Michael W-P?
My 12 year old twins don't even have a handicap yet but they would know that you can't move turf to improve your lie. But you're telling me that it shouldn't have occurred to a leading tournament pro that what he had just done was a rules infraction? You're OK with him being able to sign for a wrong score because he didn't realise that that wasn't OK? Frankly, if the game goes that way it's going to be the wild west. The potential benefit for not knowing or considering the rules is going to mean dozens of these debates every single week.
And the lack of a cheating conviction on the PGA Tour doesn't mean there aren't any cheats. Just that they aren't getting caught or, more likely, that no-one has the balls to call them out because it requires proof of intent and that, my friend, is almost impossible in most cases. In my book Kenny Perry's work with his wedge a couple of years ago was worse than that muppet Saltman wrongly replacing his ball, in terms of benefit gained and he cannot, possibly, claim he didn't realise that improving your lie by working the grass behind the ball down with your club wasn't allowed. But apparently it's common practice and no-one has raised the issue.
By the way, I'm happy to accept that Harrington believed the ball hadn't moved and I'm happy to accept that Villegas didn't realise that moving that divot was an infraction. I'm just appalled that a professional golfer in Villegas' position wouldn't see that.
-
How about the Bamberger (SI writer) deal a couple years ago when he watched Wie take an unplayable lie drop (unescorted, I believe) and not say a word, then went back after the round to that spot and measure it and then point it out to the committee?
He was there on the spot and in person...I hated it at the time because it smelled like he had bad intentions by watching it and then going back later, when he knew it would be too late to not DQ her but I might be cynical. Wouldn't he be in your "best evidence" class? Or not, because he's not actually in the competition?
Certainly would put the emphasis back on fellow players to defend the field...or it could go the other way...
-
I would like to be a fly on the wall in Ponte Vedra.
IMO,it's not "golf" with a PR problem so much as the Pro's.They're the ones who look like they don't know their own rules.
-
George
Okay, yer a syco.
My issue with "dems the rules so help me god" is when we get a situation (extreme I know) where DeVicenzo has earned a playoff spot with Ford, but he signed to a score higher than what he had and was forced to keep it. EVERYBODY knew he wasn't cheating to take a higher score and EVERYBODY knew DiVicenzo desrved to go the 19th. Instead, a dems the rules situation occurred and we get losers all round. I believe that the Rules Comm should have the ability to over rule a rule (in effect, have the rule removed until it can be further reviewed). I am not saying Harrington's situation warranted Comm intervention, but I believe the power to do so should exist.
Ciao
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, then. To me, a syco, adding subjectivity will only further complicate an already complicated situation. I see simple beauty in treating like situations alike, I don't see where adding subjectivity will do anything but add stress to an already difficult situation.
Would you like to see a whole list of decisions where committees ruled one way in one instance, and another way in another? I sure wouldn't. That's how you end up with a 20,000 page tax code, btw.
Hey, maybe it will create a whole new industry and stimulate the economy... Yippee!
George
IMO, just as a player's card can be re-visited when an infraction is discovered (and rightfully so) which can add shots, I think a card should be revisted if a player has made a mistake which gives him a higher score than he earned. Call it the DiVincenzo Rule if you like. I don't see the positive in two guys feeling awful and the world knowing the real winner lost because he signed for a higher score than he had. I used to feel as you do about it (dems the rules by god), but sometimes there are issues at stake which are more important than the rules.
Ciao
-
Villagas...the hill was littered with divots and other debris...it was the second time he had tried to chip his ball up and over the lip of the hill...when it became apparent that this attempt was not going to make the green either, out of frustration he swiped at a divot sitting by his feet...the ball was meandering back down the hill and there was no telling where it would stop....I immediately thought this was not a good thing, but it did not appear to me that his ball came to rest anywhere near where the divot he swatted had been.
Harrington said he did not think his ball moved...what more can you ask from the guy? Like I said, I think golf is screwing itself when it allows someone at home to call in...the spirit of the game is we call our own infractions...not someone at home with TIVO and slow mo.
-
Craig,
Are you willing to go with the "call your own infractions" plan 100%?
I am, but do not see it as less problematic than the current situation.
-
Jim...there's at last one other competitor, and a rules official, and at least two caddies, and dozens of fans following each and every golfer on the PGA Tour...so I dont think we need a million eyes sitting at home calling infractions. I know of NO OTHER sport that allows people to call infractions into the TV studio. And change the outcome of a shot or play.
-
By ignoring TV evidence, you are penalizing the rest of the field, plain and simple. Period. How is it going to look the first time someone wins an event and he clearly broke a rule?
The same as it looks when a non-reviewable call such as interference that affects a football game is proven wrong on replays after the game, or what is shown on replays clearly would have been the third strike that ends the game is called a ball and the next swing is a game winning HR in a baseball game? Fans of the disadvantaged team whine about it for days (or years if it is a big game) and the rest of us shrug knowing humans aren't infallible and get on with our lives.
How is it any different than if I witnessed a player breaking the rules quite clearly but it wasn't on camera and I told people? I guess you might think my word isn't good enough....but what if I was both a former USGA official and current Supreme Court justice, with vision measured as better than 20/20 and I was 10 feet away with a perfect view of the infraction? Undoubtedly you will still maintain that without proof my word isn't good enough. But if I was 10 feet away and saw you shoot someone dead, you would be convicted of murder. But I guess murder is just murder, but the rules of golf are IMPORTANT to some people!
Whatever is getting seen/recorded now and called in has ALWAYS been happening in golf, only now people are able to prove it to the satisfaction of those who think golf should be held to a standard above all other sports. Even when that standard is occasionally blantantly unfair to participants who can get DQed for an infraction that (other than the assessed penalty) would have had no effect on their score. Even when if the penalty was assessed they still would have won!
It is bad enough that the USGA ignores technology's effect on the game WRT equipment. But worse, while other sports adjust to the presence of technology by adjusting their rules to implement instant replay and baseball is looking into using computers for determining balls and strikes, golf maintains the status quo and makes itself look more and more backward to all but its defenders and apologists (probably mostly the same who think that the USGA doing nothing about equipment the past 20 years is not a problem)
-
Doug,
Your last paragraph is baffling...all the other sports are finding ways through the use pf technology to make as sure as possible (not 100%) that the rules are followed, and applied correctly. And you see this as a reason golf is backwards? The problem with the argument against the call-in problems is that you have to agree to not impart a penalty that is due and the ruling bodies/tournament organizers are not ready to do that...and I don't blame them. Is it perfect? Nope! BUt why is everybody else moving in this direction? Because it's better than saying to hell with the rules we've laid out.
Craig,
Stop making up excuses for the players, they don't want or need them.
The sport that covers the second most acreage and includes the most players is either cricket or baseball I guess, football (US and Traditional) and rugby probably have the most players on the field at once, and on slightly smaller fields. Of these, a cricket pitch is probably the largest at 4 or 5 acres and American Football may have the most players on the field at one time with 22...and most importantly, ONE BALL!
A typical US PGA Tour or European Tour event feature 72 players, each with their own ball spread out over 150 acres or more.
How many officials per ball are watching any other televised sport? What would be second behind golf?
-
Jim,
My point is that golf is not adapting at all to the technology, they are sticking with the same rules/decisions even in the face of technology that is making a mockery of their application, and in a way that is blatantly unfair insofar as every player is covered to a different amount by TV. It depends not only on the player, but on his position relative to the lead and his starting time. If Tiger starts during the coverage window and is leading a major, his every shot will be shown. If he barely makes the cut and is first group out on Sunday, they'll have a few quick cut shots of him putting, along with him walking up the 18th to show the fans appreciate him even while he's losing. If he's a nobody starting out in the first group, he won't even have a single shot shown.
People seem to think the rules are the equivalent of the monkeys covering their eyes, ears and mouth. If a rules violation is recorded on TV, the rule must be enforced whether an official witnessed it at the time or not. If an official witnesses a violation, the player is told and he's able to add in strokes to his card. If I notice a player I dislike violating an obscure rule, I could hold off calling until 10 minutes after I see him putting out on 18, hoping that no one else calls it in so I can see him DQ'ed. If I like him, maybe I hurry up and call it in, just in case no one else does other than the jackass who dislikes him and hopes to see him DQ'ed :) Do the rules of golf really envision giving up that type of control (even in theory) to someone thousands of miles of away? Talk about your outside agency!
The rules of golf like to talk about "equity". Well, in equity, if the violation on camera was called in immediately and word got to the player by the time he walked off 18, he'd add those strokes and would not be DQ'ed. So just add the strokes automatically and if necessary to assauge people's sense of tradition, have him re-sign the modified scorecard.
Maybe it'll take a violation by the winner that's not discovered until after the trophy presentation, and the rules of golf say nothing can be done. You watch the reaction of the average fan who thinks things like Harrington's DQ really stinks and thinks how stuffy and lawyerly golf is wonder WTF is up that they'll DQ a player when the ability exists to add strokes to his score and then see all the rules-obsessed types sit on their hands and say nothing can be done about a violation discovered after the final round, but DQ is totally the right call after the 1st, 2nd or 3rd rounds...
-
Lots going on in that post - seems you're assuming the players always act with integrity, yet the call-ins won't necessarily, sometimes we should follow video, sometimes we shouldn't, etc.
No one that I can see is saying it isn't infinitely preferable to catch the error prior to the player signing his scorecard. But you are not always going to catch everything in a timely fashion. How do you handle it then? I still say the current system works best - accept all evidence, let the chips fall where they may. I'd rather see a few call-in DQs every year than ignore evidence right in front of your eyes.
The analogies to other sports just don't work for me. The only thing that seems to be a common theme is that almost every sport tries hard to get things correct; is availing oneself of video evidence helping golf in that respect? I'd argue yes. Soccer is one notable holdout, as far as I can see with my incredibly limited experience (a handful of games every few years) - the result is there's a bunch of bitter fans out there that see plain evidence ignored. Is that better? Don't know, doesn't seem to be to me.
Is the DQ harsh? Sure. I think it has to be, for many different reasons.
It's agree to disagree time to me. I can't think of any other way to discuss this, so please don't ask me any other questions or quote me to drag me back in... :)
-
A question for anyone who sees no problem with how the Harrington situation turned out:
If Harrington had called an official over, what should the result have been?
I don't think there is a good answer to that question.
(1) Harrington says "I think the ball occilated and ended up back where it started, but I'm not 100% sure." The official says "I obviously didn't see it either, but if that's what happened, play away with no penalty." Harrington plays away, and later a TV viewer calls in and says "but the ball didn't end up back where it started." Then one of two things happens:
-- (a) There is no penalty because calling in the official somehow gives Harrington cover. I don't understand the theoretical justification for this view, but even if it is justified, as call-in penalties proliferate, this will just encourage players to call officials over all the bloody time, making tournament golf even slower and harder to watch than it already is.
-- (b) There is still a penalty. I think this is the only coherent answer for a rules absolutist to give - whatever the official says, the official knows he didn't see what happened and the ball still moved - but it leaves open the question, what the hell could Harrington have done? He did not know that the ball had not ended up back where it started. I suppose the best thing for him to do would be to assume that the ball moved and that he failed to replace it (because he couldn't replace it, not knowing whether it had moved), assume that he incurred a penatly, count the penalty in his score, and sign for a number which might be too high. But I doubt anyone really wants to defend that outcome, especially because I imagine that a movement of a few dimples on the green happens far more often than we would guess.
(2) Same as above, except the official instead goes to the TV replay booth to determine whether the ball moved. Now I at least see a principled basis to say that whatever the official decides should be final, even if a TV viewer sees something different and the official turns out to have been wrong. But do we really want tournaments to stop for fifteen minutes or more to check something like this? Isn't slow play a bigger problem for both the success and the integrity of professional tournaments?
On the other hand, I agree with George and others who have said that banning use of video isn't the right way to go. If the video shows a player violating a rule either without knowing the rule or intentionally with the hope that no one will notice, handing out a penalty after the fact seems like the right way to go -- though I'm still not sure that the DQ rule shouldn't be softened. The biggest problem for me is when the player does not know the facts about what happened and therefore can't know whether he broke a rule, even if he does know the rule, and where no one else on the scene knows the facts either and so cannot without unreasonable delay confirm for the player what happened. I just don't think a solution that says "yes, even if it takes an hour, get the video to make sure you get it right, or else risk DQ" is in the game's best interest.
-
I think the idea of calling the official over to "bless" the situation is that they are in fact there to provide a final judgement, of sorts, when rulings are needed. Our rules officials will need to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe if Harrington had called over his playing partner and an official and explained his side of the story and they both said ok, good enough, play away (regardless of looking at the video) then he wouldn't have had a problem later. I believe that's just a fact.
-
Jim: I thought I was done with this thread but your last post has brought me back. The facts are the same concerning whether the ball moved or not and whether Harrington was acting in good faith but somehow that's not enough and it must be that some other parties are informed of his good faith belief which somehow makes it okay that he was wrong. So more than one person has to be wrong in order for the situation to be okay and the player is not DQ'd. Come on now, you cannot possibly believe that somehow makes sense. What does the official say to the player for this to work - Do you have any doubt as to whether the ball moved, is it possible that the ball moved, what makes you convinced that the ball didn't move. Give me a break! He didn't believe the ball moved - he was wrong, assess the penalty and move on.
-
Jerry,
Your logic is all over the show. You now want penalties to be assessed where a player has done all he can to comply with the rules because he isn't able to tell that his ball moves a millimetre? Sounds like heaven for the TV rules bozos. Seems to me that in the Harrington situation, if he explains the question to a rules official and that gives him the all clear, that's exactly what you, as a defender of equity, want. But now you tell us that you positively want even the slightest movement, even if it needs slo-mo to spot it, to be penalised? I guess I really don't understand where you are coming from.
-
Mark: My point was so long as Harrington acted in good faith the worst that happens is he is assessed the penalty but no DQ and it should not matter if did or did not call over his playing partner or an official. My problem isn't assessing the penalty, even if it is a result of TV, rather it is the DQ after the player did not intentionally violate a rule.
-
Mark: My point was so long as Harrington acted in good faith the worst that happens is he is assessed the penalty but no DQ and it should not matter if did or did not call over his playing partner or an official. My problem isn't assessing the penalty, even if it is a result of TV, rather it is the DQ after the player did not intentionally violate a rule.
And how do you determine he acted in good faith?
If he simply re-marked his ball, that probably would have been evidence enough that he was at least aware that he moved his ball. If he simply called over his playing partner, that probably would have been evidence that he believed the ball had not moved, simply oscillated. If he had called over the official, that probably would have been enough to indicate he was following the rule, in that he believed it was in the same place. No one would likely have even called or emailed if he had done any one of those simple things. Instead, it would seem you would prefer officials become mind readers (how else would someone determine if someone intentionally violated a rule?)
I could live with the additional penalty instead of the DQ - though I prefer the current setup - but really, it seems you want to complete revamp a system that functions effectively the vast vast vast majority of the time.
Sorry I dragged myself back in, I will try to bow out now. :)
-
George: We are both trying to get out of this thread but are being drawn back in. I really don't understand why you can't live with the presumption of honesty on the part of the players. Golf after all is the only sport where there is no referee watching the competitors so how can you begin with a presumption that they are going to cheat if they think they can get away with it?
-
I am presuming neither. I am saying the ruling is based on what happened, as best anyone can determine. There is no implied statement one way or the other regarding player intent. That is equity, not presuming innocence and going from there.
Hopefully we can both bow out soon. I will let you have the last word, if you choose - as long as you don't say something I feel compelled to respond to! :) Have a nice weekend.
-
George: Harrington came on the broadcast from Dubai last weekend and he was really good - quite candid about the game and even doing a critique of Kaymer's swing. He's a good guy and I hope he has a good year. Have a nice weekend.
-
Jerry,
I would equate the official in golf to the judge and jury in legal matters. Once they've made their decision, that's it...including a modified appeals process.
-
George,
Where am I saying to ignore it??? I thought I was clear that someone calls in and its shown he violated a rule add the penalty. If he's already signed his card, add the penalty rather than DQ.
I don't buy the argument that the lack of DQ hanging over players will encourage cheating as some have suggested. Today if you deliberately cheat and no one sees it you get off scot free. If it is seen when it happens the penalty is assessed, if it is seen on TV too late to add to your card you are DQed. With my rule change its the same except in the last case where the strokes are added rather than being DQed. I fail to see where this provides a big incentive (or even a small incentive) for anyone to think cheating is worth it.
-
Doug: Brilliant minds think alike - I agree with you 100%.
-
Hmmm...isnt it ironic that the same people that argue that technology is ruining the game...and is contrary to the "spirit of the game" ( range finders, carts, modern balls and clubs) are now arguing that the technology that allows someone sitting at home watching on TV to call a penelty on a player 1000 miles away, is good for the game and keeping with the "spirit of the game".
-
A player's judgment as to the facts of what has occurred is used in many rules situations. I don't see why this situation should be any different.
With that said, I'm not comfortable ignoring solid evidence of what actually happened. I think doing so would cast doubt over the tournament (and maybe the player and the game a bit). So if it subsequently is proven that a player is wrong as to a fact, assess him a penalty but no DQ. A simple penalty whenever an error of fact is demonstrated - no need to try and determine the severity of the breach, or the player's intentions, or if any advantage was gained, and no need to be too harsh over an error of fact.
Harrington was wrong as to the fact of whether his ball moved. We don't need to examine his intentions or anything else (if he intended to move the ball but did not in fact move it, there would be no penalty - a player's intent is not relevant to this rule). Only his understanding of the facts is needed. Now if Harrington had known his ball moved but thought that he didn't have to replace it, then a DQ is fine. In that case, he would be correct as to the facts, but not the rule. I'm not willing to excuse or encourage ignorance of the rules, however convoluted they may be.
As another example, Villegas was not wrong on any facts - he knew he moved the divot, he didn't realize he violated a rule. Again, I think the DQ is fine.
For those that think players will just lie as to the facts, I say you might be right in some instances. But I don't think that will happen in many instances - being labeled a cheat is like a death sentence to these guys. And judgment in the court of public opinion is a pretty powerful deterrent.
-
I don't really want to comment on this thread again. However a couple of pieces of information from the past week.
Grant Moir who is in the R&A Rules Department has said the R&A are looking at this case and they are considering amending the DQ in cases like this one, where the 2 shot penalty for playing the from the wrong position could be applied after the card has been signed and an additional 2 shot penalty for signing for a lower score, giving a 4 shot penalty in total. This could work, obviously the R&A will look at it in much more detail to see if any complications might arise.
Secondly, I couldn't fully understand why Harrington didn't point out the infraction to his marker or an official, so I asked a couple of guys who were over in Abu Dhabi, one of whom was involved. Harrington uses a line on the ball to line up his putts. In his experience when a ball is placed it's normally in a small depression, when a ball is disturbed and moves, it normally returns to the depression and the line on the ball seemed to not have moved from where he placed it. So he didn't call anybody over, but he had no problem accepting the ruling when the evidence was shown to him.
-
Hmmm...isnt it ironic that the same people that argue that technology is ruining the game...and is contrary to the "spirit of the game" ( range finders, carts, modern balls and clubs) are now arguing that the technology that allows someone sitting at home watching on TV to call a penelty on a player 1000 miles away, is good for the game and keeping with the "spirit of the game".
Who?
-
Matt,
Why would being labelled a cheat be a death sentence to a player? You might not get as many endorsement deals and not have many fans, but for almost all tournaments you qualify based on the number of strokes on your card. Whether you're a cheater who gets caught and has strokes added or the occasional DQ, or a cheater who sometimes gets away with it but there isn't sufficient evidence (i.e., only 100 gallery members saw it, but not an official or TV camera) if your card reads the lowest after 72 holes you're a winner. If you do it in a major you get one of those nice trophys or jackets.
Or is there some unwritten rule on the PGA tour that if you get penalized or DQed too many times you get kicked off the tour, standing in the top 125 money winners be damned?
-
Yet another high profile person in the game of golf who doesn't understand the rules nor obvious downsides to any changes in the rules
http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=6058694
-
Matt,
Why would being labelled a cheat be a death sentence to a player?
Many of the instances of alleged cheating that I'm aware of happened many years ago yet still stain those involved. So being stained is a bit far from being dead (a la my stated "death sentence" - perhaps I was too dramatic). But I'm sure none of the players want the reputation and most try to avoid it at all costs. It is a strong deterrent.
From what I've read, they are considering a pretty stiff penalty - two strokes for the infraction and two strokes for signing an incorrect scorecard, for a total of 4 strokes.
-
Hmmm...isnt it ironic that the same people that argue that technology is ruining the game...and is contrary to the "spirit of the game" ( range finders, carts, modern balls and clubs) are now arguing that the technology that allows someone sitting at home watching on TV to call a penelty on a player 1000 miles away, is good for the game and keeping with the "spirit of the game".
Who?
Indeed, that was the question that immediately occurred to me. Craig, who are you talking about?
-
In the end, I assume we all prefer to have the rules applied accurately and timely...the disagreement in dealing with these strange circumstances where someone actually gets on the phone and calls a golf tournament to report a violation is where people place greater emphasis...the accuracy of the ruling or the timliness of it. Agreed?
Interesting solution proposed by some of the authorities...add an extra two strokes if the recognition of the violation occurs after the card is signed. Not the worst thing in the world, but a little screwy. Still leaves open my problem with Jerry's approach of assuming every player acts with the highest integrity first...too much on the line for most of them to grant that assumption.
-
Rule changed, in line with what many here suggested:
"After a season that featured many high-profile and controversial disqualifications for rules violations, the USGA has adjusted its rules so that a player who commits a violation would not be disqualified if the "player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card."
http://blogs.golf.com/presstent/2011/04/after-a-season-that-featured-many-high-profile-and-controversial-disqualifications-for-rules-violations-the-usga-has-adjuste.html
-
Clearly neither the USGA nor the R&A understand the rules nor the obvious downsides to changes in the rules ::)