[JohnV]

The focus here should be on getting it right, noattested.  The fact that you consider failing get the two signatures on the t "gotcha traps", in my view.

We agree here.  The question is how to we guarantee it is correct?  To me the way we do that is by requiring the two people involved to attest to its correctness.  That is done by signing the card.  Fail to sign it and it isn't card and putting that responsibility on the player to be a "gotcha trap" is where our basic disagreement starts.

Definition #1 of Attest in Webster:  to affirm to be true or genuine; specifically : to authenticate by signing as a witness

I'll conclude my postings on this subject with a few quotes from The Principles behind the Rules of Golf by Richard Tufts.

Great post, John!  My next web site is Amazon.com to get the book.  Thanks!

Meg

It is out of print, but the USGA had copies available on their website about 2 months ago.  They don't seem to have it listed right now, but I think their new web store is not complete.  You might call them and ask.

[JohnV]

Meg,

I remembered that I'd linked to the USGA website on my blog awhile ago.

Try this link:

Principles Behind the Rules of Golf

$19.95 a copy

[Pete_Pittock]

Can some rules history afficianado please help flesh out my memory.  
  Somehwen around 1950 in the Open Championship the leader had a four shot lead on the eighteenth hole but somehow broke a rule (mark to side-fail to replace?) and signed for the score without including the penalty.
Committee aware and added two strokes instead of DQ because everyone saw him win by four.
  Did this have any effect on the rules for the Committee?

  While this incident is not specifically about signing the scorecard it had the same effect as those arguing for deregulation.

  

[MargaretC]

Mararet

Good luck finding Tuft's Book. You may as well search for the holy grail

John:

I don't have the time to search for the Holy Grail -- I'm challenged just trying to find matching socks for 6 kids.  However, I will call the USGA tomorrow to see if copies of the book are available and will let you know.

Meg

[JohnV]

I believe that was the R&A at the Open for Bobby Locke.

They have been known to be flexible about the rules in a way that they tell everyone else they can't be, such as moving the hole at Sunningdale last year during the Qualifier for the Open and then having players who had already completed the hole go back and play it later.

[MargaretC]

Meg,

I remembered that I'd linked to the USGA website on my blog awhile ago.

Try this link:

Principles Behind the Rules of Golf

$19.95 a copy

John:

GREAT!  Thanks!  Hope John Cullum sees this...easiest "search" I've ever done!   

Meg

[Pete_Pittock]

Shivas,
Care to respond to my reply #396?

[Tim_Cronin]

Can some rules history afficianado please help flesh out my memory.   
  Somehwen around 1950 in the Open Championship the leader had a four shot lead on the eighteenth hole but somehow broke a rule (mark to side-fail to replace?) and signed for the score without including the penalty.
Committee aware and added two strokes instead of DQ because everyone saw him win by four.
  Did this have any effect on the rules for the Committee?

  While this incident is not specifically about signing the scorecard it had the same effect as those arguing for deregulation.

 

Pete,
   As John noted, that was an Open won by Bobby Locke. Can't remember if it was Troon in 1950 or St. Andrews in 1957, but the circumstance was Locke failing to replace his mark after moving it over. He didn't remember, nobody on the Committee remembered, and it wasn't realized until several days later, when someone watching a newsreel (shades of Craig Stadler and the towel) saw it in a theater.
   The R&A told Locke, no big deal, we know there was no intent to violate the rules, and waived any penalty. He had won by enough strokes than any penalty was moot anyway. (Which makes me think it was St. Andrews in 1957, since he won by three. He won by two at Troon.)
    Ah, that the LPGA was as wise, given its failure to have a staffer inside its scoring zone. That, not Wie's mistake, is the real howler in all this.

[JESII]

Assuming this rule were to change to a more palatablepenalty, what happens when the new penalty seems a bit harsh for the circumstances...whatever it may be?

[J_ Crisham]

Shivas , What is the penalty for hitting your opponents $4 ball from a bunker onto the roof of a $5 million house at 9 in the morning? Answer-hope Dave Miller is nearby for a ruling    Jack

[John_Cullum]

Meg,

I remembered that I'd linked to the USGA website on my blog awhile ago.

Try this link:

Principles Behind the Rules of Golf

$19.95 a copy

John:

GREAT!  Thanks!  Hope John Cullum sees this...easiest "search" I've ever done!   

Meg

Glad to know they ran a few more. I've ordered two copies tonight

[John_Conley]

Spoke to a guy that has played on Tour tonight.  He made some great points.

1. Initially said Wie really blew it, but quickly added, "this could NEVER happen on our Tour."  Explained that the scoring area is manned by a Tour official who compares the scorecard to THEIR records on the computer.  If something looks off they'll help you modify it before the card is official.  Guys get DQ'd for failing to sign their card when they want out.  (Daly comes to mind, but he's not the only one.)  Guys don't get DQ'd when they are on the first page.

2. I probably can't do this justice, but he explained EXACTLY how this happened, or at least how he thinks it must have.  It made so much sense I believe him.  It answers the questions so many have asked about, "how on earth could this happen?"  Here's how - Some LPGA member found out that Wie had made the procedural mistake and the people in charge were probably going to let this slide upon learning, which explains why she played Saturday.  The other LPGA player(s) make a stink and the officials have to call her on something they may have overlooked.  There is a world of resentment toward Wie still.  Plausible.

[Tim_Cronin]

John,
   That No. 2 makes a lot of sense. Obviously, there were two other players in that tent, at least at the start. A regular LPGA member is more likely to known the LPGA addendum to 6-6 than Wie or the volunteers. I wouldn't be surprised if they talked about it in the locker room after the round, or got up in the morning, saw nothing about a Wie DQ in the State Journal-Register, and went to someone, either before or after someone else (a volunteer) was, according to the LPGA, chatting about Wie's action in the press room.

[Jim Nugent]

Spoke to a guy that has played on Tour tonight.  He made some great points.

1. Initially said Wie really blew it, but quickly added, "this could NEVER happen on our Tour."  Explained that the scoring area is manned by a Tour official who compares the scorecard to THEIR records on the computer.  If something looks off they'll help you modify it before the card is official.  Guys get DQ'd for failing to sign their card when they want out.  (Daly comes to mind, but he's not the only one.)  Guys don't get DQ'd when they are on the first page.

2. I probably can't do this justice, but he explained EXACTLY how this happened, or at least how he thinks it must have.  It made so much sense I believe him.  It answers the questions so many have asked about, "how on earth could this happen?"  Here's how - Some LPGA member found out that Wie had made the procedural mistake and the people in charge were probably going to let this slide upon learning, which explains why she played Saturday.  The other LPGA player(s) make a stink and the officials have to call her on something they may have overlooked.  There is a world of resentment toward Wie still.  Plausible.

Real interesting information.  A world of resentment towards Wie.  Because of the money she made?  All the media attention?  Her own behavior?  Her parents?   

[Phil McDade]

Jim:

A little off-track for a moment, but don't forget there was a lot of resentment toward Tiger in fall '96 and even through his win at the Western in the summer of '97 (post-Masters, the one where the ropes came down and thousands of fans followed him down the fairway) -- for many of the same reasons cited here. He'd lined up a bunch of endorsement money early, had what was perceived as over-bearing parents (though not in the league of the Wies, from all reports), had won the SI sportsman-of-the-year thing the year before, his demeanor on the course (confidence bordering on arrogance), sponsor's exemptions, et al. I recall a Faxon quote in which he suggested that Tiger ought to tone it down a bit, because he wasn't going to win everything out there, due to how tough and demanding and good the Tour was. Of course, that resentment was fairly quickly replaced by universal admiration -- I think even the most jaded guys on Tour know they are in the presence of something other-worldly with Tiger.

If there is resentment toward Wie (which I wouldn't doubt), I'm guessing it's tied in part to her lack of wins/success compared to the attention she gets (press, exemptions, from overbearing parents...) I don't know if anyone on the LPGA Tour resents Creamer, but she's not much older than Wie, and represents a pretty good contrast to Wie in how a really talented player can succeed and build a foundation for a great career while they are still quite young.

[MargaretC]

Spoke to a guy that has played on Tour tonight.  He made some great points.

1. Initially said Wie really blew it, but quickly added, "this could NEVER happen on our Tour."  Explained that the scoring area is manned by a Tour official who compares the scorecard to THEIR records on the computer.  If something looks off they'll help you modify it before the card is official.  Guys get DQ'd for failing to sign their card when they want out.  (Daly comes to mind, but he's not the only one.)  Guys don't get DQ'd when they are on the first page.

2. I probably can't do this justice, but he explained EXACTLY how this happened, or at least how he thinks it must have.  It made so much sense I believe him.  It answers the questions so many have asked about, "how on earth could this happen?"  Here's how - Some LPGA member found out that Wie had made the procedural mistake and the people in charge were probably going to let this slide upon learning, which explains why she played Saturday.  The other LPGA player(s) make a stink and the officials have to call her on something they may have overlooked.  There is a world of resentment toward Wie still.  Plausible.

Jim:

# 1 - IMO, there should be no question that the LPGA really botched this entire incident -- completely classless and amateur.

Many have said on this thread that it is unlikely that this would have occurred in other events because the scoring tent is appropriately staffed.

# 2 - Certainly plausible, but also correct regardless of the motivation.  Players should be able to expect that the so called professional organization would apply the rules consistently.

Michelle made the mistake, but she handled it honestly and with poise.

For this event, at least, the LPGA's organization and professionalism is highly suspect.

[Joe Bausch]

David Feherty was on w/ Dan Patrick yesterda and this 'Wie incident' was discussed.  It was very entertaining listening (go to danpartrick.com and listen to the podcast if you wish).

But DH said it is Wie's responsibility but that the whole situation is a travesty.  He more or less said there should be some checks and balances to prevent this from ever happening (like somebody in the tent that doesn't let any player leave until asking/reminding them to have signed for their scorecard).

I read that the scoring tent was staffed by volunteers.  Sounds a bit surprising, you say?  Well, even at the McDonald's LGPA Championship, one of their majors, the scoring tent is staffed by volunteers.  I know this b/c I've worked as a scorer now for two years at this tournament (I've also worked a Champions Tour major and they have an official there very sternly asking each player have they double and triple checked their score and did they sign their card properly).

Not to get off-topic, but if the general way the LPGA players go about keeping each others scores and the speed with which they want to get in and out of the scorers tent is typical of the 7 or 8 groups I've scored for now over the past two years, I really wonder how many mistakes have been made.  Let me give you an example:  this year during the final round I scored for a threesome in the mid-morning (they weren't really in contention).  I've learned to be super-fast tallying up the back nine scores to give to the runner (and being asked to keep other stats), a requirement before I go to the scorer's tent.  Usually I'm there just in time for the players to already have their cards out and be reading off each others scores.  Well, one player this time wasn't just off by one stroke on a hole, but two!  The woman she was scoring for corrected her to say she didn't have a birdie but a bogey!  Easily the player could have just gone along with that lower score and it would have been the difference of thousands of dollars.  Thankfully she corrected her to say she had a six instead.  If she had taken the four, I really wonder how this would have been detected (I would have spoken up, but I'm confident many times the walking scorer wouldn't pipe up or the cards have been signed so quickly before they've had a chance to arrive and get organized).

[John_Cullum]

How about a rule like this:

"On completion of the stipulated round the card shall be signed by the Marker and countersigned by the competitor, who shall hand it in as soon as reasonably possible.
A card cannot be held to be valid until it has been signed by both marker and competitor, but a competitor should not be disqualified for a breach of this clause until a reasonable attempt has been made to obtain a missing signature."

[George Pazin]

Let me give you an example:  this year during the final round I scored for a threesome in the mid-morning (they weren't really in contention).  I've learned to be super-fast tallying up the back nine scores to give to the runner (and being asked to keep other stats), a requirement before I go to the scorer's tent.  Usually I'm there just in time for the players to already have their cards out and be reading off each others scores.  Well, one player this time wasn't just off by one stroke on a hole, but two!  The woman she was scoring for corrected her to say she didn't have a birdie but a bogey!  Easily the player could have just gone along with that lower score and it would have been the difference of thousands of dollars.  Thankfully she corrected her to say she had a six instead.  If she had taken the four, I really wonder how this would have been detected (I would have spoken up, but I'm confident many times the walking scorer wouldn't pipe up or the cards have been signed so quickly before they've had a chance to arrive and get organized).

Can someone speak as to whether safeguards are in place for this on any tour? If someone puts you down for a birdie instead of a bogey and you are a less than ethical person, could you just sign for it and walk away, likely to not get caught?

-----

Still haven't heard anything that persuades me away from the current rule....

[John_Cullum]

Let me give you an example:  this year during the final round I scored for a threesome in the mid-morning (they weren't really in contention).  I've learned to be super-fast tallying up the back nine scores to give to the runner (and being asked to keep other stats), a requirement before I go to the scorer's tent.  Usually I'm there just in time for the players to already have their cards out and be reading off each others scores.  Well, one player this time wasn't just off by one stroke on a hole, but two!  The woman she was scoring for corrected her to say she didn't have a birdie but a bogey!  Easily the player could have just gone along with that lower score and it would have been the difference of thousands of dollars.  Thankfully she corrected her to say she had a six instead.  If she had taken the four, I really wonder how this would have been detected (I would have spoken up, but I'm confident many times the walking scorer wouldn't pipe up or the cards have been signed so quickly before they've had a chance to arrive and get organized).

Can someone speak as to whether safeguards are in place for this on any tour? If someone puts you down for a birdie instead of a bogey and you are a less than ethical person, could you just sign for it and walk away, likely to not get caught?

-----

Still haven't heard anything that persuades me away from the current rule....

In that circumstance you can be disqualified at any time, even after the event is completed

[Garland Bayley]

...
Still haven't heard anything that persuades me away from the current rule....

Spoke to a guy that has played on Tour tonight.  He made some great points.

1. Initially said Wie really blew it, but quickly added, "this could NEVER happen on our Tour."  Explained that the scoring area is manned by a Tour official who compares the scorecard to THEIR records on the computer.  If something looks off they'll help you modify it before the card is official.  Guys get DQ'd for failing to sign their card when they want out.  (Daly comes to mind, but he's not the only one.)  Guys don't get DQ'd when they are on the first page.
...

George,

It seems to me that the PGA Tour has got this right and the LPGA should be ashamed of themselves for not picking up on the example. There is no need for rule changes if your tour handles the situation professionally!

[Kalen Braley]

Still haven't heard anything that persuades me away from the current rule....

George,

I'm still waiting for any response that shows logically how the punishment fits the crime in this case, other than "them's the rules".

BTW,

Rules changes are very common over the years.  Take a look at this site for the dozens and dozens that have been modified and tweaked.  There is very good precedence for continuing to do so in this case.

http://www.ruleshistory.com/index.html

[George Pazin]

I already told you, Kalen, like situations....

How about someone who signs with a mistake? Should we change that to a 2 stroke penalty? Or does that stay DQ?

If it's a penalty, how does that affect that cut line? Pairings? Particularly if discovered late, as this may have been or Harrington's was a few years ago?

If it stays a DQ, is it "fair" that a scorecard mistake mistake is a DQ while forgetting to sign is not?

I don't know if you've seen Serenity, but if you have, I'd suggest you think about what River says early on: "We're meddlesome." And think about what JES said last page or the one before: What happens the next time there's a DQ you disagree with?

[Kalen Braley]

Geroge,

I've said it before, but I'll say it again.

These are not "like" situations.  If one signs thier card with incorrect information, then they are misrepresenting what they did on the course.  Its an incident that impacts the field and they are not being protected.  MW never misrepresnted her score.  The numbers on the card were correct, she never gained any advantage by not signing the card the 1st time in the tent. She returned to sign the card after it was discovered that she hadn't done so while in the tent the 1st time. How was the field harmed by her leaving the tent?  How was anyone harmed by this for that matter. So my original question stands:

Where is the logical basis in DQ'ing someone who has submitted a correct scorecard without a signature, and a few minutes later returning to sign it.  Who is the victim?

As for the cut line, it moves all the time.  Its not until after everyone is off the course that a cut is actually set in stone.  So even if this happened with the last player to come off the course, if folks have to wait an extra 5 minutes to get the cut information I'm not seeing how this has a dramatic impact on pairings for the next day.

And finally for the record, this is the only DQ that I can ever recall disagreeing with.  But if such an event happens in the future with similar dubious circumstances and silly rulings, its a safe bet I'd have an opinion on that rule as well.

[George Pazin]

So how do you know if the not signing the name was intentional or an oversight? Maybe there is a mistake in the person's favor they are trying to get away with - is that now a "whoops, forgot to sign" mistake or a trying to get away with something mistake? Is there really a need to create more confusion in the rules?

I'm not at all the right person to argue or explain the rules - JVB has done so on this thread more than capably. I'm saying his arguments are a lot stronger than everyone on the other side, to me at least.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()