[Doug Siebert]

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?

[JC Jones]

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 Schmidt]

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.

[Mark Pearce]

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?

[JESII]

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.

[Jay Cox]

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

[JC Jones]

Clearly neither the USGA nor the R&A understand the rules nor the obvious downsides to changes in the rules

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()