[John Kavanaugh]

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.

[Jim_Kennedy]

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.  

[Steve Pozaric]

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.

[JMEvensky]

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.

[Mark Pearce]

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.

[Dan Kelly]

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.

[George Pazin]

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?

[JMEvensky]

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.

[JESII]

George,

I believe the official being called would have absolved the "crime".

[John_Cullum]

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.

[Jim_Kennedy]

He didn't call an official over, the bad 'call' was his.  

[Jerry Kluger]

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?

[Dan Kelly]

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.

[TEPaul]

"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.

[BCrosby]

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

    

[Jim_Kennedy]

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.   

[JMEvensky]

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?

[Jim_Kennedy]

JME,
I had thought of adding that, but left the door open instead. 

[JMEvensky]

JME,
I had thought of adding that, but left the door open instead. 

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?

[Padraig Dooley]

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.

[Steve Lang]

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!

[Bruce Wellmon]

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?

[Padraig Dooley]

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.

[Jim_Kennedy]

JME,
Not  bad idea, but I only like to watch golf in prime time when they're playing in Hawaii.

[Chris Roselle]

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.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()