Harrington DQ'd at Abu Dhabi

[Jim_Kennedy]

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.

[JESII]

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?

[JMEvensky]

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.

[JESII]

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.

[Padraig Dooley]

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?

[RSLivingston_III]

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.

[Padraig Dooley]

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.

[JESII]

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?

[JESII]

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.

[JMEvensky]

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.

[JMEvensky]

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?

[JESII]

Fair enough, I'm sure they weren't looking for a reason to fly home, so I'll agree...

[John Kavanaugh]

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 Dooley]

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.

[TEPaul]

"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).

[JMEvensky]

"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.

[Jerry Kluger]

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.  

[JESII]

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.

[RSLivingston_III]

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?

[John Kavanaugh]

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.

[Brian Marion]

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?

[JC Jones]

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?

[JC Jones]

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?

[JC Jones]

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?

[RSLivingston_III]

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.