[JESII]

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.

[Mark Pearce]

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.

[George Pazin]

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.

[Chris Roselle]

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....

[Jerry Kluger]

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.

[Mark Pearce]

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.

[Jerry Kluger]

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. 

[JMEvensky]

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.

[George Pazin]

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.

[JESII]

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?

[George Pazin]

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.

[JESII]

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.

[JMEvensky]

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?

[Sean_A]

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

[George Pazin]

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.

[Jim_Kennedy]

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.

[JESII]

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 Pazin]

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!

[JMEvensky]

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.

[JESII]

Every once in a while you see it, but not very often. Maybe it does track the players reputation, I don't know.

[Matt Schmidt]

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.

[JESII]

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?

[Jerry Kluger]

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.  

[George Pazin]

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!

[JMEvensky]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()