As I always I follow these rules discussions with interest, and occasionally chime in. Chime time with a few points!
1. This DG, other DGs and conversations around innumerable water coolers have been fixated by a handful of incidents the past few months that led to penalties (usually DQ) being assessed. Please keep in mind that the rules need to apply to all golf, televised or not, and the vast majority of golf is nowhere near a television camera. The focus of those responsible for reviewing the rules remains all of golf, and not just the high profile incidents on television.
2. Several have made the suggestion that TV evidence not be used. And the countervailing point has been made that to ignore clear evidence of a breach available through TV coverage would tarnish a victory and the game itself. In my judgement ignoring television evidence will, in the long term, bring far more controversy and discredit than allowing its use. It is easy to come up with numerous examples where a player may breach the rules without realizing it, and gain a significant advantage that in all probability leads to a lower score. Inevitably and occasionally a player in such a situation will go on to win a tournament by one stroke. If television catches that infraction but the rules do not permit the use of the evidence, the player's victory is forever tarnished in the minds of fans, his fellow competitors and the player himself. The integrity of the game is seriously damaged as fans - serious and casual alike - have their faith in the game eroded. As this happens on multiple occasions as time passes real damage to one of the pillars of the game - the integrity and honesty of the game and players - is undermined.
Are some of the results of using television unfair and unfortunate? Unquestionably, and the Harrington incident is a perfect illustration of that. But no one is questioning the integrity of the game today, they are complaining about a specific application of a rule under specific circumstances. To not allow the use of all evidence would inevitably result in an erosion in the integrity of the game.
3. Some are calling for the introduction of intent and subjectivity into the rules and on course rulings. As an official who has worked at the highest levels of tournament golf I beg you not to require me to make judgement calls, that is an impossible task. Rules Officials are responsible for interpreting and applying the rules, we cannot be responsible for determining the intent of a player, whether they knew they had breached a rule or whether they did so intentionally or not. If you want fairness and consistency, do not ask different human beings to interpret rules, statements and actions subjectively, you invite sure disaster! Being a good official is difficult enough, do not saddle us with the impossible task of looking into the heart and mind of the players.
4. The USGA and R&A have both indicated they will be looking at incidents like Harrington's to see if a fairer way forward can be found. You should know that is not a new initiative but one that has been under consideration for some time. But the rules makers will, and should, be guided by finding a solution that is proper and legitimate, not a quick fix. Their mandate is the long term integrity and health of the game, not a reflex answer to a very, very few incidents.