JohnV:
I gotta tell you that situation with Bob Murphy and the other player who wasn't even in his group certainly seems harsh and unnecessary to me.
To me that brings up a whole series of questions about an incident like that that I can't see are specifically within the rules of golf or the decisions to deal with a situation like that in the manner you say it was dealt with. I'd sure like to know what "rules thread" that official and that "committee" followed to DQ that other player (not in Murphy's group).
Again, there are any number of legitimate questions brought up by that incident. Just how far does the Senior Tour take the concept of a "player's responsibility" (Rule 6-1) to "protect the field" certainly is one of them?
A bunch of interrelated rules come into play on that incident, in my opinion, such as Rule 1-3, perhaps 1-4 and certainly 33-1 and 33-7. To cut to the quick this sure seems like an incident where the committee had every right and good reason to waive or modify a penalty of disqualification of that other player.
Decision 6-6a/5 doesn't seem like a great analogy for that Murphy incident, in my opinion, because that decision deals with a competitor's marker, something that other player certainly was not (he wasn't even in the same group).
Perhaps there was something that the Senior Tour uses under "Conditions of Competition" (Rule 33-1) which actually strengthens the concept of "protecting the field" and every competitor's "player's responsibility" under Rule 6-1 is far more stringent! So what rule did they actually use to DQ that other player for violating would be my question? Rule 1-3, 6-1, or perhaps something in the "Conditions of Competition" from Rule 33-1?
I certainly see no agreement between Murphy and the other player to "agree to waive a rule" which is sort of the test for violating rule 1-3. Rule 6-1 basically deals with a player's own responsibility to apply the rules correctly regarding himself anyway.
So where exactly does the rules get into putting this kind of onus on "fellow competitors" to "protect the field" to that kind of extent?
For a reasonable analogy to this situation from a decision from the match play rule (Rule 2) I'd point you to decision 2-5/1 (Player's Obligation Re: Lodging Claim)! It certainly seems to me that perhaps the Stroke Play rule (Rule 3) should have something similar within it when it comes to a player's responsibility to overlook a rules infraction if there's no agreement to waive a rule of golf (for some kind of advantage), as well as what all any "fellow competitor's" responsibilities are to "protect the field" which is basically not that much more than a player protecting his own rights vs his opponent in match play.
I don't think the responsibility of a "fellow competitor to "protect the field" should become that burdensome is what I'm saying and if it appears to in a situation such as that one then the "committee" (Rule 33) has every right and good reason under rule 33-7 to "waived of modified" a penalty of disqualification.
Firstly, that poor "fellow competitor" who wasn't even in Murphy's group apparently found out what the real impact of "Murphy's Law" (if something can go wrong it will) is all about, in my opinion. And secondly, I think that committee went too far! I can't see anything within the rules of golf (not including the fact that there may be something addressing this in the Senior Tour's "Conditions of competiton" (Rule 33-1) that I'm not aware of about "Player's Responsibilities" to "protect the field") that specifically addresses this particular incident.
The morale of that incident as far as that player was concerned probably would be "It's better and a helluva lot safer to just keep your mouth shut period and don't even ask a question of a rules official about some other player."
At the very least it would seem pretty obvious for that rules official to have asked that player why he was asking about practice putting on the course!!