Dawson again waits to report rules infraction

[A_Clay_Man]

rg- I have actually been in the group with Stefan when deciding the proper order and area of where and when to drop. Calling him ignorant is a big stretch and dis-honest is uncalled for, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

As I understood what Tom Paul posted was: It is presumed by the rule writters (and committee) that an alert golfer would catch and stop a fellow competitor from violating a rule prior to it's violation. If both golfers were unaware and noone else, within earshot (or tv), could prevent a mistake, it shouldn't be re-hashed the next day by the guy who was unaware the day before. Why is he all so certain now, and not then?  

And I'm not one who whines about the rules, but certainly if there can be a 5 minute rule on looking for a golf ball there can be restrictions on how when and why a fellow competitor calls an infraction on a fellow competitor, especially if he was in a position to ensure the rules were properly followed.

[rgkeller]

It is not the duty of golfers to hawk their fellow competitors to ensure adherence to the rules. It is their responsibility to call attention to any violations that they observe.

Players who chose not to follow the rules or to remain ignorant of them should not be encouraged or rewarded by limiting the time for or the people who can bring violations to the attention of the Committee.

I called no individual either ignorant or dishonest in this thread. My reference was a generic one referring to those who would gain advantage by not adhering to the rules.

Certainly Toledo was at least ignorant in this instance and possibly dishonest. If I could see the actual situation of the drop, I would be willing to make a judgment on his integrity. Certainly the case for his absolute honesty is weakened by his not going to the rules officials after being notified by Dawson the following day.

[TEPaul]

"Adding a statute of limitations on rules violations WITHIN the tournament time frame only rewards the dishonest and the ignorant."

rgkeller:

Not sure if you were referring to what I said about call-ins or something someone else said about something else but if it was about what I said about call-ins I'm not recommending any statute of limitation within the rules of golf for golfers and officials in the competition I'm only recommending a statute of limitations regarding call-ins. I think perhaps that statute of limitations should be drawn for call-ins when that player can no longer defend himself against disqualification. Or better yet if these phenomenal arm-chair officials out there in television land are really on the job maybe they could even prevent the player from any penalty at all if they can get to the rules officials before that player tees off on the next hole!  

[rgkeller]

The player can always defend himself in front of the committee against disqualification or penalty by using the same evidence that was available to the "caller in" - the video evidence provided by the televisor tapes.

And, of course, the player can use his own testimony, that of his caddy, his fellow competitors, their caddies and other spectators.

I see no harm whatsoever to the competition or to the game when rules transgressions are uncovered and dealt with. It is players who violate the Rules and are not penalized who unfairly tilt the playing field not those who point out the transgressors.

[TEPaul]

'Unfairly tilt the playing field', "transgressors" and "transgressions" etc!?

There're no words like that in golf's rules! Do you think maybe this is beginning to sound a bit biblical and puritanical? Did you ever notice that the word "cheater" or "cheating" has basically never been mentioned in the rules of golf? I hope it never is!

[Bob_Huntley]

The officials, wanting to keep Price in the million dollar event were going to waive the rule and allow Price to change his card. Price refused, saying that with the card signed he was DQ'd.

.

[Bob_Huntley]

Damn,

I messed up again.

I meant to add that the South African PGA officials were as much to blame for the resultant black-eye at the event as Frost. Remembering that Price had already signed the card when the question arose, the officials brought back the card with a score for a hole erased and a number two greater than that inserted. Price was asked to initial it.....he refused and left the tent.

This was officialdom at it's worst and was rather like trying to keep Pavarotti in the opera in spite of his laryngitis.

[rgkeller]

'Unfairly tilt the playing field', "transgressors" and "transgressions" etc!?

There're no words like that in golf's rules! Do you think maybe this is beginning to sound a bit biblical and puritanical? Did you ever notice that the word "cheater" or "cheating" has basically never been mentioned in the rules of golf? I hope it never is!

I have no idea what message this post was intended to convey. I do admit to being quite puritanical with regards to the Rules.

Those who have the courage to confront players who break the rules have my admiration and thanks but I do realize such tasks are not for everyone.

[TEPaul]

rgkeller;

Regarding your post #32 if you have no idea what message was being conveyed, that's OK, just forget about it--it probably doesn't really matter. It was just sort of an aside about the way this discussion was going--a discussion about some of the fundamentals behind the rules of golf and some of the nuances of them. Forget it though--very few care or even want to think about that. Black vs white, good vs evil, "transgressors" vs the puritanical is probably a better and certainly an easier way to look at it all.

[David Wigler]

Not sure if any of this matters but here are a couple of additional facts.  Toledo was right at the cut line.  He needed a good score on 18 to make the cut and insure that he kept his playing privileges for the next year.  He took a very advantages drop.  I find it incredibly hard to believe that a PGA Tour Player and a PGA Tour caddie could not figure out nearest point of relief.  This is not an obscure rule like the divot thing.

One other point - If Dawson had called the violation on the spot, Toledo would have gotten a 2-stroke penalty and missed the cut by 1.  The distinction between missing the cut and disqualification is insignificant.  The second Toledo took the bad drop, he was done.  Dawson is still a bit of an ass for waiting a second day IMO but in the case, Toledo put him in an awful (Think Vijay in the 1985 Malaysian Open) spot.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong!

[JohnV]

David, when he took the drop he wasn't done.  He could still have corrected it under Rule 20-6.  Once he played the shot from there he was toast.  Rule 20-6 is very important as it allows the player to correct an incorrect drop before playing the shot with no penalty.

[TEPaul]

David & JohnV:

Even when he played the ball following the incorrect drop he wasn't complete toast--although he may have been a light brown toast (Rule 20-7b(i) )! When he teed of on the next tee, though, he was potentially very dark brown toast (the deeper do-do in the latter part of Rule 20-7b). But I guess Dawson thought it more prudent to not only wait until Toledo signed his card and left the "scoring area" but even until the next day to ABSOLUTELY INSURE that he was toast that was completely burnt to a crisp!!  

[JohnV]

Since this was probably not a serious breach of playing from a wrong place, although it could have been if Toledo gained enough from it, he wasn't truely toast until he turned in the score card without the 2 stroke penalty.  If it was a serious breach and since he was on #18 at the time, he would have had to announce that he intended to correct the error before leaving the putting green or he would have been DQ'ed right then.

[JohnV]

From the book: Rules of Golf Applied by Cliff Shrock, here is the story of Nick Price and David Frost:

During the third round of the Million Dollar Challange, Nick Price hit his drive on the 11th hole to the right-hand portion of the fairway.  An advertising sign was in his line of sight.

Remembering that just one week earlier at a Skins Game, on the same course, that similar signs were movable, Price had his caddie move the sign.  As it was being moved, Price's playing partner, David Frost, came over and said, "Nick, I don't think you move those, you get relief from them."  The tournament committee had, in fact, issued a sheet of Local Rules on the first day; the billboards were marked as TIOs on the sheet.

Price's caddie replaced the sign, as instructed by a rules official, and Price took line-of-sight relief.  However, as Price was to discover, simply replacing the sign didn't erase the original "crime" of removal.  Price and Frost finished the round tied for the lead;  Frost had marked Price for a 5 on the 11th.  In the scorer's tent, the players signed their cards, but rules official Buddy Young said, "Before I officially accept these cards, I understand there may be a question regarding a sign board, and I wanted to clear it up before the cards are submitted."

Frost said, "Yeah, those signs, are the immovable or movable obstructions?"

"They're immovable," Young said.

"Well, if you move them, is there a penalty?"

"Yeah"

Frost then changed Price's 5 on No. 11 to a 7, upsetting Price.  "Hey, hang on a second, you can't do that," Price said.  "My card has been handed in, it's dead."

"Young replied, "I've not accepted your card yet."

Price felt he had been backed into a corner.  He complained about the signs being handled differently two weeks in a row.  "I was angry," he said later.  "Eventually I said, 'The best thing to do is erase my signature and hand in an unsigned card.'"

Price's matter of principle meant he had to be disqualified for not returning a card.  Instead of being two back at the start of the fourth round, Price was out.  Frost won the championship.  Today, the players don't share much more than hellos.

[TEPaul]

JohnV;

That's my point! Dawson couldn't take the chance that Toledo might weasel out of a DQ somehow so he must have decided to wait not only til he'd teed off on the next hole, walked off #18 and signed the card and was well out of the "scoring area"--matter of fact waiting until the next day would be a super locked in situation of DQ. What do you need enemies for when you have friends on the tour like Dawson?  

[George Pazin]

Why didn't they just call Matt Ward for a common sense solution?

[Dan Kelly]

From the book: Rules of Golf Applied by Cliff Shrock, here is the story of Nick Price and David Frost:

Price's matter of principle....

What "principle" was Price standing up for?

[A_Clay_Man]

No one (especially me) seems to have all the facts on this incident.

Can anyone clear up exactly what happened?

I understand ET took an improper drop (or not the closest point of relief)

 Was it a serious distance? Wrong side of the GUR?  what?

[John_Cullum]

From the book: Rules of Golf Applied by Cliff Shrock, here is the story of Nick Price and David Frost:

....  In the scorer's tent, the players signed their cards, but rules official Buddy Young said, "Before I officially accept these cards, I understand there may be a question regarding a sign board, and I wanted to clear it up before the cards are submitted."

Frost said, "Yeah, those signs, are the immovable or movable obstructions?"

"They're immovable," Young said.

"Well, if you move them, is there a penalty?"

"Yeah"

Frost then changed Price's 5 on No. 11 to a 7, upsetting Price.  "Hey, hang on a second, you can't do that," Price said.  "My card has been handed in, it's dead."

"Young replied, "I've not accepted your card yet."

Price felt he had been backed into a corner.  He complained about the signs being handled differently two weeks in a row.  "I was angry," he said later.  "Eventually I said, 'The best thing to do is erase my signature and hand in an unsigned card.'"

Price's matter of principle meant he had to be disqualified for not returning a card.  Instead of being two back at the start of the fourth round, Price was out.  Frost won the championship.  Today, the players don't share much more than hellos.

It is the committee's responsibility to inform players where to turn in their scorecard; therefor, it is not unusual to define "The Scoring Area" in the local rules and to state that a scorecard is officially returned to the committee when the player has exited the scoring area. We always use this language in the events I work, including PGA tour qualifying.

I guess it is possible that different language is used in South Africa. But since it appears Price is not one to read the local rules (as most players), he may have really screwed himself on this occasion.

[TEPaul]

Is that what the situation was with the Price/Frost situation?

What the hell was Frost supposed to do differently? He made Price aware of the distincton of IO and TIO's out on the course in the midst of that situation in the first place, no problem there. He answered the scorer's questions, then asked good follow-up questions in the scorer's tent when it was Price who probably should have on his own card. Price didn't even seem to understand the meaning of the fact he was still in the scorer's tent so his card amended, signed or otherwise sure wasn't "dead" in the sense of officially being handed in and accepted. Frost marked and changed Price's card!? So what, since he'd been keeping it all day as his marker anyway?

It's Price who should know one helluva lot more about the rules and the procedures, not Frost!

For God Sake, neither Price nor his caddie even bothered to read the "Conditions of Competition" sheet for that particular tournament. Those guys are playing for a lot of money, wouldn't you think they could take about one minute to read and understand the "Conditions of Competition sheet" since not doing so could potentially cost them a bundle as it did in Price's case? The trouble with some of those pros is they depend too much on officials and others to tell them what to do apparently. Every tour player should be completely conversant with the rules of golf, at the very least for his own protection! At least tour players should be completely aware of the entire meaning of Rule 6-1 and that ignorance of the rules of golf is no excuse whatsoever!

But  Price chose to needlessly take himself out of that tournament. That had nothing to do with Frost.

What Price did in that tournament is a pretty good example of "Murphy's Law"--he did just about everything wrong in that entire situation you could possibly do wrong! Why?

[JohnV]

Tom, I couldn't agree with you more.  According to this description of the events, Price comes out of this looking much worse than Frost.  One of my favorite Local Rules stories was that the Executive Director of a regional association put a message on the bottom of the local rules that said, "Anyone bringing this sheet to the pro shop after the round will be given a sleeve of Titlest balls."  Nobody showed up.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

The way that situation was described above I can see why anyone would complain about anything David Frost did. What did he do wrong or what does anyone think he did wrong? As far as I can see he did everything right and was certainly not even remotely in Price's face about anything. Christ, if it wasn't for Frost, Price wouldn't have been able to DQ himself anyway--the "Committee" and "scorer would've done that for him!

[rgkeller]

JohnV;

That's my point! Dawson couldn't take the chance that Toledo might weasel out of a DQ somehow so he must have decided to wait not only til he'd teed off on the next hole, walked off #18 and signed the card and was well out of the "scoring area"--matter of fact waiting until the next day would be a super locked in situation of DQ. What do you need enemies for when you have friends on the tour like Dawson?  

Of course, the two shot penalty for Toledo's illegal act would have ensured Toledo's missing the cut, negating any motive for Dawson's plotting to get Toledo DQ'd - but why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

[DonJ]

From CNN SI...
Dawson said he never saw Toledo take the drop at Disney, and that a rules official was never called for clarification, so he assumed Toledo knew what he was doing

How do you then make a call on something if you never saw it in the first place?

[TEPaul]

"Of course, the two shot penalty for Toledo's illegal act would have ensured Toledo's missing the cut, negating any motive for Dawson's plotting to get Toledo DQ'd - but why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory."

rgkeller;

You might think so but do you really think Dawson could be sure of that out on the course? It's not that much different from the old adage;

"If you're going to lay up then really lay up!"

In this case it's;

"If you're gonna take a guy out take him all the way out with a DQ!"