Harrington DQ'd at Abu Dhabi

[Andrew Brown]

The Rules of Golf are written and structured so that they apply to all levels of the game played competitively. The perception that professionals play under an amended set of Rules is incorrect. Local Rules for tournaments are put in place to effectively allow play to take place, and they too are written within the Rules framework - officials know what can and can't be written as a local rule (I am not talking about ignorant club committees here, but Rules officials who know their way around the Rules). There seems to be a misconception here by some that Local Rules are outside  the Rules framework to allow the professionals to play their game. Not so.

PGA tours in all countries also have "permanent" local Rules known as the Hardcard. Nothing surprising on the Hardcard, but the professionals who play week in and week out will be able to expect that like situations on different courses will be treated the same, and the pros do not have to wonder "what can I do with this type of fence", or "what does this white line on the ground mean" etc.

I am not against the idea of "re-opening" a player's card if tv evidence shows a breach after the card has been signed and returned. This will require amendment to Rule 6-6d or somewhere within R34-1b, unless a "hardcard" local rule can be agreed upon by the tour. But that would move away from the premise that the Rules as written are the same for everyone. However, I do hope that it happens so that such situations as Harrington and Villegas can be avoided in the future.

Regards from Norway
Andrew

[Steve Kline]

When you find a Tour Pro who does anything randomly,let me know.

Tiger for starters.

Sorry but I could not resist.

On topic for the thread...I'm sick of people calling in rules violations. It's stupid and makes golf look stupid. The only people that should be able to call violations are the players, caddies, and officials.

[Dan Herrmann]

I propose a new section to Rule 34.

"The committee shall take information only from people physically present" (poorly worded, but you get the idea)
------------------
And golf wonders why people quite playing and watching.  What a joke this was.

[Ross Tuddenham]

In the same way I cannot phone the premier league to point out an infringement I thought the ref missed, why should the viewer have a say at a golf event.  The rules do not need changed.  All we need to say is that TV video evidence cannot be used to make a ruling after a round

It wouldn't matter what the rules said, if a player was found to have broken a rule by a TV viewer, he would be morally obliged to withdraw from the tournament when alerted to his error.  So changing the rule would not change anything. 

Surely we an only expect the players to at as honestly as possible within what we can reasonably expect them to observe. For example Harrington's ball moved 3 dimples forward and over 1.5 dimples back.  Yes you can see that with HD tv on slow mo back can the player really be expected to observe that in the heat of battle?

[BCrosby]

I propose a new section to Rule 34.

"The committee shall take information only from people physically present" (poorly worded, but you get the idea)
------------------

And such information is received before the card is turned in? Is the next day ok? What counts as "information" worthy of being adjudicated? Should video replays be allowed as evidence, pro or con if eye witness information is received? What counts as 'receiving' the information? Telling the player? Telling a rules official in person? A twitter to the host club? To the PGA offices that might be ignored for days? Should there be an exception if the violation was egregious but took place where it was only clear on TV? What about lesser players who have no galleries?  

I'm not saying that there are no answers to these (and lots of other) similar questions. I only mean to suggest that a solution is not easy, obvious or simple. It's possible that the current rule is the most workable rule. If there is reasonably clear evidence a violation occurred, whether the player had knowledge or not, a penalty is assessed. Sometimes that rule leads to outcomes that are not equitable in some abstract sense, but that might be an acceptable price for a relatively straightforward rule.


Bob    

[TEPaul]

Andrew Brown:

Your #79 is a very good one, particularly the first paragraph.

I get the feeling that there will be some changes made in the procedures for how these kinds of things (such as the situations with Harrington and Villegas and numerous other ones before it) will be handled in the future. It seems they are already under consideration with the essential "Rules Makers" in golf.

But I think what will be most instructive to see is how these considerations and issues (Rules and Local Rules changes) will play out through the official world-wide structure of the accepted Rules of Golf.

To date and perhaps over the last fifty to sixty years, and particularly after the so-called Rules Unification conferences of the early 1950s between the R&A and USGA, it seems most all golf has operated in a fairly unified structure, certainly including the world wide professional tours.

There is language throughout the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf (Rule Book and Decisions Book and to some extent the R&A/USGA manual known as "How to Conduct a Competition") that addresses all these issues and situational possibilities.

The whole structure of R&A/USGA Local Rules are addressed in Appendix I of the Rules Book. They include Parts A (Local Rules), Part B (Specimen Local Rules) and Part C (Conditions of Competition).

They also reference Rule 33-8a as to what can and cannot be used under the Rules of Golf as far as the "Committee's latitude in applying the various Local Rules in Appendix I. At this time essentially or theoretically any Local Rule can be used provided it does not waive a Rule of Golf (Rule 33-1).

The concept and reality of the "Committee" within the structure and language of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf is actually only a bit more than a century old and it is constantly evolving.

I think this is an issue that the will be taken up by the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee. That is an actual official committee made up of R&A and USGA Rules of Golf Committee members and they are the only people who actually consider and make (vote) the decisions to change the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf. I suspect all the other tournament entities around the world will ultimately look to them to resolve these kinds of issue within the official structure and language of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf for essentially the fundamental reason that all these situations can operate in the same unified way.

Nevertheless, who really does control and have latitude within the framework of the "Committee" concept in golf (Rule 33, 34 and Appendix I within the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf) and particularly with the writing and application of various "Local Rules" I think is still very much an evolving issue and question with the R&A, USGA and other entities of golf.

There are a number of issues, ideas, problems etc, etc that come up and have come up in this basic context (who is the ultimate authority for golf's Rules?) that include ones like the subject of this thread but include others on the horizon like what to do within the "Local Rules" and "Commttee" with something like a "Competition Ball."

[Craig Sweet]

There is a limit as to what the human eye can see....

People sitting at home watching on TV with Super Slo Mo...Minolta Biz Hub technology can see the hair on a gnats ass move.

I think its absolute bullcrap that they are allowed to phone in their technology aided opinons and have action that happened hours previous be altered.

It surely makes golf look like a ridiculous sport....and is NOT keeping with the "spirit of th game".

[TEPaul]

"What counts as "information" worthy of being adjudicated?"


Bob:

Within the structure and language of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf (The Rules Book and the Decisions Book) that is addressed in Rule 34-3 (Committee's Decision) with the language "In the absence of a referee, any dispute or doubtful point on the Rules must be referred to the COMMITTEE, whose decision is final." (It is also possible given various situations that even with a referee a doubtful point or situation may be referred to the "Committee" as a whole for a final decision and resolution).

You should also refer to Decision 34-3/9 (Resolution of Questions of Fact; Referee and Committee Responsibilty) for a more comprehensive explanation of these kinds of situations, informational and otherwise.

[JC Jones]

Craig,

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?  Or, were the rest of the players given an advantage because Harrington's 65 was no longer on the board?

The game is becoming a public embarrassment.  Anyone paying attention to anything other than a rule book has seen people from Brad Klein to Jack Nicklaus speak out against the rules this week.  Hell, even the rules official who DQ'd Harrington was against the decision he had to make.  I just wish this were Phil or Tiger, then something might actually happen.  Then again, the rules with there singular interpretation let Tiger take a free drop from OB at Firestone and let Phil avoid disqualification at Torrey for doing what Villegas did.  

[Mac Plumart]

The game is becoming a public embarrassment.  Anyone paying attention to anything other than a rule book has seen people from Brad Klein to Jack Nicklaus speak out against the rules this week.  Hell, even the rules official who DQ'd Harrington was against the decision he had to make.  I just wish this were Phil or Tiger, then something might actually happen.  Then again, the rules with there singular interpretation let Tiger take a free drop from OB at Firestone and let Phil avoid disqualification at Torrey for doing what Villegas did.  

Jason...is this when Tiger hit his ball on top of a roof and was subsequently found by the chef (or something like that)?  What a joke!!  I agree with you and your post 100%. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Golf is full of cheaters on every level, you guys just hate being reminded of the times you have done the exact same thing.  It is not uncommon for us to waive the ball moving rule on windy days to speed up play and clear our conscience.  How many guys need to get caught before you admit at least one of them, like you, is a cheat.

[John Kavanaugh]

I fully admit that I am the worst kind of cheat when it comes to protecting the field by calling penalties on my playing partners.  I simply hate snitches even more than golf cheats. 

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, if there is not some final and ultimate authority within the context and philosophy of the Rules of Golf, even if it is an idea, that most all golfers will CHOOSE to defer to, there will never again be a true "Spirit" within the game of golf, as some say there once was!

[Richard Choi]

John, I freely admit that I violate rules of golf on almost every round I play.

[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?

Since you went to the trouble to type the question,I'll guess John Morrissett.

[Jim_Kennedy]

JME,

I'm pretty sure the answer comes from nearly a century ago and pertains to one the most well known amateur player/architects of the day.

[JMEvensky]

JME,

I'm pretty sure the answer comes from nearly a century ago and pertains to one the most well known amateur player/architects of the day.

I was trying for Brownie points.

Is it too late to guess CBM?

[JESII]

I'll take a stab as well...CB Macdonald?



JC Jones,

I asked you several days ago and you vanished and now you're carrying the idea of the game dictating the rules a step further so please do me a favor and tell me about the game of golf you and I could play with no rules. Make it any game if you're stuck.



As to the TV viewers calling in, the best and easiest answer is to just not answer the phone. Any idea why that doesn't happen?

[JESII]

I swear I had CBM written before seeing those last two posts...

[Jim_Kennedy]

JME,

I'm pretty sure the answer comes from nearly a century ago and pertains to one the most well known amateur player/architects of the day.

I was trying for Brownie points.

Is it too late to guess CBM?

From who?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim,

I believe you.

...and there are just too many phones to hang up. 

[Craig Sweet]

I am going to TIVO the Super Bowl...and if there is holding by an offensive lineman on the game winning drive...a violation missed by an offical, but a violation I spotted after repeated viewings of the game in slow motion....I am going to call the NFL and point out this infraction.

Do you think they will change the outcome of the game? 

[JESII]

Give it a shot Craig.

By the way, what would the NFL's respose to you tell you about the Golf Tours?

[JC Jones]

Jim Sullivan,

I didn't vanish, you didn't like my answer.

You can continue to distract from the purpose of these threads if you'd like but the discussion here is involving the current rules of golf as promulgated by the USGA and the R&A and their merits or lack thereof.

[JESII]

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?"?