[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim,
I not a big fan of the TV situation in particular because of the obvious inequities of who's being taped, and it's probably the brother in law of the guy who shot 66 to Paddy's 65 that's making the call.

edit: JC,
Tiger isn't alone, Gary Hallberg hit one off the roof of the clubhouse at Indian Wells Country back in '82. He liked the lie up there better than what he'd have gotten in the drop area.

[JMEvensky]

JC Jones,you seem to venerate the ODG architects and take issue when others attempt to alter their courses.Yet,you're not an architect--just someone who plays the golf courses socially.You're an amateur architecture-observer with an amateur architecture-observer's opinion.

The same is true of your rules opinions.

The guys who actually write and administer the rules know better than you.They've actually been in the game--not spectating from the cheap seats.

[JC Jones]

JC Jones,you seem to venerate the ODG architects and take issue when others attempt to alter their courses.Yet,you're not an architect--just someone who plays the golf courses socially.You're an amateur architecture-observer with an amateur architecture-observer's opinion.

The same is true of your rules opinions.

The guys who actually write and administer the rules know better than you.They've actually been in the game--not spectating from the cheap seats.

JMEvensky,

You have no idea of what my feelings on ODG architects, modern architects, nor the alteration of golf courses are. 

Your personal attack on me is completely non-responsive and irrelevant to the issues discussed here.

The guys who actually write and administer the rules also have a vested interested in the complexity of the rules.  It is called job security.  Yet nonetheless, the European Tour Senior rules official and the USGA (per Shackelford's link) agree with my position that the rule preventing the re-opening of the scorecard should be re-evaluated.

[Padraig Dooley]

JC Jones,you seem to venerate the ODG architects and take issue when others attempt to alter their courses.Yet,you're not an architect--just someone who plays the golf courses socially.You're an amateur architecture-observer with an amateur architecture-observer's opinion.

The same is true of your rules opinions.

The guys who actually write and administer the rules know better than you.They've actually been in the game--not spectating from the cheap seats.

JMEvensky,

You have no idea of what my feelings on ODG architects, modern architects, nor the alteration of golf courses are. 

Your personal attack on me is completely non-responsive and irrelevant to the issues discussed here.

The guys who actually write and administer the rules also have a vested interested in the complexity of the rules.  It is called job security.  Yet nonetheless, the European Tour Senior rules official and the USGA (per Shackelford's link) agree with my position that the rule preventing the re-opening of the scorecard should be re-evaluated.

JC

There already is a rule preventing reopening of the scorecard, Rule 34-1b. A penalty cannot be added when the competition is closed.

Guys what do you think goes on at the Rules of Golf Committee. All these kind of instances have been discussed many times. There are many downsides to changing the rules, in my opinion it would be a mistake to change this one.

[Padraig Dooley]

Can I presume anything from the fact that no one gave me an answer to my question or shall I try it again:  Let's say Harrington called over an official and told him that he touched his ball when he picked up his marker and he doesn't believe the ball moved but he's isn't sure - what happens?  Say the official makes a ruling that it is inconclusive so no penalty - is Harrington okay?  What if he's wrong do they fire the official, but seriously, does that override what the later viewing of the tape shows - if that's the case then the whole concept is, pardon the expression, STUPID. If Harrington was wrong then he's DQ'd but what if the official takes his word then he's not - let's get serious.  

Jerry

A referee's decision is final, Rule 34-2

[Padraig Dooley]

Maybe the caddies job description needs to be expanded to paying attention to the player. WHAT was he doing when this happened that HE didn't see it and tell his player? As much as it moved, I find it amazing Harrington didn't notice. How could he not have felt it when he bumped it? Lets keep the responsability on the player and not place blame on external agencies. I am considering the caddy an element of the player. Can they hire a second caddy just to watch their actions?

How is this GCA and not OT?

Of course it's OT. Does the thread title really need an OT before it? For the record, the ball moved forward about 2 dimples. Harrington saw it move, but thought it oscillated hence why he thought there was no point in bringing the referee over - why did he think it oscillated? Because the move was so miniscule that his ball appeared to be lined up in exactly the same way - we're talking tiny margins here - noones whining here, worst case scenario, people are calling for common sense...

Brian, he played the ball from a wrong position. When is playing the ball from a wrong position ok? If it's ok at any stage, why can't I move my ball a fraction of an inch when it's hanging on the lip of the hole.

[John_Cullum]

Can I presume anything from the fact that no one gave me an answer to my question or shall I try it again:  Let's say Harrington called over an official and told him that he touched his ball when he picked up his marker and he doesn't believe the ball moved but he's isn't sure - what happens?  Say the official makes a ruling that it is inconclusive so no penalty - is Harrington okay?  What if he's wrong do they fire the official, but seriously, does that override what the later viewing of the tape shows - if that's the case then the whole concept is, pardon the expression, STUPID. If Harrington was wrong then he's DQ'd but what if the official takes his word then he's not - let's get serious.  

It would depend on what the official did. If he asked Harrington if the ball came to rest in a different location and Harrington said no, and then played from where it lay, then Harrington would still incur a penalty.

If the official asked him if any potential movement of the ball was directly attributable to the act of marking or replacing, and Harrington said yes; and then the official wisely told  Harrington to lift and replace the ball in its original position, then Harrington would be absolved of any penalty.

[John_Cullum]

Can I presume anything from the fact that no one gave me an answer to my question or shall I try it again:  Let's say Harrington called over an official and told him that he touched his ball when he picked up his marker and he doesn't believe the ball moved but he's isn't sure - what happens?  Say the official makes a ruling that it is inconclusive so no penalty - is Harrington okay?  What if he's wrong do they fire the official, but seriously, does that override what the later viewing of the tape shows - if that's the case then the whole concept is, pardon the expression, STUPID. If Harrington was wrong then he's DQ'd but what if the official takes his word then he's not - let's get serious.  

Jerry

A referee's decision is final, Rule 34-2

They don't use referees in stroke play.

[Padraig Dooley]

Can I presume anything from the fact that no one gave me an answer to my question or shall I try it again:  Let's say Harrington called over an official and told him that he touched his ball when he picked up his marker and he doesn't believe the ball moved but he's isn't sure - what happens?  Say the official makes a ruling that it is inconclusive so no penalty - is Harrington okay?  What if he's wrong do they fire the official, but seriously, does that override what the later viewing of the tape shows - if that's the case then the whole concept is, pardon the expression, STUPID. If Harrington was wrong then he's DQ'd but what if the official takes his word then he's not - let's get serious.  

Jerry

A referee's decision is final, Rule 34-2

They don't use referees in stroke play.

John

A referee is defined in the definitions of the Rules of Golf. What are the Rules Officials on the course? Are they not referees?

[John_Cullum]

Ruels officials typically are part of the tournament committee. Referees are a different category. Very few stroke play tournaments, incluidng all PGA Tour events that I have been involved with, appoint referees.  While there is nothing in the rules that precludes a referee in stroke play, I have never seen one

[Philippe Binette]

I watch on youtube the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9Bh-ZVAz48&feature=aso

and I would be ready to challenge the call... if that's possible. ¸

the challenge: Harrington's ball did move, yes... but it moved while his coin was still on the ground, when the coin was up in the air, the ball did not change position.

As far as i'm concerned, the ball should be place as close as possible from the ball, maybe the initial position was too-close and that's why it moved...

My red flag is on the ground... will golf need super slo-mo replay in the future

[Padraig Dooley]

Maybe the caddies job description needs to be expanded to paying attention to the player. WHAT was he doing when this happened that HE didn't see it and tell his player? As much as it moved, I find it amazing Harrington didn't notice. How could he not have felt it when he bumped it? Lets keep the responsability on the player and not place blame on external agencies. I am considering the caddy an element of the player. Can they hire a second caddy just to watch their actions?

How is this GCA and not OT?

Of course it's OT. Does the thread title really need an OT before it? For the record, the ball moved forward about 2 dimples. Harrington saw it move, but thought it oscillated hence why he thought there was no point in bringing the referee over - why did he think it oscillated? Because the move was so miniscule that his ball appeared to be lined up in exactly the same way - we're talking tiny margins here - noones whining here, worst case scenario, people are calling for common sense...

Brian, he played the ball from a wrong position. When is playing the ball from a wrong position ok? If it's ok at any stage, why can't I move my ball a fraction of an inch when it's hanging on the lip of the hole.

Hi Padraig - in fairness, those aren't comparable scenarios as if it was hanging on the lip, the tiny move would have put it in the hole, the ball was 30 feet away! The point here (as I see it anyway) is that the move was so minute that Harrington thought it oscillated - the really sad thing is he actually knew that he could have replaced with no penalty if it had moved but as he didn't think it did, why would he replace it? I'm not calling for a drastic overhaul of the rules here - but some minor refinements will help while still ensuring that people don't take liberties - I wonder if we are having this conversation in a few months time when the R&A and USGA have enacted small but significant changes to the DQ rules in situations such as these, maybe when changes are enacted into the official rules of golf you won't have the same problems advocating them? I agree, by and large, that the rules must be respected - 100% - but just saying "the rules are the rules" in every scenario isn't good enough in my opinion - we have to closely examine all of these incidents to see how we can make things better - and this should happen as a matter of course - not just because a high profile player like Harrington gets DQ'd...

Brian, how are the situations not alike? If it's ok to play a ball that moved fractionally closer to the hole 30 feet away, why is it not ok when the ball is on the lip? The ball has been moved the same amount.

I have great sympathy for Harrington. He thought at the time that the ball hadn't come to rest in a different position. When he was shown that it had moved fractionally he had no problem accepting the decision. Why do so many people have a problem when the main protagonist doesn't?

I have no problem defending the rules, if they are changed I will play by the new ones and defend them as well. This is not the first incident when an inadvertent breach has lead to a DQ, not even the first incident for Harrington. I don't see this as a case that will have the rules changed.

[Padraig Dooley]

I watch on youtube the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9Bh-ZVAz48&feature=aso

and I would be ready to challenge the call... if that's possible. ¸

the challenge: Harrington's ball did move, yes... but it moved while his coin was still on the ground, when the coin was up in the air, the ball did not change position.

As far as i'm concerned, the ball should be place as close as possible from the ball, maybe the initial position was too-close and that's why it moved...

My red flag is on the ground... will golf need super slo-mo replay in the future

Phillipe, the issue that the coin is on the ground has no bearing on this case. If a ball is moved in the process of placing or replacing the ball there is no penalty and the ball is to replaced. Harrington wasn't deemed to have replaced it after it moved so the ball was played from the wrong spot which is a two shot penalty.

In any event a ball is in play as soon it has been replaced and is at rest, so having a coin or marker on the ground doesn't mean a ball is not in play.

[John_Cullum]

This incident basically exemplifies the notion that if you go looking for trouble, you'll find it.

I saw the video replay. Ask yourself if you could determine if the ball moved from one single view of the video. Harrington didn't think it moved, and he was closer than anyone to it. We can assume his fellow competitors would say it did not move (PGA Tour players ALWAYS back each other up on these things.) One view of a replay was to me not determinative. The rules committee should have looked no further. If they had stopped there, this whole thing would have vanished. The problem is not the rules, it was that the committee had an expectation of complete perfection by the player. The rules do not demand perfect compliance

The committee did not think this through, and now the tours have a mess to deal with. Hi def television and the tivo are going to drive them crazy

[Greg Clark]

To me in both slow motion, as well as in real time, it is clear the ball had moved forward.  While it didn't move much, I don't see how this is difficult to see that is moved forward, it is rather clear.  Obviously he didn't gain an advantage from a length perspective.  However when you listen to his interview he makes a good observation which is that many time a ball comes to rest in an indentation on the green.   This is true, and it also means that even a slight bump forward can "remedy" this situation and provide a minor improvement.  The rule is a good one. 

All that being said, Harrington really appears to be a good guy.  One of the best out there playing.  I would take him at his word that he didn't believe it had moved. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

John,
That's what should have happened. There is no way that the naked eye could see what was a nearly imperceptible change in the position of the ball.

If it wasn't filmed in HD the officials probably wouldn't have been able to see it, even with a slo-mo viewing.

[TEPaul]

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.

[Jim_Kennedy]

The DQ penalty for cannot be modified for infractions under 33-7/4 - Modifying Penalty for Returning Wrong Score; and  33-7/4.5 - Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified.
Harrington was 'guilty' of both.

The easiest way for this to be decided, and the way that causes less disruption in the existing rules, is by an ongoing 'local' rule specific to the Tour(s) for televised events.

[Dale Jackson]

Jim, the rules, as presently written, do not allow such a local rule, it is contrary to the rules themselves.  Rule 33-8 governs local rules and contains 45 decisions on what is and what is not allowed for local rules.  A careful reading of that rule and 33-7 makes it clear such a local rule is not permitted.

TEPaul, et al. - The Committee did not have the right to waive the penalty of disqualification in this case, there is a decision - d 33-7/4.5 - specifically states a DQ penalty cannot be waived or modified for failure to include a penalty.

Regarding the status of Andy McPhee, he is one of two Chief Referees employed by the European Tour (the other being John Paramour).  He has final authority at European Tour events in rules matters.  He would be the final arbitrator for issues, such as this one, at the tournament site.

BTW, he and JP are world class officials, highly respected by the players and other officials.  If there was a way for him to avoid imposing a penalty of DQ on Harrington, he would not only have know of it, he would have used it. 

Geoff Shackleford has some interesting comments from McPhee, Mike Davis from the USGA and Grant Moir of the R&A on this issue.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dale,
Thanks for the info.

I don't see why TV couldn't be considered as "interfering with the proper playing of the game to the extent that it is necessary to make a Local Rule that modifies the Rules of Golf", one that would be satifactory to the USGA for televised Tour events.

[Jerry Kluger]

Am I the only one who sees this as totally ridiculous?  TEP seems to come around to that point and what happens, someone else points to the ultimate source of confusion - decisions on the rules of golf.  Come on guys - get real.  The situation is really hurting the game.

[Bruce Katona]

Jerry: I have opined on the silliness of the DQ earlier and with the DQ @ Kapalua 2 weeks ago.  Mistakes happen and penalties are assigned.  In football, unless just agrregious, the match official issues a yellow card for a foul - a 2nd yellow in the match has you dismissed.  Penalty strokes assigned in golf are a yellow card, but dismissal for signing for the wrong score, especially if you did not believe a penanly had occurred, is silly.  Dismissed for a penalty withoput being shown any card by the referree!

Imagine the Olympic Medal or World Cup Final playing by these Rules ? A Yellow Card and your down to 10 men!

I only wish something this silly in golf happens on national TV in a major tournament with huge media coverage and a high profile leader board.  That would have the men in blue blazers attempting to save the game they are protecting from the media onslaught. 

[George Pazin]

Am I the only one who sees this as totally ridiculous?  TEP seems to come around to that point and what happens, someone else points to the ultimate source of confusion - decisions on the rules of golf.  Come on guys - get real.  The situation is really hurting the game.

I will ask the same question that was ignored earlier:

Does it simplify or complicate the rules to allow subjectivity? To place conditions upon what evidence is deemed acceptable?

If Harrington had given ANY indication that he knew the ball moved and thought it was in the same place - by calling over an official, by remarking, whatever - my money is on the Committee ruling that he followed the rule properly. Instead, they are left with an impossible position - either DQ a guy on a call-in, or leave the rest of the players wondering if Harrington got preferential treatment.

I do not believe those objecting to the ruling are properly considering the notion of like situations requiring like rulings (or however it's phrased), but that's of course just mho.

[John Kavanaugh]

It's time to start DQing the playing partners of these cheaters who do not call them out on their infractions.  Ignorance is no excuse from protecting the field. Nothing worse than that group of buddies who always play the first day of a tournament together and find magic, year after year after year.

[Jerry Kluger]

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.

I agree with Barney that any deliberate cheating or knowing failure to bring a rules violation to the attention of the Committee should be dealt with very harshly. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()