Harrington DQ'd

[Bentley01]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

We agreed on something? I must have been unclear in my writing...

To be serious for moment - I do think the Tour(s) need to reconsider how they approach tv callers. From the article, they are at least beginning to think about it

The business of applying the sanction of disqualification on top of the penalty in cases where breaches are not detectable by the eye is now under review.

But they really need to go further, or professional golf on tv will become as you described. No point watching all the good shots, because you will have no idea who's in the lead or who's going to be DQ'd tomorrow. I considered PVRing everything, then watching it all in slo-mo, but watching Paddy in slo-mo seems... redundant.

And no, not coke and not Corona (aka Mexican Pepsi), but a Creemore would be nice with the chips.

And no, I'm not Muggsy Bogues

Some good zingers in this one!

You can bet with the TOUR looking into anything it will be months, if not years, before we get a "ruling". Undoubtedly, they will have to define what is meant by "naked eye". What would distinguish a naked eye from a fully clothed one? What if a golfer wears glasses and doesn't have good peripheral vision? Unfair advantage to Mr. Magoo? If they go the HDTV camera route, what happens when technology makes that look like a snowy B & W TV by comparison (for our younger members, they actually had Black and White TV's before colour ones!)? Should they have huge Jumbotrons at every green and allow the spectators to vote whether an infraction has occurred? Of course, they would have to specify the level of detail to be displayed on the screen and how slow the slo-mo could be.

Once it gets to this point, we might as well slip a toonie into the machine at your local pub and play like the pros.

[golferguy27]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

So if a round is completed and signed, the recent rulings seem to imply that the ability to DQ exists after the fact. So what would happen if a golfer, say Padraig Harrington for kicks, won a tournament and then I called a week later after reviewing my super HD replayomatic thingy and found he had incurred a penalty that was not found at the time? By recent example he could be DQd. Could he UNWIN the tournament? Is the fourth round any different that the first round in this respect? For this reason I think a round needs to end when a round ends not when no more callers have called in to show infractions ......

And I wonder how many players will be hiring teams of armchair analysts to try and catch those cheating co-competitors to report the infractions .....

And if players start being ultra-conservative does the shot clock keep ticking to the point that being cautious now bring pace of play penalties?

All tongue in cheek of course but it seems to me there is no real backing to the rule in a current sense.

[Bern]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

This ruling is really retarded.

[Shake99]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

Golf rulings have disintegrated to the Theatre of the Absurd. It would appear that the rules officials involved have lost all ability to think.

Golf has reached the point with this nonsense that the solution is to put 4 rules offiicals on each hole who will be responsible for verifying that each player on their hole complied with all of the rules and certifing their score. Once the player leaves the hole that is it. Players will no longer be required to signa scorecard and the rules officials will be required to advise a player IN ADVANCE that their ball is in a trap, ground under repair, hazard etc

[Bentley01]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

Golf rulings have disintegrated to the Theatre of the Absurd. It would appear that the rules officials involved have lost all ability to think.

Golf has reached the point with this nonsense that the solution is to put 4 rules offiicals on each hole who will be responsible for verifying that each player on their hole complied with all of the rules and certifing their score. Once the player leaves the hole that is it. Players will no longer be required to signa scorecard and the rules officials will be required to advise a player IN ADVANCE that their ball is in a trap, ground under repair, hazard etc

Make that four rules officials with good eyes, an HDTV camera with super slow slo-mo capabilities and a feed to the secondary, in the booth, rules supervisors, who report directly to the Head Rules Official...who's watching TV and answering the phone from viewer "rules officials", who try to point out player infractions between mouthfuls of chips and the slurping of Cokes.

[ninja]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

Slow motion? Really?

Several major sports use slow motion replays to overturn (or confirm) calls....why not golf?

Also, why can a golfer can be DQ'd during the tournament but not after?!?

[Golden Bear]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

Several major sports use slow motion replays to overturn (or confirm) calls....why not golf?

There's a very good reason: Harrington was DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard. He signed that incorrect scorecard because he didn't call a penalty on himself. He didn't call that penalty on himself because he couldn't observe the problem with the naked eye.

This is a case where "golfers are expected to call penalties on themselves" is a valid distinction between golf and other sports. If the onus is on the players to call penalties on themselves, the penalties should be observable by the human eye. If it takes slow-motion replay to observe the penalty, it's questionable whether a penalty should be called in the first place, and it's even more of a problem if the player is DQ'd for not being able to see it.

[HacknSlash]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

The application of this rule was stupid (notice I did not say the rule was stupid, that would upset the rules Gurus for sure).

And tell me another sport that allows people to influence the games and make calls from their couch at home.

This is part of what McDowell had to say. Nice to see one of the tour players speak his mind instead of towing the party line!

“The rules are there for everyone's protection. But it makes a bit of a mockery of the game when we are penalising players for something as crazy as that.

"The game has had a lot of bad press lately, stupid rules; Dustin Johnson at the PGA, there's too much of that going on nowadays.

[swingpure]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

Paddy was stellar in his interview

He was. He did not question the rule or that he unknowingly broke the rule and that the rule should be applied.

From Paddy:

“I would argue, though, in general, it does serve the game well that we have the best rules of any sport. They are applied across the board all the time. It's the one thing all golfers love about their sport is the fact that we can stand up and say, we have the best rules, we are the fairest, we call them on ourselves.

“I think in this situation and other situations like that, with the new technology, maybe going forward, that the penalties can be changed. But the actual rulings have to stay where they are. You know, as I said, 1 1/2 dimples becomes, as I said, half an inch becomes an inch; where do you stop? "


McFee the rules official said:
"The movement of the ball during the specific act of replacing it is covered by Rule 20-3a and there is no penalty to this movement, but the ball must be replaced."

Watching it myself in real speed the ball obviously moved and not just by a fraction. The safe course of action whether you thought it moved all the way back or not would have been to pick it up and replace it and then no one can second guess you.

I have to admit I feel sorry for him if he honestly thought the ball had returned to it's original position.

I have already expressed my disapproval for being DQ'd after the fact by phone in's. I think as mentioned by Paddy that the consequences of the rule infraction, not the rule itself, should be reviewed.

[golfnguru]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

The safe course of action whether you thought it moved all the way back or not would have been to pick it up and replace it and then no one can second guess you.

What if he had replaced it in the wrong spot by a similar amount as it was supposed to have moved and someone called it in? Theoretically I think he would still be penalized.

[dekker]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

This is an example of the rules going haywire.

Harrington was UNABLE to see the ball move, "with the naked eye". Yet, he was given the penalty, because a TV, SLOW MOTION replay found that his ball moved 3 dimples forward AND 1.5 dimples back (undetectable without the slo-mo). Harrington, rightly, honestly did not see the ball move away from its original spot. No one else caught it either.

When they formulated the rules, there is NO WAY they meant microscopic movements. One of the key components of the rules of golf is that the player is expected to honestly call penalties upon him/herself. If you cannot see infractions without a high-powered telescope, it didn't happen. If you don't agree, just wait until technology improves again. Just wait until they can PROVE that every single player misplaces his ball after marking. NASA-nerd, golf couch potatoes will now have full time jobs spotting 1 millimetre misplacements and speed-dialing the Tour official rules infraction hotline (if they can get through). Madness, I tell you.

I say couch potatoes, like the one that called this one in, should have someone stomp on their bags of chips and shake their cans of Coke (or Corona).

Exactly ,no payer gets it absolutely right when he marks the ball and comes back to it later. The fact you can use any size or type of marker already guarantees that.

[Rusty]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

Re: What happens if an infraction is spotted after the final round of a tournament is completed?

According to commentary on the Golf Channel, infractions reported after the completion of the tournament have no bearing on the outcome of the tournament. So, if Mr. Zealous Observer calls in after the "tournament is official" there is no post-facto penalty assessed and the final standings, and winnings, are unaltered.

Rusty

[swingpure]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

What if he had replaced it in the wrong spot by a similar amount as it was supposed to have moved and someone called it in? Theoretically I think he would still be penalized.

I don't know how anyone could really tell, once you pick it up and put it back beside the coin any thoughts of whether it moved a dimple or two would be eliminated, because no one could tell and it would meet the requirements of the rule.

What surprised me was he gave it a good nudge as opposed to just a glancing brush. I thought he was a little too casual about what he did being a professional and all. I like him, but felt he made a mental error.

Once again I do not think the consequences are correct, but that was discussed in full on another thread.

[dekker]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

Harrington admitted that the ball was moved but ever so slightly, possibly rotated 3dimples and then rolled back very close to its former location.
The mistake was not marking again and relocating to it original position even though this would have been mostly symbolic as it is virtually impossible to do so exactly. He knew the rule but saw no point since in his mind the roll and return distance difference was almost imperceptible. Lesson learned.

[wilson]

Re: Harrington DQ'd

Saw Rors today take 10-15 seconds on the 4th green to mark, then remark his ball just like you mentioned should be done.
I'm sure this (and the other infractions) has some of them spooked.