Should players be DQ'd for penalties assessed after they sign their scorecard?

[dbuck]

I voted yes.

Under the rules of golf, a player is responsible for his score.  There are rules I don't like, but they are still the rules.  The incident in question involves a PROFESSIONAL golfer who has a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to mark his score correctly. In this incident, there is no controversy; the rule was clearly violated, and the player incorrectly scored the hole.  I don't think it was intentional, but that is not the point. Under the rules we have today, the situation was handled appropriately, though we may not like the outcome.

I will save a post on the other thread, and say here that I think some type of accomodation should be instituted with respect to these call ins.  I don't think the rules of golf anticipated the kind of coverage and interaction we have today. I will say however, that absent TV, the result could be the same. Suppose that Camillo had signed his card, and a player from a group or so behind then reported the problem.  He would still be DQ'd for signing an incorrect card.  Nonetheless, I would like to see some type of grace period of an hour or so on televised PGA events.  If some obscure call came in the player would have the opportunity to review and correct his card, or perhaps an hour after leaving the last hole to sign the card.  I would also like to see a time limit placed on the acceptance of these call ins that coincides with the signing of the card.

[Zeph]

I think it should be possible to penalize players after signing the scorecard.

What I think could've been different is the degree of penalty. Removing a turf of grass ultimately became a disqualification for Villegas because of an incorrect scorecard. Had he known, or someone noticed, before signing the scorecard, the penalty would've been a shot or two. The penalty for not knowing about the broken rule becomes a disqualification.

The problem is of course to change the scorecard after it has been signed and delivered. This could make a difference if the player is in contention and the result make a difference in how the other players play their round. Still, a player can be noticed of a broken rule anytime before signing the card and apply a shot penalty. If a player grounded the club in a bunker at hole 5, but wasn't informed until hole 18, his score through the round is affected, but he is still only given a couple of shots penalty. Only after signing the card, it can become a disqualification because of a wrongly reported card.

[lance0363]

My question would be, Why do they even need to turn in a scorecard? The PGA has the scores posted for all to see on the course and even online for that matter.

Why not just have the "official" scores be posted and amended if necessary?

On the PGA tour scorecards are just a redundancy.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by lance0363

My question would be, Why do they even need to turn in a scorecard?

That's an entirely different discussion... one we've had before and probably will again. Just not in this thread.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Camo

I tried to google it without success and I don't have access to any historical reference to the rules. However I am interested.Where are you getting your historical rules research material ?What is the history of this rule ? When was it implemented into the official book ? What event caused it to be adopted ? Was there controversy ? Since this rule has been getting so much attention perhaps you can share some interesting history of this rule with those of us who are interested.Sorry for all the questions, I am a general history buff so am always eager to listen when people are willing to share interesting history.

This should help: Rules history

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by lance0363

My question would be, Why do they even need to turn in a scorecard? The PGA has the scores posted for all to see on the course and even online for that matter.

Why not just have the "official" scores be posted and amended if necessary?

On the PGA tour scorecards are just a redundancy.

Once again, it's because the PLAYER, not  the tournament committee, is responsible for the correctness his own score.  That is a rule of golf, and it applies to all players, not just the PGA Tour.  The committee is not allowed to waive a rule, thus the only official score is what is marked and attested to on the player's scorecard.

[Camo]

That's Better when I found that site I ended up on the chronological section http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules1996.html and it wasn't helpful for what I was looking for. Sorting it by category is much more helpful and interesting to me.

[zeg]

Voted "yes" and feel strongly that the rules on this topic are completely fine as they are.  I have no real sympathy for golfers who get the DQ.  I mean, I understand that they are probably frustrated, but at the end of the day it is 100% their fault, no question.  They are responsible for knowing the rules, so I have less than zero sympathy for ignorance of the "little" rules.  I feel less harshly about conditions that are unclear (e.g. the Dustin Johnson incident), but the player is in the best position to evaluate and be aware of the conditions, and he or she just has to be alert and observant.

IMO there's no reasonable alternative to a DQ for turning in an erroneous scorecard.  If it's just an n-stroke penalty, you encourage gaming the system.  It's better to have the very rare player get DQ for a minor infraction than risk tainting the whole field by encouraging the gaming.

I believe the powers that be usually do their best to inform players prior to signing that something questionable has been observed (e.g., DJ was approached before he left the last green) because nobody wants to see someone DQ for an error like this, especially when it's someone in the running.  However, in some cases there just isn't any practical way to inform the player before it's too late.  Sucks for the player, but again, it's their own fault.  There just aren't any cases I can think of where a player has a real claim that he couldn't have known of the penalty.  Didn't know, maybe, but if someone saw it on TV, the golfer himself darn well could have known if he was paying attention.

[Clambake]

I'm OK with a DQ afterwards.    I don't think this happens enough to be a big problem, and actually the fact that when it does happen it is news is because it is such a rare event.

Also, recall last summer's incident where two LPGA players allegedly colluded together, signing off on each other's cards after each playing a wrong ball.    Without the ability to DQ afterwards for a violation, the tours would have a tough time dealing with such a similar situation.   In that case it was not possible for the LPGA to prove the collusion, but was able to at least get them for signing an incorrect card and DQ them.     Kind of like Al Capone skating on all the nasty criminal charges but at least the IRS was able to nail him.

[M2R]

Originally Posted by Nevada Hacker

I wonder if the USGA, and the R&A; have had some of these same discussions? ...

Being as this exact situation is already covered in the rules I'd guess yes (hope your question wasn't sarcasm, hard to tell sometimes).

Quote:

33-7/4.5  Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified

Q. A competitor returns his score card and the score for one hole is lower than actually taken due to fail ure to include a penalty of two strokes which he did not know he had incurred. The error is discovered before the competition has closed.

Would the Committee be justified, under Rule 33-7 , in waiving or modifying the penalty of disqualification prescribed in Rule 6-6d ?

A. No. It is the responsibility of the competitor to know the Rules.

As already established the committee has no authority to waive a rule but they do have some discretion in applying the disqualification penalty.  However, even that power seems to be rather limited (from what I know of the rules).

33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion

A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.

Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.

If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.

It's not like there is any ambiguity or confusion on this (particular) issue for the rules already in place so I don't see a problem as they stand.

[scratchskier]

People shouldn't be able to call in, when you sign your card. It's over. If camilo wasn't on TV it would've never happened.

[shades9323]

Rule Changed!

Rule change could spare some from disqualification

Published: April 07, 2011

Print E-mail Twitter Facebook Digg Delicious StumbleUpon More

AUGUSTA, Ga. (AP) — Golf has revised one of its rules so that players who are made aware of a violation after they have signed their scorecard can still get penalized without being disqualified.

The Royal & Ancient and USGA announced Thursday the new interpretation to Decision 33-7/4.5.

Padraig Harrington was disqualified at the Abu Dhabi Championship earlier this year when slow-motion replays on television revealed that his small had moved on the green ever so slightly after he replaced his marker. Because it was discovered after his round of 65, he was disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard.

The revision says that if a player was not aware of the rule, he still can get disqualified.

The change, announced an hour before the start of the Masters, is effective immediately.

Read more: http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,2063764,00.html#ixzz1IqUbctLO

[shades9323]

Originally Posted by iacas

Of course.

You're responsible for turning in the proper score under the Rules of Golf.

The proper score includes any penalty strokes you've incurred.

There's no rules governing body taking responsibility for auditing players.

The players are responsible for playing under the Rules of Golf. It's right there in Rule 1-1 and elsewhere:

And what's an "obviously fraudulent" scorecard, anyway? One in which the pro claims ignorance? Cuz if that's the case, we'd see a lot more ignorant pros than we do now if it's that easy to try to get away with anything.

In other words, if you shoot 71 because of two penalty strokes but write down 70 (say your ball moved on the putting green after you'd addressed it and you put it back), why not try? Surely you can claim ignorance and say "I didn't think it was a penalty if I put my ball back" and the committee would, what, have to prove "fraud"? The fraud is the guy wrote down 4 instead of 5. He turned in an incorrect score, and 6-6d says:

Call me a rules doink if you want (whatever a doink is), but rules are rules. It's a big part of what makes golf special. I don't think we can talk about the integrity and honor of the game and support changing the basic tenets of the game that make it a game of honor and integrity.

Players are responsible for knowing the rules and recording the correct, truthful score. Failure to do so may result in a DQ. It really just comes down to that.

Hey rules doink! What do you think of the new one?

[dbuck]

First off, I voted Yes to this pole.

That said, I am cautiously approving of the new rule. It of course is dependant on proper implementation. The way I interpret it, Camillo would still be disqualified and Paddy would not.  Seems fair--Paddy did not think the ball moved but Camillo should have known about touching the line.

[zeg]

Interesting.  I'd like to see the actual language of the decision, though.  Anyone have a link to the updated decision instead of the one-line summary?  I didn't see it in the linked article or on USGA's page (but I'm almost out of battery power so I didn't look all that hard, maybe it's there).

edit: found it: http://www.usga.org/news/2011/April/Rule-Revised-On-DQ-For-Incorrect-Card/

The specific paragraph:

Quote:

However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d.  The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.

Seems pretty reasonable, althouth perhaps a bit difficult to implement.  It might (although not 100% certain) have prevented Harrington.  That lines up with my feelings of relative justice reasonably well.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by shades9323

Hey rules doink!  What do you think of the new one?

Camilo would still have been DQed. Padraig may not have, though I still think he should have been able to see his ball move. It moves visibly in a regular, zoomed out view and doesn't require a close-up. And again, he should have consulted an official at the time since he said he felt it move but "thought" it had moved back.

That said, I'm cautiously approving of this change. The intent of the Rules is never to punish someone for something they unknowingly did and which no reasonable person can spot without HD closeups.

Obviously given the Padraig thing that may or may not still be an area for discussion.

Originally Posted by zeg

found it: http://www.usga.org/news/2011/April/Rule-Revised-On-DQ-For-Incorrect-Card/

Good find.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by iacas

That said, I'm cautiously approving of this change. The intent of the Rules is never to punish someone for something they unknowingly did and which no reasonable person can spot without HD closeups.

I agree.  We'll never know what the decision would be in Padraig's case: it wasn't obvious and irrefutable that, with proper care, he would have been aware of the movement.  In one of the examples in the revised decision, they address this in the case that the player had reasonable evidence that led him to believe the ball had returned to where it belonged (noting the location of the logo and his belief that it had returned to its original spot).  I didn't pay close enough attention to Harrington's statements to remember quite what he said, but I don't think the example was identical to his situation.

My only real reservation about this new ruling is that it's tricky to determine whether the player could reasonably have been aware of the applicable facts.  Otherwise, it preserves the spirit of the rules because the penalties are still applied, doesn't excuse ignorance of the rules, and can eliminate the rare but unfortunate DQs when a player truly cannot apply the rules correctly.

I expect that this Decision will virtually never be employed, though.  Does anyone know of any examples of situations where it would unambiguously have prevented a DQ?

[jwrussell]

Originally Posted by zeg

Does anyone know of any examples of situations where it would [b]unambiguously[/b] have prevented a DQ?

I think with the inclusion of that word that you have ensured the answer is, "NO". ;)