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

[zeg]

  jwrussell said:

Originally Posted by jwrussell

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

You're allowed to decide for yourself whether there's ambiguity, and I think some people feel that Harrington's case would qualify.  I guess what I mean is, are there any examples that are less ambiguous than that.  Heck, are there any others where this might even apply?  I can't think of any off-hand.

This is the reason I'm not totally sold on this being a wise decision.  Incidents where it could be invoked seem extremely rare, and if it's hard to apply the decision with certainty to the best example we know if, one has to ask whether it's a helpful change.

[jwrussell]

I was just yankin' your chain.  I guess it kind of depends on how you see the rule to begin with.  I see exactly what you are saying and agree that it might not really help all that much.

Then again, I still have an issue with the fact that we can say someone should be hit with strokes at one point and disqualified at another point.  Just doesn't seem equitable to me.  Just like I'm a fan of instant replay for most sports, but wouldn't think that reviewing tape after the game and changing things after the fact would be fair.  Seems to me, either you leave it up to the player to get things right without outside influence the whole way through, or you give players the same benefit both before and after they've finished.

[iacas]

  jwrussell said:

Originally Posted by jwrussell

Then again, I still have an issue with the fact that we can say someone should be hit with strokes at one point and disqualified at another point. Just doesn't seem equitable to me.

Please clarify what "points" are you talking about, specifically.

Players are responsible for knowing the rules. If they violate them, ignorance is not an excuse, and they get DQed. This rule addresses situations basically where a "human being" can't know that he violated a rule and only through technology can it be known that he violated a rule.

So if that's the "point" you're talking about, then I'd argue that this rules change is more equitable than the previous one because it doesn't require you to have super-human capabilities.

As to the comparison to other sports, you weren't a member then, so just go back and read.

[jwrussell]

  iacas said:

Originally Posted by iacas

Please clarify what "points" are you talking about, specifically.

Players are responsible for knowing the rules. If they violate them, ignorance is not an excuse, and they get DQed. This rule addresses situations basically where a "human being" can't know that he violated a rule and only through technology can it be known that he violated a rule.

So if that's the "point" you're talking about, then I'd argue that this rules change is more equitable than the previous one because it doesn't require you to have super-human capabilities.

As to the comparison to other sports, you weren't a member then, so just go back and read.

Let me be more clear.

If you are going to say that a player should be DQ'ed after they've signed their card because they have violated a rule that was only caught on video and reviewed at a later point (sounds like the Paddy example would be a good one), then players in other situations where something might be caught sooner, but not immediately (I would say Dustin J.'s example, but IMHO, they caught that pretty much right away and notified him before he ever left the hole) should face the same penalty.  In otherwords, I don't so much have an issue with players getting DQ'ed for violating a rule, I have an issue with the results being different for the players based on WHEN it is discovered they violated a rule.

As to the last comment, I think I'll pass unless I happen to come across it. My guess is any search on this type of topic will come up with WAY too many results.

[iacas]

  jwrussell said:

Originally Posted by jwrussell

In otherwords, I don't so much have an issue with players getting DQ'ed for violating a rule, I have an issue with the results being different for the players based on WHEN it is discovered they violated a rule.

This too was already discussed. Players play 18 holes. We can't change these kinds of rules based on whether they're on the first hole or the 15th hole in their round. Players are responsible for signing a proper scorecard, so they they all have the same deadline for ensuring that they've scored themselves appropriately.

Simply put, the "when" is irrelevant if the player properly applies the rules.

[jwrussell]

True, but in the cases we are talking about it isn't the player alone applying the rules. an outside force I involved.

[iacas]

  jwrussell said:

Originally Posted by jwrussell

True, but in the cases we are talking about it isn't the player alone applying the rules. an outside force I involved.

Already covered. Who notices has no real relevance and doesn't change the facts of the matter. Go back and re-read the Camilo/Padraig threads.

[turtleback]

  scratchskier said:

Originally Posted by 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.

This.

One element of the Rules of Golf is equity.  The rules should apply equally to all players.  There shouldn't be one standard for guys who are shown on TV and another standard for guys who are not on TV.  Paddy got DQ'ed for his ball moving one dimple, but how many other guys may have done the same thing but since it wasn't on TV they not only didn't get disqualified they didn't get penalized.  I think that if a penalty is not noticed and called in real time it should not be called at all. PARTICULARLY when there clearly was no intention and no advantage was gained.

[Ignorant]

  zeg said:

Originally Posted by zeg

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.

My concern exactly. Hopefully it does not, but it might lead to situations where one player is absolved and another is not due to different ability to explain his view when asked. In the future rulings in Harrington type cases will be based more to the overall actions of the player.

For example, a player is not watching his ball when removing the ball mark and the ball moves a dimple, which could have been easily seen had the player looked at his ball. What is the ruling? Did the player have reasonable possibility to see the movement? No, but is he now penalized for not having looked at his ball?

What about if the player has a poor eyesight and cannot see if the ball just oscillated or actually moved? Ruling? Are players punished in the future not only for the act but also been careless and not watching their steps closely? Or not being able to see accurately enough?

I believe this alteration will be difficult to implement, and thus I hope there will be very, very few Harrington type cases in the future.

[The Recreational Golfer]

The part of this new Decision I like is that players can't get off the hook for being a rules ignoramus.

The part I don't like is "reasonably knowing or discovering the facts." I have few doubts that under this escape hatch, no player will be DQ'd, just like none of them are penalized for slow play because either rules officials or tournament officials don't have the guts. Not that I want anybody to be DQ's, but this language assures that no one ever will be.

I mean, if something happens right in front of you, how would it be reasonable NOT to know the facts?

Oh, well, there are bigger issues in the world.

[B-Con]

I like the new rule. It addresses my precise concern when I started this thread: Players shouldn't be DQ'd for rules that they [i]couldn't know[/i] they violated. (Obviously, that excludes lack of knowledge about the rules or carelessness of any sort as being valid excuses.) I didn't make it clear in my thread title or my first post, but that was the concern I was trying to address. And, for what it's worth, I changed my opinion on the Camillo subject. He should've known that that clump of dirt was in his ball's potential path. Therefore he violated a rule that he should've known better than, and thus was properly disqualified.

[iacas]

  B-Con said:

Originally Posted by B-Con

I like the new rule. It addresses my precise concern when I started this thread: Players shouldn't be DQ'd for rules that they couldn't know they violated. (Obviously, that excludes lack of knowledge about the rules or carelessness of any sort as being valid excuses.) I didn't make it clear in my thread title or my first post, but that was the concern I was trying to address.

Important part highlighted, yes.

[Double Bogey]

FWIW, This was a great thread.  I learned a bit with the info contained in it.  Another reason to love the Trap

[LankyLefty]

Every player who enters a tournament should be 100% responsible for knowing all the rules and regulations that apply to him or her for that tournament. However with that said in this modern day with HD super slow-mo replays ect. ect. a player should not be penalized for a infraction that is not plainly visible to the human eye. Other than that I have no problem with a DQ for signing a bad scorecard. Players don't have the opportunity to watch super slow mo replays of their shots before they sign their cards so any rule infarction only discovered by such modern technology should not result in a DQ.

[The Recreational Golfer]

The players should not be involved in scoring at all. The official scorer of the group should be responsible for the scores and the score that person turns in official. I mean, does A-Rod have to sign after the game for his 3-run homer? Did anyone in the world except Tommy Aaron think Roberto DiVicenzo had a 4 instead of a 3?

In that vein, the penalty imposed after signing a wrong card should be the penalty that would have been imposed before signing.

Villegas gets two strokes added to his score on that hole. Inkster gets DQ’d.

DiVicenzo gets the stroke taken off and the game goes on.

[jwrussell]

Wow.  I couldn't disagree more with this statement.  This is one of the most basic, most important things about golf that make it what it is.  You are responsible for keeping your score.  That is how it should be.  It's what makes the game great. It's what makes it a game of integrity.

[Fourputt]

  The Recreational Golfer said:

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

The players should not be involved in scoring at all. The official scorer of the group should be responsible for the scores and the score that person turns in official. I mean, does A-Rod have to sign after the game for his 3-run homer? Did anyone in the world except Tommy Aaron think Roberto DiVicenzo had a 4 instead of a 3?

In that vein, the penalty imposed after signing a wrong card should be the penalty that would have been imposed before signing.

Villegas gets two strokes added to his score on that hole. Inkster gets DQ’d.

DiVicenzo gets the stroke taken off and the game goes on.

There is no "official scorer" except the player, because the rules state that the PLAYER is responsible for his score.  No matter who writes it down on his card, he and he alone is responsible for its correctness.  Your theory goes right down the drain with that.

[iacas]

  The Recreational Golfer said:

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

The players should not be involved in scoring at all. The official scorer of the group should be responsible for the scores and the score that person turns in official. I mean, does A-Rod have to sign after the game for his 3-run homer? Did anyone in the world except Tommy Aaron think Roberto DiVicenzo had a 4 instead of a 3?

Who signs the scorecard is an entirely different argument and discussion. Please, let's keep it that way. We have threads on "signing" already.