Padraig Harrington disqualified in Abu Dhabi

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmonious

... So what could he have done?  He didn't realize that ball had moved (assuming, and I do, that he was totally forthcoming) so he played the hole like he does every other hole.

... It was an error on his part to not call an RO over. As has been explained in this thread, if he had done that there are no scenarios that could've resulted in a DQ for him.

What would have changed?  In your scenario, he calls over an official, says the ball oscillated but didn't move.  The rules official, who didn't see it, would probably ask Harrington's playing partners, who didn't see it move either.  The official can't impose a penalty at that time, and would allow play to continue.  Then, hours later, Harrington would still be DQed by a call-in.

You're wrong. As has been stated several times in this thread, once an RO has been consulted their decision is final even though it may not have been correct (R34-2 and Dec 34-2/2). Consulting an RO guarantees you will not be DQ'd. It's a standard procedure that Paddy failed to follow, even though he knew he had caused the ball to oscillate when he picked up his marker.

[pusher]

This all seems to be moot.  No matter what Paddy or a RO did or did not do the viewer still would have called in the violation and he would have been DQ'd.  The point is viewers should not be allowed to call penalties.  I still liken it to balls and strikes in MLB.  It needs to be left to the officials on the field during play.  No video replays, no viewer input.  Period.

[Deryck Griffith]

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

I'm ok with people calling in.  I don't however agree with the dq'ing.  The rule should be changed where even if the card is signed, the effective penality (in this case, two strokes) should be applied the next day after review.  Still enabling the player to complete the tournament.

That would take away the maliciousnesses of people only calling in the rule AFTER the player has signed to purposly DQ him if they don't like him or are betting against him for whatever reason.

It could also lead to some golfers not counting a penalty in hopes that it slips by... if it doesn't then oh well they just get the strokes anyways.  I know that golf is a game of honesty but let's not forget that there are big bucks at stake in these tournaments and some people will try anything for money...

I think that while a DQ is harsh, it is also fair... those are the rules.  While it sucked for Camillo last week and Paddy this week and likely somebody else in weeks to come, I'd rather see them get things right than just ignore it.  If these guys don't want to get DQ'd they can always get a rule book or call over an official if they think there might be a problem.

For Camillo and Padrag, I don't think they thought there was a problem and I don't think they were trying to get away with anything...  I'm with everyone in playing by the rules but in this case, I have a hard time matching the rule infraction to the crime.  Furthermore, if you are on camera more than the other guy, then others who "let things go by" or make rule infractions without knowing will get away with it because they aren't on TV.  So, in my view, the happy medium is to still penalize the player (two strokes in paddys' case) vs. DQ'ing him just because he signed the card.  Also technically, you would think that the signing of the card "finalizes" the round with no more changes to the score being allowed.  So again in my view, the person watching would hae to call in the infgraction before the signing of the card.  If he/she calls in afterwards, then to late,,,card is signed on that round is finalized.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by pusher

This all seems to be moot.  No matter what Paddy or a RO did or did not do the viewer still would have called in the violation and he would have been DQ'd.

I don't know if it's a reading comprehension thing or if I and the other folks who have pointed this out are just explaining it really badly, so I'll make sure I'm clear:

If Paddy had called the RO over, there is no scenario in which he could be DQ'd, including someone calling it in later.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by pusher

This all seems to be moot.  No matter what Paddy or a RO did or did not do the viewer still would have called in the violation and he would have been DQ'd.

I don't know if it's a reading comprehension thing or if I and the other folks who have pointed this out are just explaining it really badly, so I'll make sure I'm clear:

If Paddy had called the RO over, there is no scenario in which he could be DQ'd, including someone calling it in later.

And furthermore, he would have also avoided any possible penalty apart from DQ. Pls. folks, do read Dec 34-2/2, it says it all.

[Harmonious]

I guess, then, that there should be a ruling official for every group in every tournament, so that if a player so much as touches the ball (whether it moves or not) he can immediately tell the official about it.  Then the official can call his boss, then the boss can call the TV people (of course there will have to be cameras on every group and lots of TV technicians) and review the slow motion replay to see whether the ball had oscillated, moved, spun or stayed put.

Anyone for six hour tournament rounds?

Of course, this is a little bit over the top, but not much.  And now that two big name players have been DQed by non-tournament personnel input, you can imagine that all players will be very careful to call an official at every opportunity.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

I guess, then, that there should be a ruling official for every group in every tournament, so that if a player so much as touches the ball (whether it moves or not) he can immediately tell the official about it.  Then the official can call his boss, then the boss can call the TV people (of course there will have to be cameras on every group and lots of TV technicians) and review the slow motion replay to see whether the ball had oscillated, moved, spun or stayed put.

Anyone for six hour tournament rounds?

Of course, this is a little bit over the top, but not much.  And now that two big name players have been DQed by non-tournament personnel input, you can imagine that all players will be very careful to call an official at every opportunity.

There already is a rules official for every 3 groups or so. It's already common practice for a player to call an oficial over if there is any question as to how to proceed. With a cart available, that RO is on the scene within a minute or two. In this particular case, I don't know if the RO would've called up the chain to see if there was video evidence or not. But so what if he did? Don't you want them to get the correct ruling if possible? And there aren't a lot of instances where a player has a question where video is necessary. Can you think of any examples in recent history other than the one we're discussing?

Look, the system is not broken. Paddy merely failed to use it properly. The only thing I might want to change is for a called-in rules violation to only be suitable for review if the player has not yet signed their scorecard, but that's a whole 'nuther topic and the larger point is, that topic is moot if the players either a) Know when to call an RO in, or B) Know the dang rules well enough themselves (see the examples of Camillo, DJ, Inkster, etc.)

(And btw, aren't the pro rounds already about 6 hours anyway? )

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by pusher

This all seems to be moot.  No matter what Paddy or a RO did or did not do the viewer still would have called in the violation and he would have been DQ'd.  The point is viewers should not be allowed to call penalties.  I still liken it to balls and strikes in MLB.  It needs to be left to the officials on the field during play.  No video replays, no viewer input.  Period.

This has nothing to do with baseball umpires.  They are on the field for the express purpose of calling balls and strikes.  That is their job.  Not so in golf.

In golf, on course rules officials are only there to be available as a resource on the rules for the golfer.  They are not cops or referees.  They do not get involved unless they happen to see a play who has broken, or is about to break a rule.  You have a mistaken impression of their function.  They are instructed to let the players play, unless they are called in to provide counseling on the rules.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Quote:

Originally Posted by pusher

This all seems to be moot.  No matter what Paddy or a RO did or did not do the viewer still would have called in the violation and he would have been DQ'd.  The point is viewers should not be allowed to call penalties.  I still liken it to balls and strikes in MLB.  It needs to be left to the officials on the field during play.  No video replays, no viewer input.  Period.

This has nothing to do with baseball umpires.  They are on the field for the express purpose of calling balls and strikes.  That is their job.  Not so in golf.

In golf, on course rules officials are only there to be available as a resource on the rules for the golfer.  They are not cops or referees.  They do not get involved unless they happen to see a play who has broken, or is about to break a rule.  You have a mistaken impression of their function.  They are instructed to let the players play, unless they are called in to provide counseling on the rules.

A golf official is responsible for what exactly? Why aren't they catching these infractions? Are they too distracted? If they're just there for a resource - which from what I've seen is pretty much limited to advice on drops and relief, then to be honest, the on course officials seem somewhere between non-existent and useless.

I think many people are giving their opinion on what an on course official should be. Or rather, could be. There was no mention of instant replay in the original rules of any major sport, including golf (that it's a sport is debatable, but I digress), but television viewers are allowed to email rules infractions. "Email". "High definition television replay in slow motion". Do those seem like traditional golfing terms?

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

In golf, on course rules officials are only there to be available as a resource on the rules for the golfer.  They are not cops or referees.  They do not get involved unless they happen to see a play who has broken, or is about to break a rule.  You have a mistaken impression of their function.  They are instructed to let the players play, unless they are called in to provide counseling on the rules.

A golf official is responsible for what exactly? Why aren't they catching these infractions?

Seriously? Fourputt answered that question in the very post you're quoting. They're there as a resource on the rules. It's not their responsibility to catch infractions. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Originally Posted by sean_miller

If they're just there for a resource - which from what I've seen is pretty much limited to advice on drops and relief, then to be honest, the on course officials seem somewhere between non-existent and useless.

How about this for a use: If Paddy had used one, he wouldn't have been DQ'd.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I think many people are giving their opinion on what an on course official should be. Or rather, could be.

And I haven't seen anyone give a good argument for why they should be anything different than what they currently are.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

There was no mention of instant replay in the original rules of any major sport...

...yet now some major sports have instant replays. What is your point? If you don't like the general concept of instant replay in order to get the call right, why not start a thread in the "Sports" forum? (I'll warn you though that you'll probably be in the minority on that.)

Originally Posted by sean_miller

"Email". "High definition television replay in slow motion". Do those seem like traditional golfing terms?

Well first, if you watch the video of it someone posted above, I think you'll see even in real time and standard def that the ball clearly did *not* return to its original spot. (It may have looked like it from Paddy's POV but certainly not from the camera's). Second, the point I and like-minded others are making is that you should use whatever means are available to get the call right, since it's not fair to the rest of the field when you don't. In fact, that's even more of a reason to use instant replay in sports where the amount of money you make is directly related to how well the rules are enforced. (In basketball or football for example, players make the same amount per game no matter how bad the calls are.)

I feel like I'm saying the same things over and over, so I'm done with this thread unless something new comes up.

[CassinoNorth]

I hope the bitch that called this is goes to work tomorrow, makes a mistake, someone calls it in and he gets laid off without pay for a week.

Who does that? I assume a 20 handicapper who has his fair share of foot wedge shots over the course of his round and is bitter that he never could figure out how to hit the ball straight.

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

I'm ok with people calling in.  I don't however agree with the dq'ing.  The rule should be changed where even if the card is signed, the effective penality (in this case, two strokes) should be applied the next day after review.  Still enabling the player to complete the tournament.

That would take away the maliciousnesses of people only calling in the rule AFTER the player has signed to purposly DQ him if they don't like him or are betting against him for whatever reason.

It could also lead to some golfers not counting a penalty in hopes that it slips by... if it doesn't then oh well they just get the strokes anyways.  I know that golf is a game of honesty but let's not forget that there are big bucks at stake in these tournaments and some people will try anything for money...

I think that while a DQ is harsh, it is also fair... those are the rules.  While it sucked for Camillo last week and Paddy this week and likely somebody else in weeks to come, I'd rather see them get things right than just ignore it.  If these guys don't want to get DQ'd they can always get a rule book or call over an official if they think there might be a problem.

For Camillo and Padrag, I don't think they thought there was a problem and I don't think they were trying to get away with anything...  I'm with everyone in playing by the rules but in this case, I have a hard time matching the rule infraction to the crime.  Furthermore, if you are on camera more than the other guy, then others who "let things go by" or make rule infractions without knowing will get away with it because they aren't on TV.  So, in my view, the happy medium is to still penalize the player (two strokes in paddys' case) vs. DQ'ing him just because he signed the card.  Also technically, you would think that the signing of the card "finalizes" the round with no more changes to the score being allowed.  So again in my view, the person watching would hae to call in the infgraction before the signing of the card.  If he/she calls in afterwards, then to late,,,card is signed on that round is finalized.

I agree with you in that I don't believe that Camillo and Padrag were trying to cheat... but I think that not DQ'ing players for singing an incorrect scorecard opens the door for others to try to get away with something... It sucks for Camillo and Padrag but at the same time, if you listen to those guys after they got DQ'd, they're ok with it... they know that they violated a rule and they are moving on.

Signing the card does, in a sense "finalize the round."  By signing it you are saying "this is what I shot" and if you are found to be wrong and you should have taken a penalty when you didn't then you are DQ'd because you turned in your "final" score.

The argument that some are on tv more than others means they get penalized more is just lame in my opinion.  The rules are the rules, they are available to everybody, and if you're going to be playing for millions of dollars you need to make damn sure that you know them.  Period.  Obviously these guys get scrutinized a bit more because more people watch them but in the end it is still their responsibility to know and follow the rules and to get a ruling when they are unsure about something.  Lets say, for instance, Phil is on TV and makes an infraction, should we not count it because he is on TV a lot and some other not-as-popular golfer might of made an infraction and gotten away with it because they weren't filming him?  I mean, really, who is on TV more than Tiger, when was the last time he was DQ'd for singing an incorrect scorecard?  With the calling in, it's not something that I would take the time to do, but I have absolutely no problem with people doing it.  As has been stated by many before me, all he had to do was call over an official for a judgement, if he does that he doesn't get DQ'd.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

In golf, on course rules officials are only there to be available as a resource on the rules for the golfer.  They are not cops or referees.  They do not get involved unless they happen to see a play who has broken, or is about to break a rule.  You have a mistaken impression of their function.  They are instructed to let the players play, unless they are called in to provide counseling on the rules.

A golf official is responsible for what exactly? Why aren't they catching these infractions?

Seriously? Fourputt answered that question in the very post you're quoting. They're there as a resource on the rules. It's not their responsibility to catch infractions. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

If they're just there for a resource - which from what I've seen is pretty much limited to advice on drops and relief, then to be honest, the on course officials seem somewhere between non-existent and useless.

How about this for a use: If Paddy had used one, he wouldn't have been DQ'd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I think many people are giving their opinion on what an on course official should be. Or rather, could be.

And I haven't seen anyone give a good argument for why they should be anything different than what they currently are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

There was no mention of instant replay in the original rules of any major sport...

...yet now some major sports have instant replays. What is your point? If you don't like the general concept of instant replay in order to get the call right, why not start a thread in the "Sports" forum? (I'll warn you though that you'll probably be in the minority on that.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

"Email". "High definition television replay in slow motion". Do those seem like traditional golfing terms?

Well first, if you watch the video of it someone posted above, I think you'll see even in real time and standard def that the ball clearly did *not* return to its original spot. (It may have looked like it from Paddy's POV but certainly not from the camera's). Second, the point I and like-minded others are making is that you should use whatever means are available to get the call right, since it's not fair to the rest of the field when you don't. In fact, that's even more of a reason to use instant replay in sports where the amount of money you make is directly related to how well the rules are enforced. (In basketball or football for example, players make the same amount per game no matter how bad the calls are.)

I feel like I'm saying the same things over and over, so I'm done with this thread unless something new comes up.

Of course you're saying the same things over and over again. That's what happens when you slice and dice someones post into a multiquote shamozzle that makes your comment equal parts repetitive and irrelevant.

And that's all I'm gonna say about the multiquotes.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

In golf, on course rules officials are only there to be available as a resource on the rules for the golfer.  They are not cops or referees.  They do not get involved unless they happen to see a play who has broken, or is about to break a rule.  You have a mistaken impression of their function.  They are instructed to let the players play, unless they are called in to provide counseling on the rules.

A golf official is responsible for what exactly? Why aren't they catching these infractions?

Seriously? Fourputt answered that question in the very post you're quoting. They're there as a resource on the rules. It's not their responsibility to catch infractions. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

If they're just there for a resource - which from what I've seen is pretty much limited to advice on drops and relief, then to be honest, the on course officials seem somewhere between non-existent and useless.

How about this for a use: If Paddy had used one, he wouldn't have been DQ'd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I think many people are giving their opinion on what an on course official should be. Or rather, could be.

And I haven't seen anyone give a good argument for why they should be anything different than what they currently are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

There was no mention of instant replay in the original rules of any major sport...

...yet now some major sports have instant replays. What is your point? If you don't like the general concept of instant replay in order to get the call right, why not start a thread in the "Sports" forum? (I'll warn you though that you'll probably be in the minority on that.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

"Email". "High definition television replay in slow motion". Do those seem like traditional golfing terms?

Well first, if you watch the video of it someone posted above, I think you'll see even in real time and standard def that the ball clearly did *not* return to its original spot. (It may have looked like it from Paddy's POV but certainly not from the camera's). Second, the point I and like-minded others are making is that you should use whatever means are available to get the call right, since it's not fair to the rest of the field when you don't. In fact, that's even more of a reason to use instant replay in sports where the amount of money you make is directly related to how well the rules are enforced. (In basketball or football for example, players make the same amount per game no matter how bad the calls are.)

I feel like I'm saying the same things over and over, so I'm done with this thread unless something new comes up.

+1  Just about covers it all from my point of view.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

+1  Just about covers it all from my point of view.

Then you didn't understand what I was saying either. Toodles.

[gators13]

I heard one of the golf channel announcers ask this question:  Why don't they put a qualified RO in front of the tv to catch it and stop viewers from calling in?

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by gators13

I heard one of the golf channel announcers ask this question:  Why don't they put a qualified RO in front of the tv to catch it and stop viewers from calling in?

Perhaps a good idea. But how many cameras there are on a competition course? 10? 25? 50? 100? Who's going to be able to catch all those pictures? Maybe an RO per camera, just to make sure...? I volunteer for that!

[zeg]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Then you didn't understand what I was saying either. Toodles.

Maybe what you are saying doesn't make sense?

Or we just don't agree.  Your questions/points about rules officials are basically incorrect: they have a well-defined, specific job, and when the players employ them, they're useful.  True, the rules of golf don't contemplate HDTV or instant replay, but they also don't mention banana peels (until the decisions), which were equally rare on the old Links where the rules were developed.  The game adapts.  The rules *do* expect the players and committees to use all available information to make the right call, and that's what's being done.