Rules change: Revision of Dec 33-7/4.5

[Ignorant]

This change origins from many different issues but P. Harrington's DQ recently seems to have been the final nail in the coffin. The big issue is that a player is no longer automatically DQ'd after having returned a score card with missing penalties of a breach of Rules the player was not aware of before returning the card.

This change will arise various and interesting discussions in the very near future. What do you guys think of this change and how will it affect things on the main tours?

Read more from http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2011/April/Rule-Change.aspx .

[zeg]

Discussion here: http://thesandtrap.com/forum/thread/43144/should-players-be-dq-d-for-penalties-assessed-after-they-sign-their-scorecard/18#post_592099

The rule still mostly stands, the new exception is if a player could not have known of the violation.  It's not enough not to be aware of the violation.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

This change origins from many different issues but P. Harrington's DQ recently seems to have been the final nail in the coffin. The big issue is that a player is no longer automatically DQ'd after having returned a score card with missing penalties of a breach of Rules the player was not aware of before returning the card.

This change will arise various and interesting discussions in the very near future. What do you guys think of this change and how will it affect things on the main tours?

I disagree that it has origins in "many different issues."

Camilo would still have been DQed. And Padraig may or may not have been depending on whether they deemed that he could have seen his ball move. Seeing as how you could tell the ball moved without being a closeup video, I think they might have still ruled that way. Paddy wasn't even looking at his ball when he moved out of his crouch.

I think it will not change much of anything on the PGA Tour. It might literally never come into play. Only once might it have come into play last year (Paddy), and it's rare that we had it once last year. Again, the Camilo situation isn't solved with this. He'd still have been DQed.

We posted some comments here http://thesandtrap.com/forum/thread/43144/should-players-be-dq-d-for-penalties-assessed-after-they-sign-their-scorecard/18 but since it's a new rule I think a new topic is fine.

However, not in this forum. Ignorant, we have a Rules forum... I'll move it.

[zeg]

There's some further discussion here: http://www.majorschampionships.com/masters/2011/news/rulechange-040711.cfm

It looks like the feeling of the powers that be was that Harrington should not have been DQ were this descision in force.  From my link:

Quote:

The following morning, McFee informed Harrington, who was a stroke off the lead after shooting a 65, that he had been disqualified. Under the new rule, though, Harrington would only have incurred a two-stroke penalty, but not been disqualified.

"Pádraig Harrington’s situation, where he essentially played from a wrong place, we felt that he did all of the things he should have done," Davis said. "And there was an example of if it had just been everyday play, he would have been okay.

"I think in the Harrington situation, I think it’s important to note that regardless of the information a committee gets, when it gets it, it’s got to use it to protect the rest of the field. So for that reason, he did play from a wrong place. He’s going to get the applicable penalty."

[iacas]

I see. Padraig would have been penalized for playing from the wrong place but because he thought he was playing from the right place and it was not the "obvious" type of error - it required (I still disagree somewhat on that) the use of HD and closeups - he gets the lesser penalty only.

This is a good source too: http://www.usga.org/news/2011/April/Transcript--Davis,-Dawson-On-Modified-Rule/

Quote:

So with that, I guess what I would say is the key to this, in terms of when a committee can actually use this discretion to waive a disqualification penalty, is that there had to be facts arise after the scorecard had been returned, that the player either couldn't possibly have known about, or, in the committee's judgment, couldn't have reasonably known before he returned the scorecard.

That's the key here.  We are dealing with fact‑based issues.  It's not issues dealing with not knowing the rules.  It's not knowing the facts; and therefore, you couldn't apply the penalty, and then all of a sudden, these facts arise after the scorecard's returned.

... and ...

Quote:

And I think as I said, this is really a modern phenomenon.  We were not dealing with these kind of issues three years ago.  Yes, there was TV.  Yes, there was slow motion, but you didn't see cameras zooming in and making the golf ball look the size of a basketball.

In other words, the modification takes into account rules violated only when you consider HD cameras and closeups.

[Fourputt]

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. It later transpires that the score for one hole is lower than actually taken due to his failure to include a penalty stroke(s) 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. Generally, the disqualification prescribed by Rule 6-6d must not be waived or modified.

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.

Basically it still doesn't absolve the player from knowing the rules.  It states that the decision applies only if the player "could not reasonably have known" that he was in breach of a rule.  This is not a "Get out of Jail Free" card.  There are some examples on the USGA page with the new decision:

Quote:

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would be justified in waiving the disqualification penalty:

• A player makes a short chip from the greenside rough. At the time, he and his fellow-competitors have no reason to suspect that the player has double-hit his ball in breach of Rule 14-4.  After the competitor has signed and returned his score card, a close-up, super-slow-motion video replay reveals that the competitor struck his ball twice during the course of the stroke.  In these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the one-stroke penalty under Rule 14-4 to the player’s score at the hole in question.

• After a competitor has signed and returned his score card, it becomes known, through the use of a high-definition video replay, that the player unknowingly touched a few grains of sand with his club at the top of his backswing on a wall of the bunker.  The touching of the sand was so light that, at the time, it was reasonable for the player to have been unaware that he had breached Rule 13-4.  It would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the two-stroke penalty to the player’s score at the hole in question.

• A competitor moves his ball on the putting green with his finger in the act of removing his ball-marker. The competitor sees the ball move slightly forward but is certain that it has returned to the original spot, and he plays the ball as it lies. After the competitor signs and returns his score card, video footage is brought to the attention of the Committee that reveals that the ball did not precisely return to its original spot. When questioned by the Committee, the competitor cites the fact that the position of the logo on the ball appeared to be in exactly the same position as it was when he replaced the ball and this was the reason for him believing that the ball returned to the original spot. As it was reasonable in these circumstances for the player to have no doubt that the ball had returned to the original spot, and because the player could not himself have reasonably discovered otherwise prior to signing and returning his score card, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive  the disqualification penalty. The two-stroke penalty under Rule 20-3a for playing from a wrong place would, however, be applied to the player’s score at the hole in question.

A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:

• As a player’s ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest.  Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the player fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole.  As the player was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1.

• A player's ball lies in a water hazard.  In making his backswing for the stroke, the player is aware that his club touched a branch in the hazard.  Not realizing at the time that the branch was detached, the player did not include the two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4 in his score for the hole.  As the player could have reasonably determined the status of the branch prior to signing and returning his score card, the player should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4.  (Revised)

[zeg]

Originally Posted by jwrussell

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.

Those two situations you're talking about don't just differ on WHEN, they are different types of violations.

They're not concerned with D. Johnson's situation because it was purely his own doing: had he taken proper care to familiarize himself with the local rules and evaluate his lie, he'd have known that he was in a bunker.  Had they been slower in identifying his violation and not brought it to his attention until after he'd signed his card, he'd have been DQ under the new Decision.

For Harrington, the judgement is (and I think it's a reasonable one, even if not absolutely certain) that he took reasonable care in determining the relevant facts, considered the relevant rule, and incorrectly determined that there was no penalty.  His error was purely factual: slow motion HD video showed that his ball did move, but the movement was so small that he could not have determined that himself.  Without knowing that fact, he could not have applied the penalty, so now they would only apply the penalty, not the DQ, protecting the field while not punishing the player for lacking super-human perception (as Erik put it).

For D. Johnson, or similarly for Villegas, the penalty is intentionally left as it was: a player who doesn't take proper care to know the rules or to apply them to the best of his ability gets what he gets.

[ohio golfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

However, not in this forum. Ignorant, we have a Rules forum... I'll move it.

Creating a rules forum was an EXCELLENT idea. The guy that came up with that should be thanked!