Rule change starting at Masters

As things have happened this season already the ruling bodies have acted quickly with this change.

----------------------------


USGA, R&A revise incorrect scorecard decision
Bookmark and Share
profileIconGolfChannel.com Team Posted 04/07/2011, 7:27 AM EST

The U.S. Golf Association and the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews have announced a new interpretation not previously contemplated by the Rules of Golf where disqualifications have been caused by scorecard errors identified as the result of advances in video technologies.

This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5, effective immediately, addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a rule because of facts that he did not know and could not have discovered prior to returning his scorecard. Under this revised decision and at the discretion of the committee, the player still receives the penalty associated with the breach of the underlying rule, but is not disqualified.

In revising the decision, the R&A and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for scorecard breaches that arise from ignorance of the rules. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the rules, while recognizing that there may be some situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach.

“For some time we have been concerned that, in certain limited circumstances, disproportionate disqualification penalties have been required by the Rules,” said Peter Dawson, chief executive of the R&A. “This carefully considered decision reflects our desire to ensure that the Rules of Golf remain fair and relevant in the changing environment in which the game is played today.”

Said Mike Davis, executive director of the USGA: “This is a logical and important step in our re-evaluation of the impact of high-definition video on the game. We collectively believe that this revised decision addresses many video-related issues never contemplated by the Rules of Golf.”

So this is not just a local rule for the Masters. It seems very unusual that this would be implemented by itself outside of the regular rule revisions.

I think it's a good revision. It seems abit vague to me. Should be interesting to see if it results in any problems.

So this means that Dustin Johnson, if he were to sign his card before being told he grounded the club in the bunker, would be DQd, but Harrington wouldn't? If so, that sounds like a fair compromise, good on them to rush it in. That does seem to open the door to all sorts of grief when the officials do decide to DQ someone...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ruskie

So this means that Dustin Johnson, if he were to sign his card before being told he grounded the club in the bunker, would be DQd, but Harrington wouldn't? If so, that sounds like a fair compromise, good on them to rush it in. That does seem to open the door to all sorts of grief when the officials do decide to DQ someone...

---

A positive change for an incident like Harrington's where he apparently was not aware that the ball had moved to a different place of rest. However, for Camillo's breach, where he removed the loose impediment as the ball rolled towards him, the ruling made at the time would stand because he was "ignorant of the rules." Time will tell if some golfers will misinterpret the new ruling and try use the "I didn't know it was against the rules" excuse, to weasel out of a penalty.

What I do find strange is that over a four year period, ordinary golfers like ourselves and rules officials, submit rule change suggestions to the powers at be, with relevant revisions made at the end of that period. And yet a publicized incident on the PGA Tour takes place, and the rule changes "almost" right away. Yes, the change seems to be the right one, but why do the pros get priority consideration? There are more of us than them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC MIST

What I do find strange is that over a four year period, ordinary golfers like ourselves and rules officials, submit rule change suggestions to the powers at be, with relevant revisions made at the end of that period. And yet a publicized incident on the PGA Tour takes place, and the rule changes "almost" right away. Yes, the change seems to be the right one, but why do the pros get priority consideration? There are more of us than them.

---

Well... some animals are just more equal than others. While I agree that this is blatant preferential treatment, I don't really mind seeing rule changes be implemented more frequently than the four year review cycle allows. Perhaps it's time to think about shortening that cycle, or getting rid of it all together and publish updates as they crystallize. After all, with the electronic tools available for pretty much anybody nowadays, there's no reason to publish those heavy decisions volumes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC MIST

What I do find strange is that over a four year period, ordinary golfers like ourselves and rules officials, submit rule change suggestions to the powers at be, with relevant revisions made at the end of that period. And yet a publicized incident on the PGA Tour takes place, and the rule changes "almost" right away. Yes, the change seems to be the right one, but why do the pros get priority consideration? There are more of us than them.

---

How many times have you played golf on TV? :-)

The revised Decision in full

http://www.usga.org/news/2011/April/...ncorrect-Card/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC MIST

Time will tell if some golfers will misinterpret the new ruling and try use the "I didn't know it was against the rules" excuse, to weasel out of a penalty.

---

The words and examples in the decision are quite clear. Weaseling out is a non-starter.

Quote:

---

but why do the pros get priority consideration? .

---

The decision appies to you also ;)