Players / Rules / Callers

[Gary Hill]

I simply stated that once a ruling has been made on the course, at the time of the incident, with the aid of a rules official (supposed expert) it should end there, unless the rules commitee would like to review it.

My problem is with people at home who have no vested interest in the tourney calling in because after watching the replay 20 times they think the ball was dropped 1/2" closer to the hole. On the course decisions are made, usually with the help of an official, and if that decision suits the official it should end there.

Rulings are seldom "made" at the time of the incident and almost always reviewed by the Committee before the players turns in his scorecard.

If not, then have officials with every group, tvs on every hole, someone reviewing every shot......

That is logistically impossible.

Tour players are supposed to have a good understanding of the rules.

Tour players generally have a very poor understanding of the rules.

When uncertain they ask an official. Who then gives an answer.

The rules official will more likely take the incident under advisement and tell the player that a decision will be made before his scorecard is accepted.

Player proceeds to play based on the answer given, which he deems to be correct.
Joe Shmoo calls in saying player did not proceed correctly. Should player be penalized for proceeding under the pretense what he was told was a correct ruling?

The player proceeds with the understand that the incident is always under review until the competition is over.

[Gary Hill]

If a referee has been appointed by the Committee, his decision is final.

A referee is something completely different and is NEVER seen on the PGA Tour.

[Big Johnny69]

Obviously we don't agree to disagree Gary. I guess I'm still not making myself clear.

Any decision rendered by the rules commitee, regardless if reviewed for hours or days, I don't have a problem with. As long as it came from within. Your replies to my quotes are irrelevant to what this thread is about. ap logan wanted to know what our opinion of people calling in for rules violations was. I don't like it, it happens, but I don't agree with it. Simple as that, over and done with. To me there is some flaws to the rules of golf, doesn't mean I don't play by them. It is an opinion and I am entitled to it whether someone views it as right or wrong.

[Gary Hill]

Any decision rendered by the rules commitee, regardless if reviewed for hours or days, I don't have a problem with. As long as it came from within.

You have not made it clear who you consider to be "from within".

Only the player in question?
Only the players in his group?
Everybody within 10 feet?
Everybody?

The point I am trying to get you consider is that if your answer is not the later (everybody) then the outcome of the competition would be patently unfair to the rest of the field.

[AAA]

A referee is something completely different and is NEVER seen on the PGA Tour.

I didn't think this thread was constrained to the PGA Tour. What about the World Matchplay which is televised widely?

[Big Johnny69]

Does the rules commitee not have the final say? Does their decision on any matter not superceede anyone elses? Are they not supposed to be experts on the rules? If the answer is yes to all of the above, any decision they render to me should be what matters. Period. That is the way it should be in my opinion. I don't care if Joe Shmoo, who thinks he knows everything, calls in to question something. If the commitee has made a decision, reviewed it and are satisfied with it, it should stand.

I would like to think a rules commitee is competent enough to make the correct ruling and don't need the help of the average joe at home to help in rendering a decision.

[Gary Hill]

Does the rules commitee not have the final say? Does their decision on any matter not superceede anyone elses? Are they not supposed to be experts on the rules? If the answer is yes to all of the above, any decision they render to me should be what matters. Period. That is the way it should be in my opinion. I don't care if Joe Shmoo, who thinks he knows everything, calls in to question something. If the commitee has made a decision, reviewed it and are satisfied with it, it should stand.

I would like to think a rules commitee is competent enough to make the correct ruling and don't need the help of the average joe at home to help in rendering a decision.

The decision by the Committee IS final. Nothing can supercede the decision by the Committee. The answer is yes to all of the above. A Committee decision ALWAYS stands.

You are confusing a caller questioning an incident that the Committee is unaware of and a caller questioning a decision that the Committee has already made.

[Gary Hill]

I didn't think this thread was constrained to the PGA Tour. What about the World Matchplay which is televised widely?

I never said there was no such thing as a referee.

I was simply trying to keep specific match play rules from confusing the issue even further.

[AAA]

I never said there was no such thing as a referee.

I didn't say you did

I was simply trying to keep specific match play rules from confusing the issue even further.

I can understand that but matchplay is televised and I suspect many people would not know that the Wie fiasco would not have arisen if a similar thing happened in a match with a referee.

[Gary Hill]

I can understand that but matchplay is televised and I suspect many people would not know that the Wie fiasco would not have arisen if a similar thing happened in a match with a referee.

The exact situation would have happened with a referee.

[AAA]

I was assuming a referee would have been present and observed the breach if this had been a televised match of high profile.

[el tigre]

Gary, why do you think it is logistically impossible to have a rules official with every group (or perhaps you were referring to the TV coverage of every shot)?

I ask this having never been to a Tour event of any kind, so I have no idea whether there is one rules official or several scattered throughout the course. I understand that there would obviously need to be some $$$ invested in training programs etc. in order to provide more rules officials at an event, so perhaps providing 9 or 18 would be sufficient.

But if $$$ is the only stumbling block, then it seems to me that it is logistically possible and the PGA could afford it - if they felt it was important enough.

[Kilroy]

The millionaires would never notice if it came out of the prize purse. They could easily have an official with every group.

[Gary Hill]

Gary, why do you think it is logistically impossible to have a rules official with every group (or perhaps you were referring to the TV coverage of every shot)?

I was referring to the TV coverage of every shot.

[larry]

I don't think people should be allowed to call in but if they are going to allow it, the rules for signing an incorrect score card should be changed. If the call is received before the player signs his/her score card, no problem. Make a decision and then sign the card with an applicable penalty included. However, if the call comes in after the player has signed their card, any penalty should be added their score but no disqualification. I also beleive that the rule for signing an incorrect score card should be changed to include a 2 or 3 stroke penalty but not disquilification. The only exception would be if the rules or tournament officials had reason to beleive that the player knowingly cheated.

[AAA]

I ask this having never been to a Tour event of any kind, so I have no idea whether there is one rules official or several scattered throughout the course. I understand that there would obviously need to be some $$$ invested in training programs etc. in order to provide more rules officials at an event, so perhaps providing 9 or 18 would be sufficient.

What do you mean by 'Rules Official' ?

[el tigre]

What do you mean by 'Rules Official' ?

I mean this guy:

The rules official will more likely take the incident under advisement and tell the player that a decision will be made before his scorecard is accepted.

[GolfOttawa]

Could you imagine if every golf tournament that was ever televised was up for review. Could it change the history of the sport if Jack Nicklaus, Lee Trevino or Arnold Palmer or heaven forbid Bobby Jones were caught on film breaking a rule? Would their records and reputations be tarnished because someone saw something that happended 15-20years ago on a rerun. I realize that they would not take the tournament title away from the player but his reputation would be tarnished if someone labeled him or her for an infraction that happened years ago. To date I have not heard of any such thing but with the increased telivision coverage are the players of today at a disadvantage compared to the players of the past.

Just an opionion

[buckylasek]

I sincerely agree with golfottawa.

[Sphere Hunter]

I don't think people should be allowed to call in but if they are going to allow it, the rules for signing an incorrect score card should be changed. If the call is received before the player signs his/her score card, no problem. Make a decision and then sign the card with an applicable penalty included. However, if the call comes in after the player has signed their card, any penalty should be added their score but no disqualification. I also beleive that the rule for signing an incorrect score card should be changed to include a 2 or 3 stroke penalty but not disquilification. The only exception would be if the rules or tournament officials had reason to beleive that the player knowingly cheated.

Larry, I think you've nailed it! I'm sure that the DQ rule was originally created to deter players from cheating. Now it is used (I say abused) for all situations. Like many of the rules in the game of golf, this one was probably created to deal with a certain problem and it is now used becauce it technically "fits" the situation even though it was never meant to be used like this. Many will say that a rule is a rule but that is only true until it is changed and this one should be changed to fit reality.

Btw - I have no problem with the public calling in if they see something. The Committee still ends ups making the ruling based on the rules. When a situation like this occurs, it is often one of the most interesting parts of the broadcast. I don't see what's wrong with that. This is one of the many reasons why all of these players MUST play by the rules and set a good example for others learning the game.

In a different dimenion, in a parallel universe, there is another pga tour that does not allow anyone from the "outside" to influence the scoring or rules. This pga tour has a stroke average that is 1 or 2 strokes lower than ours. I saw this on a Start Trek episode a few tears ago.
SH

[AAA]

The rules official will more likely take the incident under advisement and tell the player that a decision will be made before his scorecard is accepted.

Gary
What exactly do you mean by 'rules official'.

[Gary Hill]

Gary
What exactly do you mean by 'rules official'.

The person that is generally and incorrectly called the referee.

[AAA]

A referee is defined. As is an observer. So if the person you referred to is not a referee, what is he?

[Gary Hill]

A referee is defined. As is an observer. So if the person you referred to is not a referee, what is he?

A rules official.

[1dash1]

The exact situation would have happened with a referee.

Gary:

I don't mean to gang up on you, but I'd suggest otherwise.

- If we take the (IMO extraordinarily liberal) view that the Referee's omission at the time of the drop constituted an incorrect ruling, the ruling nonetheless stands. [Dec. 34-2/6.]

- The more conservative view is that overlooking an infraction does not constitute a ruling. Given that no ruling was made, then there is no basis for raising any administrative correction.

- In match play, the opponent's options for redress are covered by the system of claims, Rule 2-5.

Among other things, Rule 2-5 states:

"The claim must be made before any player in the match plays from the next teeing ground or, in the case of the last hole of the match, before all players in the match leave the putting green.

A later claim may not be considered by the Committee unless it is based on facts previously unknown to the player making the claim and he had been given wrong information (Rules 6-2a and 9) by an opponent."

In this instance, the player paired with Michelle Wie, Grace Park, witnessed the events. The information was not previously unknown to her. There is no basis for a claim.

Hence, Mr. Bamberger's reporting of the discrepancy one day later would not have resulted in Ms. Wie's disqualification had the format been match play.

[1dash1]

AAA:

All Referees are Rules Officials, not all Rules Officials are Referees. Just as all Rules Officials are members of the Committee, but not all members of the Committee are Rules Officials.

In my opinion, the big difference between Referees and Rules Officials is that the Referee is assigned to accompany the group and to make all the rulings necessary for the group, while the Rules Official is not necessarily assigned to a specific group and he may not necessarily make the call on every incident (calls may be referred to the Committee and are routinely done so).

So, while walking Rules Officials accompany each group at the U.S. Open, I wouldn't call them Referees. The walking Rules Official's authority is limited by the Committee, i.e., the walking Rules Officials are not charged with the responsibility of making ALL the rulings. They are superceded by roving Rules Officials, whose authority is not restricted by the Committee. However, the roving Rules Officials will invariably call for support on any ruling that is not clear cut under the rules. Together, they act as the Committee; very much different than the independent role of the Referee.

* * * * *

Philosophically, I'd suggest that it would be contrary to the nature of stroke play competitions with a large field of competitors for Referees to be assigned. The overall competition needs oversight to maintain a level playing field as best as possible. Having individual Referees making independent rulings while accompanying each separate group would not be conducive toward this goal.

From a regulation standpoint, the system used by the U.S. Open of walking Rules Officials would be better than the assignment of Referees, in my opinion. However, that does not mean I support such a system.

I believe that there is a danger in overregulating the game. If one institutes a police state, placing the burden on enforcement on the Committee, that means that players' responsibilities to the game are reduced. There's a grave risk of golf adopting the attitude of other sports: it's a good play if you can get away with it.

I'd rather the game be a little less than perfect, as it is now, than to have it transformed into a game without integrity.

[Samick]

A referee is something completely different and is NEVER seen on the PGA Tour.

Nitpicky nitpicky.....you know what the guy meant. Gees

So if a rules official makes a "call" on a ruling asked by a golfer in a tournament....and later that day some yahoo decides that he thinks the ruling was wrong and calls in....is the rule looked at again to see if there was an infraction? OR, is the ruling made earlier by the official standing?

Sorry if it was already said above....I'm trying to read all these posts and my head started spinning!!

I am in agreement with Geoff on this one...but its just my opinion and thats all I was looking for. We all know that it is happening and is allowable, just wanted to know what the rest of the general public thought, because it kind of urks me.

[AAA]

A rules official.

Rules Official is not defined so what powers has he got or not got that a Referee has.

As I understand it, they categorised in three ways
1) Referees (defined )
2) Observers (defined)
3) Committee Members (Committee is defined)

Referees must act on any breach of a rule that he observe or is reported to him.
Observers assist referees to decide questions of fact and report to them any breaches of rules.
Committee Members' authority depend upon whether the Committe has delegated to them unlimited authority to represent the Committee and make final decisions.

If M Wie had either 1 or 3 (authorised) there the whole situation would have been stillborn. If 2 or 3 (unauthorised), if they had done their job, Wie would have bee advised correctly.
Which are you meaning?

[AAA]

AAA:

In my opinion, the big difference between Referees and Rules Officials is that the Referee is assigned to accompany the group and to make all the rulings necessary for the group, while the Rules Official is not necessarily assigned to a specific group and he may not necessarily make the call on every incident (calls may be referred to the Committee and are routinely done so).

So, while walking Rules Officials accompany each group at the U.S. Open, I wouldn't call them Referees. The walking Rules Official's authority is limited by the Committee, i.e., the walking Rules Officials are not charged with the responsibility of making ALL the rulings. They are superceded by roving Rules Officials, whose authority is not restricted by the Committee. However, the roving Rules Officials will invariably call for support on any ruling that is not clear cut under the rules. Together, they act as the Committee; very much different than the independent role of the Referee.

Your description of the non-referee rules official seems to my 'Observer', which is the term used by the R&A. The USGA does not seem to differentiate between them on their website.

[1dash1]

Rules Official is not defined so what powers has he got or not got that a Referee has.

AAA:

The differentiation between Rules Official and Referee is less a matter of "powers" and more a matter of roles.

- The Referee is charged to accompany the group, answer all questions relating to the rules and to act on any breach of rule. Generally speaking, he acts alone and is expected to act alone - because his role is that of the final authority.

- The Rules Official is more commonly assigned to rove the course. He is charged to answer any questions relating to the rules. In stroke play, he is charged with acting on any breach of rule. In match play, the roving Rules Official will NOT act on a breach of rule unless a timely claim is lodged (with the possible exceptions of breaches of rules involving Rules 6-7, 1-3, or 33-7). And in so acting on any breach of rule, he can and will frequently consult other Rules Officials before making the call. His role is not that of the final authority, his role is to represent the Committee, which acts as the final authority.

You don't need to remember all of this. All you have to remember is 99.9% of the time, the term "Referee" is used with respect to the Rules Official assigned to accompany a match. If he's roving, he's not a Referee.

(The 0.1% exception is the Referee assigned to accompany a group in stroke play, with a field of competitors, AND who has been given the final authority to make all calls. It almost never happens.)

The term "Rules Official" may be used for any Committee member who makes rulings on the course, limited or not, including Referees.