Weir incurs delayed penalty stroke

[Kilroy]

Mike Weir lost ground at the RBC Canadian Open while sitting out a rain delay.

More...

[spackler]

They made a ruling, he signed his scorecard, his score should stand. It's hypocritical to allow rules officials to alter a signed scorecard and yet have no allowance for the player to do the same.

[sillywilly]

if he signed an incorrect score card, doesn't he get booted?

[leftylucas]

Silly did you not read the article, he asked for a ruling prior to signing the card so he was not DQ'd. The penalty was assessed after the initial ruling. When he signed his scorecard it was correct.

[jvincent]

I was originally wondering why he wasn't DQ'd but as I understand it since the score he originally signed for was approved/sanctioned by a Rules official there is no DQ penalty.

However, since the tournament isn't finished they (the Committee) are permitted to revisit any previous rulings. As in this case other than the change in score, there is no penalty to the player.

[Weazl]

I agree with Dave that;s a double standard.

[BC MIST]

I agree with Dave that;s a double standard.

No there isn't. As JV pointed out, the competition is not closed and it is within the rules to correct this kind of error. If there is going to be controversy, one would think it would be over what Mike MAY have done that led to the penalty, and not the fact that a ruling error was corrected. Those that think some rules are unfair should have jumped on this one.

[jeffc]

No there isn't. As JV pointed out, the competition is not closed and it is within the rules to correct this kind of error. If there is going to be controversy, one would think it would be over what Mike MAY have done that led to the penalty, and not the fact that a ruling error was corrected. Those that think some rules are unfair should have jumped on this one.

is it not ok for a player to correct his scorecard after he has signed it (if the competition is still open as it was in this case)? If so, then it is a double standard.

[spackler]

No there isn't. As JV pointed out, the competition is not closed and it is within the rules to correct this kind of error.

There is no allowance in the rules for a player to correct an error on a signed scorecard, they are simply DQ'd. If signed scorecards are so sacrosanct, why are rules officials allowed to alter them? They should do away with the signing of scorecards all together. If rules officials are making the calls, and not the players themselves, let the rules officials keep score like in every other professional sport.

[fundonny]

Just another one to add to the pile. Bring on the defenders of the crown.

[justsomeguy]

Committees are allowed to correct an incorrect ruling:

34-3/1 Correction of Incorrect Ruling in Stroke Play
Q. During the first round of a 36-hole stroke-play competition, a competitor plays a wrong ball from a bunker at the 6th hole and the ball comes to rest on the green. He then realizes that he has played a wrong ball and corrects his mistake. The competitor reports the facts to the Committee before returning his card and is incorrectly advised that he has incurred no penalty since the wrong ball was played from a hazard.
During the second round the Committee realizes that it made a mistake and retrospectively adds to the competitor's first-round score two penalty strokes at the 6th hole, but does not disqualify the competitor under Rule 6-6d.
The competitor objects on the ground that the Committee reached a decision on the matter the previous day and that, as Rule 34-3 states that the Committee's decision is final, it cannot now impose a penalty.
Was the Committee's procedure correct?
A. Yes. Under Rule 34-3, a Committee's decision is final in that the competitor has no right to appeal. However, Rule 34-3 does not prevent a Committee from correcting an incorrect ruling and imposing or rescinding a penalty provided that no penalty is imposed or rescinded after the competition is closed, except in the circumstances set forth in Rule 34-1b. (Revised)

It should be pointed out that Committee could also rescind a penalty that was incorrectly applied. In either case the player is not disqualified since he acted upon the advice of a rules official.

[justsomeguy]

There is no allowance in the rules for a player to correct an error on a signed scorecard, they are simply DQ'd. If signed scorecards are so sacrosanct, why are rules officials allowed to alter them?

First of all, rules officials do not attest to the scores on a scorecard - players do.

Secondly, committees can only change a scorecard while the competition is still open.

Finally, the purpose for this is that the same ruling should be applied to the same situation regardless of the player or rules official involved. If the exact same thing happened to another player in the tournament and the rules official present gave the correct ruling (i.e., a penalty stroke) - then Weir would have been given an unfair advantage.

[jvincent]

The issue is that the committee can (and has in the past) applied penalties after the completion of a round with the result of the player being DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard. These DQ's are usually as a result of video review after the round so both the player and the person attesting his score would not have had the benefit of the video to ascertain that a breach had occurred.

So, in one situation you get a player DQ'd after a video assisted ruling and in another you don't.

If it were me, I would not allow any outside input to affect the player's score after the cards have been signed/attested. If a ruling was made on the course by an official then those should be allowed to be changed with no DQ to the player.

[Gary Madore]

I dunno about this one... The rules say that applicable officials may "correct an incorrect ruling" but if they dont know that the original ruling was incorrect, how can they correct it?

Text from the original article:

"However, the committee reopened the incident on Sunday and was unable to account for what caused his ball to move - a grey area in the rules that goes against the player."

So, they don't know why the ball moved. It could have been Mike or it could have been a butterfly flapping its wings. How can they now say that the original ruling was "incorrect"?

Cheers!

Gary

[jonf]

There is no allowance in the rules for a player to correct an error on a signed scorecard, they are simply DQ'd. If signed scorecards are so sacrosanct, why are rules officials allowed to alter them? They should do away with the signing of scorecards all together. If rules officials are making the calls, and not the players themselves, let the rules officials keep score like in every other professional sport.

I don't see how anybody could argue with this logic.

[justsomeguy]

So, they don't know why the ball moved. It could have been Mike or it could have been a butterfly flapping its wings. How can they now say that the original ruling was "incorrect"?

The article doesn't go into a lot of detail on the circumstances, but:

Note: It is a question of fact whether a ball has been moved by an outside agency. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that an outside agency has moved the ball. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must play the ball as it lies...

Since the ball was in play but Mike had not yet addressed the ball, I'm not sure what the issue with the original ruling was. If the ball was replaced then the original ruling was definately wrong, but if the ball was played as it lies from the new position then I don't see what the problem is.

[justsomeguy]

I don't see how anybody could argue with this logic.

... that's because you don't understand the difference between a rules official in golf and a referee in any other sport.

[leftylucas]

i saw that the grounds were so inundated with water they were cutting the turf open to let the water come out like lancing a blister. I have walked on soaked turf and felt it wobble under my feet. Maybe this is what happened. Would it have been possible for Mike to appeal this final ruling?

[Weazl]

Those air bubbles occur at Hammond all the time.

[jonf]

... that's because you don't understand the difference between a rules official in golf and a referee in any other sport.

Care to explain it to me?

[BC MIST]

Those who don't get it yet, should read or reread posts 11 and 12.

If a ball is addressed and the ball moves, the player is penalized. Addressing means, in part, that the grass supports the weight of the club and Weir's club was not placed in address position. However, if he touches the grass, without the grass supporting the weight of the ball, and the ball moves, the rules deem him to have moved it.

Weir signed his card after getting a ruling from the rules official. This means that he is attesting that his hole by hole score is correct and at the time of signing, it was. However, the score on that one hole was determined by a rules official, not Weir, and so when the ruling was changed the next day, Weir did not get disqualified, nor should he get disqualified, for the mistake of the rules official. There IS no double standard, only common sense.

[jonf]

Those who don't get it yet, should read or reread posts 11 and 12.

If a ball is addressed and the ball moves, the player is penalized. Addressing means, in part, that the grass supports the weight of the club and Weir's club was not placed in address position. However, if he touches the grass, without the grass supporting the weight of the ball, and the ball moves, the rules deem him to have moved it.

Weir signed his card after getting a ruling from the rules official. This means that he is attesting that his hole by hole score is correct and at the time of signing, it was. However, the score on that one hole was determined by a rules official, not Weir, and so when the ruling was changed the next day, Weir did not get disqualified, nor should he get disqualified, for the mistake of the rules official. There IS no double standard, only common sense.

I understand the ruling...that doesn't mean that it's a logical ruling. I understand the rule in question, how it was applied, and why the ruling was made as it was. That doesn't mean that the rule and the resulting ruling are rational.

As Spackler pointed out, if a player had made an error on the scorecard and proceeded to sign it, they would get DQ'd: the score cannot be changed once the card is signed. However, the officials have the right to go back and change a scorecard if they made an error. That is a double standard. If the officials have the authority to go back and change a score if they made an error, why shouldn't a player be allowed the same recourse?

[justsomeguy]

Care to explain it to me?

In other sports, referees watch the game being played in order to call infractions of the rules.
In golf, rules officials DO NOT watch the game being played - they are simply available to assist players with rules questions.

In other sports, referees call any infractions they see and apply the required penalties - but if an infraction is not seen by a referee then no penalties are applied.
In golf players assess penalties to themselves with or without the advice of rules officials, and 99% of the infractions and penalties applied do not even involve the rules officials at all.

In other sports, the referee's decision is final - although many leagues have a process for video review, review of "automatic" suspensions, etc.
In golf the decision of the rules official is final - subject to approval by the Committee prior to the close of the competition.

[sensfan63]

I understand the ruling...that doesn't mean that it's a logical ruling. I understand the rule in question, how it was applied, and why the ruling was made as it was. That doesn't mean that the rule and the resulting ruling are rational.

As Spackler pointed out, if a player had made an error on the scorecard and proceeded to sign it, they would get DQ'd: the score cannot be changed once the card is signed. However, the officials have the right to go back and change a scorecard if they made an error. That is a double standard. If the officials have the authority to go back and change a score if they made an error, why shouldn't a player be allowed the same recourse?

jonf, you are equating players with rules officials here. A double standard cannot exist if you are comparing apples and oranges.

Basically, the rules officials are allowed to change a player's score after-the-fact when the rules official originally has given the player a faulty ruling. In Weir's case, the rules official told Weir what score to print on that hole. That makes that hole the rules official's responsibility, and thus can be changed.

What do you want to do, disqualify the rules official?

All kidding aside, I can't believe the original ruling was made. Weir obviously addressed the ball, and the ball moved. How, watching that video, they came to their first conclusion is beyond me.

[Arrt]

The ruling sucked, but we are only angry because he's Canadian.

[BC MIST]

Weir obviously addressed the ball, and the ball moved.

Weir did NOT address the ball. If he did we would not be having this discussion.

He was deemed to have touched the grass by his ball causing it to move, a penalty under the Rules of Golf. This is NOT the same as addressing the ball where the grass supports the weight of the club. If your ball is lying precariously near the top of 4" rough, you touch the grass near the ball and it moves, you moved it. However, you have NOT addressed it.

If Pat Perez was penalized for doing the same thing, no one would be upset. Some may even be happy. But it's Mikey. Eliminate the emotion, look at what happened, understand the rule and the outcome was reasonable.

[sensfan63]

Weir did NOT address the ball. If he did we would not be having this discussion.

He was deemed to have touched the grass by his ball causing it to move, a penalty under the Rules of Golf. This is NOT the same as addressing the ball where the grass supports the weight of the club. If your ball is lying precariously near the top of 4" rough, you touch the grass near the ball and it moves, you moved it. However, you have NOT addressed it.

If Pat Perez was penalized for doing the same thing, no one would be upset. Some may even be happy. But it's Mikey. Eliminate the emotion, look at what happened, understand the rule and the outcome was reasonable.

Well, they deemed Weir NOT to address the ball, but I believe he did. Not too many players out there who don't ground their clubs in the middle of the fairway.

BTW, I am quite comfortable with the final ruling. Not sure if you were addressing me, or others in this thread.

[BC MIST]

Well, they deemed Weir NOT to address the ball, but I believe he did. Not too many players out there who don't ground their clubs in the middle of the fairway.

BTW, I am quite comfortable with the final ruling. Not sure if you were addressing me, or others in this thread.

Actually, in an interview with Mike, he mentioned that he is one of the few who doesn't address the ball (by definition), like Jack Nicklaus, and Greg Norman, who did this to avoid such a penalty. Because they were playing lift, clean and place, Mike placed his ball on a tuft of grass where it would be quite easy for it to move making it more reasonable for him not to sole the club. I doubt if the ball moving was caused by him, however, the ruling was made exactly in accordance with the R of G. Weir was not upset with the ruling and understood why it was made.

My last comment was meant for all.

[Cruban]

regardless of that outcome Mike missed way too many makeable birdie and eagle putts the entire tourny

[sensfan63]

Actually, in an interview with Mike, he mentioned that he is one of the few who doesn't address the ball (by definition), like Jack Nicklaus, and Greg Norman, who did this to avoid such a penalty. Because they were playing lift, clean and place, Mike placed his ball on a tuft of grass where it would be quite easy for it to move making it more reasonable for him not to sole the club. I doubt if the ball moving was caused by him, however, the ruling was made exactly in accordance with the R of G. Weir was not upset with the ruling and understood why it was made.

My last comment was meant for all.

Gotcha. Watching Weir "gently" place his club on the grass, I thought he was addressing the ball.

As an aside, doesn't the rule for addressing your ball on the green now consist of simply taking your stance, and doesn't distinguish between placing your putter on the ground or hovering the putter (a la Jack)? I thought that was brought to my attention last year.