Harrington

[Kiwi]

He broke a rule, didn't take the correct penalty, signed the wrong scorecard and was dq'ed.

Harrington should have known better. His comments make it sound like he knew that he did something wrong at the time, but hoped it wouldn't be noticed. Players know that their every move is being scrutinized in HD. They should act accordingly.

I don't think that this is any different from the NHL going to Toronto to "the war room" for video replays.

Oh, I think there is a big difference. For the NHL it is the persons within the game responsible for making the call vs. joe-nobody calling in. Would you want some guy in the nose bleed section to twitter the NHL War Room requesting a check of the call on a goal or off side? Not me. If there are issues the PGA cannot resolve regarding adherence to the rules, that viewers are picking up on their 60" LED TVs sitting in their man caves, pop in hand, then they need to get more refs on the course to "protect" the game. If this proves anything, the players cannot police themselves. No one is cheating, but perhaps the rules are so complex as Nicklaus reportedly said that the players should not be expected to enforce them themselves.

[sensfan63]

But you are missing the point... Harrington did know the rule... he made an assesment and said there was no penalty on the play. The "Code of Honour" that you mention says: "I made an inform decision and this is my verdict".... why don't we respect his decision, we think the ball has move way too much for our liking... for Padraig it was OK....

Seriously?

"Boy, that ball really looks out of bounds. In fact, we can draw a line on TV and it's clearly out. However, Tiger said it looked OK to him at the time, so we're going to respect his decision."

A very long and wind-y road you have to go down in order to get to that point. Not a good idea.

[Chambokl]

Seriously?

"Boy, that ball really looks out of bounds. In fact, we can draw a line on TV and it's clearly out. However, Tiger said it looked OK to him at the time, so we're going to respect his decision."

A very long and wind-y road you have to go down in order to get to that point. Not a good idea.

So you are saying that Harrington knew he was wrong... so he was cheating and Tiger is would be cheating (on the golf course) also... So basically you are implying there in NO honour amongst golfer?

[Gapwedge]

Golf is played in public. An infraction occured and it makes no difference who saw it - the golfer, a fellow competitor, a spectator, or a viewer at home (remember the Walrus building a stance at Torrey Pines in '87).

The fact that Harrington did not call it on himself raises the ugly issue of: Were there any unobserved infractions when he won either Open?

Remove all doubt by calling every penalty on yourself, irrespective of who saw it.

[Big Johnny69]

Golf is played in public. An infraction occured and it makes no difference who saw it - the golfer, a fellow competitor, a spectator, or a viewer at home (remember the Walrus building a stance at Torrey Pines in '87).

The fact that Harrington did not call it on himself raises the ugly issue of: Were there any unobserved infractions when he won either Open?

Remove all doubt by calling every penalty on yourself, irrespective of who saw it.

Again, I can't stay away. Paddy stated he knew the rule and knew his ball moved but believed it rocked backed to it's original position (allowed under the rules) so he didn't think he needed to call a penalty on himself. In hindsight he probably should have called a rules official over to clarify or seek out his proper options, but for all of those spewing off about this "code of honour" you are all pretty quick to disregard Paddy's claim and call him a cheat.

[Chambokl]

Again, I can't stay away. Paddy stated he knew the rule and knew his ball moved but believed it rocked backed to it's original position (allowed under the rules) so he didn't think he needed to call a penalty on himself. In hindsight he probably should have called a rules official over to clarify or seek out his proper options, but for all of those spewing off about this "code of honour" you are all pretty quick to disregard Paddy's claim and call him a cheat.

My point exactly!

[BC MIST]

Again, I can't stay away. Paddy stated he knew the rule and knew his ball moved but believed it rocked backed to it's original position (allowed under the rules) so he didn't think he needed to call a penalty on himself. In hindsight he probably should have called a rules official over to clarify or seek out his proper options, but for all of those spewing off about this "code of honour" you are all pretty quick to disregard Paddy's claim and call him a cheat.

How is it possible for the ball to "move" (by definition) and stay in its original position?

I first raised the issue about the code but I did NOT say that Harrington was cheating. In the interview that I watched Padrig said that the ball may have moved "3 dimples" and rolled back 1-1.5 dimples. That means it moved. He also said that it may have oscillated, for which there is no penalty. Regardless of his inconsistency, Padrig could have avoided all this kerfuffle by playing a second ball. Rule 3-3 is in place for the purpose of avoiding this kind of situation and for protecting the player from disqualification.

While you may an opinion that officials are or should be present at tournaments to "enforce" the rules, like an NHL referee, the reality is that they are present to HELP the players apply the rules when the need arises, to protect the players, in many cases from themselves, and to ensure that the application of rules is correct when ALL the available facts are considered. You stated above that Padrig should have called an official over for clarification. Correct. That's why they are there. In this case, as in all the others that have provoked debate, the player screwed up, not the rules, the officials, the callers nor the architect.

Decisions 27/12 and 34-3/9 are quite informative.
Hypothetical: You are Dustin Johnson's #1 fan. Camillo moves a loose impediment as his ball rolls down a slope towards the spot from which the original shot was made, but no one sees this 2 stroke infraction, except for 10,000,000 fans on TV. Camillo wins the US Open by 1 shot over Dustin because "Joe Public" is NOT allowed to call in what so many others saw. This is how the NHL works. Do you want golf to be the same?

"I'm comfortable with the whole idea that there's people there watching, and I believe when I'm on the golf course I'm not going to do anything untoward. I hope that this many people watch The European Tour. I hope there's 100 million people watching me play and checking me out. It's good for the game." Padrig Harrington

[Kiwi]

While I don't agree with this or even consider it an option, if the PGA, LPGA, etc allow this to continue (call in voting on rules infractions) then they should publish/broadcast phone, text, e-mail, twitter addresses before each broadcast and invite the public to vote on whether they think someone broke a rule. Would it increase the public's interest in the game? Would it increase the public's knowledge of the rules? Would it enhance the game? You cannot leave it as it is, hit or miss (no pun intended). You either have to support this external intervention or cap it. Will be interesting to see how it turns out.

[spackler]

You are Dustin Johnson's #1 fan. Camillo moves a loose impediment as his ball rolls down a slope towards the spot from which the original shot was made, but no one sees this 2 stroke infraction, except for 10,000,000 fans on TV. Camillo wins the US Open by 1 shot over Dustin because "Joe Public" is NOT allowed to call in what so many others saw. This is how the NHL works. Do you want golf to be the same?

And if under current rules the infraction happened during the last day of the tournament, and was not called in/noticed until the evening, then what happens? Is the field protected by the rules of golf?

[Kilroy]

invite the public to vote.

"Vote"? on an issue of facts?

New sport - Golf Survivor - Oh wait they have that in The Big Break.

[Gapwedge]

Again, I can't stay away. Paddy stated he knew the rule and knew his ball moved but believed it rocked backed to it's original position (allowed under the rules) so he didn't think he needed to call a penalty on himself. In hindsight he probably should have called a rules official over to clarify or seek out his proper options, but for all of those spewing off about this "code of honour" you are all pretty quick to disregard Paddy's claim and call him a cheat.

Is personal belief covered under the rules of golf?

What if I believe the sand under my ball is not part of a bunker (aka DJ)?

[wboudrea]

If I am reading into this correctly if he replaces the ball hten no problem and no penalty correct? I think I heard Paddy say in an interview that had he called over a rules offical and he had been asked he would not have moved the ball to replace it, rather he would have said that in his opinoin the ball was in the correct place. Fast forward to that evening and the call comes in that the ball did move what happens? Same outcome even though he talked to a rules official since his opinion that the ball did not move was wrong?

[sensfan63]

So you are saying that Harrington knew he was wrong... so he was cheating and Tiger is would be cheating (on the golf course) also... So basically you are implying there in NO honour amongst golfer?

No, not at all. But a ball either MOVES or DOESN't MOVE. It's factual, not opinion-based.

Likewise, a ball is either OB or IN PLAY.

[BC MIST]

And if under current rules the infraction happened during the last day of the tournament, and was not called in/noticed until the evening, then what happens? Is the field protected by the rules of golf?

For practical reasons, there has to an official END to the tournament so generally, the competition is closed when the results are posted and/or the trophy is presented. If TV discovered that a player incurred a penalty, say on the following Wednesday, a penalty that he did NOT know that he should have received, the results stand. However, if the player knew that had a penalty but did not include it in his score, he is disqualified. There are 3 other similar reasons for disqualification that are found in 34 - 1b, Exceptions.

[BC MIST]

If I am reading into this correctly if he replaces the ball hten no problem and no penalty correct?

If he replaced the ball, then it had to have moved. 1 stroke penalty

[gbower]

Under Rule 20-3 PH would not have been penalized if he had replaced his ball as Wboudrea had said as the ball did move while during the process of removing his marker. From the interview with PH I got from it that he thought his ball had returned to the original spot and didn't realize it hadn't until he watched the video replay.

"If a ball or ball-marker is accidentally moved in the process of placing or replacing the ball, the ball or ball-marker must be replaced. There is no penalty, provided the movement of the ball or ball-marker is directly attributable to the specific act of placing or replacing the ball or removing the ball-marker. Otherwise, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2a or 20-1."

[Kilroy]

Under the Rules there is no penalty if a player accidentally causes his ball to move in the following circumstances:
· In searching for a ball in a hazard covered by loose impediments or sand, for a ball in an obstruction or abnormal ground condition or for a ball believed to be in water in a water hazard - Rule 12-1

· In repairing a hole plug or ball mark - Rule 16-1c
· In measuring - Rule 18-6
· In lifting a ball under a Rule - Rule 20-1
· In placing or replacing a ball under a Rule - Rule 20-3a
· In removing a loose impediment on the putting green - Rule 23-1
· In removing movable obstructions - Rule 24-1.

20-3. Placing and Replacing
a. By Whom and Where

...

If a ball or ball-marker is accidentally moved in the process of placing or replacing the ball, the ball or ball-marker must be replaced. There is no penalty, provided the movement of the ball or ball-marker is directly attributable to the specific act of placing or replacing the ball or removing the ball-marker. Otherwise, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2a or 20-1.

...

[wboudrea]

Ok so if the ball is replaced no penalty. So Paddy knows that he touched the ball so to be safe he calls over the rules official. Official says if the ball moved you need to replace it. Paddy says to the best of my knowlege it is back where it started. I assume then that the official says ok and he plays out. It is afterwards noticed on TV that it moved and had not returned to its original place. Same outcome (i.e. DQ for signing wrong card) even after the consultation with the official?

[BC MIST]

Ok so if the ball is replaced no penalty.

There IS a penalty of 1 stroke. He MOVED the ball, that is, it was shown to have gone from one place of rest to another.

Kilroy explained the circumstances under which no penalty would be applied to a ball moved but PH's was not one of these. His last sentence explains that there IS a penalty of 1 stroke under 18-2a, and 2 if the ball is not replaced, and PH's was not.

[nokids]

Ok so if the ball is replaced no penalty.

If a ball or ball-marker is accidentally moved in the process of placing or replacing the ball, the ball or ball-marker must be replaced. There is no penalty, provided the movement of the ball or ball-marker is directly attributable to the specific act of placing or replacing the ball or removing the ball-marker. Otherwise, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2a or 20-1.


THere's no "additional" penalty for replacing it. However, Padrig does get a 1 stroke penalty under 20-1 for moving the ball as stated in the bolded text above.

I think I said that right.

[wboudrea]

Was his ball not moved in the act of removing the ball marker?

[Kilroy]

Was his ball not moved in the act of removing the ball marker?

I thought it was. His hand touched it as he picked up the marker. I don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise. To me that is a stage "in the process of replacing the ball".

BC MIST please let us know what you saw that leads you to the conclusion a penalty would be assesed.

[fundonny]

I'd venture to say from the sports shows I've been watching that 99.9% of the generic public not involved in golf think it's just plain ridiculous that he was DQ'd. There should have been a review or whatnot and a stroke reduction. DQ'ing a player for something so INCONSEQUENTIAL to the outcome of the actual HOLE and entire TOURNAMENT is, well, DUMB!

[BC MIST]

BC MIST please let us know what you saw that leads you to the conclusion a penalty would be assesed.

Simple. When I started watching the interview the volume was too low and in the few seconds it took to turn it up, I missed the fact that he brushed it with his hand, but only heard him talking about moving the ball. He said, I believe, "...I clearly HIT the golf ball," and from that part of his statement, I made my conclusion. So, definitely 0 penalty strokes or 2, but certainly not 1.

What's my penalty for "inadvertently" not getting my facts right?

[Kilroy]

Lemmie look it up.

[wboudrea]

So back to my question. He knew he touched it but thought that it didnt move so he calls over a rules official and the official would have told him that if it moved he needs to replace it to its original spot. Paddy would have said it is where it started. He would have carried on but then someone calls and says nope the ball moved and did not return to the original spot. Is he still DQ'd?

[gbower]

In my opinion (which might not be worth much ) if the official was satisfied that the ball had not moved I don't think there would be a DQ involved but I'm also sure the official would have more than likely had him replace the ball. If they had gone to the video he would definitely have had him replace it and if they wanted to look at the video later he would have had him play two balls under Rule 3-3.

Dan I think BC should have to sit in a corner for a day or two and watch as much golf and find a couple of other possible rules violations

[Kilroy]

Dan I think BC should have to sit in a corner for a day or two and watch as much golf and find a couple of other possible rules violations

Sounds good. He doesn't make a lot of mistakes. If I had missed something I wanted to know what it was.

[BC MIST]

In my opinion (which might not be worth much ) if the official was satisfied that the ball had not moved I don't think there would be a DQ involved but I'm also sure the official would have more than likely had him replace the ball. If they had gone to the video he would definitely have had him replace it and if they wanted to look at the video later he would have had him play two balls under Rule 3-3.

Dan I think BC should have to sit in a corner for a day or two and watch as much golf and find a couple of other possible rules violations

Even if the ball was proven later to have moved, if the official sanctioned PH's play from a particular spot, PH would get no penalty because even if the official is wrong, he is right. Decision 34-2/2.

Rather than invoke 34-2/2 to my first ever rules gaffe, read by millions, I will accept your sentence and watch the Golf Channel all day. Beats doing the laundry, cleaning toilets, dusting the furniture and vacuuming. Much appreciated. Better a mistake here than on the course.

[HoganWoods]

But you are missing the point... Harrington did know the rule... he made an assesment and said there was no penalty on the play. The "Code of Honour" that you mention says: "I made an inform decision and this is my verdict".... why don't we respect his decision, we think the ball has move way too much for our liking... for Padraig it was OK....

Well said. I think alot of people are missing the point. No one is questioning that the ball moved or that it's a penalty, that's obvious after you look at the replay. What's being questioned is the way the penalty was assessed. If the player can't see the infraction while playing, how is it fair to disqualify someone after the fact when you can see it on slow motion replay, but not in person. You can all say what you want like "He should of seen it" but that is beside the point. He was standing right there and he knew the rules, he just didn't see it. If he had seen it he would of remarked his ball. The rules need some tweaking or video replay should be banned.

Edit: Unless of course you are calling Harrington a cheater, in which case I have no comment because I'm not him.