Harrington

[BC MIST]

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. (1) The rules need some tweaking or (2) video replay should be banned.

(2) Will never happen and should never happen in golf, because the game is centred around playing by the rules, ALL the time. If Pat Perez beat Tiger Woods to win The Masters by 1 stroke, after teeing off ahead of the tee blocks on a hole, and no one on course saw, but 10,000,000 viewers, who were not allowed to call, did, would you be happy with this outcome? The use of all information from all sources is essential to ensure the right outcome.

(1) HOWEVER. There are situations in golf where a player may play from the wrong place (2 stroke penalty) and yet not be penalized:
(a) Stroke and distance penalty. If I cannot determine the exact spot on which I should drop the ball, I drop it as near as possible.
(b) If it is "known or virtually certain" that my ball went into a hazard HERE, and I drop and play a ball under the hazard rule, but then find out that I should have dropped it THERE, there is no penalty.
(c) if spectator deflects or throws a ball that would have gone THERE but ended up HERE, and the player was not aware of this, there is no penalty. There are other examples in the rules like this.

Considering Harrington's situation, he knew the ball had MOVED (dictionary definition) but apparently believed that it had not MOVED (golf definition) so in his best judgment, played the ball from what he figured was the right place, even though it was the wrong place. Modifying the rule to a 2 stroke penalty,versus disqualification, for situations like these, would be a reasonable compromise.

Having said that, taking the golfer's "best judgment" as fact, may lead to problems. Consider the Jeong Jang incident in the 2009 US Open.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG0qfI8syG0 She claimed that in her "best judgment" she did not double hit the ball and the original call was to take her word for it. The video evidence shows she double hit the ball and was penalized 2 strokes, after she signed her card, but not DQ'd, because of "Committee error."

Or, take the example of the Michelle Wie incident where she grounded her club in the hazard but whined that it was merely to keep her balance, when the video clearly shows that the club was not used for that purpose.
http://www.thegolfchannel.com/golf-v...26000&rsec=210

It's quite possible that these two players knew that they broke the rule, but were just trying to gain an advantage, which must be prevented.

Camillo deserved to be DQ'd because he blatantly broke a rule he should have known, regardless of who spotted the infraction. Harrington believed that his ball had not moved (golf def) and was DQ'd, which was correct considering the existing rule, but modifying the punishment to suit the crime, IMO, would be reasonable.

Many decisions were written before video was extensively used and it will be interesting to see just what rules modifications, if any, will be made when the 2012 revisions are published, with respect to video.

[Ruskie]

Wouldn't it be reasonable for the committee to judge that Harrington made all reasonable effort to ascertain that the ball remained in its original place and therefore no penalty? After all, we're talking about 1.5 dimple movement, not really detectable unless you're looking at the ball the whole time.

So, if he called an official over and explained the situation, what would the official do? Since we've established that video replay during the round is not a good option, he would've had to take Paddy's word for it. And later, when people saw the video, it would've been too late since the official on the spot ruled all clear? Or would it be "committee error" and a 2-stroke penalty? Certainly not DQ! Shouldn't there be at least _some_ latitude, at least for the committee, to avoid DQ in this case?

Besides, imagine that his ball _had_ come back to its original spot, but he would've thought it had moved. Wouldn't he be penalized if he "replaced" it in that case?

I think it all boils down to weather you trust the players to make the right call. If you do, then you have to accept that they're human and can sometimes fail to detect things like the tiny amount of movement of the ball on the green. If you don't, then you have to start assigning rules officials to every group and providing video replay for each shot.

[Kiwi]

Really enjoying the debate here. Have stayed away from the Forum for a while because there really hasn't been much to tweek my interest. Guess they call that the off season. Couple of things come to mind. First is the issue of rules and integrity of the game. Some have called for a change of rules, and they will apparently be re-set in 2012 as part of the normal process. The rules are as old as the game and perhaps that is the problem. These rules were fine when used centuries ago when all that was at stake was a few dollars and bragging rights at the local pub after. But now, one win can literally change a player's, and his family's life, for ever. Not to say that any golfer would be moved by fame and fortune to overlook or minimize a rules impact. This goes more to the idea of having independent/impartial officals making the rulings rather than placing an unreasonable burden on the players to call it on themselves. The other issue is the harshness of the penalty. I can see where IF it could be proven that a player signed an incorrect score card he should be DQ'd, what about an inadvertent error or worse yet not knowing the rules as well as a Rules Official. It took how many people to determine that PH's ball moved "a dimple and a half". Is it fair to DQ the player for that? When somebody offered earlier that adjusting the rules should happen perhaps they were referring to adjusting the penalties to fit the "crime". Not sure the PH issue would get so much attention if he had only been assessed two strokes and continued on with the tournament.

[HoganWoods]

There could still be issues if they were to simply change the penalty from a DQ to a few strokes. What if someone wins the tournament and then a penalty is found after? The rules state that once the tournament is over, thats it, you can't go back and change anything. So these new "penalties" would only count for the first 3 rounds? Or worst they allow changes to be made to the final round scorecard and the person who won is stripped of the trophy. Say its Monday and there were 2 tied for second, do they fly back to have a playoff? I like the idea of a rules official in charge of each group having to make the call in real time. If they miss it a penalty, too bad. The penalties that are missed are usually minor and do not affect the outcome either way. All other sports have missed calls. If someone is caught in an attempt to deliberately cheat, the penalties should be steeper - DQ and suspension or whatnot.

[goochy]

Really enjoying the debate here. Have stayed away from the Forum for a while because there really hasn't been much to tweek my interest. Guess they call that the off season. Couple of things come to mind. First is the issue of rules and integrity of the game. Some have called for a change of rules, and they will apparently be re-set in 2012 as part of the normal process. The rules are as old as the game and perhaps that is the problem. These rules were fine when used centuries ago when all that was at stake was a few dollars and bragging rights at the local pub after. But now, one win can literally change a player's, and his family's life, for ever. Not to say that any golfer would be moved by fame and fortune to overlook or minimize a rules impact.

Interesting point about how the rules haven't really "evolved" at the same pace as the purses and the pressure. But I believe even more than this is the technology issue.
Having anyone calling a penalty was absolutely fine when there was just fellow competitors and the gallery. Even in the Palmer era when TV took to golf it wasn't such an issue as much...but now!
Super Slow motion replays in high definition with lenses that can show a golf ball fill up half my 42" screen. TV channels devoted 24/7 to golf. I was presented some stats about Rugby TV coverage a couple of years ago which said in 1980 an average live game had 12 replays...today they have closer to 70 from up to 10 camera angles in super slow motion and extreme close up. I'm sure other sports are similar...including Golf. Add to this the advent of email, twitter, cell phones etc which make contacting the PGA easy and instant. The levels of scrunity are now incomparable to what they were.
Of course none of this changes the facts in a case like Padraig's but is it possible the rules should evolve to consider these issues? For example...would it be unreasonable in a case such as this to say the penalty is added to his score even though he has signed his card instead of being dq'd? Or to say any violation not reported via TV telecast before the card is signed can ONLY lead to penalty strokes added.

I genuinely believe there is now the real possiblity with current broadcast technolgy of TV picking up a violation that someone on the course (including the player) could not have noticed in person in real time.

Just a thought for discussion

[BC MIST]

(1) Wouldn't it be reasonable for the committee to judge that Harrington made all reasonable effort to ascertain that the ball remained in its original place and therefore no penalty? After all, we're talking about 1.5 dimple movement, not really detectable unless you're looking at the ball the whole time.

The fact remains that the ball moved and was not replaced. He must be penalized the two strokes. However, because he believed that the ball stayed in its original position, amending Rule 6-6d, signing for a score lower than taken, so that the disqualification penalty is not applied to this kind of circumstance, sounds reasonable, as long as it does not negatively affect other rules.

(2) So, if he called an official over and explained the situation, what would the official do? Since we've established that video replay during the round is not a good option, he would've had to take Paddy's word for it. And later, when people saw the video, it would've been too late since the official on the spot ruled all clear? Or would it be "committee error" and a 2-stroke penalty? Certainly not DQ! Shouldn't there be at least _some_ latitude, at least for the committee, to avoid DQ in this case?

The official would rule on where the ball should be played from. If proven later to be the wrong spot, PH would not be penalized.

(3) Besides, imagine that his ball _had_ come back to its original spot, but he would've thought it had moved. Wouldn't he be penalized if he "replaced" it in that case?

Yes.

I think it all boils down to weather you trust the players to make the right call. If you do, then you have to accept that they're human and can sometimes fail to detect things like the tiny amount of movement of the ball on the green.

If "accept" means no penalty, I disagree. A rule broken must be penalized.

For me, if a player signs for a score lower than what he had taken - disqualification. If a player signs for a score lower than what he had taken because he did not realize that he broke a rule, penalty added but no disqualification. There could, however, be negative consequences to this kind of change.

[BC MIST]

Really enjoying the debate here. Have stayed away from the Forum for a while because there really hasn't been much to tweek my interest. Guess they call that the off season. Couple of things come to mind. First is the issue of rules and integrity of the game. Some have called for a change of rules, and they will apparently be re-set in 2012 as part of the normal process. The rules are as old as the game and perhaps that is the problem. These rules were fine when used centuries ago when all that was at stake was a few dollars and bragging rights at the local pub after.

Not true. A walk through www.ruleshistory.com will show that, in fact, the rules of golf have changed significantly over the decades and are constantly evolving. Because most golfers do not know the rules and consequently have little or no understanding of why particular rules exist, and the implications if Rule 'x' was removed, it's too easy to be overly critical.

The last revision in 2008 contained scores of changes, modifications and clarifications and the same will occur come next January.

IMO, what would be reasonable would be for the critics here to focus on the rules where the player does everything right, but still gets penalized, (There are some) and not on those where the player does something wrong, but feel that he should not be penalized.

[BC MIST]

There could still be issues if they were to simply change the penalty from a DQ to a few strokes. What if someone wins the tournament and then a penalty is found after? The rules state that once the tournament is over, thats it, you can't go back and change anything. So these new "penalties" would only count for the first 3 rounds? Or worst they allow changes to be made to the final round scorecard and the person who won is stripped of the trophy. Say its Monday and there were 2 tied for second, do they fly back to have a playoff? I like the idea of a rules official in charge of each group having to make the call in real time. If they miss it a penalty, too bad. The penalties that are missed are usually minor and do not affect the outcome either way.

The reality is that once the competition is closed, the results are final, EXCEPT for 4 reasons that are listed in Rule 34b. They centre around a player NOT including a penalty HE KNEW he should have taken during the tournament. If the player did NOT know that he had taken a penalty, after the C of C, the results stand.

Missed penalties always affect the outcome.

[Ruskie]

Hmm... interesting. So if you're Harrington, you basically _have_ to call the official and get him to make a ruling, even though you know the exact rules, simply because you _can_ be penalized no matter what you do if the super-zoom replay proves your assumption was wrong.

All that fuss over something that has absolutely zero impact on the actual play.

I realize there're lots of implications when changing the rules, but I sincerely hope they revise and simplify these kinds of rules in the future (I'm not holding my breath though).

[Kilroy]

I realize there're lots of implications when changing the rules,

Hundreds of years refining of the rules to govern an almost infinite variety of situations. Evolution is a slow process, but it does happen even in the rules of golf.

Every now and then some rulings can indeed seem "unfair" to the individual. That is inevitable given the scope of situations that can present themselves. The field is the greater commodity to protect.

[goochy]

For me, if a player signs for a score lower than what he had taken - disqualification. If a player signs for a score lower than what he had taken because he did not realize that he broke a rule, penalty added but no disqualification. There could, however, be negative consequences to this kind of change.

This, to me, sounds eminently reasonable as long as you mean (and i think you do) that the player did not realise he had broken the rule out of ignorance of the rules. (e.g. Camillo Villegas).
Rather he was unaware that an occurance had actually taken place that was a violation of the rules (eg Padraig Harrington)

not sure if I phrased that well but hope you get the gist.

[BC MIST]

This, to me, sounds eminently reasonable as long as you mean (and i think you do) that the player did not realise he had broken the rule out of ignorance of the rules. (e.g. Camillo Villegas).
Rather he was unaware that an occurance had actually taken place that was a violation of the rules (eg Padraig Harrington)

not sure if I phrased that well but hope you get the gist.

I do. Since the score card disqualification is a natural consequence to the initial rules error, the former seems too severe, but the latter must be penalized. Even 2+2 is better than 2 + DQ.

[Kiwi]

IMO, what would be reasonable would be for the critics here to focus on the rules where the player does everything right, but still gets penalized, (There are some) and not on those where the player does something wrong, but feel that he should not be penalized.

Could not agree more...

My original post concerned "who" made the call on a violation, on the course or buddy with a cell phone and a 60" LED HD TV. No issue with the rules as they are written, and if they are wrong change them, don't find ways to circumvent them. I'd even go so far as to say that if a professional golfer fails to know and follow the rules, then too bad for them, no sympathy. Coming from a legal background the Rules of Golf (and the volumes of Decisions) remind me of the Canadian Crinimal Code (one small volume) and all the Case Law (fills Libraries) that interprets the meaning of the Law. No one can be expected to know them all. I don't think the PGA could manage it but they could go to the "war room" system the NHL has (how could you possibly cover acres of action at the same time?). I just cannot support PGA golf being turned into a call-in TV show where the actions of only a few of the players can be scrutinized by millions of viewers. Where is the fairness in that? AND as others have pointed out it also depends on when the violation is noted. Sounds like if you make it within the last few holes you can "get away with it" if it is not called in before the cheque is handed over.

Level playing field, same rules for all, I thought that was what golf was all about.

[fundonny]

You lads should read the latest PGA Tour Confidential on golf.com, well worth it.

[BC MIST]

You lads should read the latest PGA Tour Confidential on golf.com, well worth it.

Some interesting comments, similar to what have been posted hear and all over.

As I posted previously, I don't have a problem with the removal of the DQ for the Harrington type situations. However, concerning any given situation, it is essential that all available information be gathered before making a final ruling and if that includes TV coverage, all the better. That will not change.

The arm chair viewer can have a significant affect on the outcome of a tournament. If he is not allowed to call, an undeserving player who broke a rule could win anything from the tournament to an amount of money, and have an effect on who makes the cut. Or, if he is allowed to call in, there is an assurance that the tourney's outcome is fair and according to the rules. If there is a best choice, to me, it's obvious.

I would love to read the comments after Phil beat Tiger by 1 stroke to win The Masters when viewers saw Phil break a rule that no one else did (like Camillo) but were not allowed to call. The ruling bodies (USGA and R&A) will use what has happened recently to see if positive changes to the score card rule are necessary, however, they will do what is best for the game as a whole, and not just for the Tour(s).

[Kiwi]

I agree with a lot that has been said here but I cannot agree that TV coverage can or should be considered an acceptable form of managing the game. The blog that referred to viewers calling in being like American Idol was bang on! I don't think any sport should be impacted by the "viewers" on or off course. When I think about the fans having an impact I cannot help but think of the Roman Coliseum and the fans giving a thumbs up or down. The eyes and votes (because calling in is a vote as much as seeing an infraction and not calling in is) of the viewers have no place in sports. Slow motion replays are used in all other major sports (NFL, NHL, MLB) and they live with it. Why can't golf?

And as for fairness, how could it possibly be fair that some, but not all, are subject to scrutiny? It is not only those on the leader board who have something to gain, or lose, yet they rarely get tv time.

[Ruskie]

PGA COMMISSIONER ASKS FOR RULES REVIEW FOLLOWING DQS

Finchem said he had been told that without HDTV, it could not be determined that Harrington's ball had moved.

"Now if you can't see the ball move in that kind of setting, are you really going to let that go to disqualification? I mean, there needs to be some common sense here maybe in terms of the way these things are," Finchem said.

[Chambokl]

Isn't what a few of us have been saying...

[BC MIST]

I agree with a lot that has been said here but I cannot agree that TV coverage can or should be considered an acceptable form of managing the game.

Based on your wish, I have changed two words in the existing rule for you.

"Testimony of those who are not part of the competition, including spectators, must NOT be accepted and evaluated. It is also INAPPROPRIATE to use television footage and the like to assist in resolving doubt." In other words, unless a player's rules infraction is seen by a another player, his caddie or a rules official, (those that are part of the competition) NO penalty is incurred.

And as for fairness, how could it possibly be fair that some, but not all, are subject to scrutiny?

Your principle is that because some penalties are seen on TV and some are not, that to insure "fairness," to all, those that are seen on TV should not be called. Applying this to hockey then -To assure fairness, penalties seen by the referees must NOT be called, unless penalties NOT seen by the referees (penalties "behind" the play) are.

Are you (all) still OK with this?

[Chambokl]

BC... I think what a lot of people are saying is: "PH said that he saw the ball move, it return to the original position so he (PH – the referee) called no foul"... WE have to accept his decision. He knows the rule, he saw what he saw and he made the call... case close. The only way we don't accept it is by saying HE was cheating...

For me it has nothing to do with people calling, emailing, replays, etc... people still could call, email,... With DJ and the bunker he at no time said that he made the call. He didn't know the rule... too bad but you are penalized.

It is an interesting case and really enjoy your view on this... Thanks for your patience with us...

[Kiwi]

Wrote a lengthy reply to BC Mist last night but appears it has NOT caught up with the Forum yet. Suffice it to say that I totally disagree with his second point about ignoring rules violations. Will wait to see if my message makes it through the censors before I try to re-create it.

[BC MIST]

BC... I think what a lot of people are saying is: "PH said that he saw the ball move, it return to the original position so he (PH – the referee) called no foul"... WE have to accept his decision. He knows the rule, he saw what he saw and he made the call... case close. The only way we don't accept it is by saying HE was cheating...

Perhaps lost in the superficial issues of call-ins, monitor every player and so, is what I believe is of greater importance, and is that the players need to learn the basic rules. Not the decisions, let them be handled by the officials on site. The officials are there to assist the players, not to scrutinize and call penalties on them, as the role of the officials in golf is obviously very different to those in team sports.

To your point that Padrig knew the rule, I beg to differ. He should have done one of the following:
1. Call and official over, explain what happened and let the official make the call. Even if the spot where the ball was played from was proven later to be wrong, he is exempt from penalty.
2. Most importantly. If he knew this: "If it is impossible to determine the spot where the ball is to be placed or replaced... on the putting green, the ball must be placed as near as possible to the place where it lay..." In other words, mark the ball and place it where you thought it was. Case closed and no penalty.

Had he truly known the rule(s) in question, then there never would have been an issue of TV coverage overriding his honest judgment and this long discussion thread would not exist. Along with Padrig, had Julie Inkster, Dustin Johnson, and Camillo Villegas, known the basic rules, none would have been disqualified. I know many are of the opinion that all players should be scrutinized in some way, but that would just be protecting them from themselves. Unlike team sports, golf is self regulating, so it's past time the players took on some responsibility. Rule 6-1 The player and his caddie are responsible for knowing the rules. Solves all the problems.

[Kilroy]

Will wait to see if my message makes it through the censors before I try to re-create it.

Not a censorship issue. Something in your post was causing a problem with the forum database. Did you cut and paste it from some word processor? The formatting codes can cause all kinds of issues. Best to use a text editor if you are not going to use the forum input window. If you still have the post in your WP, paste it into notepad, then copy it from there. That will strip out the formatting code.

Now back to your regular programming...

[Kiwi]

Not a censorship issue. Something in your post was causing a problem with the forum database. Did you cut and paste it from some word processor? The formatting codes can cause all kinds of issues. Best to use a text editor if you are not going to use the forum input window. If you still have the post in your WP, paste it into notepad, then copy it from there. That will strip out the formatting code.

Now back to your regular programming...

Nope, straight from my head to the Forum... perhaps that's the issue. Will try it again, thanks.

[Ruskie]

Unlike team sports, golf is self regulating, so it's past time the players took on some responsibility.

Well, that's exactly what PH did. He saw the ball move, judged it to have come back to the original spot, and acted accordingly. That's the "self regulation" that you mentioned.

Now, if he called the official over, that would be "official regulation"

I think what it all boils down to is that there's no allowance for common sense in the rules (which, incidentally, is the reason there're so damn many rules). Players are supposedly trusted to call rules violations and penalties on their own, but God forbid if someone suggests we trust them to decide weather there was any actual advantage gained in a particular situation.

[Kiwi]

Based on your wish, I have changed two words in the existing rule for you.

"Testimony of those who are not part of the competition, including spectators, must NOT be accepted and evaluated. It is also INAPPROPRIATE to use television footage and the like to assist in resolving doubt." In other words, unless a player's rules infraction is seen by a another player, his caddie or a rules official, (those that are part of the competition) NO penalty is incurred.

Reply: Was previously not aware of this Rule. Interesting! Any idea how long this rule has been in place? Just the way it is written makes me think it is quite old. If it is newer then that would explain the rash of recent call-ins, although the incident years ago ('87?) where the chap knelt down on the towel was a call-in, no?

Your principle is that because some penalties are seen on TV and some are not, that to insure "fairness," to all, those that are seen on TV should not be called. Applying this to hockey then -To assure fairness, penalties seen by the referees must NOT be called, unless penalties NOT seen by the referees (penalties "behind" the play) are.

Are you (all) still OK with this?

Reply: Your interpretation of my "principle" is incorrect. Same rules for everybody, so if you are to allow TV coverage, as the Rules apparently were designed to do, then ALL golfers, from the first group on the first tee to the last putt on the final hole, should be covered... equally. Doing otherwise is an inequity, which I thought the Rules of Golf were designed to eliminate.

I'm not a "Rules" guy, at least when it comes to golf. For me it is a challenge to try to make the best decision and shot each time. I stopped keeping score last year as I felt it was impeding my enjoyment of the time on the course with friends. But if something is on the line then there must be rules and they must be enforced ... equally. My issue is not so much with the TV coverage, the call-in epidemic, as I see it, or whether the players and their caddies should be expected to know all the rules, and the decisions related to them. It is fairness. What is happening now is not, in my humble opinion, fair to all the players, and therefore to the game.

The trend I see developing now with the call-ins is putting the game of golf on a slippery slope which will hurt, not help, the game. Calling-in only works before the final round. If the previous posters are correct then if you manage to evade the scrutiny of the millions of viewers on the last day, and a winner is declared then you "win". All players must be subject to the same rules and so must all play. If they allow call-in votes three hours after the third round then in fairness why not after the final. This argument reminds me of a sociology class I took once about the Volvo assembly line, where they fixed one problem but caused others when the failed to look at the whole car (in this case the Game).

Finally, if you want "reality" and call-in voting, then watch Americal Idol or Dancing with the Stars. Keep the game fair and even, all play and decisions ON the course.

[jeffc]

I think the PGA tour has a big PR problem with these types of issues. The average golf fan will side with the player more often than not, and think call ins are ridiculous. Only the hard core golf fan (and not even all of those) and rules experts will understand the nuances of these infractions and be able to put them in perspective. The casual fan will not get this. So regardless of what is right and wrong with respect to the rules, the court of public opinion needs to be addressed and its good to see enough of these infractions are causing things to be looked at differently. Let's face it, the PGA Tour is all about $ and if the majority of these fans (my estimate) thinks its crazy that someone can call in a rules violation from their Lazyboy, then there is a bigger problem at hand which could ultimately affect the game, the tour and its viewership.

[BC MIST]

(1) Well, that's exactly what PH did. He saw the ball move, judged it to have come back to the original spot, and acted accordingly. That's the "self regulation" that you mentioned.

(2) Now, if he called the official over, that would be "official regulation"

(1) the second part to the self regulation is PH marking the ball and then placing it where he felt the ball came to rest. Mark it, pick it up, put is back down. No penalty. It's that simple.

(2) If PH said to an official, "This is what happened and I don't know what to do, " the official would say, "Mark it, pick it up, put is back down. No penalty."

Maybe I am splitting hairs but official regulation would be after watching a player err, he penalizes the player, but an official answering the player's question before he plays is just assisting the self regulation part.

[BC MIST]

I think the PGA tour has a big PR problem with these types of issues. The average golf fan will side with the player more often than not, and think call ins are ridiculous. Only the hard core golf fan (and not even all of those) and rules experts will understand the nuances of these infractions and be able to put them in perspective. The casual fan will not get this. So regardless of what is right and wrong with respect to the rules, the court of public opinion needs to be addressed ....

So the Tour should alter the rules to address the ignorance of "the average golf fan?" I would rather educate them. Get rid of the silly fill-in clips and player interviews and replace some with the occasional video where the least understood rules are explained. USGA telecasts do this.

Did the off side rule in soccer get changed because half the TV viewers didn't understand it. The Rules of Golf are for all of us, not just for the image of the PGA Tour.

[Ruskie]

(1) the second part to the self regulation is PH marking the ball and then placing it where he felt the ball came to rest. Mark it, pick it up, put is back down. No penalty. It's that simple.

(2) If PH said to an official, "This is what happened and I don't know what to do, " the official would say, "Mark it, pick it up, put is back down. No penalty."

Maybe I am splitting hairs but official regulation would be after watching a player err, he penalizes the player, but an official answering the player's question before he plays is just assisting the self regulation part.

Hmm... I thought the procedure was to simply replace the ball. If you mark it after it moved, you're penalized, no?

We've also discussed earlier that if he imagined his ball having moved, or the ball truly came back to the original spot on its own, he would've been penalized if he replaced it.

So, if the points above are correct, it looks like his only option would've been to call the official, not to ask for advice, but to officially bless his decision. I don't know... sounds like pure bureaucracy to me...