Harrington Out Of Abu Dhabi

[MisterS3]

Absolutely nothing that I can work out...   



Okay, fair enough, but I would personally like to have a referee's word to be final.  If you're going to have them on hand for all groups, then use them and stand by their decisions.  Don't forget that the referee can always say that he isn't 100% sure and use the 2 ball option, but I wouldn't ever expect that to happen personally


The Kenny Perry thing was totally different as he never called a referee over, and I have no problem with trial by TV in those circumstances. 

Kenny Perry technically never broke a rule. That's the point i was making. The rules can be bent. So having the ability to call over a referee to make a decision which is then binding could be abused by some. And what happens if they get it wrong?

Players like Tiger (moveable obstruction, line of sight) and even Monty (in his pomp) would be quite intimidating for some officials and under pressure they may make a decision which is then proved wrong. Either that of John Paramour (who retired?) will be a very busy man!

And as you say, how many officials are going to ask for 2 balls to be played? Basically admitting that they missed it or don't know or can't make a decision.

I stick by my nicked off Lawrence D suggestion

[Tin Pot]

I love this kind of little hitler stuff, the knobjockeys are making it more fun, not less.

The rules are fine, Paddy nearly got away with a mistake, I'd say the only way to get notification to the player quicker is if a rules official watches coverage in real time so he can catch the players out before they sign cards

[Tomba]

Anyone else wondering if a bitter Saltman was the caller? 

[Mike]

I would have called myself on the possibility of an infringement.

What holier than thou bullshit.

In the player's words: "I looked down and was pretty sure it had just oscillated and had not moved, so I continued on," said Harrington.

"If I'd called a referee over it would have been pointless because if he'd asked me where my ball was I'd have said it was there. As far as I was concerned it didn't move."

Substitute Harrington for Ant and you're saying even though you didn't believe it moved - to the point you'd say that to a ref, you'd still call a penalty on yourself 

[Stu-Pid]

Substitute Harrington for Ant and you're saying even though you didn't believe it moved - to the point you'd say that to a ref, you'd still call a penalty on yourself 

More to the point, there was no penalty to call on himself!  If he didn't think that it moved, and no one else saw it move, then he had to play it as it lay.  If he thought his ball hadn't moved but then placed it in a different position, that would have been a breach of the rules and subject to a penalty.

Even if he did think that the ball had moved, he could have replaced it without penalty, so there was never a penalty he could have called on himself.

[Ant]

More to the point, there was no penalty to call on himself!  If he didn't think that it moved, and no one else saw it move, then he had to play it as it lay.  If he thought his ball hadn't moved but then placed it in a different position, that would have been a breach of the rules and subject to a penalty.

Even if he did think that the ball had moved, he could have replaced it without penalty, so there was never a penalty he could have called on himself.

Very true I was not paying attention and thought he had taken his stance.

[Tin Pot]

Harrington argued that the rules should not change, although, the governing bodies should have a look at the penalty being imposed on players.

"I would argue, though, in general, it does serve the game well that we have the best rules of any sport.

"They are applied across the board all the time. It's the one thing all golfers love about their sport is the fact that we can stand up and say, we have the best rules, we are the fairest, we call them on ourselves.

"I think in this situation and other situations like that, with the new technology, maybe going forward, that the penalties can be changed. But the actual rulings have to stay where they are."

[CapnAhab]

Here's another example of where someone could in theory be disqualified under stupid circumstances.  It's very wet and so the rule about free drops from a plugged lie in the rough is in play.  A player gets to his ball in the rough and finds it embedded in the ground, and so calls the referee over for a ruling.  The referee agrees that it is plugged in it's own mark, allows a free drop and play goes on.  It then emerges later on that a TV angle shows the ball landing in the rough and bouncing forward a couple of inches, meaning that the ball must have actually rolled into a plug mark from someone else's ball and so the free drop shouldn't have been allowed.  Should the player then be disqualified for taking an illegal drop even though the referee gave him the all clear to do so?

OK, I'm inviting trouble here perhaps, but I think the answer is No.  My reasoning is Rule 34-2 :- "If a referee has been appointed by the Committee, his decision is final." and Decisions - "Q. In error, a referee authorised a player to infringe a Rule of Golf. Is the player absolved from penalty in such a case?  A. Yes. Under Rule 34-2, a referee's decision is final, whether or not the decision is correct. "

It has always been my understanding that this is the reason why most professionals ask a Ref to give a ruling even on the most basic of situations because it absolves them absolutely from any possibility of a penalty.

[ask3l]

To get rid of the problem they should ban all live golf and put it out on a weeks delay.
That way the competition would be finished and all results final. It would obviously piss off 99.99% of viewers but Billy no mates would still be happpy to sit and watch with his magnifying glass with nothing better to do.

[Tin Pot]

To get rid of the problem they should ban all live golf and put it out on a weeks delay.
That way the competition would be finished and all results final. It would obviously piss off 99.99% of viewers but Billy no mates would still be happpy to sit and watch with his magnifying glass with nothing better to do.

I think the callers are mischaracterised.  If I, as a diligent rule abiding golfer, saw a rules infringement I would call it.  Now if I'm watching telly and I'm sure I see an infringement it's the same urge to do the honourable thing that would make me pick up the phone.

Though it's true I have no mates, I believe that to be a coincidence...

[Longshot]

I think the callers are mischaracterised.  If I, as a diligent rule abiding golfer, saw a rules infringement I would call it.  Now if I'm watching telly and I'm sure I see an infringement it's the same urge to do the honourable thing that would make me pick up the phone.

Though it's true I have no mates, I believe that to be a coincidence...

No, Ask3L had you nailed 

[Vince Baby]

Gosh, they've done something about it....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/apr/07/golf-rule-change-padraig-harrington

[mattyarse]

Sounds a sensible decision does it not?

[Stu-Pid]

Sounds a sensible decision does it not?

Certainly does