Golf
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
33-7/4.5 Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified
Q. A competitor returns his score card. It later transpires that the score for one hole is lower than actually taken due to his failure to include a penalty stroke(s) which he did not know he had incurred. The error is discovered before the competition has closed.
Would the Committee be justified, under Rule 33-7, in waiving or modifying the penalty of disqualification prescribed in Rule 6-6d?
A. Generally, the disqualification prescribed by Rule 6-6d must not be waived or modified.
However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.
For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would be justified in waiving the disqualification penalty:
A player makes a short chip from the greenside rough. At the time, he and his fellow-competitors have no reason to suspect that the player has double-hit his ball in breach of Rule 14-4. After the competitor has signed and returned his score card, a close-up, super-slow-motion video replay reveals that the competitor struck his ball twice during the course of the stroke. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the one-stroke penalty under Rule 14-4 to the player’s score at the hole in question.
Q. A competitor returns his score card. It later transpires that the score for one hole is lower than actually taken due to his failure to include a penalty stroke(s) which he did not know he had incurred. The error is discovered before the competition has closed.
Would the Committee be justified, under Rule 33-7, in waiving or modifying the penalty of disqualification prescribed in Rule 6-6d?
A. Generally, the disqualification prescribed by Rule 6-6d must not be waived or modified.
However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.
For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would be justified in waiving the disqualification penalty:
A player makes a short chip from the greenside rough. At the time, he and his fellow-competitors have no reason to suspect that the player has double-hit his ball in breach of Rule 14-4. After the competitor has signed and returned his score card, a close-up, super-slow-motion video replay reveals that the competitor struck his ball twice during the course of the stroke. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the one-stroke penalty under Rule 14-4 to the player’s score at the hole in question.
Show More
bull **** it was spotted by many observers, he then makes a statement to the fact ,he must have an idea he had done wrong 
Agreed. They are hiding behind a rule brought in for all the armchair punters who used high defintion TV to spot small infringements a player couldnt know about - not moving a ball 2 yards in full view of everyone.
$$$ rule.
$$$ rule.
I still think he should be DQd, but in a way hasn't common sense prevailed? Did he gain any advantage from his erroneous drop? Unlikely I would say.
Exactly. He moved it back 2 yards (or whatever) in order to improve his chance on the shot as he admitted. Hiding behind this rule is just comical to protect their investment.
On the other hand, without any obstructions, when is placing the ball further back considered gaining an advantage?
This rule applies when the player does not know the FACTS, not where the player does not know the RULES. TIger knew what happened, he just didn't know it was wrong. So this rule does not apply.
When you have just hit the exact same shot and hit it 2 yards too long, and drop 2 yards further back and admit in your post-round interview that you did it to gain an advantage.
"if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules"
It is a player's responsibility to be aware of the rules of golf and in this case Tiger was unreasonably unaware of the rules. Say what you like about the validity of DQ'ing someone for moving a ball back an extra yard - Tiger should not still be in the Masters today.
It is a player's responsibility to be aware of the rules of golf and in this case Tiger was unreasonably unaware of the rules. Say what you like about the validity of DQ'ing someone for moving a ball back an extra yard - Tiger should not still be in the Masters today.
http://www.golfchannel.com/livefromplayer.html
Good stuff live on the golf channel
Good stuff live on the golf channel
slippery slope if you suddenly going to start 'liberally' applying the rules of golf....this will run and run
Of the handful of you lot moaning who actually play golf, i'd say there is a good chance you break the rules every week in competition to a far higher degree than what Tiger has supposed to have done here, IMO he hasn't done a lot wrong if the ball had come back from the flag straight at him and into water wouldn't even be having this discussion bit of a joke really
"if the ball had come back from the flag straight at him"
errr... it didnt - thats the whole point !!!
errr... it didnt - thats the whole point !!!
That's hardly relevant though is it, Bagnall? I don't get a free drop because of some obscure rule where there is a TV tower vaguely in the direction of my shot, either. These players use every possible rule to their advantage when it suits them, whether or not it is in the "spirit of the game". And sometimes the rules are a bitch.
the top and bottom of it is he proceeded outside the rules of golf.
everyone who's ever played the game has done it.
and when it's pointed out to us we take what's coming to us.
he made an illegal drop. he didn't know it was illegal, but he got confused which rule he was complying with and it incurred a penalty.
because he didn't realise he incurrec that penalty before he signed that card, which was the wrong score he incurred the penalty of a dq.
there was nothing there that he didn't know about.
everything he did was of his own volition.
therefore disqualification is the on;y option open.
unless you're augusta national of course.
everyone who's ever played the game has done it.
and when it's pointed out to us we take what's coming to us.
he made an illegal drop. he didn't know it was illegal, but he got confused which rule he was complying with and it incurred a penalty.
because he didn't realise he incurrec that penalty before he signed that card, which was the wrong score he incurred the penalty of a dq.
there was nothing there that he didn't know about.
everything he did was of his own volition.
therefore disqualification is the on;y option open.
unless you're augusta national of course.
why would they be fuming?
the penalty, and the automatic drift on his price means the could trade out for a profit, if they were that way inclined.
the penalty, and the automatic drift on his price means the could trade out for a profit, if they were that way inclined.
I might have misheard but apparently you can't use television as a way of punishing someone. I was joking. I havent backed Woods either.
Agreed Mex. There is nothing the rules official could have told Tiger yesterday prior to signing his scorecard, that he didn't already know. It would have been a nice bonus if they'd pointed out his infraction to him and saved him from DQ; but I don't think there should ever be an ONUS on anyone to do that for a player.
Different if the player has actively sought consultation.
Different if the player has actively sought consultation.
Are we all agreeing if it was any other player he would been DQ'd?
and the american commentators feel the same. The majority are slating the rules committee and saying that any other player would have been punished.
That's the problem with subjective rules. The rules of golf are normally quite watertight in terms of interpretation. Even this rule about waiving a DQ specifies when it can/can't be applied. They really seem to have pulled this decision out of their arses regarding a TV viewer calling in. Have not seen a single rule which says that makes any difference to the situation. The phone call gave the committee any opportunity to help Tiger out by stopping him from reporting an incorrect score, but they bungled that chance. Tough titties, or at least it should be.
No i don't think so Mike.
The Masters committee more than any other would play fair. very much doubt the old farts there are easily swayed in their views.
I remember a few years ago there was a scenario with McIlroy when he seemed to be testing the sand in a bunker and could have been DQ. They took no action in that case
The Masters committee more than any other would play fair. very much doubt the old farts there are easily swayed in their views.
I remember a few years ago there was a scenario with McIlroy when he seemed to be testing the sand in a bunker and could have been DQ. They took no action in that case
i see they are now saying that he was told on friday that no action would be taken so he signed.
The rule tiger broke is a little bit vague isn't it. People aren't going to try and drop it back in their original divot so I imagine all try to drop it close, but how close is close?
It would be vague if he had TRIED to drop as close as possible to the original position. But he didn't; in fact he admitted in an interview that he moved it back 2 yards to give himself an easier shot. So the "how close is close" debate is irrelevant in this instance.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539