Over the last few months there has been a rash of high-profile penalties called on players by television viewers, some of which have led to disqualifications because the players inadvertently signed incorrect scorecards before learning of the rules infractions. This past week Camilo Villegas on the PGA Tour and Padraig Harrington on the European Tour were both disqualified for rules violations that were reported after they signed their scorecards. Villegas tapped down a divot as his ball was rolling back down a slope toward the divot. Harrington replaced his ball on the green and the the ball rotated forward two dimples. Both players were gentlemen about the disqualifications, but it is getting to be ridiculous.
Tim Finchem, PGA Tour Commissioner, intends to ask the USGA to review the Rules of Golf, but he is not advocating that the penalty related to signing an incorrect card be changed.
He said he wants a “full and thorough review” of the rule, so golf officials can ask if there is a better way to penalize players. Interestingly, Finchem did acknowledge that the professional tours have a right to set their own rules for a tournament, but he would rather retain the USGA as the rule-making body.
One suggestion is to assess the two-stroke penalty even after the card has been signed, provided the player was not aware he had broken a rule, but not disqualify him. This creates some problems if it affects the cut line or the winner of the tournament, in addition to making a subjective determination as to whether the golfer knew or should have known that he violated a Rule of Golf, but it is clearly better than the present Rule. My suggestion is to retain the honor system among the players and not permit television viewers to call in rules infractions. If a golfer blatantly violates the Rules of Golf and does not report himself or herself or has a number of unreported, unknowing violations, suspend the golfer. If the unreported violations continue, then ban the golfer from the tour for a number of years or for life, after giving the golfer all of the due process protections that are appropriate before denying a person his or her livelihood.
2 comments:
Thanks for picking up the pace on your entries! Here's a joke 4U:
One day a man was playing golf with his wife, and on the par 4 5th hole, he hits his tee shot into a group of trees to the right of the fairway. The man is looking to chip back out into the fairway when his caddie suggests that there’s a slight opening that the next shot could be played through and he could still reach the green. The man decides to take the caddie’s advice and attempts the shot. The ball caroms of a tree and hits his wife in the head, killing her.
Two years later, the man is remarried and he’s playing the same hole with his new wife. He hits an almost identical tee shot that ends up in the same group of trees. This caddie also suggests playing the next shot through the narrow opening.
The man says, No, I’m going to chip out. I took an 8 last time I tried that.
I agree that the current rule is harsh, but at least it can be enforced objectively. There is definitely a slippery slope argument of the rule is changed.
How long would it take after a rule change before we had a "Hey, guys, let's help Tiger move this boulder, err...loose impediment out of his way" moment?
On the other hand (as you have discussed in past entries), the PGA seems to have no problem micro-managing the tour and interpreting rules on the fly (like NASCAR in that regard), so a change could be tweaked to accommodate the consequences.
The Joker
Post a Comment