Armchair referees

[bladeplayer]

But is that a good enough reason for not acting on a phone call with a valid point. He was DQ because the rule is clear.

Where i appreciate what you are saying Surely all players are or should be afforded equality tho ?

 

[Slab]

Where i appreciate what you are saying Surely all players are or should be afforded equality tho ?

I keep swapping camps with the whole TV umpire thing but on this point the equality is there... comply with the rules.

Who spots the infraction is another matter because its easy for me to get a penalty possible DQ if someone on the adjacent fairway seeing my infraction but what about the following group who play the hole with no one an the adjacent fairway, surely then that's not equal or fair to me?

 

[FairwayDodger]

I thought so too ... it seemed to me he did it innocently then the penny dropped , and his looking around was just like "did anyone see that "?

DQ is enough

Do you mean that?

It's just that if that's what happened then he deliberately signed for a wrong score knowing that he hadn't penalised himself. In which case DQ is definitely not enough.

 

[bladeplayer]

I keep swapping camps with the whole TV umpire thing but on this point the equality is there... comply with the rules.

Who spots the infraction is another matter because its easy for me to get a penalty possible DQ if someone on the adjacent fairway seeing my infraction but what about the following group who play the hole with no one an the adjacent fairway, surely then that's not equal or fair to me?

Put it another way say your out in the club playing captains day or what ever , last 4 groups and only two have referees or extra walking with them , is that fair ?

its up to the players and their playing partners plus the walking referee to look after each group , not some one at home with slow mo HD tele who has got a different angle to proceedings as the players have .. have you ever watched the tee shots on TV the seem to start way right , in reality they dont go that far its a paralex error thingy ,
Harrington got qestioned re being in front of the markers at one comp , camera angle was not in line with markers so how could the viewer tell 100% ..

 

[HawkeyeMS]

But is that a good enough reason for not acting on a phone call with a valid point. He was DQ because the rule is clear.

TBH I'm kind of torn on this one. I do think all players should be subjected to the same scrutiny, but you can't ignore a rules infringement if it is pointed out. It's a tough one really. There is no way we are ever going to see everything every player does, but there is also no point saying TV ruling won't be taken into account as it won't stop the TV referees phoning up and pointing stuff out. Lets say the tour don't accept the calls, Sky will and will make it public. We'll then end up in a situation where players are seen to be getting away with infringements which can't be right.

I guess I am asking myself if it is worse to have some players getting away with infringements because no-one sees them as they maybe doing now, or for players to get away with infringements even though they are seen but the tour doesn't accept the source of the report? The answer has to be it is better for every infringement that is seen to be dealt with and let those that aren't seen to live with their conscience in the hope they get caught eventually.

Hmmm

 

[bladeplayer]

Do you mean that?

It's just that if that's what happened then he deliberately signed for a wrong score knowing that he hadn't penalised himself. In which case DQ is definitely not enough.

Yep that was my 1st opinion if im honest , but its only my opinion which in the standing of the comp is worthless ,
but in the end of it all i have to take SD word for what happened ... he says he didnt notice or did it inadvertentaly so DQ is enough ..
Again just IMO

If this happened in your own comp , you were standing to one side (not in line as the camera wasnt ) and you thought your playing partner did this , you asked them and they said no it wasnt on my line even though you thought they looked guilty .. what would your next course of action be ?

 

[FairwayDodger]

Yep that was my 1st opinion if im honest , but its only my opinion which in the standing of the comp is worthless ,
but in the end of it all i have to take SD word for what happened ... he says he didnt notice or did it inadvertentaly so DQ is enough ..
Again just IMO

If this happened in your own comp , you were standing to one side (not in line as the camera wasnt ) and you thought your playing partner did this , you asked them and they said no it wasnt on my line even though you thought they looked guilty .. what would your next course of action be ?

Sorry, I thought you said that you thought he realised after he'd done it (but before he signed his card) in which case failing to declare it would be very poor, IMO.

In my own comp, if I couldn't be reasonably certain and my FC denied it when asked I'd take their word for it even if they looked guilty. I think it's perfectly understandable to look guilty when accused of something you didn't do.

TBH it's a stupid rule, if it happened in a match play situation in a club comp it'd almost certainly just be ignorance on my opponent's part and I'd probably let it pass rather than enforcing a penalty.

 

[talksalot81]

It is annoying but rules are rules. Of course I suspect many who are hard line on that point would not take the same stance if they lost their driving license having been caught several times speeding at 31mph.