Armchair referees

[One Planer]

I agree but, to an extent, the genie is out of the bottle on this one. They could have refused to take action when people started phoning in but hard to backtrack now.

The other thing is that many other sports now take retrospective disciplinary action based on video evidence. These sports it would cause havoc if the result was to be altered based on this, less of an issue in golf.

Which is very true. And I agree, but that hasn't stopped them doing anything about anchoring (Different topic I know but a similar connotation). This would be far easier to nip in the bud than the whole anchoring fiasco.

You see an awful lot of pressing down by players on greens. Granted 90+% have nothing to do with line of putt! more course upkeep, but where do you draw the line?

I agree with both James and Ian in that although close to the line of his putt, the mark was not on it.

I wonder what would happen if Dyson were to appeal? Is he allowed to appeal such as decisions, as is the case in other sports?

 

[Foxholer]

If we take the rule away then where do we stop tapping things down. I call my playing partners when I sort a pich mark....on or off my line. If you dont then you can get pulled........Stupid rule or not, it's a big no no what he done even if it could be off his line. I've never seen anyone do this in a bounce game never mind the pro game.

My issue with it - apart from the fact that the Green is meant to be smooth - is that it's inequitable. I've followed a particularly bad spike-mark maker a couple of times in a comp and it's a real pain. Plenty of damage around the hole for me/us to suffer, but I/we fixed most of them after playing out the hole, so the next group didn't suffer - at least not around the hole.

There's obviously a reasonable concern about taking additional time, but this is the first (of 2 or 3) Rule change I'd cheer.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So is Simon Dyson a cheat ?

Seemed that Tiger was branded a cheat quite quickly by most for not applying a rule violation, yet I haven't seen the same outcry yet.

I doubt Simon Dyson would be happy to have seen the outcry later if he gone on to win.

When Tiger broke the rules twice and was caught on camera he didn't get disqualified

Breaking a rule doesn't automatically mean you are a "cheat"

Dyson said he can't recall doing it and has no idea why he did it but broke a rule - that doesn't make him a cheat.

 

[Foxholer]

There is maybe a little mixing up in the thread between being penalised for touching the line of your putt which is one breach and repairing a spike mark which is potentially a separate breach. It is said that Dyson was penalised for touching the line of his putt . It doesn't matter what his purpose was in doing so - it might have been tapping down a spike mark; it might have been absent mindedly tapping his putter on the ground for no particular reason. The breach is simply in the touching.

Repairing a spike mark is potentially a breach of Rule 16-1c. If the repair could assist you at any time later in the play of the hole, you have breached the rule. Where you repair it is not necessarily on the line of your putt - it could be anywhere else where you ball might end up if, say you missed the hole with your putt.

Dyson's only defence would have been had he been tapping down an old hole plug or a ball mark. Neither would have breached 16-1a or 16-1c.

Good point Colin. Tapping down spike marks that are not on your line of putt, or thereabouts, is not a breach, though it becomes a breach if the area subsequently becomes your line of putt - past the hole for example.

The 'lots of tapping down' that I referred to earlier seemed seemed to be pretty close to line of putt, though maybe wasn't.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I think there needs to be some sort of deadline, maybe two hours after the card is receipted in the markers hut as being signed. That way if a TV Columbo wants his moment of smugness action can be taken. After that, tough, it was missed and life goes on. I do think Dyson was no different to Woods. It was wrong and so arguably the right result was arrived at, just the wrong way.

 

[duncan mackie]

I think there needs to be some sort of deadline.......

these exist and are clearly documented in the rules already

the change to the situation of a player who simply couldn't have known about a breach covered the real issue

if the committee had been made aware of SD's actions before he signed his card, and concluded that (for example) the area he touched (spike mark) wasn't on his line of putt, but had then subsequently established that it was, the situation would be the same as Woods - but there's no suggestion that this was the case here.

 

[Colin L]

Good point Colin. Tapping down spike marks that are not on your line of putt, or thereabouts, is not a breach, though it becomes a breach if the area subsequently becomes your line of putt - past the hole for example.

I'm going to be pernickety here, Foxholer. The tapping down or any other kind of repair other than hole plug or ball mark not on your line of putt does not become a breach subsequently according to where your ball goes. It is a breach at the time of doing it if there is a possibility of its assisting in subsequent play. So if you repair something just past the hole, for example, where your ball could go, that is a breach even if you then hole the putt.

And in the spirit of fairness, I'll be pernickety with myself. I said above that the repair could be anywhere your ball "might end up" and be a breach. That is not quite correct. It could equally be an area your ball might pass through on its way to ending up somewhere else.

 

[Foxholer]

I'm going to be pernickety here, Foxholer. The tapping down or any other kind of repair other than hole plug or ball mark not on your line of putt does not become a breach subsequently according to where your ball goes. It is a breach at the time of doing it if there is a possibility of its assisting in subsequent play. So if you repair something just past the hole, for example, where your ball could go, that is a breach even if you then hole the putt.

Thanks for the further clarification. I actually meant that, but wrote it completely wrongly! Tapping down past the hole is a breach (at the time of the tapping down) of (16-1c) even though it is (by definition) not on the line of putt (16-1a). And 16-1c applies whether or not the ball is on the Green, while 16-1a only applies to the Line of Putt.

 

[Sweep]

The problem with allowing spectators to phone in when they have witnessed breaches of rules, is that it is open to all kind of inconsistencies. If the breach happens on the first hole, it allows 4 or 5 hours for the call to be made, videos to be reviewed and for the breach to be brought to the attention of the player before he signs his card. Result, 2 shot penalty (in most cases). If the breach occurs on the 18th there is no time, result -the player signs for a wrong score and gets dq'd. IMO in the case of an armchair ref calling in, you either must dq all breaches as signing for a wrong score (eg Simon Dyson) or you apply the penalty as if it had been seen by the player, caddie, FC, ref etc at the time of the breach (eg Tiger). Either that or ignore all calls by armchair refs.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Interesting the difference between the way golf has embraced television as a way of applying penalties 'after the fact' and how other televised sports in general do not. So in football why not a post match yellow card for deliberate handball or 'dive' missed by the ref, and if there is a subsequent yellow card misdemeanor missed - or if the yellow makes two - then player has a post-match RED card applied.

Now football would avoid this at all costs - so why has golf so embraced the armchair ref?

 

[Colin L]

So did Dyson cheat, or not? Surely he broke the rules and deserves to be given the punishment, or should he have been let off? If the person hadn't phoned in then he could have won by breaking the rules.

Why would you ever consider that a player who breaks a rule inadvertently could be cheating. Cheating is a deliberate action.

 

[duncan mackie]

Interesting the difference between the way golf has embraced television as a way of applying penalties 'after the fact' and how other televised sports in general do not. So in football why not a post match yellow card for deliberate handball or 'dive' missed by the ref, and if there is a subsequent yellow card misdemeanor missed - or if the yellow makes two - then player has a post-match RED card applied.

Now football would avoid this at all costs - so why has golf so embraced the armchair ref?

because the primary ref in golf is the player - this doesn't apply in any other sport ie there is a fundamental difference.

interestingly many other sports do maintain and operate in this manner, it's just that people aren't looking it in that way -

1. drugs tests
2. rugby will apply penalties to players and clubs based on subsequent evidence missed on pitch.
3. many televised sports will consider third umpire and ref contributions (cricket & american football as examples) either in conjunction with the ref or as an overide.
4. motor sports have a wide range of things going on that can retrospectively affect the results, and even impact future results!

 

[FairwayDodger]

Why would you ever consider that a player who breaks a rule inadvertently could be cheating. Cheating is a deliberate action.

Do you consider Dyson's action here to be inadvertent? In what way - that he didn't realise what he was doing or didn't know the rule?

Anyone know what the official verdict was? Is the matter closed or can SD expect further action from the powers that be?

 

[Slab]

I'm also intrigued by the role of the Marker in this and similar scenarios (after all its their scoring on the card that the player is signing for)

No way can a marker watch a player every second of a round (and this breach took only a second) so what is their purpose? If it's just to ask the player what did you score? then whats the point, a player could just score themselves

Is the marker there to be an independent record of a score but perhaps only the shots taken portion of a score. Where is the line and what, if any, accountability lies with the role of a marker

A player is responsible for his score... so a marker is responsible for... what?

 

[Hobbit]

I think disqualification is harsh, or is it? Did he cheat or was it absent mindedness? Maybe it was absent mindedness, but how do you prove it? Did he cheat, but how do you prove it?

Dyson is a pro of long standing. Surely he knows what he can and can't do on the green? Its not an obscure rule...

I wouldn't dream of tamping down spike marks till AFTER my ball was in the hole. Its just too open to misinterpretation.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Do you consider Dyson's action here to be inadvertent? In what way - that he didn't realise what he was doing or didn't know the rule?

Well if he was deliberately cheating he is one mighty stuipid bloke - as if to think that no one watching on TV would spot it. No - I actually would like to believe that in the 'moment' he had a blank moment and almost did this unthinkingly. We all do do that sort of thing - the sort of thing that when pulled up on we honestly don't remember doing it or reply 'damn - I did - didn't I' In such circumstances I'd hope that I wouldn't be accused of cheating.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

My issue with trial by TV is that not every action by every player is shown on TV and is therefore not fair.

 

[FairwayDodger]

My issue with trial by TV is that not every action by every player is shown on TV and is therefore not fair.

So, for the sake of argument, if a golfer was caught on camera blatantly cheating (for example, leather wedge when he thinks nobody is looking), someone "phones it in" and the footage is checked and confirmed you'd let that player off?

 

[HawkeyeMS]

So, for the sake of argument, if a golfer was caught on camera blatantly cheating (for example, leather wedge when he thinks nobody is looking), someone "phones it in" and the footage is checked and confirmed you'd let that player off?

I think that's taking it to extremes to be honest but keeping with it and turning it on it's head. Lets say someone did utilise the leather wedge, wasn't seen or caught on camera, made the cut and wins enough money to get him inside the top 60 AND this happens on the same day Dyson is DQ'd for an innocent (if not stupid) mistake? This is my issue with trial by TV, not that people are getting pulled up for rules infringements, but that we don't know what else has gone on off camera, perhaps deliberately, and gone unpunished. If you are going to have a medium for upholding the rules, it has to be applied fairly and equally to the whole field, the nature of golf means that trial by TV cannot be applied that way.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I think that's taking it to extremes to be honest but keeping with it and turning it on it's head. Lets say someone did utilise the leather wedge, wasn't seen or caught on camera, made the cut and wins enough money to get him inside the top 60 AND this happens on the same day Dyson is DQ'd for an innocent (if not stupid) mistake? This is my issue with trial by TV, not that people are getting pulled up for rules infringements, but that we don't know what else has gone on off camera, perhaps deliberately, and gone unpunished. If you are going to have a medium for upholding the rules, it has to be applied fairly and equally to the whole field, the nature of golf means that trial by TV cannot be applied that way.

So that's a "yes" then? You'd let the (deliberately extreme example) blatant cheat off. I think you need to punish what you know about and can prove rather than worrying about some bizarre notion of being "fair" to the guy who cheated.