Armchair referees

[HawkeyeMS]

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.

I didn't really answer you did I. No I wouldn't want anyone let off if they were caught breaking rules, especially your extreme example. Upkeep of the rules is paramount, I am just a little uncomfortable with a medium that doesn't equally scrutinize the whole field when some players are being DQ'd for seemingly innocent mistakes and others are most likely getting away with things because they aren't on TV.

 

[Imurg]

It was touched on earlier that there's little equilibrium in this "Trial by TV" thing.
All the players are not filmed all the time - so that has to cast doubt as to the fairness of it.
In the case of Tiger's mishap at the Masters, there was enough time for someone to call in, the Committee review the footage and reach a decision before Tiger finished. Had he kept his trap shut there would not have been anything else to it.
Dyson tapped this spike mark down on the 8th green - that means there must have been 3 hours between it happeneing and Dyson signing his card. Why did it take so long for someone to call in, why did it take so long to review the footage?
If this had been done Dyson could have been told and added the penalty thereby staying in the Tournament.
You also have the posibility of a transgression on the 18th green, so there is maybe 5 minutes until the card is signed, giving no chance for an infringement to be spotted, called in and the player notified so when it is - hours later during the highlights show - the only action is a DQ.
In my opinion, unless it's a blatant case like FD's leather wedge, any infringement where TV was the source should only be subject to a 2 shot penalty. That makes it fairer to those who are always on TV. Take Tiger's twig moment. Had that been a Rookie on his 2nd Tour outing he wouldn't have been on TV, it wouldn't have been seen so no penalty - remember TIger didn't think the ball had moved so wouldn't have applied a penalty anyway - Joe Rookie would probably think the same.

Rules are Rules and if they're broken then you take the penalty

But what does the Book say..?
Play the ball as it lies
If you can't, do what is fair
To know what's fair, look in the Rules

or something like that.

Any means by which penalties are applied must be fair to all - Trial by TV isn't fair and won't be until everyone is filmed all the time.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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

True- it is not equable and players are subject to the whims of the broadcaster - is that fair? In truth fairness is neither here nor there - bit like a toddler moaning to his parents that his best friend gets to do something that his own parents don't allow him to do.

If a tournament is televised all players know it is so should just make sure that they pay as honestly as they always do. Complints by one player that he cheated and was only caufght as he was televised cheating doesn;t change the fact that he cheated - not saying that Dyson did.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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.

Answer to this is simply that our player with the leather wedge has to live with his conscience.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

True- it is not equable and players are subject to the whims of the broadcaster - is that fair? In truth fairness is neither here nor there - bit like a toddler moaning to his parents that his best friend gets to do something that his own parents don't allow him to do.

If a tournament is televised all players know it is so should just make sure that they pay as honestly as they always do. Complints by one player that he cheated and was only caufght as he was televised cheating doesn;t change the fact that he cheated - not saying that Dyson did.

But it isn't always cheating, it could be an honest mistake which some are getting DQ'd or penalised for and others aren't. That is the issue, if all players were subject to the same scrutiny then fine, but they're not

 

[Sweep]

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

According to the Telegraph on-line:-
"Simon Dyson is facing a possible fine or suspension after the European Tour confirmed that it would conduct a review of the events surrounding his disqualification from the BMW Masters tournament in Shanghai last week."

 

[HawkeyeMS]

According to the Telegraph on-line:-
"Simon Dyson is facing a possible fine or suspension after the European Tour confirmed that it would conduct a review of the events surrounding his disqualification from the BMW Masters tournament in Shanghai last week."

Surely the DQ was enough, anything else would be harsh.

 

[Hobbit]

But it isn't always cheating, it could be an honest mistake which some are getting DQ'd or penalised for and others aren't. That is the issue, if all players were subject to the same scrutiny then fine, but they're not

I'd rather see some caught than all let off. Bearing in mind not every match out on the course has a referee, especially in the lesser tournaments, I welcome armchair referees. They help keep the game honest. And the adjudication isn't made by the armchair ref, he only highlights the potential issue for the John Paramour's to investigate.

According to the Telegraph on-line:-
"Simon Dyson is facing a possible fine or suspension after the European Tour confirmed that it would conduct a review of the events surrounding his disqualification from the BMW Masters tournament in Shanghai last week."

Surely the DQ was enough, anything else would be harsh.

My first take on it was he seemed to be scanning around to see who'd saw him tamp down the spike mark. His body langauge appeared to be that of a naughty school boy. But proving that is impossible.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Surely the DQ was enough, anything else would be harsh.

Deliberate cheating would need more severe action. The video looks very bad, certainly worthy of further investigation. He wouldn't be the first to get a ban.....

 

[Sweep]

According to the much maligned Daily Mail, many of SD's fellow pro's are outraged. Their column also points out that Paul Casey missed out on a top 5 place because of a putt veering off direction after hitting a spike mark. The Mail comes down firmly in favour of armchair referees. I am not sure I agree with them entirely there.
In the end it all seems a bit crazy and very sad, especially when you consider he was second at the time. Does anyone know if he made the putt after the infringement?

 

[FairwayDodger]

Another take on it.....

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport...-deserve-to-have-it-spat-back-at-him.22551117

 

[Sweep]

Another take on it.....

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport...-deserve-to-have-it-spat-back-at-him.22551117

It's a good article. "a teacup waiting for a storm to happen" -brilliant.
This whole issue is a really tough one. No-one wants to see rules broken, deliberately or accidentally and no-one except the player will often really know if there was any intent. My main concern though is that these issues must be decided fairly and in order to achieve that there has to be some uniformity in penalty.
I know they are two very different matters, but what is beyond doubt is that both Tiger in the Masters and Dyson this last weekend broke the rules. Neither breach was pointed out to the player until after the round. One gets away with a two shot penalty, the other gets dq'd and possibly fined or even banned. I know each competition comes under a different tournament committee and the comps are on different tours. It shouldn't make a difference. The USGA and the R & A agreed a uniform set of rules for a very good reason. Tiger bashers and Tiger fans will all have differing opinions and I am not defending Dyson here. I am simply saying that the powers that be MUST decide whether they are going to continue down the road of listening to armchair refs and they MUST be fair and uniform with penalties and punishments.

 

[ger147]

Is there a time limit for phoning in and action being taken? What if I'm watching a repeat on Sky Sports thru the week after a tournament or even a week or two later? Can I still phone in and action will be taken?

Seems like the golfing authorities are setting a dangerous precedent without really thinking it through.

 

[CliveW]

Does anyone know if this incident was spotted on live TV or replay? If the incident was in Shanghai then surely, if it was being watched live, the Euro Tour HQ at Wentworth to where it was allegedly reported would be closed. This could explain the delay in Dyson being called up on the penalty.

 

[Sweep]

Having thought about this, the core of the problem is the issue over a 2 shot penalty becoming a dq through signing for a wrong score. It amounts to the player being penalised twice for one offence. If, as he says, he wasn't aware of the breach, it seems unfair to penalise him for signing for a wrong score when he thought the score he was signing for was correct. I think few would have an issue over taking a penalty for breaching a rule. That penalty is outlined in the rules after consideration on how bad the offence is. To allow one offence to roll over to make the player commit another offence is actually just plain wrong.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Having thought about this, the core of the problem is the issue over a 2 shot penalty becoming a dq through signing for a wrong score. It amounts to the player being penalised twice for one offence. If, as he says, he wasn't aware of the breach, it seems unfair to penalise him for signing for a wrong score when he thought the score he was signing for was correct. I think few would have an issue over taking a penalty for breaching a rule. That penalty is outlined in the rules after consideration on how bad the offence is. To allow one offence to roll over to make the player commit another offence is actually just plain wrong.

I disagree. There are various things that can happen during a round that require you to take a penalty. Many of these that is the only action, no need to replace your ball etc. The onus is then with you to apply the penalty and sign for the correct score.

The rule has changed, I believe, such that if a breach is reported that the player could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of then the penalty can be applied retrospectively and no DQ. That is fair and reasonable but, in Dyson's case, it clearly does not apply.

 

[Region3]

Having thought about this, the core of the problem is the issue over a 2 shot penalty becoming a dq through signing for a wrong score. It amounts to the player being penalised twice for one offence. If, as he says, he wasn't aware of the breach, it seems unfair to penalise him for signing for a wrong score when he thought the score he was signing for was correct. I think few would have an issue over taking a penalty for breaching a rule. That penalty is outlined in the rules after consideration on how bad the offence is. To allow one offence to roll over to make the player commit another offence is actually just plain wrong.

I believe that they are now allowed to retrospectively just add the penalty stroke(s) if the breach that was spotted/phoned in was something that the player couldn't possibly have known at the time. I think Harrington's case was about the last of that type to incur DQ through signing for a wrong score. Now they would just add the penalty.

Dyson's case doesn't fall into the above as it was just (at best) him forgetting the rule inadvertently.

Beat me to it FD That's what happens when work gets in the way of typing a reply
I'm glad it wasn't me imagining I'd heard about it though.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Having thought about this, the core of the problem is the issue over a 2 shot penalty becoming a dq through signing for a wrong score. It amounts to the player being penalised twice for one offence. If, as he says, he wasn't aware of the breach, it seems unfair to penalise him for signing for a wrong score when he thought the score he was signing for was correct. I think few would have an issue over taking a penalty for breaching a rule. That penalty is outlined in the rules after consideration on how bad the offence is. To allow one offence to roll over to make the player commit another offence is actually just plain wrong.

Ignorance is no defence. It's not whether he knew he broken a rule, it's whether he should have known (or could have resonably discovered) and is this case, he should have known.

The problem with not having the DQ is you open up the possibility for people to try to get away with things knowing a 2 shot penalty is the only sanction and they might consider that a risk worth taking.

 

[Tommo21]

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

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.

 

[bladeplayer]

My first take on it was he seemed to be scanning around to see who'd saw him tamp down the spike mark. His body langauge appeared to be that of a naughty school boy. But proving that is impossible.

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