Hanson's double hit

[drawboy]

Just seen Hanson double hit the ball courtesy of Sky Sports coverage. Looks like a 1 shot penalty is going to be given to him by the officials. My concern is this, If he didn't feel it hit twice and therefore didn't call it, is it unfair to give the penalty when the rest of the field could potentially have done the same but have not been caught on camera?

 

[Bobirdie]

yes i was thinking the same.Cameras shouldnt be allowed to be used for decisions in my opinion

 

[sev112]

great birdie on 17
hopefully he@ll win and it won;t matter

 

[sev112]

he did win

But how many golfers are doing that all the time - how can you tell ? Harsh a little i think

 

[In_The_Rough]

It was quite harsh yes. However his luck soon changed with the putt that hit the back of the cup and went up in the air and went straight back into the hole for a birdie. Justice was done in the end.

 

[Imurg]

This throws up a fundamental question in Golf. In this situation a penalty probably would not have been given as he didn't know he'd hit it twice. Only on the slow-mo replay could you see it. Therefore, is it right to penalise when, as said above, on another part of the course a similar situation could occur but the cameras don't see it - therefore no penalty.

Its happened before that TV has picked up a penalty that hasn't been noticed at the time. Surely, in Pro Tournaments, there are referees all over the place that are there to spot these things if the player can't.

I think its wrong.

 

[USER1999]

That is cobblers. Utter cobblers.

 

[Smiffy]

That is cobblers. Utter cobblers.

What the decision, or the previous post?

 

[USER1999]

The decision. Basing it on Hi Def slo mo.

Are we going to trawl through 100 years of golf footage to see if any one else has infringed in the past? May be take a few majors off people?

If he didn't know he did it, his playing partners didn't know, the spectators didn't know, and the caddies didn't know, then you can't penalise him.

 

[Smiffy]

The decision. Basing it on Hi Def slo mo.

Are we going to trawl through 100 years of golf footage to see if any one else has infringed in the past? May be take a few majors off people?

If he didn't know he did it, his playing partners didn't know, the spectators didn't know, and the caddies didn't know, then you can't penalise him.

Agree 100% Murph.

 

[Robobum]

Why can't you penalise him?? The camera only showed what was a FACT, it didn't need any interpretation.

Cameras are there and a necessary "evil" for everyone on the tour. No cameras, no big cash, no Tour, no interest.

Just goes down as "rub of the green" same as the lucky bounces in off the crowd who are watching one of the big names, Johnny No-Mark who is out first doesn't get those favourable crowd bounces.

Brilliantly handled by Hanson, I do like that swing as well, so simple.

 

[Smiffy]

Just goes down as "rub of the green" same as the lucky bounces in off the crowd who are watching one of the big names, Johnny No-Mark who is out first doesn't get those favourable crowd bounces.

But Johnny No-Mark wouldn't have had the cameras on him so could have committed three or four "infringements" during the course of his 18 holes and not been penalised for any of them.

 

[Robobum]

So, once again, it's just the rub of the green.

Same as cricket, is out using hawkeye/ snicko/ hot spot/ stump mike at Lords not the same as out @ Taunton on a cold Monday morning in County cricket??

Tennis, is out on centre court the same out on court 45??

The only sport resisting technology/ cameras etc is football and look at the fuss that is causing.

 

[Smiffy]

So, once again, it's just the rub of the green.

But it's not really is it?
Hitting a tree and bouncing out into the middle of the fairway instead of OOB is true "rub of the green".

Hitting a career best drive and ending up in a massive divot in the middle of the fairway is true "rub of the green".

I hardly call the 50/50 chance of a camera being there to catch an accidental infringement a true "rub of the green"

 

[Imurg]

There has to be a level playing field when money - serious money - is at stake. If one group gets scrutinised by the cameras then they all must.
You didn't see Sky cameras overuling the Umpire when the Aussie batsmen was given out off his hip yesterday.....

 

[Robobum]

Okay, so they get the choice of having cameras at the event or not. Cameras there mean the first prize is £200K, barring the cameras (or how they use the cameras) means the first prize is now £10K.

There are many other instances where the cameras have been used to decide on a ruling. Ross Fisher's first win was decided by camera, Michelle Wie got DQ'd after a spectator brought an issue over a drop to the refs attention, that was decided (or helped) by camera. Graeme McDowel's water splash thing, he was unsure and checked it on camera. Brian Davis' penalty was checked on camera.

All they are doing is helping remove that doubt and report any facts. If you are playing crap and are out early without cameras and have a similar situation then lucky you, as long as you didn't knowingly do it then that is accepted by everyone as being sufficient.

 

[Deleted member 1418]

I agree with Murph. As pro-golfers are generally honourable and totally respect the rules and traditions of the game, I am pretty sure that Hanson would've called it himself if he had any doubts. Plus did everyone else notice that on the tee of the first play-off hole he shook Paramor's hand and acted as if nothing had happened? That's class to me so was glad that he won.

 

[freddielong]

It is such a tough one because once you know you have to act, once it is known that it is a double hit he has to be penalised, if you dont want to see these things do not look.

You could say the same about Brian Davies at Hilton Head yes he called it on him self, but the camera had to be used to check he had hit the reed, im guessing that as he wasn't sure he had hit it, without the camera there would have been no penalty, but once confirmed the infringement no matter how trivial it has to be acted upon.

I just want to add that I thought the R&A did very well by approaching him on the course, if they hadn't and they let him sign his card he would have been Dq'd.

 

[viscount17]

The situation with Davis was different as it was with Wie.
The camera was used to check not to instigate.
imo the camera should be the silent witness - there to be used, not to interfere.

 

[freddielong]

I think the important thing is once you know you cannot ignore it and he must be penalised