Molinari DQ

[Colin L]

Erm... what rule does that breach?

There must be any number of examples. McIlroy not long ago was made aware well after the event of a breach when he didn't take full relief from GUR or an obstruction (I can't remember which) and played with one foot on it. He was lucky in that it was brought to light before he submitted his card and he was able to add the penalty, but had it been realised after he he submitted it, he would have submitted a card with a wrong score and been disqualified.

 

[MadAdey]

For me a few questions has to be asked to make sense of this situation:

Was he DQ'd for his caddie riding a buggy? No he was DQ'd for returning an incorrect card.

Should the caddie be aware of any local tournament rule regarding the use of buggies? Yes, he is a professional caddie and should be aware of any rules that relate to him, Especially what appears to be a basic one like this. If in doubt ask a rules official like the players do.

Is the caddie part of the team and should any penalties he incurs affect the player? Yes, the player can use the caddie for advice as he is part of his team. The rules state that the team ie player and caddie, have broken the rules.

Can a player use the excuse of "I didn't know"? Of course not, or you are just opening up the flood gates for any mistake a player makes regarding the rules that leads to him filling out an incorrect scorecard to have the decision over turned.

If a caddie was to 'accidently on purpose' move his players ball in the rough to a better position without him seeing it, should the player get disqualified when he fills out his scorecard incorrect without the required penalties? Of course he should, if the caddie breaks the rules and incurs a penalty it is the caddies job to inform his player. If this does not happen then the player gets punished. You can't differentiate between one situation and another, you have either broke the rules or not.

What happens if you let players appeal and overturn decisions to DQ them for not applying a 2 shot penalty? Players will start breaking rules and then just risk it, knowing if they don't get away with it all they will get is the 2 shot penalty they would of had anyway. Young tour pro struggling to keep his card, would he be tempted to do an incorrect card to make a cut that will give him his tour card for the following year. Would be tempting knowing he will not get punished for it.

Is the punishment that he has recieved harsh is the big question? Maybe it is, but rules are rules. You return an incorrect card you get DQ'd. You can't have it one way then change it to another.

 

[bobmac]

Erm... what rule does that breach?

There must be any number of examples. McIlroy not long ago was made aware well after the event of a breach when he didn't take full relief from GUR or an obstruction (I can't remember which) and played with one foot on it. He was lucky in that it was brought to light before he submitted his card and he was able to add the penalty, but had it been realised after he he submitted it, he would have submitted a card with a wrong score and been disqualified.

So they cant waive the DQ and give the penalty instead because the card had been signed before the rule breach came to light?

 

[bladeplayer]

I see a couple of points here

(1) Rules are not meant to be fair , just fair in equity ..

(2) Any rule that has been added in over the years has been done so for a reason again equity , nobody hitches a lift between holes , end of .. prpbably had to be introduced as buggies became more frequent and some people were gaining "somesort" of advantage hitching a lift

(3) Because of this very equity no tv pictures should be used to change/make a decision as not all players receive equal coverage

In reality i think the committee should be allowed to decide on situations like this ( & Tiger in the masters)BUT then we are going to have...

ah The high profile players are getting favourable decisions from the committee to keep them in the tournament , new guys DQ'd


I can see both sides of the argument here, I personally think this was a harsh and OTT DQ because as the player didnt see the breach he couldnt add in the pen , but to avoid players & caddies saying they "didnt" see an incident it has to be there for all in equity

 

[bladeplayer]

AAAGH if id seen this i coulda just went LIKE ha instead of typing the drivel i put below ha ha

For me a few questions has to be asked to make sense of this situation:

Was he DQ'd for his caddie riding a buggy? No he was DQ'd for returning an incorrect card.

Should the caddie be aware of any local tournament rule regarding the use of buggies? Yes, he is a professional caddie and should be aware of any rules that relate to him, Especially what appears to be a basic one like this. If in doubt ask a rules official like the players do.

Is the caddie part of the team and should any penalties he incurs affect the player? Yes, the player can use the caddie for advice as he is part of his team. The rules state that the team ie player and caddie, have broken the rules.

Can a player use the excuse of "I didn't know"? Of course not, or you are just opening up the flood gates for any mistake a player makes regarding the rules that leads to him filling out an incorrect scorecard to have the decision over turned.

If a caddie was to 'accidently on purpose' move his players ball in the rough to a better position without him seeing it, should the player get disqualified when he fills out his scorecard incorrect without the required penalties? Of course he should, if the caddie breaks the rules and incurs a penalty it is the caddies job to inform his player. If this does not happen then the player gets punished. You can't differentiate between one situation and another, you have either broke the rules or not.

What happens if you let players appeal and overturn decisions to DQ them for not applying a 2 shot penalty? Players will start breaking rules and then just risk it, knowing if they don't get away with it all they will get is the 2 shot penalty they would of had anyway. Young tour pro struggling to keep his card, would he be tempted to do an incorrect card to make a cut that will give him his tour card for the following year. Would be tempting knowing he will not get punished for it.

Is the punishment that he has recieved harsh is the big question? Maybe it is, but rules are rules. You return an incorrect card you get DQ'd. You can't have it one way then change it to another.

 

[Colin L]

So they cant waive the DQ and give the penalty instead because the card had been signed before the rule breach came to light?

The Committee can only waive the DQ penalty in exceptional circumstances such as described in Decision 33-7/4.5
http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-33,d33-7-4.5

There was an example of waiving a DQ in exceptional circumstances when a certain top player played from a wrong place when taking relief from a water hazard. I hesitate to name him for fear of prompting a 20 page thread, but he's the one who made an impressive if wobbly return to something nearer his former self in the Masters.


Normally, then, it is as you say. You incur a penalty but didn't know it; you consequently don't (can't) include it in your score; you return your card; the breach comes to light before the close of the competition; you are disqualified under Rule 6-6d.

 

[Tongo]

Would the same decision have been made for Tiger, Phil, Rory et al?

 

[ScienceBoy]

Harsh....Yes, but the rules are the rules.

I agree.

Rules are there for a reason and should be followed.

It was right to DQ, nothing against the golfer but the rules must be followed, the caddie needs to know them too so not to unknowingly breech like this and get the player DQ.

 

[rulefan]

Would the same decision have been made for Tiger, Phil, Rory et al?

Of course.

 

[bobmac]

'' if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d''.

Not applicable in this case?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Maybe they need to have those "Special Masters" rules where you can apply the penalty after but not be DQ'd

And can anyone really see them doing it to Woods when you consider they allowed him to continue after his drop at the Masters ?

 

[rulefan]

Maybe they need to have those "Special Masters" rules where you can apply the penalty after but not be DQ'd

And can anyone really see them doing it to Woods when you consider they allowed him to continue after his drop at the Masters ?

It would seem that you are not fully au fait with the circumstances and the nuances of the rule that were involved.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It would seem that you are not fully au fait with the circumstances and the nuances of the rule that were involved.

Did Woods apply his penalty before signing for his scorecard ?

 

[rulefan]

Did Woods apply his penalty before signing for his scorecard ?

Read all the thousands of posts from the time and see what other rules were applicable.

 

[Colin L]

Maybe they need to have those "Special Masters" rules where you can apply the penalty after but not be DQ'd

And can anyone really see them doing it to Woods when you consider they allowed him to continue after his drop at the Masters ?

That's just nonsense. The circumstances of dropping in the wrong place by Woods were well enough explained at the time: the waiving of a DQ was because of Committee error. From the description of it, Molinari's disqualification is straightforward. The breach was something he could reasonably have been expected to have known about - i.e. where his caddie was and what he was doing. There are no exceptional circumstances to justify waiving his DQ.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Read all the thousands of posts from the time.

I don't need to - the officials use rule 33-7 to allow Woods to continue to play in the tournament

The complex issue involved Rule 33-7 and in particular, the 2011-enacted Decision 33-7/4.5, which allows officials to waive a player’s disqualification if said player was unaware prior to signing a scorecard of any rules breach.

So you used the rule for Woods so why couldn't they use the rule for Molinari ?

They bent over backwards to allow a player to stay in the comp and they did it because it was one of the most high profile golfers in the game - if it was Woods involved in the caddy buggy situation I have no doubt they would look at a way to ensure he wouldn't be DQ

 

[Colin L]

I don't need to - the officials use rule 33-7 to allow Woods to continue to play in the tournament

The complex issue involved Rule 33-7 and in particular, the 2011-enacted Decision 33-7/4.5, which allows officials to waive a player’s disqualification if said player was unaware prior to signing a scorecard of any rules breach.

So you used the rule for Woods so why couldn't they use the rule for Molinari ?

They bent over backwards to allow a player to stay in the comp and they did it because it was one of the most high profile golfers in the game - if it was Woods involved in the caddy buggy situation I have no doubt they would look at a way to ensure he wouldn't be DQ

Of course, Rule 33-7 was used. There is nothing wrong or sinister in that and a detailed account was given of the particular circumstances which justified the decision not to disqualify. Since you are so convinced that Woods would not have been disqualified whereas Molinari was, perhaps you could justify that belief with a similarly detailed explanation of the exceptional circumstances for not disqualifying Woods had his caddy hitched a lift contrary to the COC? If you can't do so, then perhaps you should think twice about impugning the integrity of USGA and R&A officials.

 

[rulefan]

The complex issue involved Rule 33-7 and in particular, the 2011-enacted Decision 33-7/4.5, which allows officials to waive a player’s disqualification if said player was unaware prior to signing a scorecard of any rules breach.

33-7/4.5 was not used by the committee. The exceptional circumstance was that the committee knew about the breach and chose not to advise Woods before he signed his card, although they had plenty of opportunity, as Ridley believed there was no breach.

 

[duncan mackie]

33-7/4.5 was not used by the committee. The exceptional circumstance was that the committee knew about the breach and chose not to advise Woods before he signed his card, although they had plenty of opportunity, as Ridley believed there was no breach.

As the chestnut has raised its head again I'll try and explain it a little more clearly ( and I know you know so I'm not really responding to your post - more a case of piggybacking it!)

The ruling committee at the Masters made a huge error by observing (being aware etc) that Tiger's drop was not exactly where they would have expected it and -
1. Ruling that it was close enough and that it couldnt therefore be a serious breach without discussing it with him - ie they ruled that he had not gained a significant advantage.
2. When it became clear that the player had made a mistake and dropped in a wrong place; and that he anticipated an advantage from dropping there ( although it was not a deliberate case of dropping in a wrong place to gain an advantage) the committee were in an impossible place.
3. They went for a ruling from the R&A and USGA that night as to their options.
4. Because they had already ruled that the player hadn't gained an advantage that had to stand and they couldn't subsequently DQ him for a serious breach even though the player had claimed an advantage!
5. Because they failed to advise the player that he had dropped from a wrong place they couldn't/shouldn't DQ him for signing for a wrong score.
6. It was clear from the player's words that he had dropped from a wrong place so they subsequently applied that penalty.

Personally I would like to think that the same ruling would have occurred for any player in the field - however I also believe that for any other player a member of the committee would have discussed it with him before he signed his card!

 

[rulefan]

Of course the problem was exacerbated by only one member of the committee being involved in the decision not to approach Woods.