Molinari DQ

[Deleted member 15344]

So summing up

Woods took the incorrect drop which had an effect on his score - Woods failed to apply the penalty but through a serious of loopholes they managed to apply the two shot penalty and not DQ

Molinari himself broke no rule through his play -his caddy jumped on a buggy which had "zero" effect on Molinari's score and just like Woods he failed to apply the two shot but no loophole or twists from committee and Molinari is DQ

I am firmly in the belief that if you swap the situations around - Molinari would still be DQ if he did the drop and Woods wouldn't have ( or indeed any high profile player ).

Never before had people heard of the officials can waive a DQ - it never happened before and two years down the line it has happened again - the officials/committee did a sterling job to ensure a high profile player stayed in a high profile tournament using a series of twists and loopholes.

Situations like what has happened to Molinari where the actions made zero effect on the scoring should IMO have no playing penalty to the player - and if it was a woods etc it wouldn't IMO ended up with a DQ

 

[Colin L]

That's not a "summing up", just a rehash of your misunderstanding of the situations and your conviction that conspiracies abound. To be a summing up, it would have to include what has been pointed out to you by others in an effort to help you understand.

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.

I take it then that you are going to stick to your completely unsubstantiated opinion, not having bothered to read and consider the explanations you've been given by people who know what they are talking about and not respond to my reasonable request for you to explain your understanding of the exceptional circumstances that would have justified waiving Molinari's DQ?

By the way, this is wrong:
Molinari himself broke no rule through his play
Look up Rule 6-1.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I take it then that you are going to stick to your completely unsubstantiated opinion, not having bothered to read and consider the explanations you've been given by people who know what they are talking about and not respond to my reasonable request for you to explain your understanding of the exceptional circumstances that would have justified waiving Molinari's DQ?

By the way, this is wrong:
Molinari himself broke no rule through his play
Look up Rule 6-1.

Yes I am in the belief that the DQ would have been waived using this block of words as a loophole to allow hi to play - because it comes down to humans making a choice based on knowing if the player knew his caddy couldn't hop on a buggy in between holes as it has happened in other tournaments before to ferry both players and caddies inbetween holes

However, 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. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.

And what's wrong with the comment "Molinari broke no rule through his play" - is in not factually correct then ?

 

[Colin L]

Yes I am in the belief that the DQ would have been waived using this block of words as a loophole to allow hi to play - because it comes down to humans making a choice based on knowing if the player knew his caddy couldn't hop on a buggy in between holes as it has happened in other tournaments before to ferry both players and caddies inbetween holes

However, 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. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.

And what's wrong with the comment "Molinari broke no rule through his play" - is in not factually correct then ?

One last effort and then I give up trying to explain. Your "block of words" includes could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules. A player whose caddie chooses to go off on a wee joyride on a cart has every possibility of knowing he had done it or of discovering the fact. Consider, for example, the simple question, "Where have you been?"

It is not unreasonable to expect the player to have known or found out and so the situation does not meet what is required to waive the DQ.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

One last effort and then I give up trying to explain. Your "block of words" includes could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules. A player whose caddie chooses to go off on a wee joyride on a cart has every possibility of knowing he had done it or of discovering the fact. Consider, for example, the simple question, "Where have you been?"

It is not unreasonable to expect the player to have known or found out and so the situation does not meet what is required to waive the DQ.

And why it's all up to interpretation because as with the Woods drop you would expect one of the worlds best players to know how to drop the ball after visiting a hazard or known he could have possibly have got it wrong

And if it was a high profile player I have no doubt IMO the interpretation of the rule would have shown favour towards the high profile player.

Lots of loopholes within the rule that is open to interpretation by officials

It would be interesting to know how many times that rule has been used bar for the occasion of Woods in the Masters.

If only a little bit of common sense was used

 

[Colin L]

And why it's all up to interpretation because as with the Woods drop you would expect one of the worlds best players to know how to drop the ball after visiting a hazard or known he could have possibly have got it wrong

And if it was a high profile player I have no doubt IMO the interpretation of the rule would have shown favour towards the high profile player.

Lots of loopholes within the rule that is open to interpretation by officials

It would be interesting to know how many times that rule has been used bar for the occasion of Woods in the Masters.

If only a little bit of common sense was used

I give up on the grounds that are none so deaf as won't hear.

By the way, the highlighted bit is close to what in my part of the world is called defamation.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I give up on the grounds that are none so deaf as won't hear.

By the way, the highlighted bit is close to what in my part of the world is called defamation.

Or it's called an opinion :thup:

 

[Old Skier]

Love this, long discussion by someone who thinks cheating is ok and now feels breaking rules of golf is ok.

The officials made a decision end off. People may not like the decision but that's it - end off.

A person may feel that ITO it's a crazy rule , tough, write to the R&A.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Love this, long discussion by someone who thinks cheating is ok and now feels breaking rules of golf is ok.

The officials made a decision end off. People may not like the decision but that's it - end off.

A person may feel that ITO it's a crazy rule , tough, write to the R&A.

When did anyone say breaking the rules is ok ?!

And when did anyone ever say cheating is ok ?!

And people are perfectly within their right to have a discussion and debate about an incident that occurred.

 

[Old Skier]

When did anyone say breaking the rules is ok ?!

And when did anyone ever say cheating is ok ?!

You - a few times on another thread.

Dont ask me to provide a link because I can't be arrsed.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

You - a few times on another thread.

Dont ask me to provide a link because I can't be arrsed.

Edit: it's not worth it

 

[Fish]

Its time

 

[Old Skier]

:thup:

Edit: it's not worth it

:thup:

 

[Colin L]

Or it's called an opinion :thup:

Yet another "final" comment. I should seek counselling I think.

It may well be an opinion, but a publicly stated opinion can be defamatory. I concede however, that while your opinion of the R&A and USGA may be false, it doesn't meet the additional requirement of defamation that it lower the defamed in the estimation of right thinking people. In short, no right thinking person is going to lower his estimation of those august ruling bodies on the basis of the opinion expressed in an internet forum by someone who clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. You're off the defamation hook.

But enough's, enough.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Yet another "final" comment. I should seek counselling I think.

It may well be an opinion, but a publicly stated opinion can be defamatory. I concede however, that while your opinion of the R&A and USGA may be false, it doesn't meet the additional requirement of defamation that it lower the defamed in the estimation of right thinking people. In short, no right thinking person is going to lower his estimation of those august ruling bodies on the basis of the opinion expressed in an internet forum by someone who clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. You're off the defamation hook.

But enough's, enough.

Obviously not if you feel it's worthy for you to comment further whilst also posting sly digs just because someone posts an opinion that certain players would possibly be looked on a bit more favourably when faced with a possible ruling

I'm sure you can let me know the other golfers the Augusta Committtee decided to not DQ after a rule break ? I do recall they did punish a 15 year old kid for slow play whilst more established players appeared to get away with ? Maybe that's a tiny bit of evidence towards possible favouritism but as you say -"enoughs enough"

 

[rulefan]

The young player you refer to was 'on the clock'. He exceeded the specified time limit more than once after he was officially told he was 'on the clock'. The referee would have no option. The committee had no say in the matter.

I know of no case where a player 'on the clock' has exceeded the time more than once and has not been penalised by the referee. Remember, the committee have no say in such situations.

Can you identify any such cases?

 

[Foxholer]

Obviously not if you feel it's worthy for you to comment further whilst also posting sly digs just because someone posts an opinion that certain players would possibly be looked on a bit more favourably when faced with a possible ruling

I'm sure you can let me know the other golfers the Augusta Committtee decided to not DQ after a rule break ? I do recall they did punish a 15 year old kid for slow play whilst more established players appeared to get away with ? Maybe that's a tiny bit of evidence towards possible favouritism but as you say -"enoughs enough"

Actually, that's simply evidence of your distorted view of the facts! That particular incident was handled absolutely perfectly - according to the Rules/CofCs that every players agrees to! And you even got 'the kid's' age wrong! It was his naivety that caused the penalty! The more established players knew how to react while 'on the clock'!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The young player you refer to was 'on the clock'. He exceeded the specified time limit more than once after he was officially told he was 'on the clock'. The referee would have no option. The committee had no say in the matter.

I know of no case where a player 'on the clock' has exceeded the time more than once and has not been penalised by the referee. Remember, the committee have no say in such situations.

Can you identify any such cases?

I don't recall many other players being put on the clock in the first instance which was my initial point

Applying the rules of slow play I have no issue with - it's applying them to all players and not just what it appeared to be an easy target

Seen established players take considerable amount of time over shots yet appear to not be "put on the clock"

 

[Foxholer]

How many professional players do you know that clearly are extremely slow have been even put on the clock ?

In the same masters Mickelson for example took 10 mins over 3 tee shots and his group took 30 mins to play two holes - none of them where put on the clock.

Unless you believe that no other players exceed the time limit ?

If they are going to punish a 15 year old kid then they need to apply it across all the players and IMO it's quite clear they don't

You haven't answered Rulefan's question!

I'm as certain as I can be that the answer is actually 'No'! which would rather spoil the train of your argument!

So why let facts (thingss you often request from other posters!) get in the way of a distorted opinion!

Mickelson's group may have been slow, but they obviously didn't satisfy the criteria to being put on the clock, something that, from the highlighted text, you don't actually seem to understand!

Anyway...Enough of the off-topic stuff! Molinari accepted his DQ with the 'perfect grace' of the class Pro Golfer that he is - though I bet he wasn't happy!

 

[rulefan]

Lots of loopholes within the rule that is open to interpretation by officials

What loopholes within which rule are open to interpretation?

There are very few rules (if any) why allow a referee to make his own interpretation.