SammmeBee
Journeyman Pro
The 'kid' at Augusta was given more chances to 'speed up' than any of the Pros would have had. He just had no idea on how to play in any other way than his 'too slow' method. Unfortunately = penalty.......
Molinari DQ
- Thread starter Imurg
- Start date
MadAdey
Money List Winner
Molinari has accepted the DQ as he knows even though he wasn't aware of the infringement, he knows he has to accept any penalty incurred by his caddie.
The rule to retrospectivly add a 2 shot penalty isn't for this situation as far as I can see in the rules. One of the examples given is when a player is up against the wall of a bunker, he unknowingly touches the sand on his backswing. Clearly he hasn't gained any advantage and was unaware of what he did.
But His caddie clearly broke the rules and saying "I didn't know about the rule" is no excuse. If it is then you open up the door for players to break the rules then claim "I didn't know about that rule". Then from this point forward every player will have a case to argue being DQ'd.
There is a fine line when it comes to the application of this rule. But it is one that is not clearly defined, as you can't write every eventuality into the rule. So it is more of a guideline for tournaments to be able to not DQ a player when he returns an incorrect card for not applying a penalty.
So is there a correct answer to this situation, maybe not as it is down to someone's opinion. Another tournament might not have DQ'd him for this, but that doesn't mean that this tournament was wrong to DQ him.
The rule to retrospectivly add a 2 shot penalty isn't for this situation as far as I can see in the rules. One of the examples given is when a player is up against the wall of a bunker, he unknowingly touches the sand on his backswing. Clearly he hasn't gained any advantage and was unaware of what he did.
But His caddie clearly broke the rules and saying "I didn't know about the rule" is no excuse. If it is then you open up the door for players to break the rules then claim "I didn't know about that rule". Then from this point forward every player will have a case to argue being DQ'd.
There is a fine line when it comes to the application of this rule. But it is one that is not clearly defined, as you can't write every eventuality into the rule. So it is more of a guideline for tournaments to be able to not DQ a player when he returns an incorrect card for not applying a penalty.
So is there a correct answer to this situation, maybe not as it is down to someone's opinion. Another tournament might not have DQ'd him for this, but that doesn't mean that this tournament was wrong to DQ him.
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
But he's not said that he didn't know about the rule; he's said he didn't know that the caddie had hitched the ride and was in breach of the rule, which is rather different.
We appear to have a ridiculous situation whereby a player is disqualified for failing to add a penalty for a rules breach he knew nothing about. If those are the circumstances, then surely the common sense approach would be to advise the player of what has happened and give the opportunity to rectify the mistake; if he doesn't know about the breach, how can he correct his score?
There's an old adage that "rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" (incidentally, that is attributed to Douglas Bader, a none too shabby golfer) that appears quite appropriate in the circumstances. Molinari has not apparently sought an advantage to which he is not entitled, he's simply not aware that a rule has been broken. He emerges with far more credit for the grace with which he has accepted the DQ than those who imposed it as far as I am concerned.
bobmac
Major Champion
Looking at the bigger picture........I wonder what the Chinese golfing fraternity think of it?
MadAdey
Money List Winner
I'll just refer you to this part of my post
This is why things like this produce such good debate. There is no right answer, some people will agree some will not.
Thats why I can't understand when people get heated over things like this. Also some people make comments like, it's just daft, then do not say why.
Me personaly, I'm on the fence. I can see why they have imposed this penalty and fully understand why. But I can also see why it is stupid to penalize a player like this, when it is clear he gained no advantage what so ever.
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
The player and caddie are as one in this instance. The working assumption is that what one knows and does is known to the other.
Not sure whether it was you or Adey who is suggesting that another committee might have ruled differently - there isn't any scope I can see in the ruling such that any other ruling would be anything but "in error".
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
I think the main point in this thread is.....
Should a player be DQ'd for signing for an incorrect score if a breach of rules, that he had no knowledge of( this case being an example), is discovered after the card is signed?
Obviously, under the Rules the answer is Yes.
But in this example, Emol didn't see the incident. He had no reason to believe that his caddy had hitched a lift - why would he? He didn't apply a penalty he had no knowledge of. Putting a hypothetical swing on things; what if the caddy went to the loo at the same time as another caddy. He, seemingly innocently says to the other caddie that they got a soft bounce at the front of the 10th green, unaware that the other caddy is playing the 8th.....he's giving advice. Unless he mentions the conversation to his boss that's it - until someone else who was in the loo mentions it later that day, officials get to hear about it and impose the penalty.
How can the player apply the penalty?
I think that's the seemingly unfair part.
Without doubt, had Molinari known about the ride, he would have applied the penalty.
Its disappointing that the DQ was arrived at bearing in mind a Rule of Golf wasn't broken, just a Condition of Competition....
I know Rules are Rules and if broken the penalty must be applied. But in this case it errs on the side of draconian rather than the side of common sense.
Should a player be DQ'd for signing for an incorrect score if a breach of rules, that he had no knowledge of( this case being an example), is discovered after the card is signed?
Obviously, under the Rules the answer is Yes.
But in this example, Emol didn't see the incident. He had no reason to believe that his caddy had hitched a lift - why would he? He didn't apply a penalty he had no knowledge of. Putting a hypothetical swing on things; what if the caddy went to the loo at the same time as another caddy. He, seemingly innocently says to the other caddie that they got a soft bounce at the front of the 10th green, unaware that the other caddy is playing the 8th.....he's giving advice. Unless he mentions the conversation to his boss that's it - until someone else who was in the loo mentions it later that day, officials get to hear about it and impose the penalty.
How can the player apply the penalty?
I think that's the seemingly unfair part.
Without doubt, had Molinari known about the ride, he would have applied the penalty.
Its disappointing that the DQ was arrived at bearing in mind a Rule of Golf wasn't broken, just a Condition of Competition....
I know Rules are Rules and if broken the penalty must be applied. But in this case it errs on the side of draconian rather than the side of common sense.
BTatHome
Tour Winner
As Duncan said, the player and the caddie are considered one, and ignorance of the rules is not a valid defense in these situations.
rulefan
Tour Winner
The correct answer is in the Rules. If a player incurs a penalty, he must record it in his score. If he does not, he is DQd. I cannot imagine any pro (or properly run amateur) tournament where this would not happen - unless there is an exceptional situation.
A player not knowing he has breached a rule is not exceptional, it happens (and is reported in the media) frequently. Just think about all the 'call-ins' that are debated in such forums as this.
In the Woods case, the exceptional situation was that one official received a 'call-in' before Wood completed his round but decided not to advise Woods (or anyone else) that he may have breached a rule and therefore missed the opportunity to prevent Woods returning a wrong score. That was a committee error and deemed to be an exceptional reason. His score was of course adjusted to include the penalty.
But Molinari may well know the rules, but if he wasn't aware of any infringement of them by his caddy, how can he apply them?
Is everyone saying that the caddy should have known the rule to not ride on a buggy and as soon as he hitched a ride and realised afterwards he should have declared this to Molinari. Is this common that a buggy cannot be used in any circumstance and why wasn't it noticed by many others at the time so it had the chance to be flagged up, or is it such a rule that until flagged up, nobody who witnessed it saw it as a rule breakage either?
Colin L
Tour Winner
This is so straightforward, it's remarkable that we are 11 pages into a conversation about it.
Applying the rules of golf is generally a straightforward matter of fact and consequence. You establish the facts of what happened; you establish if what happened was a breach of a rule; if yes, then you apply the resulting penalty.
In this instance, the first fact is that Molinari's caddie took a ride on a cart during the round; that is a breach of a condition of the competition (i.e. a rule); the penalty of two strokes is applied. The second fact is that Molinari returned his card without including that penalty; that is a breach of Rule 6-6d; the penalty of disqualification is applied. And that, really, is the end of the story, no different from the disqualification of a player for returning a score lower than he took, for any other reason including bad arithmetic They are not the result of the stupidity of a rule, but of the carelessness of the player. Remember Roberto de Vicenzo's famous remark, "what a stupid I am" when a careless mistake on his scorecard kept him out a play-off in the 1968 Masters. He knew who to blame.
There is one further rule to consider. Could the Committee waive the penalty of disqualification under Rule 33-7? Once again, look at the facts. Taking the lift on the cart was a fact obviously known to the caddie; he is responsible for knowing the Rules; if he breaches a Rule his player cops the penalty. Additionally, it is reasonable that Molinari could have known or found out where his caddie had been and what he was doing. There are no grounds in the facts to to allow the penalty of DQ to be waived in terms of Rule 33-7 or of Decision 33-7/4.5
None of the above has anything to do with "opinion". The rulings were clearly based strictly on the facts and on what the Rules state. How can we criticise the officials concerned? They did what they're there for - the correct application of the Rules.
Applying the rules of golf is generally a straightforward matter of fact and consequence. You establish the facts of what happened; you establish if what happened was a breach of a rule; if yes, then you apply the resulting penalty.
In this instance, the first fact is that Molinari's caddie took a ride on a cart during the round; that is a breach of a condition of the competition (i.e. a rule); the penalty of two strokes is applied. The second fact is that Molinari returned his card without including that penalty; that is a breach of Rule 6-6d; the penalty of disqualification is applied. And that, really, is the end of the story, no different from the disqualification of a player for returning a score lower than he took, for any other reason including bad arithmetic They are not the result of the stupidity of a rule, but of the carelessness of the player. Remember Roberto de Vicenzo's famous remark, "what a stupid I am" when a careless mistake on his scorecard kept him out a play-off in the 1968 Masters. He knew who to blame.
There is one further rule to consider. Could the Committee waive the penalty of disqualification under Rule 33-7? Once again, look at the facts. Taking the lift on the cart was a fact obviously known to the caddie; he is responsible for knowing the Rules; if he breaches a Rule his player cops the penalty. Additionally, it is reasonable that Molinari could have known or found out where his caddie had been and what he was doing. There are no grounds in the facts to to allow the penalty of DQ to be waived in terms of Rule 33-7 or of Decision 33-7/4.5
None of the above has anything to do with "opinion". The rulings were clearly based strictly on the facts and on what the Rules state. How can we criticise the officials concerned? They did what they're there for - the correct application of the Rules.
Last edited:
MadAdey
Money List Winner
It was me who suggested who suggested another committee may have ruled differently. There s a line in that ruling trust says they can decide not to disqualify if an infringement has been made and the played didn't know about it. Like touching sand in a bunker at the top of your backswing is one example they use. Unless I am interpreting it wrong.
MadAdey
Money List Winner
A. Generally, the disqualification prescribed by Rule 6-6d must not be waived or modified.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known ([/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Molinari carried onto play his next shot expecting his caddie to be there. It is reasonable IMO that he would not have realized he hitched a ride.)[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, (The only was he was going to discover this breach is if his caddie notified him. Again he knew nothing about this breach when returning his scorecard) 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.
I am not saying that the committee was wrong to DQ him, all I am saying is that IMO they could have chosen to just apply the 2 shot penalty he should have received if he had of known what his caddie had done.
[/FONT]
MashieNiblick
Tour Winner
An interesting thread (for the most part).
The starting point has to be the fundemental principles as set out in Rule 6.1
6-1 - Rules
The player and his caddie are responsible for knowing the Rules. During a stipulated round, for any breach of a Rule by his caddie, the player incurs the applicable penalty.
In this respect the player and the caddie are not separate parties. Caddy breaks Rule; player is penalised whether he is aware of caddy's actions or not. E.g. If a caddy moves a loose impediment in a bunker when the player isn't looking, the player must incur the penalty. It can't be any other way really.
Accordingly any reference to whether the player knew a rule had been broken by his caddy is a red herring. Player/caddie = one.
Furthermore, in this respect, as I understand it, looking at Decision 33-7/4.5 - Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified - the issue is not whether you know you are breaching a Rule it is whether you could reasonably have known you did the thing that broke the rules. Getting a lift on a cart is not something you can do without realising it, unlike say faintly touching a loose blade of dry grass in a hazard on your backswing. Caddy knew he was riding in a cart. Riding in cart is against the rules. Player incurs penalty.
Whether the Rule (in fact as others have said it is in fact a condition of competition) is right is a different matter. Is it reasonable to say caddies can't use buggies? Yes. Is it reasonable to apply that without exception (e.g. allowing use between greens and tees), In my opinion also yes, walking from green to tee is part of a round of golf. If you wanted to allow it in specific situations (e.g. due to the layout of the course) the coc should specifically allow for it. It can't be a free for all based on whether there happens to be a cart handy.
So what should the penalty be. A fine for the caddy? But what of the caddy who is tiring when his man is leading and does get an advantage by hitching a lift instead of making a long uphill walk from the 16th green to the 17th tee. Do we want lots of detailed rules about how long the ride was, or tribunals to interpret whether any advantage was gained? Not for me. The rules of golf work well because there isn't scope for subjective judgement about how serious a breach was.
The starting point has to be the fundemental principles as set out in Rule 6.1
6-1 - Rules
The player and his caddie are responsible for knowing the Rules. During a stipulated round, for any breach of a Rule by his caddie, the player incurs the applicable penalty.
In this respect the player and the caddie are not separate parties. Caddy breaks Rule; player is penalised whether he is aware of caddy's actions or not. E.g. If a caddy moves a loose impediment in a bunker when the player isn't looking, the player must incur the penalty. It can't be any other way really.
Accordingly any reference to whether the player knew a rule had been broken by his caddy is a red herring. Player/caddie = one.
Furthermore, in this respect, as I understand it, looking at Decision 33-7/4.5 - Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified - the issue is not whether you know you are breaching a Rule it is whether you could reasonably have known you did the thing that broke the rules. Getting a lift on a cart is not something you can do without realising it, unlike say faintly touching a loose blade of dry grass in a hazard on your backswing. Caddy knew he was riding in a cart. Riding in cart is against the rules. Player incurs penalty.
Whether the Rule (in fact as others have said it is in fact a condition of competition) is right is a different matter. Is it reasonable to say caddies can't use buggies? Yes. Is it reasonable to apply that without exception (e.g. allowing use between greens and tees), In my opinion also yes, walking from green to tee is part of a round of golf. If you wanted to allow it in specific situations (e.g. due to the layout of the course) the coc should specifically allow for it. It can't be a free for all based on whether there happens to be a cart handy.
So what should the penalty be. A fine for the caddy? But what of the caddy who is tiring when his man is leading and does get an advantage by hitching a lift instead of making a long uphill walk from the 16th green to the 17th tee. Do we want lots of detailed rules about how long the ride was, or tribunals to interpret whether any advantage was gained? Not for me. The rules of golf work well because there isn't scope for subjective judgement about how serious a breach was.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Selective reading, not necessarily misinterpreting.
..... After a competitor has signed and returned his score card, it becomes known, through the use of a high-definition video replay, that the competitor unknowingly touched a few grains of sand with his club at the top of his backswing on a wall of the bunker. .....
rulefan
Tour Winner
Is this a new criteria to be used when applying rules?
MadAdey
Money List Winner
That is what I said. Sorry I didn't write it word for word as I couldn't be bothered to reload the page up to do it.
I am not saying for one minute that the ruling was wrong and that it is a daft rule.
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
I think it might help to appreciate the difference between "didn't know" and "couldn't have known" - the rule is written as the latter; were it to be the former I would be 100%in agreement with some of your argument.
It's written that way because it makes it clear that in the first instance the player retains the responsibility to establish the facts - in your example if the player had said to his caddie "I thought it possible I caught the sand on my backswing there" and the caddie responded " I was watching closely and I'm sure you didn't ", the player leaves it as that but subsequently after he has signed his card it becomes clear through the television video that he did then he would not be able to rely on this rule; if he had asked for the TV footage to be reviewed before he signed his card and a rules official cleared him on that but a member of the crowd handed in a video that showed he had clearly caught the sand then he would be able to rely on the rule.
In this case however, i believe it's more a case of the caddie being the player than the player establishing/knowing anything.
I hope this helps.
G
guest100718
Guest
For the life of me i can't see hiow it gone on so long.....
And it if it were Tiger they'd find a way to not DQ him ...
:thup:TheJezster
Tour Rookie
Several people keep quoting the "rules" and that's fine, I think we get that. The actual facts aren't in dispute as far as I can see. It's whether it's fair or not. To me it's not, as others have said it seems very draconian. Now I'm not suggesting they might come to a different outcome if it was someone else, but given the circumstances does it REALLY seem right to dq him? It's situations like this that make the outside world look in and think "idiots"... Now I don't need anyone quoting the rules back at me, I've seen them above thanks. Nor do I need anyone asking what I propose the rule should be, I'm not. I'm simply saying on this occasion golf looks a bit silly...
