Molinari DQ

[Blue in Munich]

Ok. The rule being challenged is 6-6d which if breached leads to a DQ of a player and in particular that aspect of it whereby the failure to include the penalty for a breach of rule of which he was unaware. Those who think it is stupid/ridiculous/draconian etc might think of their answer to this question:

You have handed in your card with a score that is going to win a tournament. The runner up is 1 stroke behind you. There is necessarily a moment laid down at which your card is considered to be returned and cannot thereafter be altered.* At some point after that moment, it is discovered that you had breached a rule and not realised it. The penalty is 2 strokes. Would you be happy to step up and take the first prize, knowing that you had unwittingly incurred a penalty and that your score should actually have been 1 more than the guy getting second prize?

If anyone's answer to that is yes, it says something about his integrity as a sportsman. If the answer is no, then you need to have available the penalty of disqualification for submitting a wrong score.

And to anticipate anyone's saying that the player should be allowed to alter his score when the facts of the penalty have come to light, bear in mind that you could not leave such a situation open indefinitely. Imagine if just at the moment the announcement had started, "And the Champion Golfer of the Year is ......" the runner-up could butt in to say, "Hang on a minute, I've just realised I only took a 3 at the 15th, not a 4. There should be a playoff."

That one is already covered and has been since at least the 1968 Masters and possibly before, so hardly a valid point.

I certainly wouldn't be happy to accept the first prize in the circumstance you describe, but I also wouldn't be happy to be disqualified for failing to add a penalty that I knew absolutely nothing about and therefore couldn't possibly know I needed to add.

Your comment (part of which I have bolded) goes on afterwards to state "you need to have available the penalty of disqualification for submitting a wrong score." Need to have available. Not necessarily to impose, but need to have available, for the obvious circumstance where players knew but chose not to add the penalty.

I'm not suggesting that the officials did anything wrong, I'm aware that the the player and caddie are one, I'm more aware than most that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and I'm not arguing against any of those points. My beef with the situation is that it offends my sense of fair play that someone is DQ'd for failing to add a penalty that they knew nothing about.

Whilst I'd agree that ignorance of the law is no excuse, there is another credo that appears quite appropriate in this case, which is that rigid justice is the biggest injustice.

 

[Colin L]

It has only just occurred to me to ask how many clubs, like mine, have a transportation rule in place. For competitive play, we require a member to provide medical evidence to allow them to use a buggy. The reasons for not allowing others to use one? Well, they will include care of the course, but also keeping things equal for all players in terms of the physical demands of the game and not favouring those who can afford a buggy.

Is this a silly rule that puts people off taking up golf and will disenchant our youngsters?

 

[Foxholer]

See I agree with Phil here. If I went to work and told my non-golfing colleagues what happened they will be amazed and all will say its a stupid rule and most would no doubt think golf is full of stupid rules (which you can argue it is). Hardly going to encourage anyone and youngsters in particular won't be enthused and just want to hit the thing and not worry about the rules

We're not talking about considering the rule 'daft'! While it's conceivable that folk might, Phil is suggesting that that will put put people off taking the game up!

I'd challenge him to identify anyone (or 2) who has actually decided that it's not worth taking up purely because of the occasional apparently daft rule/ruling! I believe those that decide against taking the game up because of the cost, time and availability vastly outnumber any who examine the rules and then decide it's not for them - or are put off by these incidents!

Likewise, I seriously doubt that any club that has relaxed their Dress Code significantly has had a significant influx of new members solely because of that change!

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I understand that and I'm agreeing it will put people off. A youngster won't be interested in playing a game that has so many rules, many of which are hard to fathom.

 

[Foxholer]

I understand that and I'm agreeing it will put people off. A youngster won't be interested in playing a game that has so many rules, many of which are hard to fathom.

Utter Tosh!

All the youngsters I've encountered - though these have generally been ones that got to the course/range in the first place - have been interested in is hitting the ball - either as far as possible or, with guidance, as accurately (to targets) as possible. I'm sure Bobmac could confirm that when they start off they have no real concept of Rules - possibly apart from those directly associated with the purpose of the game - getting the ball from tee to hole!

 

[drdel]

I am amazed how many times some of you can carry on this tit-for-tat: largely by re-quoting quotes.

Perhaps we should limit how many times a member can post on a thread to 4 - i.e. 3 strikes and then a DQ - but that is just a new rule which might be daft and/or wrongly applied.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I am amazed how many times some of you can carry on this tit-for-tat: largely by re-quoting quotes.

Perhaps we should limit how many times a member can post on a thread to 4 - i.e. 3 strikes and then a DQ - but that is just a new rule which might be daft and/or wrongly applied.

It's called a difference of opinion. Providing it's civilised then it leads to lively debate and most (not all) on here know where the line is on what can/should be said. I disagree with Foxholer on this subject and could put are reposte on here (and no doubt will). Why should he, I or others be limited if everyone is playing by the rules and it's done with a degree of decorum? Just asking

 

[Foxholer]

I am amazed how many times some of you can carry on this tit-for-tat: largely by re-quoting quotes.

Perhaps we should limit how many times a member can post on a thread to 4 - i.e. 3 strikes and then a DQ - but that is just a new rule which might be daft and/or wrongly applied.

Can't do that!

That would discourage new members! :rofl:

 

[Region3]

1. I can't believe the caddie didn't know he wasn't allowed to hitch a ride. It's his profession and to not know that is very unprofessional IMO.

2. Most people who play the game don't know the rules, so I don't think for a minute the fact that a rule about a caddie (which 99.99% of golfers will never have) will put anyone off trying the game out.

3. Who reported the breach? I assume anyone associated with the tournament would be obligated to inform the player before he signed his card? I can't remember exactly now but it was somewhere around the turn (?) so they had at least 2 hours to get the message through so the player could avoid a DQ.

 

[Tongo]

I am amazed how many times some of you can carry on this tit-for-tat: largely by re-quoting quotes.

Perhaps we should limit how many times a member can post on a thread to 4 - i.e. 3 strikes and then a DQ - but that is just a new rule which might be daft and/or wrongly applied.

What happens if people are not aware that the rule has been infringed?!

 

[Old Skier]

Why should he, I or others be limited if everyone is playing by the rules?

But it appears that some feel the rules are daft and should be changed.

 

[bobmac]

1) The caddie didn't need to step on the sand.
2) The Rules have to be the same for competitions without spectators

1. How does the caddie ''removes a few leaves and twigs from the bunker without affect the lie'' without stepping on the sand, have you got Peter Pan on the bag?
2. I've never seen a tour event that doesn't have spectators.

That is the problem with suggesting rules should be changed. The proposers often forget all the possible circumstances that have to be considered.

The point I was trying to make is that the committee is able to use it's discretion (see post no.70) as it did with Tiger's drop at the Masters, even though he broke the rule because he didn't know the rule. Not knowing the rule is worse than knowing the rule but not knowing it had been broken. Yet, Tiger was let off and Molinari was DQ'd.

Colin

The wording of 33-7/4.5 just cannot support that. You would need something quite different.

That is a matter of opinion and is at the discretion of the committee.

I'll try one last question......
What did Molinari's DQ achieve that a 2 shot penalty couldn't?

 

[Old Skier]

I'll try one last question......
What did Molinari's DQ achieve that a 2 shot penalty couldn't?

16 page thread and counting

 

[rulefan]

1. How does the caddie ''removes a few leaves and twigs from the bunker without affect the lie'' without stepping on the sand, have you got Peter Pan on the bag?

By simply leaning over the edge and picking up leaves he can reach with his hand or a rake

2. I've never seen a tour event that doesn't have spectators.

So there are different rules for tour and non tour players?

The point I was trying to make is that the committee is able to use it's discretion (see post no.70) as it did with Tiger's drop at the Masters, even though he broke the rule because he didn't know the rule. Not knowing the rule is worse than knowing the rule but not knowing it had been broken. Yet, Tiger was let off and Molinari was DQ'd.

You have completely misrepresented or misunderstood the Woods case. The committee made a bad mistake prior to Woods returning his card.

 

[Slab]

I think its completely mad he got DQ'd... but it was not only absolutely right to DQ him but the only thing they could do (based on the rules as they currently exist)

 

[bobmac]

You have completely misrepresented or misunderstood the Woods case. The committee made a bad mistake prior to Woods returning his card.

Am I correct in saying the on-course official in conjuction with the committee used their discretion and decided the drop was 'close enough', despite it being 6 ft away?

 

[drdel]

There was obviously a breach of the regs but the penalty was not, IMO, proportionate.

What I find of interest is that someone allowed the caddie onto the buggy; presumably since the driver was authorised to be driving on the course it was either an official, TV crew or other knowledgeable person that aided the transgression !!

 

[Colin L]

The point I was trying to make is that the committee is able to use it's discretion (see post no.70) as it did with Tiger's drop at the Masters, even though he broke the rule because he didn't know the rule. Not knowing the rule is worse than knowing the rule but not knowing it had been broken. Yet, Tiger was let off and Molinari was DQ'd. (1)

Colin
That is a matter of opinion and is at the discretion of the committee. (2)

I'll try one last question......
What did Molinari's DQ achieve that a 2 shot penalty couldn't? (3)

1. The situation regarding Woods dropping in a wrong place was quite specifically a matter of Committee error, but rulefan has already pointed that out.

2. Waiving a disqualification is of course at the discretion of the Committee but has to be done according to the rules. D33--7/4.5 first of all states that DQ should not generally be waived for a 6-6d breach. What is there in the Molinari incident that makes it other than a "general" situation? Additionally, we are told that in order to waive a DQ the Committee has to be satisfied that the player could not reasonably have discovered the facts leading to the breach. Molinari's caddie's action in travelling on the cart was observable; there was nothing preventing Molinari finding out from his caddie; and there was nothing to prevent his caddie telling him. In short, the words in the Decision do not permit a waiving of the DQ.

3. The DQ achieved parity with every other player who has been disqualified for a breach of 6-6d and with every player who will unfortunately cop a DQ in the future.

 

[bobmac]

1. The situation regarding Woods dropping in a wrong place was quite specifically a matter of Committee error, but rulefan has already pointed that out.

2. Waiving a disqualification is of course at the discretion of the Committee but has to be done according to the rules. D33--7/4.5 first of all states that DQ should not generally be waived for a 6-6d breach. What is there in the Molinari incident that makes it other than a "general" situation? Additionally, we are told that in order to waive a DQ the Committee has to be satisfied that the player could not reasonably have discovered the facts leading to the breach. Molinari's caddie's action in travelling on the cart was observable; there was nothing preventing Molinari finding out from his caddie; and there was nothing to prevent his caddie telling him. In short, the words in the Decision do not permit a waiving of the DQ.

3. The DQ achieved parity with every other player who has been disqualified for a breach of 6-6d and with every player who will unfortunately cop a DQ in the future.

I have read the rules thank you, so dont need them quoting for the umpteenth time.

I'm not going to repeat myself, I've said what I think and as it appears I'm banging my head against several brick walls, Ill call it a day. I'll leave it up to you who has the last word.

 

[delc]

1. The situation regarding Woods dropping in a wrong place was quite specifically a matter of Committee error, but rulefan has already pointed that out.

2. Waiving a disqualification is of course at the discretion of the Committee but has to be done according to the rules. D33--7/4.5 first of all states that DQ should not generally be waived for a 6-6d breach. What is there in the Molinari incident that makes it other than a "general" situation? Additionally, we are told that in order to waive a DQ the Committee has to be satisfied that the player could not reasonably have discovered the facts leading to the breach. Molinari's caddie's action in travelling on the cart was observable; there was nothing preventing Molinari finding out from his caddie; and there was nothing to prevent his caddie telling him. In short, the words in the Decision do not permit a waiving of the DQ.

3. The DQ achieved parity with every other player who has been disqualified for a breach of 6-6d and with every player who will unfortunately cop a DQ in the future.

Molinari's caddie broke a condition of competition, not a rule of golf. In the general rules of golf there is nothing to prevent a player or his caddie from riding on a buggy.