Penalty for Lowry

[Lord Tyrion]

Not sure where this has come from, I'm a Patrick Reed fan more than Lowry
It doesn't matter who it was for me, it's just how the ruling has been given.

Everyone likes to put the boot into Patrick so that was an easy one to think of. I'm with you, I like watching him play. I just think some of the outcry, Lowry isn't going on about it still so not his fault, is because is Lowry is largely likeable.

 

[Steven Rules]

Just out of interest, if Lowry had signed his card 20 mins after completing his round and before the infringement came to light, would he have been DQ'd for breaking a rule he didn't know he had broken?

No. Exception to 3.3b(3).

If one or more of the player’s hole scores are lower than the actual scores because they excluded one or more penalty strokes that the player did not know about before returning the scorecard:

• The player is not disqualified.
• Instead, if the mistake is found before the close of the competition, the Committee will revise the player’s score for that hole or holes by adding the penalty stroke(s) that should have been included in the score for that hole or holes under the Rules.

 

[bobmac]

You are sounding sillier and sillier. It's sport, that's all. A rule was broken. Get the rule changed but as long as it is there, it has to be enforced.

I agree, I'm just suggesting that a less severe punishment could be applied in the future if like rule 13.1d the rule is changed

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Just out of interest, if Lowry had signed his card 20 mins after completing his round and before the infringement came to light, would he have been DQ'd for breaking a rule he didn't know he had broken?

No he wouldn’t have been DQ

The referees use their discretion, just like a policeman at 03:00

Does a policeman have to take into consideration the rest of the field ?

A referee does

The rule break was clear

The ball moved

Only issue I have is the use of the telly pictures but the penalty to Lowry was correct

 

[bobmac]

No. Exception to 3.3b(3).

If one or more of the player’s hole scores are lower than the actual scores because they excluded one or more penalty strokes that the player did not know about before returning the scorecard:

• The player is not disqualified.
• Instead, if the mistake is found before the close of the competition, the Committee will revise the player’s score for that hole or holes by adding the penalty stroke(s) that should have been included in the score for that hole or holes under the Rules.

Thank you, I wasn't sure.

 

[Colin L]

And yet a policeman/woman can?

Not in the matter of a ball having been accidentally moved and not replaced if he were refereeing a golf tournament. And that is a matter of fact which, if established, leads to a penalty. And it doesn't matter by how little or how far the ball moved. The rule itself and the application of it aren't and can't be open to any distinction between a ball nudged forward a centimetre and one accidentally walloped 50 metres by a practice swing. Why not? Try wording a rule that did allow for that and you'll find out why

 

[bobmac]

Everyone likes to put the boot into Patrick so that was an easy one to think of. I'm with you, I like watching him play. I just think some of the outcry, Lowry isn't going on about it still so not his fault, is because is Lowry is largely likeable.

I think the Patrick Reed incident is a perfect example of the differences in how penalties are handed out.
Patrick Reed clearly improved his lie in a bunker/waste ground twice, therefor gaining an advantage.
Penalty all day.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

I think the Patrick Reed incident is a perfect example of the differences in how penalties are handed out.
Patrick Reed clearly improved his lie in a bunker/waste ground twice, therefor gaining an advantage.
Penalty all day.

Yes and the view from many is that TV replays shouldn't be used unless available for all , so you'd end up having to allow pat reed to get away this.

 

[bobmac]

Not in the matter of a ball having been accidentally moved and not replaced if he were refereeing a golf tournament.

The point is the policeman has discretion over the laws of the land/road but a golf rules official in a game cant use his/her experience/discretion in a game of golf.
I would bet many referees/rules officials would expect leniency from the police for driving at 3mph over the speed limit but wouldn't do the same at ''work''

Yes and the view from many is that TV replays shouldn't be used unless available for all , so you'd end up having to allow pat reed to get away this.

The intention to improve his lie is clear, why else would he have his club so low at address. And it was no accident as he did it twice

 

[Deleted member 35927]

The point is the policeman has discretion over the laws of the land/road but a golf rules official in a game cant use his/her experience/discretion in a game of golf.
I would bet many referees/rules officials would expect leniency from the police for driving at 3mph over the speed limit but wouldn't do the same at ''work''


The intention to improve his lie is clear, why else would he have his club so low at address. And it was no accident as he did it twice

I agree , the point being if we dont allow TV replays as evidence, which several in the thread are advocating, then youd have allow cheating .

 

[BrianM]

I agree , the point being if we dont allow TV replays as evidence, which several in the thread are advocating, then youd have allow cheating .

TV evidence is fine, as long as it is the same for every single player, otherwise it's not an even playing field.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

How would you reconcile that with someone blatantly cheating and the only evidence being TV footage ?

TV evidence is fine, as long as it is the same for every single player, otherwise it's not an even playing field.

 

[BrianM]

How would you reconcile that with someone blatantly cheating and the only evidence being TV footage ?

How would you?
Do you not think everyone should be playing under the same rules or should it just be some but not others?

 

[Deleted member 35927]

How would you?
Do you not think everyone should be playing under the same rules or should it just be some but not others?

I'm happy with how things are, so not a problem. If TV is there use it, you know they also use it to help players too not just penalise.
Everyone is playing under the same rules. That I saw something relayed via a TV screen Vs being there makes no odds.

 

[Swango1980]

Personally, I'm in the camp that says if an advantage isn't gained, crack on. However, that is not the rule.

In terms of cameras being on certain players and not others, that's just how it is. The penalty of being a top player, not a player making up the numbers, apologies to the guy quoted but you get my drift. All the players know this, it goes with the territory.

Although I see what you're saying, I think I would hate to see a time where that type of subjectivity comes into it.

The moment a referee is able to say to Shane Lowry "I don't think there was an advantage, crack on" you'll get another golfer somewhere saying "that is a disgrace, they penalised me in the past for exactly the same thing". Or you'll get fans saying his lie was better, because one more dimple was visible on the ball. And so on.

The camera often zooms into the golf balls of a player. It is rare a player is penalised for moving their ball, it isn't like we are having penalties dished out every week to the players the camera's are following. So, I don't think there is a big enough problem for the R&A to solve. Players just need to be careful when they place their club on loose ground around the ball, or avoid it entirely. Whether the ball moves a foot, or a millimeter, that is on the player for making that happen.

 

[clubchamp98]

At the end of the day it’s Lowerys own fault for having a practice swing so close to the ball.

TV evidence is used in most sport these days ,some like it some don’t.
The cameras probably wouldn’t be on Lowery so much normally but he’s in Ireland so they were!

 

[Deleted member 35927]

At the end of the day it’s Lowerys own fault for having a practice swing so close to the ball.

TV evidence is used in most sport these days ,some like it some don’t.
The cameras probably wouldn’t be on Lowery so much normally but he’s in Ireland so they were!

Exactly, move 10 feet away to a similar spot and take a practice there, only had himself to blame really.

 

[Swango1980]

TV evidence is fine, as long as it is the same for every single player, otherwise it's not an even playing field.

It is the same for every single player. If the camera sees movement for any players ball, the officials will act. It is not like the cameras were focusing in on every single one of Lowry's lies. But they happened to see this particular one. I'm sure the cameras looked in on many other players lies over the week, and those players managed to keep the ball still.

If you are a top player, or a player doing very well one week, you will inevitably gain more attention from the broadcasters. Dealing with that is part and parcel of being a professional athlete. Whether that be managing your behaviour a bit better, dealing with the pressure or trying even harder not to make rule infringements.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Although I see what you're saying, I think I would hate to see a time where that type of subjectivity comes into it.

The moment a referee is able to say to Shane Lowry "I don't think there was an advantage, crack on" you'll get another golfer somewhere saying "that is a disgrace, they penalised me in the past for exactly the same thing". Or you'll get fans saying his lie was better, because one more dimple was visible on the ball. And so on.

The camera often zooms into the golf balls of a player. It is rare a player is penalised for moving their ball, it isn't like we are having penalties dished out every week to the players the camera's are following. So, I don't think there is a big enough problem for the R&A to solve. Players just need to be careful when they place their club on loose ground around the ball, or avoid it entirely. Whether the ball moves a foot, or a millimeter, that is on the player for making that happen.

I think it would cause problems to referee which is why I replied on post #120 with the comments made. I'd like a subtle shift when making the rules, 'does this give the player gain an advantage'. If they don't, scrap the rule. If they do, the rule stays, or is amended, whatever. In this case, how far does the ball have to move before an advantage is gained? I believe the current rule is oscillating is fine, movement is not. That probably makes it black and white enough. 0.5cm seems harsh but how do you judge how far is far enough?

 

[Swango1980]

I think it would cause problems to referee which is why I replied on post #120 with the comments made. I'd like a subtle shift when making the rules, 'does this give the player gain an advantage'. If they don't, scrap the rule. If they do, the rule stays, or is amended, whatever. In this case, how far does the ball have to move before an advantage is gained? I believe the current rule is oscillating is fine, movement is not. That probably makes it black and white enough. 0.5cm seems harsh but how do you judge how far is far enough?

With golf, sometimes the ball only needs to move a very small amount to gain a huge advantage. And, if a minimum amount of movement was allowed for in the rules, good luck to the referees in trying to measure that movement to see if it was within the tolerance set within the rules