Peter Whiteford DQ'd!

[Matty]

More here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/golf/17088739

He felt that the ball had moved, asked his caddy, cameraman and also playing partner all of whom said it had not moved so he played on.

His mistake was not asking for a replay of the footage in the scoring tent after he'd finished his round. He can't really replace the ball on the course if all round him are telling him it hasn't moved.

Just imagine how this would have turned out at your course without the benefit to TV footage - no DQ.

I feel for the guy - very unlucky I think but he seems to be taking it pretty well considering!

 

[MashieNiblick]

He did enough, he asked all those around him including a camera man. The rule isn't wrong, just the way it's applied.

Problem is it seems they were wrong and the ball did move. That is a matter of fact which the opinion of people in the crowd can't change. He should have checked with the referee at the time or asked for video to be checked before he signed. A professional sportsman should know the difference in status between the opinion of the spectators and the opinion of the ref.

How would you propose the application of the Rules is changed? Should there be a cut off point, so that for a certain time after the round closes the card can be altered by the committee, unless it's a blatant attempt to cheat. Maybe have some kind of an appeals/review panel? I think they could make that work.

It doesn't happen very often but it is always a shame when it does and the player is clearly not trying to cheat. Can make a big difference to a pro in the lower reaches of the money list at the end of the day.

 

[fundy]

lot mof fellow pros bemoaning the rules on twitter after whitefords DQ'ing

 

[jammag]

The thing is with golf the rules are designed to be self governed in a lot of instances. I like sports where you can watch the same rules in place as you can play yourself. If as has been said before this happened in your monthly medal then you would have decided in your own group and you couldnt go to the end of the round and say I will review that on tv. If all around him said the ball didnt move and I assume he must of had some officials watching him play? If its blatant cheating then I have no problem in disqualifying him but as he asked about then it is a bit harsh on him. If it was agreed on the spot and he has not gained or knowingly deceived someone then I believe it should of been left at that.

 

[JustOne]

He can't really replace the ball on the course if all round him are telling him it hasn't moved.

Just imagine how this would have turned out at your course without the benefit to TV footage - no DQ.

Is the right answer, so that's why they should be able to apply the penalty afterwards without DQ. It's a new technology so it needs a new rule.



Shame if the best player doesn't win. Whoever does win should feel like it's a hollow victory.. I'm sure they won't, but they should.

 

[JustOne]

How would you propose the application of the Rules is changed? Should there be a cut off point, so that for a certain time after the round closes the card can be altered by the committee, unless it's a blatant attempt to cheat. Maybe have some kind of an appeals/review panel? I think they could make that work. .

I agree, he should be able to appeal, the panel could just have a 2 shot penalty added (as he didn't replace the ball) or they could even apply just a single shot penalty seeing as he DID ask all those around him and clearly would have replaced the ball if prompted to do so. Either way a blanket DQ is simply the wrong way in these instances.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

I agree, he should be able to appeal, the panel could just have a 2 shot penalty added (as he didn't replace the ball) or they could even apply just a single shot penalty seeing as he DID ask all those around him and clearly would have replaced the ball if prompted to do so. Either way a blanket DQ is simply the wrong way in these instances.

I find myself agreeing with james here

Ill just go and lie down

Fragger

 

[JustOne]

I find myself agreeing with james here

Ill just go and lie down

Morphine will help you get over it, don't do it again!! :thup:

 

[bluewolf]

Whilst I'm not going to totally disagree with the penalty, i'm struggling to understand a ruling which treats a player who makes an innocent mistake the same as a player who knowingly breaks the rule. If they're going to use TV to assess the incident, then they could use TV to assess the reaction of the player to the incident.

 

[Ethan]

I agree, he should be able to appeal, the panel could just have a 2 shot penalty added (as he didn't replace the ball) or they could even apply just a single shot penalty seeing as he DID ask all those around him and clearly would have replaced the ball if prompted to do so. Either way a blanket DQ is simply the wrong way in these instances.

The Committee has no discretion to apply a 2 shot penalty in lieu of DQ.

The Rule could be changed so that good faith agreement between the player and his playing partners (and/or local officials) negates any subsequent video review. If that happened here, then effectively the ball did not move at all and no penalty would be applied.

 

[MashieNiblick]

Seems like times have changed since the easy going days of the 50's. From the R&A website:

(Bobby) Locke returned to winning ways at St Andrews in 1957, the first year that the leaders went out last after the half-way cut. Locke repeated his record score of 279 to defeat Thomson by three shots. But there was controversy at the end. Locke had moved his ball two putter-head lengths away from the line of playing partner Bruce Crampton on the final green and had failed to replace it in the correct spot before holing out for the title. The error was spotted later on news film coverage of the event, but a meeting of The R&A Championship Committee decided that Locke had gained no advantage and that the result would stand. Peter Thomson, who had won the three previous Opens and went on to take the next, would have won five in a row if Locke had been disqualified. “I don’t know what I would have done,” Thomson said later, “but I wouldn’t have wanted to win the Championship like that.”
​

 

[Tommo21]

Rule or not, if he askes all around if it moved and they say no, how is a rule man, who didnt see it, going to rule on it unless he can call for a reply there and then. Why would he even think of asking when he came in if all around said no.

If they cant call a replay there and then...........the player should not have been DQ IMO.

 

[Achilles]

Really do feel for Peter Whiteford - haven't seen it myself but from reading what's happened it seems a little harsh in my eyes. The fact that he asked those around him if his ball had moved before proceeding shows his integrity. I can only assume that once he'd played his shot, that was case closed for him. Something needs to be done to stop this trial by television malarky. It's making the game look a bit farcical is it not? It certainly doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Ethan]

Seems like times have changed since the easy going days of the 50's. From the R&A website:

(Bobby) Locke returned to winning ways at St Andrews in 1957, the first year that the leaders went out last after the half-way cut. Locke repeated his record score of 279 to defeat Thomson by three shots. But there was controversy at the end. Locke had moved his ball two putter-head lengths away from the line of playing partner Bruce Crampton on the final green and had failed to replace it in the correct spot before holing out for the title. The error was spotted later on news film coverage of the event, but a meeting of The R&A Championship Committee decided that Locke had gained no advantage and that the result would stand. Peter Thomson, who had won the three previous Opens and went on to take the next, would have won five in a row if Locke had been disqualified. “I don’t know what I would have done,” Thomson said later, “but I wouldn’t have wanted to win the Championship like that.”
​

But there was an important difference. The Locke issue was only spotted after the event had been concluded, and the Claret Jug awarded. The 2012 version of the Rules of Golf (34-1) basically says that once a competition has closed, no further penalties can be applied except in limited specific circumstances, which would not apply to Locke were he to do the same thing today.

 

[Imurg]

If Whiteford had any reason to think that the ball "may" have moved - which he obviously did as he asked others if it had - he should have simply called a Rules Official and explained the situation.
The Rules Official would have made a ruling based on what he's told and Whiteford either gets a penalty and plays on or plays on without one.
They call in a Rules Official to supervise a free drop to make sure they get it right for crying out loud - that's why it takes a day to get round.
If he'd called one over, whatever ruling gets made, he plays on.
But once he's signed his card - that's it. Game over. He's signed for a lower score.

Just by asking others if the ball moved means he must have had a reason to think it might have - surely that is enough to make him think that a Ref needs to come in?

Harsh, silly ? - Both, but them's the rules.......

 

[Hobbit]

Rule or not, if he askes all around if it moved and they say no, how is a rule man, who didnt see it, going to rule on it unless he can call for a reply there and then. Why would he even think of asking when he came in if all around said no.

If they cant call a replay there and then...........the player should not have been DQ IMO.

By doing what Siem did. Call the rules official over. The rule official in Siem's case asked the cameraman to get them to replay it back in the production unit and let him know the outcome. It took less than a minute, job jobbed and no DQ.

 

[duncan mackie]

The Committee has no discretion to apply a 2 shot penalty in lieu of DQ.

The Rule could be changed so that good faith agreement between the player and his playing partners (and/or local officials) negates any subsequent video review. If that happened here, then effectively the ball did not move at all and no penalty would be applied.

Actually I beleive that they do now, well they can waive the DQ and leave the actually penalty... you might wish to read decision 33-7/4.5

This was introduced (last year?) specifically to deal with situations where the player has incurred a penalty which he was not aware of (through not knowing it happened rather than not knowing it was a penalty).

However, it is a requirement that the player was neither aware, nor could reasonably have discovered, what occured. Based purely on what's been recounted on this thread this was not the case here.

Had his ball moved a couple of mm when he wasn't looking and subsequently someone rang in to point it out after he had returned his card the situation would have been different.

As others have highlighted, the safe course of action would have been to involve a referee before making the putt.

 

[Bobmysterkaymer]

The WHOLE problem with this rule of 'trial by tv' is that the 'club' golfer can and never be DQ'd by this but the pro can. Surely the rules are for EVERYONE so how can they be implemented at club level. No consistency should mean the rules should change so it's for everyone!

 

[Junior]

The powers that be have to do something about this rule. Trial by people calling in from what they see on tv is simply is not fair.

For me , at the time it happened , he should have called for an official.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

I'm with Imurg, he should have called the ref and let him make the decision, that's what the ref is there for. It is harsh to be DQ'd for it I agree but it is his responsibility for his ball, no-one else's.