Sergio DQ'd

[Lord Tyrion]

Does he?
Has he done other interviews where he has upset someone?

Would he have said it if it was a fellow Ryder cup player?

I don’t know because I don’t watch interviews that much,just asking the question

He also had a go at de Chambeau for slow play. He wasn't looking for trouble, merely answering questions put to him honestly.

 

[Pin-seeker]

He also had a go at de Chambeau for slow play. He wasn't looking for trouble, merely answering questions put to him honestly.

That’s the one.
There you go PJ 😁

 

[Rlburnside]

Just sent my email it will be interesting to hear the official )excuse) reason
Cheers Phil.

Good on you...... will be interested to hear their response if they reply.

 

[Slab]

Why don’t you instead of ranting about it on here send some correspondence to the ET themselves, obviously don’t forget to mention an unrelated incident that happened 6 years ago when someone was breaking rules of golf

http://www.europeantour.com/aboutus/privacy/index.html

Their email is down the bottom of that page

• Sergio was DQ'd for Serious misconduct - no further action taken despite the deliberate and premeditated act of damaging several greens (I think everyone would give him the benefit of the doubt that damaging the first green was deliberate but not premeditated, however each green after the first was deliberate and premeditated)
• Dyson was actually DQ'd for handing in an incorrect scorecard - additional ET disciplinary (fine & suspension) for serious breach of the code of behaviour for the deliberate but not premeditated rules breach of tapping down a single spike mark while not counting the penalty for that on the scorecard

The ET can no longer hand out a fine or suspension for a breach of conduct issue (serious or otherwise) due to their mishandling of Sergio's case

The obvious reason for referencing a six yr old case is that serious breaches like these two are thankfully rare and that's pretty much the last serious one the tour had to deal with



The weird thing is that really couldn't be predicted, was that Dysons act would be completely reversed by the rules of golf just 6 years later (which in no way makes him less guilty) but is interesting nonetheless, we can only hope (while some say it pales compared to Dyson) that the tour doesn't treat Sergio's behaviour the same way and adopts it as acceptable conduct 6 years from now (although the first step in doing just that is to not apply any penalty by the ET for his actions)

 

[Deleted member 15344]

• Sergio was DQ'd for Serious misconduct - no further action taken despite the deliberate and premeditated act of damaging several greens (I think everyone would give him the benefit of the doubt that damaging the first green was deliberate but not premeditated, however each green after the first was deliberate and premeditated)
• Dyson was actually DQ'd for handing in an incorrect scorecard - additional ET disciplinary (fine & suspension) for serious breach of the code of behaviour for the deliberate but not premeditated rules breach of tapping down a single spike mark while not counting the penalty for that on the scorecard

The ET can no longer hand out a fine or suspension for a breach of conduct issue (serious or otherwise) due to their mishandling of Sergio's case

The obvious reason for referencing a six yr old case is that serious breaches like these two are thankfully rare and that's pretty much the last serious one the tour had to deal with



The weird thing is that really couldn't be predicted, was that Dysons act would be completely reversed by the rules of golf just 6 years later (which in no way makes him less guilty) but is interesting nonetheless, we can only hope (while some say it pales compared to Dyson) that the tour doesn't treat Sergio's behaviour the same way and adopts it as acceptable conduct 6 years from now (although the first step in doing just that is to not apply any penalty by the ET for his actions)

I would expect any governing body to judge each case on its own merit dependant on the actions of the player - it’s quite ridiculous to suggest they now can’t do anything because of how they dealt with the Garcia incident -

Why would the ET consider what Garcia did as acceptable- he would found to have broken a rule and he was DQ for it

Just also for info - have it on good authority that Garcia was also given a very strict warning and also words about RC captaincy in the future in regards his conduct over the 3 days

 

[Slab]

I would expect any governing body to judge each case on its own merit dependant on the actions of the player - it’s quite ridiculous to suggest they now can’t do anything because of how they dealt with the Garcia incident -

Why would the ET consider what Garcia did as acceptable- he would found to have broken a rule and he was DQ for it

Just also for info - have it on good authority that Garcia was also given a very strict warning and also words about RC captaincy in the future in regards his conduct over the 3 days

Wont ask you to expand or provide evidence for obvious reasons but I very much hope that's true

 

[Orikoru]

I would expect any governing body to judge each case on its own merit dependant on the actions of the player - it’s quite ridiculous to suggest they now can’t do anything because of how they dealt with the Garcia incident -

Why would the ET consider what Garcia did as acceptable- he would found to have broken a rule and he was DQ for it

Just also for info - have it on good authority that Garcia was also given a very strict warning and also words about RC captaincy in the future in regards his conduct over the 3 days

I don't think it's ridiculous. What he means is they've made a rod for their own back and their hands would be tied. Say if another 'lesser' name commits some other act of wilful damage, and they do ban that player, there will be outrage about the double standard.

I notice you still haven't answered whether you'd be happy for someone who deliberately damaged 5 of your greens to get a simple DQ and be back on the course the following week. But I think I know the answer - none of us would.

 

[duncan mackie]

• Sergio was DQ'd for Serious misconduct - no further action taken despite the deliberate and premeditated act of damaging several greens (I think everyone would give him the benefit of the doubt that damaging the first green was deliberate but not premeditated, however each green after the first was deliberate and premeditated)
• Dyson was actually DQ'd for handing in an incorrect scorecard - additional ET disciplinary (fine & suspension) for serious breach of the code of behaviour for the deliberate but not premeditated rules breach of tapping down a single spike mark while not counting the penalty for that on the scorecard

The ET can no longer hand out a fine or suspension for a breach of conduct issue (serious or otherwise) due to their mishandling of Sergio's case

I think you are fundamentally confusing rules and codes of conduct in a manner that's misleading.

In the context of rule 1.2 the committee can only dq the player for serious misconduct, not simply misconduct.

Whilst a (any) breach of specific code of conduct regulations may carry a DQ penalty, they are more usually associated with penalties outside the event itself related to membership of a group, or participation in events organised by the group. Any wordings used will relate to the wording of the specific code.

the only precedent the ET have set would be for a player doing exactly what Sergio did and, although arguably even that within a limited timeframe because of the external dynamics that your post goes on to reference.

 

[Slab]

I think you are fundamentally confusing rules and codes of conduct in a manner that's misleading.

In the context of rule 1.2 the committee can only dq the player for serious misconduct, not simply misconduct.

Whilst a (any) breach of specific code of conduct regulations may carry a DQ penalty, they are more usually associated with penalties outside the event itself related to membership of a group, or participation in events organised by the group. Any wordings used will relate to the wording of the specific code.

the only precedent the ET have set would be for a player doing exactly what Sergio did and, although arguably even that within a limited timeframe because of the external dynamics that your post goes on to reference.

I thought I'd got it;
The European tour acknowledges that Garcia's actions were in breach of Rule 1.2a and they have the authority to DQ him for it under the Rules of Golf. However the european tour do not think that a serious misconduct breach of rule 1.2a (with the actions as carried out by Garcia: causing unnecessary damage to the course) warrants any further action as a serious breach of the Tours code of behaviour?

If so how can any other player reasonably (& in equity) be fined or suspended for causing unnecessary damage to the course?

 

[duncan mackie]

I thought I'd got it;
The European tour acknowledges that Garcia's actions were in breach of Rule 1.2a and they have the authority to DQ him for it under the Rules of Golf. However the european tour do not think that a serious misconduct breach of rule 1.2a (with the actions as carried out by Garcia: causing unnecessary damage to the course) warrants any further action as a serious breach of the Tours code of behaviour?

If so how can any other player reasonably (& in equity) be fined or suspended for causing unnecessary similar damage to the course?

At which refined statement I think you and I are in agreement. With the slight change I have made above we would be in complete agreement.
Quite some way from the conclusion you put forward above.

 

[Slab]

At which refined statement I think you and I are in agreement. With the slight change I have made above we would be in complete agreement.
Quite some way from the conclusion you put forward above.

I am fortunate I don't have to write the rules (Garcia should still get a suspended ban though)

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I don't think it's ridiculous. What he means is they've made a rod for their own back and their hands would be tied. Say if another 'lesser' name commits some other act of wilful damage, and they do ban that player, there will be outrage about the double standard.

I notice you still haven't answered whether you'd be happy for someone who deliberately damaged 5 of your greens to get a simple DQ and be back on the course the following week. But I think I know the answer - none of us would.

Totally agree and should a lesser name do anything similar then I am sure the ET will deal with it far more harshly. I think the ET is another organisation that has a way of applying rules for the elite and another for the others. As for a strict warning and words about the RC captaincy, do you really think that'll make any difference. He has had a long history of petulant behaviour and I'm sure in the future he'll act before he thinks "will this affect the RC captaincy". I'm sure as leading points scorer he'd love to take his turn but do you really think that's a driving force

 

[Slab]

10 days to come out with his apology, must have done a lot of 'reflecting'




Hope he has a good week (for the sake of the players behind him)

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Fairly standard media apology https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/47221113

Said all the right things but you have to question how heartfelt it really was