Simon Dyson hearing
- Thread starter shivas irons
- Start date
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Diplomatically put..
:thup:
Don't want to upset the masses and enhance the hate figure image
Pro Zach
Assistant Pro
If you know what the golfer said I presume you where on the disciplinary panel. So you should know why he was fined and the others weren't.
If you weren't on the panel then you can't know what he said. You now believe the golfer even though you don't know what he said.
I can't argue against that.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Dyson said when the incident happened that he didn't realise what he did. That was common knowledge in the media.
And I believe in the integrity and trust of the game of golf and the players that play it. That's why I believe that Dyson, Woods , McIlroy etc didnt actually cheat when they broke the rules.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Now here's I believe you have mis-interpreted the 'ruling'.
Yes the act was deliberate. Yes the act broke a Rule. Yes he was, ore should have been, aware that it was a breach of the Rules.
But....
Was it 'A conscious act done to deliberately break the Rule' No I don't believe so. And it would seem neither does the Tribunal, otherwise the ban would not have been a 2 month suspended one - it would have been a 3 month actual one (the maximum allowed in their rules), consistent with Elliot Saltman's.
Pro Zach
Assistant Pro
I think any reasonable person would think the same. As only one of them was punished, the disciplinary panel made an unreasonable judgement, or they had more information than us. I favour the latter.
Pro Zach
Assistant Pro
By definition it is not possible to have a non-conscious deliberate act. The only way I can see it being reasonable to conclude that he deliberately touched the line for the purpose of improving his position is if he held his hands up and admitted it. This might also explain the lenient sentence.
Foxholer
Blackballed
I favour the 'or the circumstances were different' reason.
I confess! It was me that shot JFK. He was about to release details of where I'd hidden Hitler and my plans for an air attack on New York and the Pentagon!
You are simply conspiratorially (mis)interpreting Paragraph 3 of the Decision Summary imo!
Foxholer
Blackballed
I believe - and have posted so previously in this thread - that the 'deliberate' reference in Para 3 is to differentiate it from an accidental one. Clause C gave me more concern about the Panel's view until I read Para 4, looked at the structure of the document - and how it relates to Legal Proceedings/Court of Law - so it was merely stating a fact.
Para 1. Elongated Title
Para 2. The Reason for the proceedings
Para 3. The Facts/Evidence
Para 4. The Verdict
Para 5. The Sentence
As usual, folk are likely to interpret a document with words and potential contradictions.
Btw. And unrelated to the reason for/outcome of the hearing or my interpretation of the result.
This rule would be first on my list of Rules to change - I'd add 'or spike Marks, without undue delay' to the list of things that could be repaired.
Dave3498
Q-School Graduate
Dyson was hauled over the coals because he signed for an incorrect score at the end of the round, Rory didn't
HawkeyeMS
Ryder Cup Winner
No he wasn't, he was hauled over the coals for a breach of the disciplinary code, not for signing and incorrect score. What he did and what McIlroy did are in essence identical apart from the timescale of someone pointing out the mistake
Dave3498
Q-School Graduate
I hope you club competitions secretary doesn't see this!!
Dave3498
Q-School Graduate
You're quite wrong. Dyson would not have been before a disciplinary committee if he had penalised himself and not signed for an incorrect score.
HawkeyeMS
Ryder Cup Winner
Show me where it says that, and while you're at it, show me where it says he was disciplined for signing an incorrect score?
Foxholer
Blackballed
I think the ruling makes it pretty clear what the ET believe - "... acted deliberately with full knowledge." They then give themselves an out, if Dyson decides to contest their wording, by saying "momentary abberation." I think the ruling is superbly worded.
There is a danger in blindly believing people that you then put the integrity of the game at risk. Do you know what was going through the heads of Woods, McIlroy and Dyson when they breached the rules? No you don't. Best leave beliefs out of rulings and apply the rules objectively.
Deliberate act = cheating.
Foxholer
Blackballed
I interpret it slightly differently
Deliberate act = He intended to do it.
'He intended to do it to cheat' is a Subset of the above.
virtuocity
Tour Winner
Hoping for MikeH to put his opinions forward in his next editorial.
Dave3498
Q-School Graduate
Dyson was disqualified from the competition for signing for an incorrect score. I respect what you say about the disciplinary code but I think that only came into question because of his disqualification. If he had penalised himself before he signed his card, he would not have had been called into question. You may know more than I about previous incidents and maybe the committee would have called him for these. If that's the case, then I agree with you.
So........I aint read the thread since yesterday but I take it we have agreed Dyson is a cheat aye?
