simon dyson

It seems other players have mentioned things...the tour would only have a hearing if there was some meat to their concerns.

Why not raised at the time though? This sort of thing rips my knitting. If players have seen something, raise at the time, not x months later to add fuel to a fire!
 
It seems other players have mentioned things...the tour would only have a hearing if there was some meat to their concerns.

Which players ? Again I'm sure there is evidence of these other players or are you listening to Internet rumours.
 
Read the quote I said IF they let him off.A 2 stroke penalty obvious isnt enough and I dont think that should be he's only penalty.As for Woods well if you the best player ever you gets away with everything dont you, they are litterally afraid of him, its wrong but its a fact.

He was and will not be let off anything. He didn't get a 2 stroke penalty. He got a DQ for failing to apply the 2 stroke penalty and lost out on any earnings in a comp with a $7million dollar purse paying out over a million dollars to 1st place. It has also severely damaged his chances in the Race to Dubai and this will result in further impact to his earning potential. How is that not punishment enough? What would you like to see? Castration?

As for Tiger the only time I can think of him truly getting away with it was the questionable decision at the Masters where Rule 33-7 was applied. This set an awkward precedence, after all it was reported by a viewer and his actions warranted the same penalty as Dyson so why couldn't the committee for the BMW have applied 33-7 to Dyson? Still though, he didn't get away with anything and no rule has ever been ignored for him that I've seen. Bent to breaking point maybe but never broken.
 
Yes; what a good idea.

Professional golfers showing the same disregard for rules as, say, professional footballers.

I can hardly wait!

Yawn, look at other sports which are plagued by doping. Now look at golf whereby the biggest talking point is a golfer absent mindedly (supposedly) tapping down a mark . But I'm sure calling Dyson in front of a panel will make some privileged gentlemen feel very powerful indeed, which unfortunately is what a lot of this game is about.
 
Yawn, look at other sports which are plagued by doping. Now look at golf whereby the biggest talking point is a golfer absent mindedly (supposedly) tapping down a mark . But I'm sure calling Dyson in front of a panel will make some privileged gentlemen feel very powerful indeed, which unfortunately is what a lot of this game is about.

The privileged gentlemen you talk about are past and current pro's. Hardly a bunch of lardy-dah toffs your inverted snobbery suggests.

The findings of the panel can also act as a protection for Dyson. If the panel accepts Dyson's explanation, that's an end to the sort of speculation that's been in the media. It becomes yesterday's news.
 
The privileged gentlemen you talk about are past and current pro's. Hardly a bunch of lardy-dah toffs your inverted snobbery suggests.

The findings of the panel can also act as a protection for Dyson. If the panel accepts Dyson's explanation, that's an end to the sort of speculation that's been in the media. It becomes yesterday's news.

Problem I have this and I appreciate the different regulatory rules is that there appears to be one rule for Dyson and another for Tiger Woods whose cheating in a major seemed much more apparent.
 
Problem I have this and I appreciate the different regulatory rules is that there appears to be one rule for Dyson and another for Tiger Woods whose cheating in a major seemed much more apparent.

For me it's all about intent. If sd really did this inadvertently and didn't realise until it was pointed out to him later then the DQ is the right decision and should be the end of the matter. However if he was deliberately cheating, further punishment is appropriate or golf will become like football where cheating is expected and tolerated, to an extent.

At the masters, tiger's transgression only came to light due to his own comments in an interview. I am entirely convinced, therefore, he did that inadvertently. (Less so dubious rulings at other events this year). Still should have got a DQ though!
 
I read what's reported as the email thread from a 2012 Dyson query where the same/similar potential breach was queried and found no case to answer on that occasion so I don't think 'previous' will come into it

I'm not comfortable that the due process takes a breach of one rule (which due to timing) can only lead to a DQ under another rule then to a review panel under a tour rule for a review of the original action/breach which isn't why he was DQ'd in the first place!
 
Yawn, look at other sports which are plagued by doping. Now look at golf whereby the biggest talking point is a golfer absent mindedly (supposedly) tapping down a mark . But I'm sure calling Dyson in front of a panel will make some privileged gentlemen feel very powerful indeed, which unfortunately is what a lot of this game is about.

The only yawn round here is from those of us that have heard those sentiments before:-
" Oh he only........."

What you all fail to answer is ; at what stage are the rules applied and how far are you allowed to break them!
 
The only yawn round here is from those of us that have heard those sentiments before:-
" Oh he only........."

What you all fail to answer is ; at what stage are the rules applied and how far are you allowed to break them!

Depends how often you are shown on TV apparently.
 
Depends how often you are shown on TV apparently.

I appreciate your point but if the rules are broken then penalties have to be applied, whether the offence was televised or not.

After all the history of the game is, thankfully, littered with instances where players have called a penalty upon themselves despite the incident not being seen by anyone else.

Long may that continue!
 
I appreciate your point but if the rules are broken then penalties have to be applied, whether the offence was televised or not.

After all the history of the game is, thankfully, littered with instances where players have called a penalty upon themselves despite the incident not being seen by anyone else.

Long may that continue!

Agree that the rules infringement should be punished, though the problem with viewers being able to call in infractions is inconsistency across the field. Is there not a rules official with every group that should have seen this infraction?
 
Agree that the rules infringement should be punished, though the problem with viewers being able to call in infractions is inconsistency across the field. Is there not a rules official with every group that should have seen this infraction?

No, there isn't. It is down to the player to know the rules (that's also in the rules) and apply them. That's why most of the rules are very black and white; if you break the rule you get a penalty. Gaining an advantage or not is relevant, which would lead to all sorts of inconsistencies.
 
I appreciate your point but if the rules are broken then penalties have to be applied, whether the offence was televised or not.

But the problem is that the rules are not and cannot be used consistently. If you go out in one of the early groups the chances are that you will have finished your round and handed in your scorecard by the time Sky starts their broadcast. If they show highlights of your round and a viewer spots something then you will be DQ'd for signing for an incorrect score. If you are on live and a viewer calls something in then rules officials will look at footage and give you the chance to alter your card before you finish your round and sign it. The same offence is getting two different outcomes, DQ v 2 shot penalty, just due to tee times.
 
But the problem is that the rules are not and cannot be used consistently. If you go out in one of the early groups the chances are that you will have finished your round and handed in your scorecard by the time Sky starts their broadcast. If they show highlights of your round and a viewer spots something then you will be DQ'd for signing for an incorrect score. If you are on live and a viewer calls something in then rules officials will look at footage and give you the chance to alter your card before you finish your round and sign it. The same offence is getting two different outcomes, DQ v 2 shot penalty, just due to tee times.

But Dyson's offence was, I understand, shown in real time. It is highly unlikely that a viewer spotting something approximately halfway through a round will be able to report it to the authorities before the player has finished his round and submitted his card.

In the case of Tiger Woods at the Masters the viewer who reported it was, I believe, a USGA official who probably knew the direct number of the event's organising committee.

Trial by television is, I agree, unsatisfactory but surely evidence cannot be ignored.

Is it suggested that shoplifters seen on CCTV should not be charged as other offenders were not pickedup by the cameras?
 
But Dyson's offence was, I understand, shown in real time. It is highly unlikely that a viewer spotting something approximately halfway through a round will be able to report it to the authorities before the player has finished his round and submitted his card.

In the case of Tiger Woods at the Masters the viewer who reported it was, I believe, a USGA official who probably knew the direct number of the event's organising committee.

Trial by television is, I agree, unsatisfactory but surely evidence cannot be ignored.

Is it suggested that shoplifters seen on CCTV should not be charged as other offenders were not pickedup by the cameras?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished. I'm saying that the punishment should be consistent whether it is an automatic DQ or a 2 shot penalty or any other sanction. But what can't be right is for exactly the same offence to carry two different punishments either because of when in the round it happened or equally by whether the person viewing it happened to have the organisers phone number.
 
I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished. I'm saying that the punishment should be consistent whether it is an automatic DQ or a 2 shot penalty or any other sanction. But what can't be right is for exactly the same offence to carry two different punishments either because of when in the round it happened or equally by whether the person viewing it happened to have the organisers phone number.

why not, this is exactly what happens every time we play!

simple example - you shoot a 5 at the 2nd hole, but tell your marker it was a 4 by mistake (it does happen!)

1. he questions it at the time and you correct to a 5 - no penalty and 5 scored
2. he writes down a 4 as he wasn't paying attention. You return the card then, before the results are posted, remember you had given a wrong score on that hole and advise the committee. You are duly DQ'd for signing for a score lower that that which you took.
3. the results are posted and you won on countback from 2nd and third. reviewing your round mentally you suddenly remember that you had a 5 on that hole, not a 4. You meet up with the guys that came 2nd and 3rd in the bar and explain. The guy that came 2nd say's he also had a lucky escape on that hole but his ball was just in bounds and he was able to move the OOB post and play it.......when discussed with the committee you are DQ'd, the 2nd guys score stands despite the failure to include a 2 shot penalty for moving the OOB post and the 3rd guy is left trying to work out why he's still second now, but would have been first if you had all said the same things to the committee before the results were posted!
 
I remember once playing in the first day of the club championships and returning my card. When I returned home I sat down and ran through each hole in my mind recalling how I had played it, I then realised I had returned a score of 4 on a hole that I had actually played 5. I then called the Comp Secretary and explained that I had made a mistake and was DQ ing myself from the second day.

In golf we must be prepared to penalise ourselves, like when we make a double hit that no one else notices, otherwise we debase this great game.
 
Top