bobmac
Major Champion
Would Mark Roe and Jesper Parnevik have been DQ'd at The Open in 2003 for not swapping scorecards?
Under the new rules which allow certain tour players to escape DQ
- Thread starter bobmac
- Start date
USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
I don't think so, not now.
virtuocity
Tour Winner
Depends how much advertising revenue they generated at the time.
bobmac
Major Champion
I know the rule was changed afterwards, but just wondered what folk think
BTatHome
Tour Winner
What rules would these be ? Not seen anything that said certain tour players could escape DQ.
I would say the USGA and R&A would be very embarrassed if they made the wrong decision over the weekend, they were after all consulted over the possible DQ and ruled the committee decision to be acceptable. Are you somehow saying that the USGA and the R&A are somehow corrupt?
I would say the USGA and R&A would be very embarrassed if they made the wrong decision over the weekend, they were after all consulted over the possible DQ and ruled the committee decision to be acceptable. Are you somehow saying that the USGA and the R&A are somehow corrupt?
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
That DQ was one of the biggest travesties going.
OK they didn't swap cards - but they were filmed, watched and they had scorers going round with them all the way. There is no way their scores couldn't be confirmed.
And yet because the numbers were written on the wrong piece of paper they bothe got DQ'd.....
I think they ammended Tournament Rules after this didn't they?
I could be dreaming though....
OK they didn't swap cards - but they were filmed, watched and they had scorers going round with them all the way. There is no way their scores couldn't be confirmed.
And yet because the numbers were written on the wrong piece of paper they bothe got DQ'd.....
I think they ammended Tournament Rules after this didn't they?
I could be dreaming though....
pbrown7582
Money List Winner
An interesting one!
I think they would still be dq'd as they would have obviously broken the rules.
The change was after padraigs ball was spotted oscillating an ion on HD and him not replacing it, he even checked at the time and all were happy except 1 tv punter.
I think they would still be dq'd as they would have obviously broken the rules.
The change was after padraigs ball was spotted oscillating an ion on HD and him not replacing it, he even checked at the time and all were happy except 1 tv punter.
USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
Different rule.
ArnoldArmChewer
Tour Winner
Not quite the situation on Fridays Masters was it??
Sweep
Journeyman Pro
They did amend that rule to prevent it from happening again
pbrown7582
Money List Winner
Thats because Rule No1. At the masters is augusta national shall do what it wants! :rofl:
HawkeyeMS
Ryder Cup Winner
Which rules are they then Bob?
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
No because they knew the rule and still done it, it Harringtons case and I suppose Woods case (which is slightly different as he didn't apply a rule correctly) neither were aware they had broken the rule.
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
Roe and Parnevik were only aware of the rule breach when they finished playing - theirs was a purely administrative error, nothing to do with actual play.....
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
Yes, but for breaking that rule the penalty is DQ regardless, the others are penalty shots
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
Seems a little harsh for writting down numbers on the wrong piece of paper..........
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
Maybe so but it has to be that realistically, if it goes un-noticed then people could lift prizes for scores that are not theres (extreme case granted).
Rules are rules
chrisd
Major Champion
The difference here was that Harrington genuinly didn'tknow his ball had moved until he watched on ultra slow tv, Tiger should have known that his drop was in the wrong place according to the rules. Quite a differenece I think!
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
Absolutely, thats why I did say his was slightly different to Harringtons in being he didn't know he broke the rule when he should have known how to take the drop properly but Harrington had no idea. The only relation both had was the retrospective penalty of 2 shots for breaking the rule (we all have differing opinions on Tiger though
)
Ethan
Money List Winner
On the face of it, the Woods drop decision was correct. The Committee considered the matter before he completed the round, judged no penalty was appropriate, then later revised the matter in light of his interview comments and exercised discretion they now have to amend the DQ to a 2 shot penalty. If this had happened last year, they could not have done that.
The key element seems to be that the Committee were able to amend the penalty because it was their incorrect decision earlier, not Tigers. We can quite reasonably debate whether they would have applied the same logic if it had been David Lynn or George Coetzee, but that is a different question.
As far as Mark Roe goes, the same rule would not apply. The Committee did not make an error in judging Roe's scorecard. However, a separate change in the rules allows an administrative error to be corrected.
The key element seems to be that the Committee were able to amend the penalty because it was their incorrect decision earlier, not Tigers. We can quite reasonably debate whether they would have applied the same logic if it had been David Lynn or George Coetzee, but that is a different question.
As far as Mark Roe goes, the same rule would not apply. The Committee did not make an error in judging Roe's scorecard. However, a separate change in the rules allows an administrative error to be corrected.
