• Thank you all very much for sharing your time with us in 2025. We hope you all have a safe and happy 2026!

Under the new rules which allow certain tour players to escape DQ

Tiger's drop has been done to death.
This is not about Tiger.
This is about whether Mark Roe would have been penalised or dq'd under the new rule
 
Tiger's drop has been done to death.
This is not about Tiger.
This is about whether Mark Roe would have been penalised or dq'd under the new rule

Yes, he still would. As far as I am aware, this rule which was brought in last year is solely concerned with whether or not something is picked up by media coverage that the players were otherwise not aware of.
 
Last edited:
It's a long time ago, but I believe there was only 1 hole on which Roe had scored worst than Parnevik (so effectively signing for a score lower than actually taken on the wrong scorecard submitted), and but for that could have played on Sunday but with a Saturday score 12 or 13 shots worse than he actually scored. Not sure if that would have been better or worse than a DQ?
 
Tis is applying the wrong rule though?

It certainly seems that way, but can't find any reference earlier in the thread to any other new rule which allows people to escape DQ. The only one which has been brought in recently which changes the punishment from a DQ to shot penalties is 'Harrington's Rule' as far as I am aware - although I'm happy to be corrected ...
 
Doesn't the Harrington rule give committees the option to waive the dq rule and replace it with penalty shots?

Only if the player wasn't trying to cheat?

It looks like the rule was there to avoid a dq when the player was un aware of any infringement. Given ignorance is no excuse, then the rule was mis used in tigers case, as he should have known the rules. So should roe have done.

Harrington could not possibly have known his ball moved, so in his case a dq is hard to justify.

In the roe case, I thought the rule that applied to the paperwork side of golf had been amended, such that this could be corrected now. I'm certain that this would no longer be an issue.
 
Tiger's drop has been done to death.
This is not about Tiger.
This is about whether Mark Roe would have been penalised or dq'd under the new rule

With hindsight I wouldn't have dq'd him that way maybe he'd probably still be playing golf and not annoying the faeces out of everyone presenting on Sky Sports!
 
Doesn't the Harrington rule give committees the option to waive the dq rule and replace it with penalty shots?

Yes. As I believe it was deemed too unfair to DQ people for something which they knew nothing about and had no way of knowing without the use of TV.

Since it was mentioned, the reason why I think Tiger should have been DQ'd is because he did know that he took an illegal drop and had done it deliberately to gain an advantage as stated in his post-round interview.

Harrington's rule isn't intended to benefit those who don't fully operate within the rules - it's for those who have done so inadvertently with no way of knowing they committed a misdemeanor.
 
Yes. As I believe it was deemed too unfair to DQ people for something which they knew nothing about and had no way of knowing without the use of TV.

Since it was mentioned, the reason why I think Tiger should have been DQ'd is because he did know that he took an illegal drop and had done it deliberately to gain an advantage as stated in his post-round interview.

Harrington's rule isn't intended to benefit those who don't fully operate within the rules - it's for those who have done so inadvertently with no way of knowing they committed a misdemeanor.

Correct, which is why Tiger.........................wrong thread ;)
 
Top