Harrington Disqualified

carnsoreboxer

Following a 30 min video review Harrington has been disqualified after an incident on the 7th Green.

Rule 20-3a/1

Seen by armchair golfer

When lifting his marker his thumb caused the ball to move slightly, he proceeded to take his putt without replacing his ball in the correct place.

2 stroke penalty

Signed for wrong score

What a huge pity

Mountjoy Mugger

Covered in this thread.

bonzer1again

Very harsh...but the rules are the rules and in golf there is nothing else but the rules. Apparently it was the same ref that disqulaified him the last time...nothing against the ref. He had to disqualify him. I thinks its time for a new rule that allows for a bit of referee discretion in matters like this.
Did he get a more favourable lie? Was the ball moved closer ? No and No. So how is it cheating?

Ref discretion gets my vote.

conno16

anarchy will sneak into the game then though
you'd have blokes teeing off over the mark, guys kicking their ball out from behind trees etc
the rules are there for good reason and work most effectively in 99.99% of the time

NoelAPM

Imagine going 18 with the sap who rang that in. Torture! I think it's pathetic considering they needed a fancy camera to prove the ball moved what... 1 dimple? If I place the ball a dimple away from Where I marked it without it rolling would I be a cheater... Absolutely pathetic rule. Golf needs a revamp!

ozymandias10

If you cant determine a rule break with the naked eye but only with a slow mo camera then how does the player know he has broken the rule. Even on real time on the tv you wouldn't have known. Rules are rules but when you have to go to that detail to determine the break then we have a bigger issue

seanmc1980

bit OTT if you ask me, i mean they needed a slow mo camera to spot the movement! how was he supposed to know the ball moved! feel bad for him he looked like he was getting off to a flyer of a year!

Jacket111001

Have touched the ball when marking it myself.

If he had remarked it and then replaced it after the incident I think he would have been OK.

dnjoyce

extremely harsh - he said himself that he was aware he touched it but thought it had just osciliated and not moved, so there was not point in calling over a ref. Zero advantage gained or attempted to be gained.
If it happened to any of us tomorrow how would we know if we had broken a rule - we've no slow-mo cameras following us around to tell us the ball had actually moved .0001mm and not merely osciliated - does that make us all cheaters?!

galwaylad1980

I didnt see what happened after the incident, did he make the putt?

A New earth

Would You DQ This Man?

Supateer

It di not need a slo-mo camera to see that the ball moved, a simple replay is enough. PH himself admitted the ball moved, thinking it had rolled back to its original position. Fact is it didn't. He should have called in the ref and taken a 2-shot penalty, which he knows.
The thing is, when a rule is broken, it's broken.

Ponster

Supateer wrote: »

He should have called in the ref and taken a 2-shot penalty, which he knows.

I don't play golf but I really don't understand the disqualification. If he had called the ref over surely he would have asked "Where is the ball now in relation to where it was before you had touched it?" and Harrington would have said "To my best knowledge it is in exactly same place" and that would have been it no?

And can people really just call in to alert officials, who don't seem to be watching TV cameras, that they missed something and then take action hours later? Shouldn't the officials be able to spot the error and take action before he signs his scorecard ?

GreeBo

Supateer wrote: »

It di not need a slo-mo camera to see that the ball moved, a simple replay is enough. PH himself admitted the ball moved, thinking it had rolled back to its original position. Fact is it didn't. He should have called in the ref and taken a 2-shot penalty, which he knows.
The thing is, when a rule is broken, it's broken.

Hey should have just replaced the ball if there was any doubt. The 2 shot penalty is for playing the ball from the wrong position, not for moving it (which is ok when marking the ball)

G1032

Ponster wrote: »

I don't play golf but I really don't understand the disqualification. If he had called the ref over surely he would have asked "Where is the ball now in relation to where it was before you had touched it?" and Harrington would have said "To my best knowledge it is in exactly same place" and that would have been it no?

And can people really just call in to alert officials, who don't seem to be watching TV cameras, that they missed something and then take action hours later? Shouldn't the officials be able to spot the error and take action before he signs his scorecard ?

If he had called the ref over then the scenario you described is what would have played out. Himself and the ref would have been satisfied that the ball hadn't moved and that would have been that.
But he didn't call the ref and after some armchair pr!ck replayed the incident over and over he decided to ring in and get Harrington disqualified. Its a disgrace, shouldn't be allowed and I hope something is done now to prevent that ever happening again. Harrington didn't cheat, didn't gain an advantage and genuinely thought the ball had returned to it's original position.

Adiaga 2

A Touch Of Class!

LostPassword

Gawd I think that the whole approach to rules in the game of golf is stupid. The idea that an enumerated list of rules supplemented by a long list of interpretations (rulings) divorced from the question of whether the player gains an advantage is a good way to adjudicate on a game is silly, not to mention intractable. It just creates an open door for rule-book warriors - who can either use the rules to their advantage (the pros are particularly good at getting relief in highly dubious ways) or use them to persecute those who are less well versed in their intricacies (the classic amateur pedant).

For example, nobody marks their ball and replaces it in exactly the original spot - because this universe does not allow for exactitude in such matters. If Harrington had placed it in the spot from where he played it, there would have been no problem as it was in the same spot from where he had originally moved it given the level of precision that is actually possible in this world. Because he initially placed it a few millimetres further back and then nudged it almost impercetibly, he gets dq'ed. Had he claimed that he nudged it on purpose because he had initially placed it a few millimetres too far back, as per his marker, he would have been fine. Which is a total licence for dishonesty. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

3DataModem

G1032 wrote: »

But he didn't call the ref and after some armchair pr!ck replayed the incident over and over he decided to ring in and get Harrington disqualified.

The armchair person is a paid spotter working for a gambler (probably with a big lay position on PH) or a gambler themselves. They watch every drop, every placement, every rough shot looking for these infringements.

As I posted in another thread; multi-day tournaments, full television coverage, and retropective rule application exposes golf to huge interference from the gambling community.

Screaminmidget

LostPassword wrote: »

For example, nobody marks their ball and replaces it in exactly the original spot - because this universe does not allow for exactitude in such matters. If Harrington had placed it in the spot from where he played it, there would have been no problem as it was in the same spot from where he had originally moved it given the level of precision that is actually possible in this world.

Thats not the infringement. The infringement is that he nudged it after he removed the marker, not that he placed it wrong. Obviously nobody could place the ball on the same spot after marking it.

ShriekingSheet

3DataModem wrote: »

The armchair person is a paid spotter working for a gambler (probably with a big lay position on PH) or a gambler themselves. They watch every drop, every placement, every rough shot looking for these infringements.

As I posted in another thread; multi-day tournaments, full television coverage, and retropective rule application exposes golf to huge interference from the gambling community.

That's a bit out-there, and you're stating it as fact? Sounds a bit "Jim Corr" if you ask me.

I'm sure someone with a few quid on Kaymer or laying PH would be more than happy to report him. But there's a million guys out there with no money involved, that would love to be the guy that caused a tour star to be DQ'd.

LostPassword

Screaminmidget wrote: »

Thats not the infringement. The infringement is that he nudged it after he removed the marker, not that he placed it wrong. Obviously nobody could place the ball on the same spot after marking it.

My point is that he gained no advantage whatsoever from the "infringement" as the few millimetres that it moved are within the normal acceptable error range for replacing a ball. In my book such things really shouldn't be infringements.

ShriekingSheet

LostPassword wrote: »

because this universe does not allow for exactitude in such matters.

Save it for the Fore Golf thread will ya!?

"these shafts increase your elbow velocity and are exactitude what you need to knock at least 4 shots of that 20 h'cap of yours"

LostPassword

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Save it for the Fore Golf thread will ya!?

"these shafts increase your elbow velocity and are exactitude what you need to knock at least 4 shots of that 20 h'cap of yours"

exactitude ( ) n. The state or quality of being exact.

ShriekingSheet

LostPassword wrote: »

exactitude ( ) n. The state or quality of being exact.

Not very exactitude with your use of brackets there...

Screaminmidget

LostPassword wrote: »

My point is that he gained no advantage whatsoever from the "infringement" as the few millimetres that it moved are within the normal acceptable error range for replacing a ball. In my book such things really shouldn't be infringements.

I agree that the rule is idiotic at best, but these kinds of rules are there for a reason. what if the ball was on the egde of the cup??

LostPassword

Screaminmidget wrote: »

I agree that the rule is idiotic at best, but these kinds of rules are there for a reason. what if the ball was on the egde of the cup??

The rule itself is fine - I just don't think you should be penalised for it if you
a) are unaware of the infringement
and
b) don't gain any advantage from it.

Parky2010

Really hope he wins this week... looked like he was gonna have a good week til the armchair fan decided to get him dq'd :mad:

Trampas

LostPassword wrote: »

The rule itself is fine - I just don't think you should be penalised for it if you
a) are unaware of the infringement
and
b) don't gain any advantage from it.

Problem with this is where you draw the line.

With PH precision I would thought he could tell if the ball had moved a cm.

I'd say he sets up the ball in the same position everytime

fatherbuzcagney

after watching it on you tube i think the DQ was in no way harsh. It was very clumsy .