Question:
The statute of limitations for Azinger’s breach of 17-2b would be the Close of Competition provided he remained ignorant of the breach until after that time.
Thank you. I wonder how many of the people here, saying that Azinger’s (and/or his caddie’s) ignorance of the written rules should be overlooked if an official doesn’t catch it on the spot, are the same ones who last month said that if a 13-year old amateur didn’t know every nuance of the unwritten etiquette traditions, she had no business playing? I don’t remember anyone in this thread saying that…what I said, and meant, is that it’s unfair to have TV viewers calling penalties on pro golfers. Period. If Zinger or his caddie had known that they had broken a rule I have no doubt that they would have called the penalty themselves. The case in question was so obscure, and happened so quickly, that I could see where they, or anyone else in close proximity, would not have know that they had broken a rule. That’s not "ignorance of the written rules" by those in attendance IMO. Dave (the other one)
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The statute of limitations for Azinger’s breach of 17-2b would be the Close of Competition provided he remained ignorant of the breach until after that time. Thank you. I wonder how many of the people here, saying that Azinger’s (and/or his caddie’s) ignorance of the written rules should be overlooked if an official doesn’t catch it on the spot, are the same ones who last month said that if a 13-year old amateur didn’t know every nuance of the unwritten etiquette traditions, she had no business playing? I don’t remember anyone in this thread saying that…what I said, and meant, is that it’s unfair to have TV viewers calling penalties on pro golfers.
I agree. Only the players. caddies, or officials should call penalties. But viewers should be able to bring possible infractions to the attention of the officials. You either play by the rules, or you don’t. Period. If Zinger or his caddie had known that they had broken a rule I have no doubt that they would have called the penalty themselves.
I agree. In other words, they were ignorant of the rules. There are only three possible reasons that they didn’t call the penalty on themselves. a) they cheated b) they thought the ball had stopped moving before the flagstick was removed c) they were ignorant of the applicable rule It’s possible that Zinger didn’t notice what happened, but it is impossible that his caddie did not see the ball moving while he was removing the flagstick, unless your defense of him is that he is totally incompetent. You are therefore correct in pointing out that if he was not ignorant of the rule, he was dishonest in not calling the penalty himself. The case in question was so obscure, and happened so quickly, that I could see where they, or anyone else in close proximity, would not have know that they had broken a rule. That’s not "ignorance of the written rules" by those in attendance IMO.
You must be using a different dictionary. What is ignorance of the rules, if it’s not being aware of what happened, but unaware that it was a violation? The obscurity of the rule makes it more likely, not less, that they were ignorant of it. The speed with which it happened is irrelevant, but as a matter of fact, it took longer for the ball to stop moving after the flagstick was removed than it did for Waldorf to tap down the divot in front of him, or for a double hit, or for a ball to ricochet off a bunker face and hit a player, or for Mickelson’s ball to move from the wind after he addressed it..
Response:
It’s possible that Zinger didn’t notice what happened, but it is impossible that his caddie did not see the ball moving while he was removing the flagstick,
It’s highly possible. I’ve seen the video, and it appeared as if he was looking at the flagstick, not the ball.
Response:
If the people at the time missed the call, they missed it. You let it go. No DQ, no penalty. You don’t see the NFL changing a score because some dufus saw holding on a play and called it in.
You don’t see NFL players calling penalties on themselves, either. NFL players deliberately break the rules as much as they think they can without getting ejected, and consider it worth the risk if they only get caught part of the time. Is that how you want PGA golf to be?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – if these conditions aren’t met, then it’s totally inappropriate for any and all TV fan interaction with tournament golf rulings. Am I the only one who heard Kendra Graham point out that if the viewer had not called in, and Zinger had signed an incorrect score, he would have been DQ’d? so be it. But how would they have known? I bet what Zinger’s caddy did happens all the time. They just happened to show this time on TV. How’s that fair? It’s fair because he followed the rules. What isn’t fair is when people get away with breaking the rules because they are off camera. Whether the rules always makes sense is a separate question. As for how they would have known, it was a pretty good shot, so maybe it would have been replayed on some sports show or the Golf Channel. The question then becomes, what is the statute of limitations? Kendra Graham implied that if an official had noticed it on TV that evening, Zinger would have been DQ’d. Would they DQ him after the tournament was over? Would they DQ him if someone noticed it on a highlight reel two years later? Anyone know?
See Rule 34-1b for the penalties that may be imposed after the Close of Competition. The statute of limitations for Azinger’s breach of 17-2b would be the Close of Competition provided he remained ignorant of the breach until after that time. — http://rec-sport-golf.com/?rc=hayesd
Response:
The statute of limitations for Azinger’s breach of 17-2b would be the Close of Competition provided he remained ignorant of the breach until after that time.
Thank you. I wonder how many of the people here, saying that Azinger’s (and/or his caddie’s) ignorance of the written rules should be overlooked if an official doesn’t catch it on the spot, are the same ones who last month said that if a 13-year old amateur didn’t know every nuance of the unwritten etiquette traditions, she had no business playing?
Response:
suppose the "occurrence" (pole removal) had of run it’s full course, what could have been the most damaging event?