Question:
Both Mark Roe and Jesper Parnevik were guilty of claiming, by mistake, that they took fewer shots on a hole than they actually took. Now do you really think this a stupid rule?
IMHO, I think they did not claim, if by mistake, to have taken fewer strokes on a hole. They signed correct score cards…they just got the names wrong…not the scores. I think that Mark Roe claimed he was Jesper and Jesper claimed he was Mark Roe. Having the names wrong on the card…not the scores…is not a crime worthy of DQ….thus it is a stupid interpretation of the rule.
Response:
It’s idiotic to disqualify these guys. Are we trying to identify the greatest golfers in the world or the best people at counting and adding? How many other sports expect the competitors to keep score at the professional level?
Response:
<<If the players always exchange cards, it’s rather surprising that they failed to do so here. They do on the European Tour, but not on the US PGA Tour
Response:
They both signed incorrect scorecards
If I understand this right, they each signed their names to the other’s scorecard, but that scorecard had their scores. If that’s true, doesn’t it mean they haven’t really signed their scorecard at all, and shouldn’t they be given a chance to? On the other hand, if they signed the scorecard with their name on it, but it had the wrong scores, I’d understand that to be a DQ’able offense. –Mat Twassel
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rules are rules. And, stupid rules are stupid rules. True stupid rules are stupid rules but in the case of Mark Roe and Jesper Parnevik the actual rule which was broken is a very good rule. Crispin Roche That’s your opinion. I’ve already heard a number of people say it’s a stupid rule, including Ian Baker-Finch. The fact that there’s even a thread about the rule is pretty good proof that the rule is at least questionable. A good rule wouldn’t even be questioned. Well in my opinion there seems to be a lot of stupid commentators at the moment and the fact that a thread questioning "the rule" just show, IMO, that there are a number of gullible, or just plain stupid, posters. And before you get hot under the collar because I’ve just called you stupid I suggest that you take a few seconds to consider just which rule, and section, we are talking about. And if you cannot be bothered to do that I’ll give you a clue its Rule 6. Both Mark Roe and Jesper Parnevik were guilty of claiming, by mistake, that they took fewer shots on a hole than they actually took. Now do you really think this a stupid rule? Crispin Roche Yes, because they simply forgot to exchange cards, and the recorders didn’t notice their mistake. They obviously weren’t trying to cheat. AND, THE RECORDERS DID notice Phillip Price’s and Stuart Appleby’s mistake… "In a bizarre twist of fate that Roe will take no pleasure in whatsoever, almost the same thing happened to Phillip Price and Australian Stuart Appleby. The only difference was that the recorders spotted the mistake before both players left the scoring hut." So, basically, recorders are influencing the outcomes of tournaments, instead of the players. That’s stupid. Stop crying you little faggot. Weren’t you the pussy who said you relatives or friends on the rules committee. Have them change the rules, tough guy.
Don’t worry, I already called my brother. Thanks for reminding me though. It’s virtually a done deal.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rules are rules. And, stupid rules are stupid rules. True stupid rules are stupid rules but in the case of Mark Roe and Jesper Parnevik the actual rule which was broken is a very good rule. Crispin Roche That’s your opinion. I’ve already heard a number of people say it’s a stupid rule, including Ian Baker-Finch. The fact that there’s even a thread about the rule is pretty good proof that the rule is at least questionable. A good rule wouldn’t even be questioned. Well in my opinion there seems to be a lot of stupid commentators at the moment and the fact that a thread questioning "the rule" just show, IMO, that there are a number of gullible, or just plain stupid, posters. And before you get hot under the collar because I’ve just called you stupid I suggest that you take a few seconds to consider just which rule, and section, we are talking about. And if you cannot be bothered to do that I’ll give you a clue its Rule 6. Both Mark Roe and Jesper Parnevik were guilty of claiming, by mistake, that they took fewer shots on a hole than they actually took. Now do you really think this a stupid rule? Crispin Roche Yes, because they simply forgot to exchange cards, and the recorders didn’t notice their mistake. They obviously weren’t trying to cheat. AND, THE RECORDERS DID notice Phillip Price’s and Stuart Appleby’s mistake… "In a bizarre twist of fate that Roe will take no pleasure in whatsoever, almost the same thing happened to Phillip Price and Australian Stuart Appleby. The only difference was that the recorders spotted the mistake before both players left the scoring hut." So, basically, recorders are influencing the outcomes of tournaments, instead of the players. That’s stupid.
Stop crying you little faggot. Weren’t you the pussy who said you relatives or friends on the rules committee. Have them change the rules, tough guy.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rules are rules. And, stupid rules are stupid rules. True stupid rules are stupid rules but in the case of Mark Roe and Jesper Parnevik the actual rule which was broken is a very good rule. Crispin Roche That’s your opinion. I’ve already heard a number of people say it’s a stupid rule, including Ian Baker-Finch. The fact that there’s even a thread about the rule is pretty good proof that the rule is at least questionable. A good rule wouldn’t even be questioned. Well in my opinion there seems to be a lot of stupid commentators at the moment and the fact that a thread questioning "the rule" just show, IMO, that there are a number of gullible, or just plain stupid, posters. And before you get hot under the collar because I’ve just called you stupid I suggest that you take a few seconds to consider just which rule, and section, we are talking about. And if you cannot be bothered to do that I’ll give you a clue its Rule 6. Both Mark Roe and Jesper Parnevik were guilty of claiming, by mistake, that they took fewer shots on a hole than they actually took. Now do you really think this a stupid rule? Crispin Roche
Yes, because they simply forgot to exchange cards, and the recorders didn’t notice their mistake. They obviously weren’t trying to cheat. AND, THE RECORDERS DID notice Phillip Price’s and Stuart Appleby’s mistake… "In a bizarre twist of fate that Roe will take no pleasure in whatsoever, almost the same thing happened to Phillip Price and Australian Stuart Appleby. The only difference was that the recorders spotted the mistake before both players left the scoring hut." So, basically, recorders are influencing the outcomes of tournaments, instead of the players. That’s stupid.
Response:
Crispin Roche writes: Yes the cards had the players names on them but Mark Roe had Mark Roe’s card but he thought he was marking Jesper Parnevik’s card and so
Are the players required to exchange cards at the start of round? Or is it only a custom? Does this practice vary by tournament? If playing in groups of three, how is it decided who marks which card? If the players always exchange cards, it’s rather surprising that they failed to do so here. –Mat Twassel
Response:
The responsibility is on the player(s). It is their sole responsibility to make sure that everything is within the rules as they are stated. Ridiculous or not, rules are rules. They both signed incorrect scorecards and were DQ’ed. Same as any other tournament would or should do. — Bryan D. Greer "If you watch a game, it’s fun. If you play it, it’s recreation. If you work at it, it’s golf."…Bob Hope
I have just sent the following off to the R & A (www.randa.org), and I urge others to do likewise. The disqualification is a travesty, and a blot on the R&A and on golf. When your own Mr. Dawson acknowledges some culpability on the part of the
R&A for the scorecard mixup of Messrs. Roe and Parnevik, it becomes quite clear that the only fair thing to do is reinstate them. Do not tarnish the R&A by standing on this ill-advised disqualification.
It was also your failure, and you can still do right by them and yourselves. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thank you.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rules are rules. And, stupid rules are stupid rules. True stupid rules are stupid rules but in the case of Mark Roe and Jesper Parnevik the actual rule which was broken is a very good rule. Crispin Roche That’s your opinion. I’ve already heard a number of people say it’s a stupid rule, including Ian Baker-Finch. The fact that there’s even a thread about the rule is pretty good proof that the rule is at least questionable. A good rule wouldn’t even be questioned.
Well in my opinion there seems to be a lot of stupid commentators at the moment and the fact that a thread questioning "the rule" just show, IMO, that there are a number of gullible, or just plain stupid, posters. And before you get hot under the collar because I’ve just called you stupid I suggest that you take a few seconds to consider just which rule, and section, we are talking about. And if you cannot be bothered to do that I’ll give you a clue its Rule 6. Both Mark Roe and Jesper Parnevik were guilty of claiming, by mistake, that they took fewer shots on a hole than they actually took. Now do you really think this a stupid rule? Crispin Roche
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rules are rules. And, stupid rules are stupid rules. True stupid rules are stupid rules but in the case of Mark Roe and Jesper Parnevik the actual rule which was broken is a very good rule. Crispin Roche That’s your opinion. I’ve already heard a number of people say it’s a stupid rule, including Ian Baker-Finch. The fact that there’s even a thread about the rule is pretty good proof that the rule is at least questionable. A good rule wouldn’t even be questioned.
Too bad. The rule was in place. If it were so stupid, why was it still in the rule books. The only thing stupid about this situation is all the crybabies bitching about it. Get a life you dorks.
Response:
No, the names for each score card are clearly printed across the top, and the scores are associated with those names, not the signatures. The only problem is that the signatures went on the opposite cards.
Providing that both the player and the marker’s signatures appear on the card it does not matter if they are signed in the wrong place (D6-6b/1. There is some culpability on the part on the Committee if the starter handed the wrong cards to each player….but I do not believe that is the case. After the round the Committee’s only responsibility under the Rules is to total the scores recorded on the card (Rule 33-5)….. Professional golfers should be required to recognise their own name! cheers david
Response:
I agree that it was very disappointing that the R&A’s procedures were inadequate on this occasion, especially considering the famous Padraig Harrington signing error, but I cannot see how anything can be done. It would be saying the rules are the rules except when there is a big enough fuss made and then we will conveniently ignore them and that way leads to anarchy.
No, it would be as if a player asked an official for a ruling on the course, and the official gave him the incorrect ruling. Then who is to blame? Would we then say the rules are the rules except when a player gets an incorrect ruling?
Response:
Rules are rules. And, stupid rules are stupid rules. True stupid rules are stupid rules but in the case of Mark Roe and Jesper Parnevik the actual rule which was broken is a very good rule. Crispin Roche
That’s your opinion. I’ve already heard a number of people say it’s a stupid rule, including Ian Baker-Finch. The fact that there’s even a thread about the rule is pretty good proof that the rule is at least questionable. A good rule wouldn’t even be questioned.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have just sent the following off to the R & A (www.randa.org), and I urge others to do likewise. The disqualification is a travesty, and a blot on the R&A and on golf. Sorry Peter, but both Roe and Parnevik in effect signed for each others score. And unfortunately it there was at least one hole in each card where this resulted in the players attesting that they took fewer shots than they actually did and that is a DQ in any competition. No, the names for each score card are clearly printed across the top, and the scores are associated with those names, not the signatures. The only problem is that the signatures went on the opposite cards.
Yes the cards had the players names on them but Mark Roe had Mark Roe’s card but he thought he was marking Jesper Parnevik’s card and so under player’s score he put Jesper’s hole by hole score, likewise Jesper Parnevik. Unfortunately for Mark Roe, Jesper Parnevik took 4 on the 4th and Mark Roe a 5 but Mark Roe marked down on his card a 4, i.e. one less than he actually took. When the card was signed he agreed that he had taken 4. Crispin Roche
Response:
I have just sent the following off to the R & A (www.randa.org), and I urge others to do likewise. The disqualification is a travesty, and a blot on the R&A and on golf. Sorry Peter, but both Roe and Parnevik in effect signed for each others score. And unfortunately it there was at least one hole in each card where this resulted in the players attesting that they took fewer shots than they actually did and that is a DQ in any competition.
No, the names for each score card are clearly printed across the top, and the scores are associated with those names, not the signatures. The only problem is that the signatures went on the opposite cards.
Response:
No, the names for each score card are clearly printed across the top, and the scores are associated with those names, not the signatures. The only problem is that the signatures went on the opposite cards.
The committee can waive a DQ penalty, if they see fit. I’m sure they will review this one, and I hope they make an exception. -J
Response:
Rules are rules.
And, stupid rules are stupid rules.
Response:
Rules are rules. And, stupid rules are stupid rules.
Changing or ignoring stupid rules is not appropiate on the eve of the final for a major championship, particularly when the championship is the British Open and the person who would benefit is English.
Response:
Rules are rules. And, stupid rules are stupid rules.
True stupid rules are stupid rules but in the case of Mark Roe and Jesper Parnevik the actual rule which was broken is a very good rule. Crispin Roche
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have just sent the following off to the R & A (www.randa.org), and I urge others to do likewise. The disqualification is a travesty, and a blot on the R&A and on golf. Sorry Peter, but both Roe and Parnevik in effect signed for each others score. And unfortunately it there was at least one hole in each card where this resulted in the players attesting that they took fewer shots than they actually did and that is a DQ in any competition. I wonder how Roe would have felt if Parnevik hadn’t birdied the 4th hole because I think that would have meant that Roe’s "score" would have stood and instead of coming in with a 4 under 67 he would have in effect signed for a 11 over 82! Crispin Roche Crispin, I understand your PoV. However, the mitigating circumstance is, in my view, that the R&A folks who looked the cards over didn’t catch the honest blunder, either, and Peter Dawson has acknowledged some wrongdoing on their part as well. That’s what, for me, militates for reinstatement. They were, in effect, validated in their mistake by the folks who are supposed to help them, as they did others, not make such mistakes. Had they just turned them in without any official scrutiny before signing, I’d not have a protest. Mr. Dawson’s phrase, "blame but not responsibility" is doubletalk, I contend, and fudging of a Clintonesque nature. Yes, rules are rules. And some understanding and judgment are valuable assets. The R&A was complicit in this, and needs to make it right, I say.
I agree that it was very disappointing that the R&A’s procedures were inadequate on this occasion, especially considering the famous Padraig Harrington signing error, but I cannot see how anything can be done. It would be saying the rules are the rules except when there is a big enough fuss made and then we will conveniently ignore them and that way leads to anarchy. And its not like the Roe and Parnevik situation hasn’t been considered as there is a decision (6-6d/4) which cover their case exactly. Crispin Roche
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have just sent the following off to the R & A (www.randa.org), and I urge others to do likewise. The disqualification is a travesty, and a blot on the R&A and on golf. Sorry Peter, but both Roe and Parnevik in effect signed for each others score. And unfortunately it there was at least one hole in each card where this resulted in the players attesting that they took fewer shots than they actually did and that is a DQ in any competition. I wonder how Roe would have felt if Parnevik hadn’t birdied the 4th hole because I think that would have meant that Roe’s "score" would have stood and instead of coming in with a 4 under 67 he would have in effect signed for a 11 over 82! Crispin Roche
Crispin, I understand your PoV. However, the mitigating circumstance is, in my view, that the R&A folks who looked the cards over didn’t catch the honest blunder, either, and Peter Dawson has acknowledged some wrongdoing on their part as well. That’s what, for me, militates for reinstatement. They were, in effect, validated in their mistake by the folks who are supposed to help them, as they did others, not make such mistakes. Had they just turned them in without any official scrutiny before signing, I’d not have a protest. Mr. Dawson’s phrase, "blame but not responsibility" is doubletalk, I contend, and fudging of a Clintonesque nature. Yes, rules are rules. And some understanding and judgment are valuable assets. The R&A was complicit in this, and needs to make it right, I say. Peter
Response:
I have just sent the following off to the R & A (www.randa.org), and I urge others to do likewise. The disqualification is a travesty, and a blot on the R&A and on golf.
Sorry Peter, but both Roe and Parnevik in effect signed for each others score. And unfortunately it there was at least one hole in each card where this resulted in the players attesting that they took fewer shots than they actually did and that is a DQ in any competition. I wonder how Roe would have felt if Parnevik hadn’t birdied the 4th hole because I think that would have meant that Roe’s "score" would have stood and instead of coming in with a 4 under 67 he would have in effect signed for a 11 over 82! Crispin Roche
Response:
Rules are rules. I hope they don’t change the ruling. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have just sent the following off to the R & A (www.randa.org), and I urge others to do likewise. The disqualification is a travesty, and a blot on the R&A and on golf. When your own Mr. Dawson acknowledges some culpability on the part of the R&A for the scorecard mixup of Messrs. Roe and Parnevik, it becomes quite clear that the only fair thing to do is reinstate them. Do not tarnish the R&A by standing on this ill-advised disqualification. It was also your failure, and you can still do right by them and yourselves. Thank you.
Response:
I have just sent the following off to the R & A (www.randa.org), and I urge others to do likewise. The disqualification is a travesty, and a blot on the R&A and on golf. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -When your own Mr. Dawson acknowledges some culpability on the part of the R&A for the scorecard mixup of Messrs. Roe and Parnevik, it becomes quite clear that the only fair thing to do is reinstate them. Do not tarnish the R&A by standing on this ill-advised disqualification. It was also your failure, and you can still do right by them and yourselves. Thank you.