Frank, please accept my appreciation for the work you have done and are doing for golf.

On the back cover of your book From Sticks & Stones you quote Bobby Jones in 1925 and I repeat it, “You may as well praise a man for not robbing a bank. There is only one way to play the game.”

In light of this please give me your comment about the penalty given to Carl Pettersson for touching a leaf on his backswing in a hazard. My concern is not the penalty but the fact that an official called it.

Mark
Phoenix

Mark,
Thanks for your kind comments. I hope that we will continue to provide good information and — now with the new website — a forum for our viewers to express their opinions about various issues we address.

Yes, Bobby Jones made this statement after the praise he received from the press about calling himself on a rules infraction, seen by himself alone.

Regarding the Pettersson penalty; If Carl had realized what had occurred, I am sure he would have called the infraction on himself – as hundreds of golfers in major events have before him.

When we understand that golf is a self-evaluation process we recognize the obligation we have to call rules infractions on ourselves. It is this that differentiates golf from any other sport we play, where in every case we shift this personal responsibility on to a referee or umpire. If this ever happens to golf, we will have fractured the very essence of the game and the foundation on which it is built.

The fact that we have the capability to recapture, electronically, every move a golfer makes in HD and replay it in slow-motion enabling us to see things otherwise imperceptible to the human eye – does not mean that we have to use it to officiate a game which relies on honor and self policing for its very existence.

Please do not let an invasion of such technology overseeing our actions become part of golf, as it will fracture the very essence of the game. In this particular instance it is the referee’s obligation if he observes an infraction or it is reported to him, to act accordingly and apply the Rules.

We need to do our best to educate golfers about the rules and then back off and let them take care of enforcement themselves, as has been the case for about five hundred years.

In spite of our impression about some of the rules — as Carl stated “It’s just one of those things. We have a lot of stupid rules in golf” – our incentive should be to change them in an orderly manner.

Thank you for your question

Frank

This week our question is one from ourselves.

Why are so many of our Frankly Friends’ e-mails so considered on the subject of “You Be the Judge” (see last weeks putting tip)?  We did not call for a response to the Monday “Putting Tip” but only exposed a situation, which has stirred up the subconscious recognition that an intrusion into the spirit of the game has occurred. This outpouring is an indication that something is not right; the integrity of our game has been violated, and those who care feel a need to do something.

My faith, which was starting to wane, has been restored knowing that I was right in that most deep thinking golfers truly understand that the essence of  game is honor and this is its very foundation, with all else being less important.
   
I appreciate your unsolicited considered responses and I have taken the liberty of reprinting the first wave of comments below —including only first names and state/country – so we can share them with our readers.

Thank you and I hope those guardians responsible for making changes will read a sampling of what golfers really feel and based on your comments be encouraged to review the problem and make the necessary changes.
Frank  

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) I couldn’t agree with you more, Frank. I feel that the original intent of “Signing an incorrect scorecard” has been lost.  Padraig signed a correct scorecard at the time of his signing and to the best of his knowledge. If a penalty was made then those strokes should have been adjusted after he signed and no harm was done. In a world of non-stop media attention and 3D & HD sports coverage, none of the players are attempting to cheat, and couldn’t if they wanted to. The rules officials need to stop taking their jobs so seriously and use some common sense.

 Keith

2) "Can TV camera surveillance, which encourages remote HD-couch-referees, be in the best interests of the game, or should the honor on which the game is built suffice?"

       Comment: Golf is the only sport I know where a TV viewer can call a penalty on a player. I think it's nonsense. Where in the world do they get the phone number anyway?!!    

Peter, OH

3)   In response to your You Be the Judge, in these situations, why can't the rules be written with the caveat that if the person obtained a clear advantage, then the DQ would hold - otherwise, if no advantage was obtained, but a rule was violated, then the penalty can be added before the start of the next round, allowing the player to still compete.  That would be an equitable solution so that someone like Padraig or Camillo was not DQ'd by something that came to the attention after the finish of the round, and after they had both signed their scorecard in clear conscience.  

      Randy, NC

4)   The more I think about this the more I feel that unless 100% of the tournament is shown on TV (an impossibility) then this kind of ruling and disqualification should not be allowed.  By far most of the field is not under scrutiny by TV and any other errors are not seen and therefore cannot be dealt with.  Your statement of "a clear conscience" is the key.
He felt it wobbled but returned to its place --- HDTV was needed to judge otherwise.

Allen, MA

5)   In response to You Be the Judge:

I feel that TV is unfair to the player being shown on TV, to the other players, and to the game as it was set up. i.e. a game of honor.

If one player makes a mistake, how many others players make similar mistakes and are not "caught" by arm chair snitches (who delight in calling the mistakes in)?

If we are going to continue to allow TV to focus on the leading players there ought to be a camera or cameras on every player in the field and all ought to be subject to the same scrutiny.

All of the mistakes caught in the last year or two which have resulted in DQs, are so minor as to be sickening. I would like to meet the snitches and have a word with them..

Kenneth

6)   The problem of whether the ball has moved on the Green - it would seem the only safe procedure is to assume that it has, mark it, and replace it?

Tony, Hong Kong

7)   Dear Frank: Given the number and severity of some of the penalties imposed on players in Tour events recently (in some cases costing the player victory in the tournament) do you believe it is time for the USGA/R&A to revisit some of the Rules. The miniscule movement of the ball in Harrington's case, for example, clearly did not give him any advantage.

Likewise when Michelle "grounded" her club in the hazard AFTER she hit the shot, the Julie Inkster weighted doughnut, etc. I am concerned that the USGA and R&A are out of touch with reality and the more ridiculous these situations about "violations" become the greater the likelihood that people will be fed up with golf's ruling bodies. After all, the only reason they have any authority at all is that the public accepts them voluntarily. If the public decides that they and their Rules are silly the public will simply reject them.

Ronald, GA

8)   Frank & Valerie:

When a tournament is declared completed … last competitor has signed and presented his score card
… and the winner is declared … the complaints and rulings are ‘FINITO”!

This TV - Telephone judgment calling is absurd!

Who answers the squawk phone?
They, whomever they are, had better hope the number remains relatively unknown!

There are marshals and mostly honest players.
Let them do their moderating jobs!

This ‘Arm Chair Policing’ is no less absurd than moving the ‘Tiger Boulder’ in California!
That political error said a great deal about Mr. Woods continuingly revealed character!  

 Keep up the good work for yet another three decades!

Karl

9)   I am willing to believe that on occasion, a player may breach a rule without being aware. I have no problem with the player being assessed with a penalty "after the fact", but I do not believe that assessing a penalty for signing an incorrect score card is appropriate. The player has signed the card in good faith believing it was correct and assessing a penalty, sometimes hours later resulting in disqualification for signing an incorrect card is grossly unfair. Assign the penalty for the original infraction and leave it at that.

Mel

10) When TV "sees" something we can't, it should not be used as reference.

David

11) Hi Frank,Regarding todays article concerning P.H. Ball moving, I watched the replay over and over,It was clear to me the ball may have moved ever so slightly and then back to its original place.  Can someone prove to me that when we mark a ball on a green that it is precisely where it should be unless we press down on it.  I am a retired PGA Pro, 53 yrs in the business and played many competitive events, The PGA and the USGA have got their heads in a hole and need to correct what has happened last year.   I like what Jack said, They should start all over and rewrite the book.   I think the person that phoned that call in might have had one too many and his T.V. was doing funny things on him.....
      Regards,Joe, P.S. I have your book and enjoy reading it over and over.

12) Your comment is on the nail-both Paddy and Dustin Johnson were the victims of up the nose officialdom -fat overcritical couch potatoes sitting at home with a beer and wishing to be heroes for a millisecond should be disallowed from attempting to bring meticulously honest players-in both cases-into disrepute and costing them a fortune. Ours is the ONLY game where remote tv umpires, ie. Jim Visagie in his vest at home have any impact whatsoever on the outcome of a sporting contest-it shouldn't be allowed!!!

      John,  South Africa

13) I think that TV has exerted quite enough influence on the game of golf. We do not want armchair rules officials causing more problems.  What if this had occurred on the final day and the trophy had already been presented and Padraig had already gone home to Ireland with it?  On the evidence that I have seen over a very long period I would guess that there are no more honest and trustworthy group on the planet than our professional golfers.

Rooni, Canada

14) Hi Frank

      I wholeheartedly agree with you. On the spot are Harrington and his caddy, who I would implicitly assume to own up if either thought the ball moved, Harrington’s co-player/marker, at least one and probably more like 3 officials – rules, scorer, hanger-on with pass etc. If none of them pick up a ¼ of a dimple’s movement, then it should be play on.

      I fear that this will come to a head in a major, when some 28 handicapper with a beer in each hand spots Tiger’s ball ‘perhaps’ move in the pine straw at Augusta. He fires off an email and lo, Tiger is DQed after claiming another green jacket and his 19th major… and golf becomes the biggest farce sport ever.

      I remember when Michelle Wie was DQed a couple of years ago, I think for dropping the wrong spot … after someone rings in off the tv, they all troop out to the offending spot and determine she dropped it by a couple of inches in the wrong spot: a ‘correct’ result, but a ‘right’ result? Who’s to know what’s the correct position 24 hours later – “the ball was here (this blade of grass, or around here somewhere?) and I dropped it here (this blade of grass, or around here somewhere?) and you reckon I’m out by a couple of inches?”

Golf trusts its professionals and should continue to do so

Regards
Brendan

15) I'm afraid that advanced technology (television) contravenes the concept of individual honesty.  A rules official might adjudicate a complaint using video, but I reckon the concept of "advantage" should be considered.  If a questioned event results in a scoring advantage, apply a penalty.  If not, as a soccer referee would put it, play on!

      Losing a tournament to a television spectator's complaint violates the concept of individual honor as much as an unadmitted foot wedge.

      Bill , OR

16) Frank,

      In my opinion, no person not involved in the play of a tournament – players, caddies, scorekeepers, markers, marshalls, umpires – should have the authority to question the conduct of play. My reasoning is this: there is uniformity in the number and placement of ancillary participants – all of the above minus the players and caddies –assigned to each group of golfers. Spectators, sportswriters, TV and news photographers [a group to which I used to belong, and as such photographed PGA Tournaments] are unequally distributed, such that some players receive more scrutiny than others, for varying reasons. It simply is not fair, measurably and undeniably. So that’s one issue.

      Second, on the matter of honor. The rules are in place so that no player should take unfair advantage. Let’s not argue about a dimple-length; if it’s closer to the hole, it’s an advantage; if it’s further away, it’s a disadvantage. But let’s also acknowledge that the game is played in real time by human beings. Humans blink involuntarily several times/minute, without awareness of when they’re doing it – usually (you’re probably aware of your own blinking right now, because you’re reading this. With the best of intention, and attention being paid to the task at hand, things occur ‘in the blink of an eye’ and are not perceived. There is no INTENTION to take unfair advantage, and no KNOWLEDGE that advantage has been taken. And lest one argue that intention is not measurable, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.

      Here’s something from the USGA website:

      On the 14th hole during the second round of the U.S. Open, Paul Casey hit a short pitch shot onto the green but well short of the hole. In disgust, he looked down and without realizing where his ball would come to rest tapped his divot with the club. Subsequently, the ball rolled back towards him and came to rest near the divot that he had tapped down. This action brought questions about whether or not Casey was in breach of Rule 1-2 (Exerting Influence on Ball).

      The U.S. Open Rules Committee reviewed the situation on video and discussed it with the player before his scorecard was returned. The Committee determined that Casey had no INTENTION [emphasis added] to influence the position or movement of the ball; therefore, no penalty was assessed

      Camillo Villegas (sp?) was DQ’d for taking a similar action, with a similar lack of intention, without the benefit of review before signing his scorecard. And if a player waggles a club on the tee and accidentally knocks the ball off, he can replace it without penalty, since he had no clear intention of hitting the ball.

      Is there dishonorably conduct on the Tour? Certainly. A player standing on the tee, close to a player driving, fails to observe the first rule, etiquette, and quick-steps during the driver’s swing, moving and making some noise before the ball is struck. That SOB should be disqualified on the spot. (I’ve seen this done). A player catching sand on his backswing first watches his ball, then slams his club into the sand to cover his breach of the rules – then guiltily looks around to see if anyone has noticed. (This too!)

      But DQing Harrington, or Azinger (kicking himself off a stone playing a shot from a water hazard) or Villegas. All of these players committed their violations in total innocence, not ignorance, of the rule. Dustin J grounding his club in a hazard – just stupid not to have read the rule sheet. Ignorance doesn’t excuse, but innocence should.

      Nat

17) The intent of any rule has traditionally been seen as a way to level a playing field so that no one takes advantage of another player in the field of play. When we move from the 'spirit of the law' to 'letter of the law' we create a problem. Players have no instant re-play to see if a ball moved on the green or not. 2mm of movement would not give any player an advantage. It is clear that the spirit of the law is being abused.

      If the players or rules officials are the stewards of the game, they should bear the burden of enforcement. Technology after the fact and an "interested viewer" should not be allowed to interfere. This better protects the integrity of the game and speeds up play which is also very important in my estimation. Time to get rid of the "armchair" rules officials!

      Respectfully,

      Derek CA

18) Frank and Valerie,

     I feel that the PGA should not allow viewer observations to influence whether or not a rule has been violated. The cameras only follow the last groups at a tour event and it is not fair to have them subjected to the rule interpreting of the general public. A rules infraction should be called by the player on himself, another player who sees the violation, or a rules official at the course. Not the general public!!

     No other sport, of which I am aware, allows the fans viewing the sport to call rule violations; why should golf be any different?

     I am all for integrity in the game, but allowing the public to act as rules officials, in my opinion, lowers the standard of integrity to which golfers are held.

     I also feel there should be fewer rules officials at the event and that the players should be responsible for knowing and interpreting the rules.

     Thanks for a very informative and interesting web site.

     Regards,

     Mike, MI