Alex Cejka DQ on new rule

[KevCarter]

You're saying it should be okay to use the illegal book because it has wrong information? Exactly how should a ref come to that conclusion? Maybe by rolling a few balls?

 

If Cejka had only used the illegal book once, it would have been gentlemanly for someone to draw his attention to the violation then so he could cease using it, or confirm the information. Once Cejka had referred to it twice, he was DQ irrespective of the outcome of a discussion with anyone.

 

Players who violate rules, here's a choice of reasonable comments for you:

 

1) Crap, I knew that and I screwed up.

2) I didn't know that, please explain it to me.

3) I am such a stupid. (Old, I know, but still worthy of respect.)

 

Hey, I just came up with a new one. Fellow competitor asks you to mark your ball that is in the fringe. You clean it. A rules official wants to penalize you as he clearly saw you clean it.

 

Player: Hey, it got dirty as soon as I dropped it, so no advantage gained.

Ref: Oh, OK. No penalty, carry on.

 

They then gave everybody in the field a trophy, and we all lived happily ever after,

Ah, the joys of the rules. You lift as required and accidentally drop your ball and it runs into the PA unrecoverable. No problemo, just put a subbed ball down, no penalty. You accidentally drop your ball into fresh duck crap, that's a shame, you can't clean until you are on the putting green.

 

LOL I played for many years and hadn't even considered that. Yuck! :-)

[PedronNiall]

On the one hand, rules are rules, so once they're in place speak against them if you don't like them, but make sure you adhere to them. On the other, he certainly wasn't gaining any advantages by using an outdated book. In terms of the spirit of things I see no means by which this added to anyone's perception of the game as a whole nor did it do anything to benefit the air of play of the tournament so to speak. Pretty sad that Tringale would call an official over that way rather than simply speaking with him and clearing things up.

 

R20.1c says:

 

To protect the interests of all other players: If a player knows or believes that another player has breached or might have breached the Rules and that the other player does not recognize or is ignoring this, the player should tell the other player, the players marker, a referee or the Committee.

 

This should be done promptly after the player becomes aware of the issue, and no later than before the other player returns his or her scorecard unless it is not possible to do so.

 

If the player fails to do so, the Committee may disqualify the player under Rule 1.2a if it decides that this was serious misconduct contrary to the spirit of the game.

 

What is it you think Tringale did wrong? Do you think he could have whispered in his ear. "Hey, you better not use that book anymore." Do you know what the outcome would have been? How about two players disqualified. :)

 

"I saw it and told my caddie. I mentioned it to (Cejka) but was unfamiliar how exactly to proceed. I told the first official I saw what I had seen. I was perplexed. That doesnt look right. Did I really see that? When we finished the 14th hole, I went to use the bathroom and when I came out I saw (Cejka) riding off in a cart." -Tringale

 

More detail would be nice, but it sounds like he told Cejka then proceeded to immediately contact an official. If Cejka continued using the book after Tringale talked to him no biggie, but it sounds as though right after saying something to him he went to an official. Anything technically wrong in that? No. It's interesting, however, that Tringale himself said that he was unfamiliar with how to proceed. Again, this just highlights a lot of what goes on. It feels like CYA came into play and Tringale ran to an official ASAP, which is pretty much the norm now. Everyone's worried about infractions so when in doubt run to an official. Cejka didn't know the rule and Tringale didn't know the rule when it came to how to proceed with pointing out the issue to his fellow competitor.

 

The rules allow me to point out to a competitor that he's made an infraction and to give him the chance to take appropriate action. Likely more details will come out, and if it's the case that Cejka continued to use the book after being spoken to about it I see no issue with the official being brought in. As I said technically there's no issue with the enforcement either, but clearly this wouldn't be such a hot issue already if it were cut and dry. Nothing about the situation seems to be a positive for the game for those looking in from the outside. As to my mention of what Tringale did, it seems against the spirit the game is supposed to espouse if Cejka wasn't given the chance to make amends himself, even if the only choice would have been for him to DQ himself.

 

I really have no words for this take. Ill try flabbergasted but thats not it.

 

It was the 14TH hole! Hed already used the book 13 other times. If Tringale noticed it on the first, then yes, no need to bring an official in. Just tell Cejka his book isnt legal, dont use it again, and play on.

 

But it was the 14th. I bet Tringale wasnt even watching Cejka closely, but then he unfolded the green paper like 3 times and has a topo map that nobody else uses, it probably stuck out.

 

All the official had to do was roll over, take a look at the book, and ask Cejka if hed used it previously. When Cejka answers YES, hes taking a ride back to the clubhouse.

 

No CYA by Tringale. He noticed a FC using what he thought might be an illegal book. He called over an official. He did what every FC should be expected to do in a stroke play comp.

Again, the things that stand out to me are one, the way it was handled in that while he did not have to he could have given his competitor the chance to correct the violation himself. Two, Tringale himself didn't know the options to handle the situation. I'm not sure what you're flabbergasted by. I said very clearly that under the letter of the rules nothing was done wrong, but the situation is yet another violation in as many weeks caused by the rule changes that doesn't look well from the outside and in which multiple people involved didn't even know what the proper procedure was and immediately called in an official. Tringale didn't call him in because he decided that Cejka wasn't going to take proper action after being called out, he got the official because he had no idea what to do either. It was CYA because Tringale was in the dark himself.

 

It's more weirdness in as many weeks and I can promise you it wouldn't have been picked up on the sports page, etc., if it weren't such an oddity. I think it could have been handled better by Tringale from what's been presented. Any tournaments I've played those playing try to assess the situation themselves including consulting a rules book before calling in an offical. If I worked at an accounting firm I'd try and decipher the totality of a situation with a coworker before calling in an auditor from down the hall if the rules allowed me to do so. I don't see running to an official ASAP over another competitor's play making for much in the way of closeness out there. No worries at all if you feel differently, you'd be within your rights to call someone over before trying to handle the situation within the group and letting your competitor assess the incurred penalty against himself.

 

As this is a discussion board I'm discussing how I see things. This is why I said elsewhere that maybe I should just stay out of rules threads because there seems to be a lot of black and white with no room to talk about the grey areas that keep coming up week after week since these changes. Perhaps the rules section should be closed because if it's in the rules then it's correct, to the letter, in every way, and there's no possibility that a situation could have been handled more in keeping with the spirit of the game nor is there any chance that the penalties associated with a rule are overly penal.

[Colin L]

The grey areas are mostly, if not all, created by commentators, pundits, would-be pundits and inhabitants of golf forums.

 

Is the answer to both of these questions Yes?

 

Did the map being used exceed the limits of size and scale laid down in Interpretation 4.3a/1?

Was the map used on two or more separate occasions?

 

If so, the player is disqualified. That is the penalty for a multiple breach of Rule 4.3 There is no grey area. By penalising a player who breached a rule, the spirit of the game is kept intact because playing by the rules is in the spirit of the game. It is irrelevant that another player was uncertain as to what to do.

[Vindog]

Nothing about the situation seems to be a positive for the game for those looking in from the outside. As to my mention of what Tringale did, it seems against the spirit the game is supposed to espouse if Cejka wasn't given the chance to make amends himself, even if the only choice would have been for him to DQ himself.

 

Actually, for more me it is refreshing to see that that Tringale:

• Read the rules
  
• Was gutsy enough to protect the field
  

Both well within the spirit of the game. There really wasn't anything else Tringale was able to do once the infractions occurred.

[Mr. Bean]

It's more weirdness in as many weeks and I can promise you it wouldn't have been picked up on the sports page, etc., if it weren't such an oddity. I think it could have been handled better by Tringale from what's been presented. Any tournaments I've played those playing try to assess the situation themselves including consulting a rules book before calling in an offical. If I worked at an accounting firm I'd try and decipher the totality of a situation with a coworker before calling in an auditor from down the hall if the rules allowed me to do so. I don't see running to an official ASAP over another competitor's play making for much in the way of closeness out there. No worries at all if you feel differently, you'd be within your rights to call someone over before trying to handle the situation within the group and letting your competitor assess the incurred penalty against himself.

 

The bolded text caught my eye as I could not disagree with that more even if I tried.

 

Most players on all levels are far too ignorant on the Rules to consult the Rules of Golf on the course let alone to know from where to look for an answer on that book. So, they call for a referee and ask every time an unfamiliar situation occurs. In this specific situation those two players would first have had to understand that this particular part of the Rules is not found in the Player's Edition and not even in the Rules of Golf version so I very much doubt that they would have been capable of finding a correct answer even if they had had an hour to deal with it.

[Vindog]

And if a player new there was an infraction but was unsure about how to proceed, wouldn't that compel him to call/speak to an official, instead of just ignoring it?

[Mr. Bean]

And if a player new there was an infraction but was unsure about how to proceed, wouldn't that compel him to call/speak to an official, instead of just ignoring it?

 

I believe PedronNiall suggests that Tringale should have told Cejka to call up a referee himself so 'he could have given his competitor the chance to correct the violation himself'. The outcome would have been the same but this type of procedure would have had PerdonNiall's blessing. I guess.

 

P.S. Although I cannot understand how Cejka could have 'corrected the violation himself' as he was going to be DQ'd anyway...

[Sawgrass]

IMO the best thing for a player observing what he thinks (or knows) is a penalty is to say to the offender, "I don't think you're allowed to do that."

 

This does a few things:

 

1) Minimizes the potential for an altercation between players (as might occur with a stronger, or more definitive, statement)

2) Offers an opportunity for the offender to get more information from the presumably more knowledgeable player if he chooses, or immediately from a ref

3) Provides a chance for a correction sometimes, in some cases a penalty-free correction

4) Obligates the offender to check with the Committee to determine if he had, in fact, violated a rule prior to returning his score

 

But all that said, the problem isn't caused by the observer, the problem is caused by the player. That's where the change must occur.

[davep043]

IMO the best thing for a player observing what he thinks (or knows) is a penalty is to say to the offender, "I don't think you're allowed to do that."

 

This does a few things:

 

1) Minimizes the potential for an altercation between players (as might occur with a stronger, or more definitive, statement)

2) Offers an opportunity for the offender to get more information from the presumably more knowledgeable player if he chooses, or immediately from a ref

3) Provides a chance for a correction sometimes, in some cases a penalty-free correction

4) Obligates the offender to check with the Committee to determine if he had, in fact, violated a rule prior to returning his score

 

But all that said, the problem isn't caused by the observer, the problem is caused by the player. That's where the change must occur.

I agree with you, and based on this account, it seems that Tringale did just that:

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/alex-cejka-is-disqualified-the-first-victim-of-a-new-rule-limiting-scope-of-green-reading-books

“I saw it and told my caddie,” Tringale said. “I mentioned it to [Cejka] but was unfamiliar how exactly to proceed. I told the first official I saw what I had seen.”

I feel better about the state of the PGA Tour when a pro knows the rules, and is willing to take the appropriate steps when he sees a violation. Tringale could easily have taken the "good buddy" approach and said nothing, but he took the tougher route.

[Augster]

I have no idea what “give Cjeka a chance to correct the error” is in this situation. If he was playing the first hole, sure, but I’m sure Tringale would still call an official over to make sure the book is actually illegal.

 

These guys were on the 13th hole when Tringale noticed it. Presumably, Cjeka has used the book 12 other times at that point.

 

Lastly, players can’t DQ other players. All they can do is bring possible infractions to the committee and let them sort it out.

 

In no universe was Tringale ever walking up to Cjeka on 13, seeing the book, and saying, “Hey, that’s an illegal book. You’ve used it multiple times. I say you’re DQ and you should ask for a ride in immediately. Pick em up. You’re done.” That would never ever happen.

 

Tringale did exactly what he should do. When you see something, say something.

[raynorfan1]

The best part of this story was that the greens were entirely rebuilt last year and the book he was using was totally wrong.

 

Which begs the question about whether he actually broke the rule...he thought he was using an illegal book, but it was actually just a bunch of drawings of greens that don’t exist anymore. If a map is wrong, is it still a map?

[augustgolf]

If they really felt green reading should be done with the eyes, and it's an essential skill, they should get rid of green books altogether. It's a rule that only affects high level guys. Nobody I know uses green books.

 

Simplify the rules. Get rid of green books altogether.

Would you therefore outlaw all yardage books that show a green's shape? I like using a yardage book on an unfamiliar course. I think it's a fine compromise to have one, even one which tells me the general slope of the green from a distance, but not allow too much detail in the process.

 

Following the rule is as simple as making sure your equipment is up to date. Don't use old grooves if they are currently disallowed, don't use old yardage books if they are disallowed.

 

I believe that illegal books are virtually only used by pros and highly skilled players, all of whom should be able to adjust without taking my more crude book away from me.

 

No. Not all books. Knowing the shape of a green, or a picture of it from above like a GPS rendering or satellite photo, won't help you read it at all.

 

If I were king though, I'd get rid of all yardage books. Just GPS and lasers.

 

And pacing off a yardage would be a 2SP.

 

to input from another thread going on at the moment: how long is a pace???