Weir's Penalty stroke @ Canadian Open

[masterli]

so the committee can reverse any ruling?

On Saturday Weir stepped over a shot on the 18th the fairway and his ball moved. He brought over an official and they ruled that he did not ground his club, thus did not address the ball and received no penalty. Then on Sunday the rules committee reopened the incident, couldn't figure out what really caused the ball to move. Apparently because it's unclear it's assumed the player did it and he got a one stroke penalty.

My question is can the rules committee reverse any ruling at anytime for any reason? What's the point of a rules official if their ruling isn't final? Isn't this a mistake by the rules official? Are you just supposed to hope a rules official is right but never assume? I can easily see a situation where a player would make a different decision if accessed a penalty immediately (go for a green in two to make the cut or maybe layup to hold a lead). With a retroactive penalty a player is never given a chance to make a different decision. That sounds completely wrong to me. What am I missing?

[bantam]

There must be something else? The are are all kinds of factors that could cause a ball to move. To say we don't know the cause...therefore it must have been the player... is bad logic. I wonder if there was a complaint? Too much rain, they must have need something to do.

[bigred90gt]

I think that once a rules official is called over, the issue is discussed, and a decision made by said rules official, it should be case closed, period. The rules official has a job to do, and when they make a ruling, it should stand.

[OpusX20]

[quote name='masterli' post='1845340' date='Jul 27 2009, 03:02 AM']On Saturday Weir stepped over a shot on the 18th the fairway and his ball moved. He brought over an official and they ruled that he did not ground his club, thus did not address the ball and received no penalty. Then on Sunday the rules committee reopened the incident, couldn't figure out what really caused the ball to move. Apparently because it's unclear it's assumed the player did it and he got a one stroke penalty.

My question is can the rules committee reverse any ruling at anytime for any reason? What's the point of a rules official if their ruling isn't final? Isn't this a mistake by the rules official? Are you just supposed to hope a rules official is right but never assume? I can easily see a situation where a player would make a different decision if accessed a penalty immediately (go for a green in two to make the cut or maybe layup to hold a lead). With a retroactive penalty a player is never given a chance to make a different decision. That sounds completely wrong to me. What am I missing?[/quote]


It does seem strange, but the committee was well within their rights. The committee can override the decision of a rules official. They can even override their own previous decisions. They cannot however "reverse any ruling at anytime for any reason". They could not reverse a ruling after the competition had closed. And they can only reverse rulings when the original ruling was not in accordance with the rules. (Not sure why they made that determination in this case though.) This also works the other way as well. Had a rules official assessed a penalty incorrectly, it could be reversed by the committee and the penalty removed.

Most of what rules officials do is considered final. For example, they spend very little time actually assessing penalties. Most of their time is spent on procedures. (I.e., where to drop, when, etc.) If they advised a player of the wrong procedure, the committee could not reverse that ruling.

[Mr. Herbert]

[quote name='bigred90gt' post='1845979' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:52 PM']I think that once a rules official is called over, the issue is discussed, and a decision made by said rules official, it should be case closed, period. The rules official has a job to do, and when they make a ruling, it should stand.[/quote]

Are you against the use of instant replay by the NFL?

[Dr.John]

[quote name='Mr. Herbert' post='1846151' date='Jul 27 2009, 02:51 PM'][quote name='bigred90gt' post='1845979' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:52 PM']I think that once a rules official is called over, the issue is discussed, and a decision made by said rules official, it should be case closed, period. The rules official has a job to do, and when they make a ruling, it should stand.[/quote]

Are you against the use of instant replay by the NFL?
[/quote]


Even in the NFL, once the next play has started you can't view the previous play, so it stands. Can you point to one instance where the NFL changed a call THE NEXT DAY??

[Mr. Herbert]

[quote name='Dr.John' post='1846160' date='Jul 27 2009, 02:55 PM'][quote name='Mr. Herbert' post='1846151' date='Jul 27 2009, 02:51 PM'][quote name='bigred90gt' post='1845979' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:52 PM']I think that once a rules official is called over, the issue is discussed, and a decision made by said rules official, it should be case closed, period. The rules official has a job to do, and when they make a ruling, it should stand.[/quote]

Are you against the use of instant replay by the NFL?
[/quote]


Even in the NFL, once the next play has started you can't view the previous play, so it stands. Can you point to one instance where the NFL changed a call THE NEXT DAY??
[/quote]

Of course not, an NFL game doesn't last 4 days like a PGA tournament does. As someone posted earlier, once the tournament is over, they can't go back and change it.

I was referring to the poster who said that once a ruling is made, it should stand. But that's not the case in any other sport. The NFL has decided that the refs have 90 seconds or whatever to review camera angles. The PGA has decided that penalty strokes can be assessed at any time during the course of a tournament. Those are the rules. Neither league's rule is better or worse than the other, just different.

[OpusX20]

[quote name='Dr.John' post='1846160' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:55 PM'][quote name='Mr. Herbert' post='1846151' date='Jul 27 2009, 02:51 PM'][quote name='bigred90gt' post='1845979' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:52 PM']I think that once a rules official is called over, the issue is discussed, and a decision made by said rules official, it should be case closed, period. The rules official has a job to do, and when they make a ruling, it should stand.[/quote]

Are you against the use of instant replay by the NFL?
[/quote]


Even in the NFL, once the next play has started you can't view the previous play, so it stands. Can you point to one instance where the NFL changed a call THE NEXT DAY??
[/quote]

It's the same thing in golf. Only instead of the "start of the next play", golf uses the "close of competition" as the timeframe to fix faulty rulings.

[Dr.John]

[quote name='OpusX20' post='1846185' date='Jul 27 2009, 03:06 PM'][quote name='Dr.John' post='1846160' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:55 PM'][quote name='Mr. Herbert' post='1846151' date='Jul 27 2009, 02:51 PM'][quote name='bigred90gt' post='1845979' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:52 PM']I think that once a rules official is called over, the issue is discussed, and a decision made by said rules official, it should be case closed, period. The rules official has a job to do, and when they make a ruling, it should stand.[/quote]

Are you against the use of instant replay by the NFL?
[/quote]


Even in the NFL, once the next play has started you can't view the previous play, so it stands. Can you point to one instance where the NFL changed a call THE NEXT DAY??
[/quote]

It's the same thing in golf. Only instead of the "start of the next play", golf uses the "close of competition" as the timeframe to fix faulty rulings.
[/quote]

Not arguing that, just seems to me they consulted a rules official and he gave a ruling. Seems assessing a penalty the next day is more than tardy. They had plenty of time even until he finished his round and signed his scorecard to review the call. I understand the rules of golf, but I believe this is one that they should consider changing.

[OpusX20]

[quote name='Dr.John' post='1846411' date='Jul 27 2009, 03:26 PM'][quote name='OpusX20' post='1846185' date='Jul 27 2009, 03:06 PM'][quote name='Dr.John' post='1846160' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:55 PM'][quote name='Mr. Herbert' post='1846151' date='Jul 27 2009, 02:51 PM'][quote name='bigred90gt' post='1845979' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:52 PM']I think that once a rules official is called over, the issue is discussed, and a decision made by said rules official, it should be case closed, period. The rules official has a job to do, and when they make a ruling, it should stand.[/quote]

Are you against the use of instant replay by the NFL?
[/quote]


Even in the NFL, once the next play has started you can't view the previous play, so it stands. Can you point to one instance where the NFL changed a call THE NEXT DAY??
[/quote]

It's the same thing in golf. Only instead of the "start of the next play", golf uses the "close of competition" as the timeframe to fix faulty rulings.
[/quote]

Not arguing that, just seems to me they consulted a rules official and he gave a ruling. Seems assessing a penalty the next day is more than tardy. They had plenty of time even until he finished his round and signed his scorecard to review the call. I understand the rules of golf, but I believe this is one that they should consider changing.
[/quote]

I don't disagre on the timeframe part. It would seem like "completion of the days play" might be better than "close of competition", at least for multi-day events. I think the right of the committee to reverse the ruling of a rules official should be preserved. It is very important for the conducting of a competition. But, it should be done in the most efficient/quick manner possible.

[ZBigStick]

[quote name='Dr.John' post='1846411' date='Jul 27 2009, 04:26 PM'][quote name='OpusX20' post='1846185' date='Jul 27 2009, 03:06 PM'][quote name='Dr.John' post='1846160' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:55 PM'][quote name='Mr. Herbert' post='1846151' date='Jul 27 2009, 02:51 PM'][quote name='bigred90gt' post='1845979' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:52 PM']I think that once a rules official is called over, the issue is discussed, and a decision made by said rules official, it should be case closed, period. The rules official has a job to do, and when they make a ruling, it should stand.[/quote]

Are you against the use of instant replay by the NFL?
[/quote]


Even in the NFL, once the next play has started you can't view the previous play, so it stands. Can you point to one instance where the NFL changed a call THE NEXT DAY??
[/quote]

It's the same thing in golf. Only instead of the "start of the next play", golf uses the "close of competition" as the timeframe to fix faulty rulings.
[/quote]

Not arguing that, just seems to me they consulted a rules official and he gave a ruling. Seems assessing a penalty the next day is more than tardy. They had plenty of time even until he finished his round and signed his scorecard to review the call. I understand the rules of golf, but I believe this is one that they should consider changing.
[/quote]

Exactly, they have the cameras and technology. Get it done by the time the player reaches the scoring tent and let it be over.

The NFL comparison is flawed.

No call ins either.

[withdrew]

NFL football and PGA golf = apples and oranges.

Can you imagine T.O. calling pass-interference on HIMSELF? Well that's what golfers do. So the two sports and their replay/officiating policies cannot be compared, period.

[masterli]

[quote name='OpusX20' post='1846100' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:32 PM']It does seem strange, but the committee was well within their rights. The committee can override the decision of a rules official. They can even override their own previous decisions. They cannot however "reverse any ruling at anytime for any reason". They could not reverse a ruling after the competition had closed. And they can only reverse rulings when the original ruling was not in accordance with the rules. (Not sure why they made that determination in this case though.) This also works the other way as well. Had a rules official assessed a penalty incorrectly, it could be reversed by the committee and the penalty removed.[/quote]

On the surface it sounds like a good idea to have that power, but in a situation like this it just opens up a can of worms. Even going the other way (reversing a penalty) brings up the same problem I mentioned before. Another player's score can force your hand to go for a shot (again, maybe to make the cut). Does more harm than good in my opinion.

I just thought there was another piece of the puzzle that prompted them to revisit the ruling (Canadian rules? lol j/k). Sounds like it's at their discretion which again highlights that fact that it can lead to more problems than solutions.

[quote name='OpusX20' post='1846100' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:32 PM']Most of what rules officials do is considered final. For example, they spend very little time actually assessing penalties. Most of their time is spent on procedures. (I.e., where to drop, when, etc.) If they advised a player of the wrong procedure, the committee could not reverse that ruling.[/quote]

So is this why the Els incident at the US open wasn't (or couldn't be) changed after the fact? Basically what happened was Els got relief from a camera crane. The official claimed it was an immovable object. Then he ends up in the same situation another day. This time the official correctly has the crane moved and received no relief.

[krustyburger]

[quote name='withdrew' post='1846439' date='Jul 27 2009, 04:36 PM']NFL football and PGA golf = apples and oranges.

Can you imagine T.O. calling pass-interference on HIMSELF? Well that's what golfers do. So the two sports and their replay/officiating policies cannot be compared, period.[/quote]

No one was talking about players calling penalties on themselves, they were talking about officials. Every sport has officials. Every sport is different, but it isn't a stretch to compare how officiating is done across different sports.

[masterli]

[quote name='Mr. Herbert' post='1846151' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:51 PM'][quote name='bigred90gt' post='1845979' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:52 PM']I think that once a rules official is called over, the issue is discussed, and a decision made by said rules official, it should be case closed, period. The rules official has a job to do, and when they make a ruling, it should stand.[/quote]

Are you against the use of instant replay by the NFL?
[/quote]

it was my understanding that they did use camera footage on the first ruling. i'm not certain though. obviously they used it the second time. i personally have no problem using the replays as a tool.

i do think the decisions by an rules official should be final. yes there will be mistakes but the player can also get a second opinion from another official correct? that should guard against ridiculous rulings at the least. i think that's about as good as it can get. if the decisions aren't final to me they aren't officiating and just suggesting. i don't see the benefit of doing after the fact.

[OpusX20]

[quote name='masterli' post='1846465' date='Jul 27 2009, 03:49 PM'][quote name='OpusX20' post='1846100' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:32 PM']It does seem strange, but the committee was well within their rights. The committee can override the decision of a rules official. They can even override their own previous decisions. They cannot however "reverse any ruling at anytime for any reason". They could not reverse a ruling after the competition had closed. And they can only reverse rulings when the original ruling was not in accordance with the rules. (Not sure why they made that determination in this case though.) This also works the other way as well. Had a rules official assessed a penalty incorrectly, it could be reversed by the committee and the penalty removed.[/quote]

On the surface it sounds like a good idea to have that power, but in a situation like this it just opens up a can of worms. Even going the other way (reversing a penalty) brings up the same problem I mentioned before. Another player's score can force your hand to go for a shot (again, maybe to make the cut). Does more harm than good in my opinion.

I just thought there was another piece of the puzzle that prompted them to revisit the ruling (Canadian rules? lol j/k). Sounds like it's at their discretion which again highlights that fact that it can lead to more problems than solutions.

[quote name='OpusX20' post='1846100' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:32 PM']Most of what rules officials do is considered final. For example, they spend very little time actually assessing penalties. Most of their time is spent on procedures. (I.e., where to drop, when, etc.) If they advised a player of the wrong procedure, the committee could not reverse that ruling.[/quote]

So is this why the Els incident at the US open wasn't (or couldn't be) changed after the fact? Basically what happened was Els got relief from a camera crane. The official claimed it was an immovable object. Then he ends up in the same situation another day. This time the official correctly has the crane moved and received no relief.
[/quote]

You are right that in the scenario you painted there could be some issues with the committee exercising their power in this way. But, I think it's more likely that improperly giving (or not giving) a penalty is far more likely to negatively influence the outcome of the event.

As someone who has been a rules official and/or on the committee at countless tournament, I can tell you that this provision is very helpful. If you run into a strange situation as a rules official, it certainly helps to know that there is the possibility of further review of your decision. I never had a ruling reversed but there were several that I was not 100% sure was correct. Being able to talk it over with other rules folks later on helps ensure that the rules officials have little or nothing to do with the outcome.

Without this provision, I think you could run into some serious pace of play issues. What I mean is that if the "on the spot" ruling is final (no matter what) there would be longer conferences, more waiting time to gather rules officials from other parts of the course, etc.

And yes, the Ernie Els situation is a good example of an error made by a rules official that could not be rectified by the committee.

[crtssxc]

Pardon my ignorance here, but was Weit disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard? or was he saved by the fact that he hadnt finished his round due to rain?

I didnt watch much of it this weekend. What would be the outcome if a player signs his scorecard for say 70, then the rules officials assess a penalty overnight; is he ok with a 71, or is he disqualified?

[Mainlinegolfer]

I don't know all the details, but I think it was a matter of a rules official making an initial ruling based on the best available information provided to him He wasn't there when Weir addressed the ball, so asked Weir if he had grounded his club and was told "I don't think so". Based on that, there was no penalty.

However, the video tape apparently clearly showed that Weir HAD indeed grounded his club, and it was reviewed with Weir. Weir agreed that he had grounded his club so was thus deemed to have caused the ball to move; therefore he was penalized. The official did not "rule he had addressed the ball"; he would not have known and could only be guided by what the player (or someone else told him). Later, additional "facts" were provided by the video tape and the ruling changed.

[OpusX20]

[quote name='crtssxc' post='1846545' date='Jul 27 2009, 04:25 PM']Pardon my ignorance here, but was Weit disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard? or was he saved by the fact that he hadnt finished his round due to rain?

I didnt watch much of it this weekend. What would be the outcome if a player signs his scorecard for say 70, then the rules officials assess a penalty overnight; is he ok with a 71, or is he disqualified?[/quote]

In this situation, the player is not disqualified. They just add the stroke to the previously "official" score.

[rbarter]

[quote name='Mainlinegolfer' post='1846550' date='Jul 27 2009, 05:58 PM']I don't know all the details, but I think it was a matter of a rules official making an initial ruling based on the best available information provided to him He wasn't there when Weir addressed the ball, so asked Weir if he had grounded his club and was told "I don't think so". Based on that, there was no penalty.

However, the video tape apparently clearly showed that Weir HAD indeed grounded his club, and it was reviewed with Weir. Weir agreed that he had grounded his club so was thus deemed to have caused the ball to move; therefore he was penalized. The official did not "rule he had addressed the ball"; he would not have known and could only be guided by what the player (or someone else told him). Later, additional "facts" were provided by the video tape and the ruling changed.[/quote]

That's not how it went down at all. They (Weir and officials) had reviewed it on tape after the 2nd round and it was clear that Weir had not grounded the club. However, the tour was then flooded with calls from the armchair rule officials citing Rule 18-2A and the player being guilty until proven innocent in such a situation. Weir was called in again during the 3rd round rain delay and it was then decided to assess the penalty as Weir was not certain that he did not touch a blade of grass or caused the ball to move getting into his stance.

More interesting to me is Nathan Green's drop(s) on the 1st playoff hole. A rules official was right there but it appeared to me from the angle on TV that he was clearly allowed to drop closer to the hole.

[withdrew]

[quote name='krustyburger' post='1846478' date='Jul 27 2009, 04:55 PM'][quote name='withdrew' post='1846439' date='Jul 27 2009, 04:36 PM']NFL football and PGA golf = apples and oranges.

Can you imagine T.O. calling pass-interference on HIMSELF? Well that's what golfers do. So the two sports and their replay/officiating policies cannot be compared, period.[/quote]

No one was talking about players calling penalties on themselves, they were talking about officials. Every sport has officials. Every sport is different, but it isn't a stretch to compare how officiating is done across different sports.
[/quote]

I suppose we can talk about how they can't be compared, or compare and contrast how different they are.

Golf is completely different on every level. Four day tournaments. Cameras following each individual player, some more than others. Officiating done MAINLY by the individual player. Spectators calling in to identify penalties and other rulings over the phone. Time is also not really an issue.

In other sports- (NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA) officiating, replays, rulings and over-rulings are done on mostly on bang-bang heat of the moment plays. You don't have a day or two or three to figure out if a guy is safe at home, if an overtime field-goal is wide right or if a ball left a player's hand before the buzzer.

Golf is a tough sport to officiate I would think, but we rely on the individual players to police themselves, which is fine by me. In my opinion, after the round is over, they should have until midnight the same day to make any rulings or assess any penalties. If the player didn't call it on himself, if nobody called it in and no official caught it on the course, that should be the end of it, and the scores are in the books. Going back a day or two is ridiculous in my opinion.

[bigred90gt]

[quote name='Mr. Herbert' post='1846151' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:51 PM'][quote name='bigred90gt' post='1845979' date='Jul 27 2009, 01:52 PM']I think that once a rules official is called over, the issue is discussed, and a decision made by said rules official, it should be case closed, period. The rules official has a job to do, and when they make a ruling, it should stand.[/quote]

Are you against the use of instant replay by the NFL?
[/quote]

I dont watch the NFL, so aside from being an apples to oranges comparison by the nature of the games being played, I really couldnt care less what they do in the NFL.

[Jesperday]

[quote name='rbarter' post='1847753' date='Jul 28 2009, 06:55 AM'][quote name='Mainlinegolfer' post='1846550' date='Jul 27 2009, 05:58 PM']I don't know all the details, but I think it was a matter of a rules official making an initial ruling based on the best available information provided to him He wasn't there when Weir addressed the ball, so asked Weir if he had grounded his club and was told "I don't think so". Based on that, there was no penalty.

However, the video tape apparently clearly showed that Weir HAD indeed grounded his club, and it was reviewed with Weir. Weir agreed that he had grounded his club so was thus deemed to have caused the ball to move; therefore he was penalized. The official did not "rule he had addressed the ball"; he would not have known and could only be guided by what the player (or someone else told him). Later, additional "facts" were provided by the video tape and the ruling changed.[/quote]

That's not how it went down at all. They (Weir and officials) had reviewed it on tape after the 2nd round and it was clear that Weir had not grounded the club. However, the tour was then flooded with calls from the armchair rule officials citing Rule 18-2A and the player being guilty until proven innocent in such a situation. Weir was called in again during the 3rd round rain delay and it was then decided to assess the penalty as Weir was not certain that he did not touch a blade of grass or caused the ball to move getting into his stance.

More interesting to me is Nathan Green's drop(s) on the 1st playoff hole. A rules official was right there but it appeared to me from the angle on TV that he was clearly allowed to drop closer to the hole.
[/quote]

i think weir was trying to be too cautious with his answer on whether or not he grounded the club. fact is, on every pre shot routine he takes he doesn't ground his club. based on that, i probably would have said no i didn't ground my club.

i do agree that the decison should be made before the round is complete and then closed. even with instant replay refs do not always get it right but a decision is made and the players move on. and there is absolutely no way in hell a viewer should be able to call in and put there .02 in. that is just rediculous.

[masterli]

so the "gray area" is because Weir was unsure himself. Since he was the only witness that's all they can go on. Because of Rule 18-2A he's given the penalty.

Sounds like the moral of the story is to always give yourself the benefit of the doubt. Say you can quantify it and Weir thought there was a 10% he grounded it. Is it wrong for him to just say he didn't? Even if he thought there was a 90% chance he grounded it is it wrong for him to say he didn't ground it? There's still a chance he didn't, just giving himself the benefit of the doubt. It's not like he would be lying.

Out of curiosity, what would have happened if he was adamant about not grounding the club. Official comes, says ok, no penalty, then later after video review they see that he did ground the club. Would he be disqualified for signing the wrong scorecard? Or, because he got the official ok would he get the retroactive one stroke penalty?

[Jesperday]

[quote name='masterli' post='1848980' date='Jul 28 2009, 05:09 PM']so the "gray area" is because Weir was unsure himself. Since he was the only witness that's all they can go on. Because of Rule 18-2A he's given the penalty.

Sounds like the moral of the story is to always give yourself the benefit of the doubt. Say you can quantify it and Weir thought there was a 10% he grounded it. Is it wrong for him to just say he didn't? Even if he thought there was a 90% chance he grounded it is it wrong for him to say he didn't ground it? There's still a chance he didn't, just giving himself the benefit of the doubt. It's not like he would be lying.

Out of curiosity, what would have happened if he was adamant about not grounding the club. Official comes, says ok, no penalty, then later after video review they see that he did ground the club. Would he be disqualified for signing the wrong scorecard? Or, because he got the official ok would he get the retroactive one stroke penalty?[/quote]

that's my understanding with the "guilty until proven innocent" rule. basically, since he didn't know he was penalized as if he grounded it. that's where i have a problem. if i have a pre shot routine and have made thousands of that pre shot routine and NEVER grounded my club with that pre shot routine then you are correct my friend i would say i didn't ground my club.

[David Hillman]

   I think we're missing the point.

   If the PGA Tour officials, players, and armchair officials at home need 2 days, multiple conferences, and video evidence to make a decision... the rulebook is way too complex.  Fix the rulebook and this whole problem goes away.

   192 pages of rules for a simple game is ridiculous, and pointless, since even professionals don't and can't know them well-enough to play by them, so how many amateurs can?  Burn the rulebooks and start from scratch.

[Ping-er]

Think this was total BS...just because it was WEIR and the Canadian Open, eh,
The rule needs to be interpreted the way it is written, IMO he addressed the ball, grounding it or not.
So you are telling me that all the players who hover the club never really address the ball ? The moment you
take your stance and and get ready to start your pre-swing routine (like Weir has his little backswing check)...thats it, the player caused the ball to move. And if you overturn whatever decision, IMO you signed a wrong scorecard...DQ'ed

[forgedforever]

Here's my take: Since video clearly showed the ball moved, officials felt they had to "do something" and revisited the situation several times. From what I recall of the lie of the ball, it appeared to be on the edge of a divot. Also the grass was very wet. I don't believe that Weir grounded his club. However he was ultimately held responsible for its movement. I actually believe that the combination of the ball sitting on the edge of a divot, in wet conditions, and then toss in gravity, made the ball move.

[Jesperday]

[quote name='forgedforever' post='1850163' date='Jul 29 2009, 08:07 AM']Here's my take: Since video clearly showed the ball moved, officials felt they had to "do something" and revisited the situation several times. From what I recall of the lie of the ball, it appeared to be on the edge of a divot. Also the grass was very wet. I don't believe that Weir grounded his club. However he was ultimately held responsible for its movement. I actually believe that the combination of the ball sitting on the edge of a divot, in wet conditions, and then toss in gravity, made the ball move.[/quote]

+1 and 2 on that my friend! Weir knew he didn't make that ball move he just wanted to give the rules official a neutral answer so they could figure it out. And they should have figured it out by the end of his round and closed the case.

[BugsyinNC]

[quote name='Ping-er' post='1850146' date='Jul 29 2009, 07:45 AM']Think this was total BS...just because it was WEIR and the Canadian Open, eh,
The rule needs to be interpreted the way it is written, IMO he addressed the ball, grounding it or not.
So you are telling me that all the players who hover the club never really address the ball ? The moment you
take your stance and and get ready to start your pre-swing routine (like Weir has his little backswing check)...thats it, the player caused the ball to move. And if you overturn whatever decision, IMO you signed a wrong scorecard...DQ'ed[/quote]
It is not BS, you can't ignore the rule that discusses grounding the club as part of the stance. Read rule 18/2B. He didn't sign an incorrect score card as he followed the rules official's ruling.
This whole situation is screwed up, his original score should stand.