-
-
Re: DQ Decision Revised
Thanks for posting that information. This is a good change.
However, I have trouble accepting some situations where video evidence results in a penalty, let alone a disqualification. For example, the third example in the posted link regarding slight movement of the ball when removing ball marker.
After the competitor signs and returns his score card, video footage is brought to the attention of the Committee that reveals that the ball did not precisely return to its original spot. When questioned by the Committee, the competitor cites the fact that the position of the logo on the ball appeared to be in exactly the same position as it was when he replaced the ball and this was the reason for him believing that the ball returned to the original spot.The movement is apparently so slight that it cannot be detected by the human eye but a penalty must be applied. How about then comparing the exact position of the ball before it is lifted with the position after it is replaced. There likely is some slight movement virtually every time.
Tweet
Comment