Officials Playing making calls?

[johnrock]

One thing that hasn't been addressed yet is at most events I've played in, the Td will usually ask during the player's meeting if any players are Certified Officials. That seems like all the "authorization" needed to make official calls during that event.

[cgkdisc]

I do recall sort of making a call from the peanut gallery at the MN Majestic in 2004 or 2005 which may have been an A-tier that year. In the Final 9, a player hit the mando tree (you had to pass on the right) on a safari hole and bounced hard to the left and back a bit. He picked up his disc and walked to the drop zone for the mando. Just before he threw I called out to him from the sidelines that he hadn't missed the mando and needed to go back to where he landed. It potentially saved him a few shots in likely penalties had he thrown a shot or two playing from the drop zone and later having it discovered. Of course, he choked his next throw and didn't make it across the mando line but he maybe threw one better on his score than he would have with the penalty.

[cgkdisc]

One thing that hasn't been addressed yet is at most events I've played in, the Td will usually ask during the player's meeting if any players are Certified Officials. That seems like all the "authorization" needed to make official calls during that event.

That's simply a misunderstanding on the TDs part unless those players will be authorized officials. Even then, they still can't make unilateral rulings in the division they are playing in.

[tkieffer]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

I do recall sort of making a call from the peanut gallery at the MN Majestic in 2004 or 2005 which may have been an A-tier that year. In the Final 9, a player hit the mando tree (you had to pass on the right) on a safari hole and bounced hard to the left and back a bit. He picked up his disc and walked to the drop zone for the mando. Just before he threw I called out to him from the sidelines that he hadn't missed the mando and needed to go back to where he landed. It potentially saved him a few shots in likely penalties had he thrown a shot or two playing from the drop zone and later having it discovered. Of course, he choked his next throw and didn't make it across the mando line but he maybe threw one better on his score than he would have with the penalty.

You were acting as a coach, not an official! ;-)

[johnrock]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

That's simply a misunderstanding on the TDs part unless those players will be authorized officials. Even then, they still can't make unilateral rulings in the division they are playing in.

I have always understood that part, it is clear in the rules. You're harping on and on about something that IS NOT clear in the rules. Get the passages re-written to reflect what you keep going on about and then case closed. Until then the written rule book is what we have to go by.

[cgkdisc]

It could be more clear, but it IS clearly written that a certified official must get authorized to be an Official at an event. The fact that some don't understand the meaning of that is a reason for clarification, but not correction of the rule. It wouldn't be the first rule that is written correctly but people misinterpret like the one this weekend where the TD claimed that if your disc is just touching the OB line, you are OB regardless if any of your disc is IB.

[Hoser]

Chuck, were you watching the Masters yesterday? On Hole #13 (maybe it was #15), going for the green in two, Ernie Els landed in the creek fronting the green. Dropping “three” backward along the line of play, he skulled his fourth shot over the green. Chipping five from there, he overshot the pin and rolled off the front of the green. The gallery groaned at the error, as the ball came to rest partway down the slope. From where Ernie was standing, the ball was invisible and the gallery reaction made him think the ball had gone back into the creek. He took a new ball in hand and raised his arm to shoulder height to take a drop where he stood.

The gallery shouted, “No, no!”

Ernie got the memo. He didn’t drop that ball. He went across the green, found his ball dry, and got up and down for double bogey seven.

If he had dropped that ball, the drop would have been live and he would have been lying seven where he stood. The gallery saved him two or three strokes and a bunch of cash.

Coach? Official? Tattletale? Busybody? Loudmouth? Fair play?

On the same day, another mind-blower happened, which I’m curious to get your opinion about. Phil Mickelson, battling for the lead, had a 12’ putt for birdie. He addressed the ball, head down, ready to swing his club back for the putt. At this instant the Golf Gods saw fit to waft a piece of pine cone fringe across 150’ of open air from the nearest tree to land exactly on Phil’s line, halfway to the hole. Two seconds later, Phil putted straight toward the hole. The ball hit the debris and bounced off line.

Here’s what I’m wondering: if Phil’s caddie had seen the situation in time to warn him without causing a horrid shank, would it have been fair play for the caddie to say, “Wait!” to stop Phil from putting?

[cgkdisc]

I saw the replay of Phil's ball hitting that pine debris. If the caddie or Phil had seen it before the ball was struck, they could move it. Let's say it was a really long putt and the caddie is close enough to the line, maybe halfway, and the same debris dropped on the putting green. Once the ball is struck, the caddie could not remove the debris even if he was able to do it fast enough before the ball got to that point in the putt.

[tkieffer]

Originally Posted by Hoser

Coach? Official? Tattletale? Busybody? Loudmouth? Fair play?

Yes. No. No. Perhaps. Perhaps. Yes.


An official would not have stopped him from making the drop. But they would have made a ruling after the act was performed if the player didn't apply the rules properly to the situation. If everything was done according to the rules (lie was played as it should have been, penalty strokes were recorded appropriately), the official would not be involved at all.

Golf has officials. Not referees.

[tkieffer]

Originally Posted by Hoser

if Phil’s caddie had seen the situation in time to warn him without causing a horrid shank, would it have been fair play for the caddie to say, “Wait!” to stop Phil from putting?

Yes, the rules of golf allow for advice from the caddie. One of the reasons pro golfers employ their own and compensate them well.

[cgkdisc]

In Ernie's situation, he was planning to do the drop as one of his options to replay from the same lie when a ball goes into a hazard (OB). Had he dropped it and the ball wasn't in the hazard, it would have been recorded as Ernie taking an unplayable lie which ends up with the same one shot penalty as if it were in the hazard.

[JerryChesterson]

Originally Posted by tkieffer

Yes, the rules of golf allow for advice from the caddie. One of the reasons pro golfers employ their own and compensate them well.

I started playing golf when I was about 10 years old. At the age of 15 I was lucky enough to get to caddy for a pro golfer at the Hawkeye Classic in 1993. This was a Nike Tour event (now called the Nationwide Tour) and the winner grabbed a paultry $27,000. The guy I caddied for didn't have his normal caddy so he came into the caddy shack and picked me. WOW what an expereince. I had to caddy 1 round during the Pro-Am and 2 rounds for the tourney. He didn't make the cut. I still got paid $500 in cash for 15 hours of work ($30/ hour isn't bad when you're 15) and he gave me another $1000 worth of equipment he no longer wanted/needed. Gloves, balls, clubs, etc. It was great.

I think the PGA tour guys are kind of like agents, they take a percentage cut of the winnings. Those guys are part caddy, part phycologist. Wonder how many PDGA players could benefit from having a caddy on the bag that knows the local course and knows the player. Probably could be the key to get a lesser known player over the top. Take worlds for example, send your caddy to course, he knows your game, have him look at the best landing spots, the footages, etc. I know the PGA caddys spend hours before the events walking the course, measuring things, etc.

[cgkdisc]

Feldberg is at least one touring pro who does hire local caddies and they earn 10% of what he wins, I believe.

[JerryChesterson]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Feldberg is at least one touring pro who does hire local caddies and they earn 10% of what he wins, I believe.

Dave, if you come play in San Antonio look me up.

[cgkdisc]

Feldberg might have the heaviest bag of all pros with his 40+ discs he carries.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

It's happening now for the 2011 update.

This never happened for the 2011 Rules Update, did it?
Is it still on the list to be clarified?

[cgkdisc]

Not that I'm aware of. It's probably the responsibility of the Competition Committee not the RC for this rule tweak.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Not that I'm aware of. It's probably the responsibility of the Competition Committee not the RC for this rule tweak.

Contacted the Competition Committee and here is the response:

TDs do not need to authorize members who are already certified officials. A non-playing official may make a call they witness. A playing-official may make calls but not on those within the same division the official is playing in.

[cgkdisc]

Just waiting for the spectator officials to start calling foot faults then. Should be interesting.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by ERicJ

Contacted the Competition Committee and here is the response:

Andrew followed up to say they will look into tightening up the language in the rule book & comp manual.

[JoakimBL]

That is a ridiculous interpretation of the rules, but it is easy to get that changed. I can take the officials exam and just call fouls on every shot for every player i see as a spectator. As best i can read the rules, there are no way the players can overturn my bogus rulings, when i'm certified.
Obviously an exteme scenario, that is never going to happen. But I have played with certified officials that are not sure about even some basic rules. I havn't taken the examyself, but maybe it is too easy? Maybe the current one, makes sense as a players tule test, but we need a more extensive one for true officials?

[Martin_Bohn]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Just waiting for the spectator officials to start calling foot faults then. Should be interesting.

as in if the certified official spectator didnt like the player, and started calling any infraction he/she could think of just to mess the the hated player. conflict of interest i would say, out of line for sure, a whole new can of worms to worry about.....

[davidsauls]

USDGC lead card, final day, 4 players, 800 certified officials in the gallery.

Oh, the possibilities.

I think I'd skip the footfaults and look for courtesy and 30-second violations. I'm a little nervous that I'd call one and only 150 other officials support me, while 650 try to overrule me.

This might be how we finally get on network TV. Riot at a frisbee tournament.

[krupicka]

There really should be two types of tests here: a rules proficiency exam and a certified official exam. We currently only have a rules proficiency exam which is called the officials' exam.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by krupicka

There really should be two types of tests here: a rules proficiency exam and a certified official exam. We currently only have a rules proficiency exam which is called the officials' exam.

[Paul Taylor]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgkdisc
Not that I'm aware of. It's probably the responsibility of the Competition Committee not the RC for this rule tweak.

Contacted the Competition Committee and here is the response:

Quote:
TDs do not need to authorize members who are already certified officials. A non-playing official may make a call they witness. A playing-official may make calls but not on those within the same division the official is playing in.

__________________
So as a TD, can I "un-authorize" members?

[JoakimBL]

Interesting point I thought of reading the thread about players children. What if a Caddy is a certified official? Can he now make calls, that does not need to be seconded? According to the competition committee, apparently he can. What a fantastic idea.

[davidsauls]

Awesome thought. Instead of choosing a caddy for his willingness to carry my bag, I'll choose him for his mastery of the rulebook and prosecutorial abilities!

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by JoakimBL

Interesting point I thought of reading the thread about players children. What if a Caddy is a certified official? Can he now make calls, that does not need to be seconded? According to the competition committee, apparently he can. What a fantastic idea.

A caddy is an extension of the player for whom he/she is caddying. Certified officials can only make calls as an official for players outside his/her division. Since the caddy is essentially the same as his player under the rules, if he's making a call, he's doing it as if his player is making the call and not as an official.

[JoakimBL]

Originally Posted by jconnell

Since the caddy is essentially the same as his player under the rules

It is not that I don't believe you or would disagree that that should be the case, I just cannot find it in the competition manual where it says anything to that effect. I can only read that the player is responsible for the caddie, which is not the same thing

A player’s caddie is subject to all items
with in the PDGA Rules of Play and the PDGA
Competition Manual including all applicable
dress codes.

While this could be interpreted in that way you say, it is at least not perfectly clear that the caddie is an "extension of the player". And as in the other thread, there is still the question of what defines a caddie. So even if your interpretation is correct (which I'm not saying it isn't), a player could still bring a long his own personal official as a "spectator" and let him make non seconded calls on the other players.

Further more there is an issue of recording the calls and penalties, that different spectators are making on the score cards. So even if the Competition Committees interpretation is the intended ruling, it is not very well thought out and implemented.