Canadian Open - Epilogue

As someone who deals with odds every day, I don’t understand how that aspect is overlooked. Two balls were putted out. That means they were picked up, cleaned, and aligned, probably more than once apiece. Tossed to the caddie. Nobody on the pro level merely swats at a putt without marking or examining the ball, like an amateur might.

There literally were at least a half dozen opportunities to catch the mistake, and we’re supposed to believe it was an oversight? No thank you. For one thing, if the make and number of the golf ball are identical to the playing partner’s, even more steps than typical are taken to make sure they can be identified, like a more distinct marking and some communication between the players. I can understand a fixated player hitting the wrong ball by mistake in the fairway, logo and markings not visible, and no one catching it. But once the second player approaches her ball we’re left with one exponentially less likely circumstance after another, all the way through zipping the two balls back into the respective bags, in order to believe none of the players or caddies grasped the error.

I’ve seen a few sites try to soften the meaning of, “You did not see anything,” as if it were a question and not a command. Ludicrous. We’re not even sure those words were spoken. And if it were a probing concern by an innocent player, why not take it to the scoring tent, where someone in an official position could address it?

Larry Smich is receiving plenty of heat. Meanwhile, I’m not certain this issue would have come to light minus his blog. The caddie understood he had a receptive vehicle.

I think to the average person even a two stroke penalty in a situation like this seems excessive—particularly for the second player whose ball is no longer there. An honest mistake was made, and it sounds like the players may have wanted to avoid any of the excessive penalties involved by covering up an honest mistake. That may be a grey area—but nothing a normal person would call cheating.

A real problem might arise at hole 36 if one player needed a par to make the cut while the other player was out of it—if the latter player had a much better lie she might agree to let the former player play her ball. So there is some sense in the regulation. But nothing like that was apparently the case here.

Because penalties are excessive, in situations where no real cheating is involved, we do things like inform players of problems before they sign so that a 2 point penalty is usually applied instead of a DQ. I would argue that applying penalties beyond a DQ here would be like waiting for a signature so a DQ instead of a 2 stroke penalty can be applied.

As a compromise I would suggest that in addition to the DQ the players in this situation be given warnings with the understanding that future infractions are likely to incur additional penalties.

What precedents exist in situations like this one? When have additional penalties beyond a DQ been applied, and when haven’t they been applied?

Based on Beth Ann Baldry’s article, it seems that this is not as scandalous as lifeontour portrayed it to be. And, while I love Juli, isn’t it more shocking that she did not know that using that donut was not allowed?