DQ'd - How to Work the System

In the aftermath of the Michelle Wie DQ controversy at the Samsung World Championship, I’m still bewildered. In fact, I have serious doubts whether Wie committed a bad drop in the first place. Of all the Wie puns that have been coined over the last several years, “Wiediculous” seems to be the one most apropos in this case. All I know is that this incident is just another head-scratching rules fiasco that does nothing to dispel the notion that golf lacks all common sense. Other silly DQs within the last week include Paula Creamer for inadvertently switching clubs inter-round and Kevin Stadler for unknowingly carrying a bent club. Other sports must look at their odd sibling named Golf and just laugh. It wouldn’t surprise me if people concluded that golf was invented by a mental patient and is run by the Church of Scientology.

Much of the problem stems from golf being dictated by the most complicated rules of any sport. I actually know people who are more comfortable understanding Einstein’s Theories of Relativity than the rules of golf. Furthermore, golf is one of the few professional sports that is self-policing when it comes to rules conformance. There are no referees, umpires, or judges that oversee play. There are merely a handful of “rules officials” who are available to answer any rules-related questions posed by the players. As a result, golf rules enforcement depends largely upon each player’s personal integrity and knowledge of the rules. But golf doesn’t trust its players entirely. As it is currently structured, your everyday Joe may participate in rules enforcement as well. Any observer may inform an official about any suspected rules infraction that he may have witnessed. In turn, the incident in question may be reviewed and action taken, if needed. This is the mechanism that allowed Wie to be DQ’d.

I have several problems with the whole golf officiating system as it now stands. First, I think getting DQ’d for signing an incorrect scorecard is often overly harsh. I can understand getting DQ’d for knowingly signing an incorrect scorecard, but when it is done unknowingly, there should be some leniency.

Second, if golf is founded on the principle of personal integrity, then officials should trust the self-policing players who have access to rules officials. Outside assistance should not be allowed. If this is not acceptable, an alternative is to employ a team of referees to oversee every player on the course. As in other sports, these referees would regulate all play with their rulings final and not subject to change.

But the biggest beef that I have with the current system is the seemingly indefinite amount of time that a suspected infraction may be submitted for consideration. In the case of Wie’s incident, it was virtually a full day before Mr. Bamberger notified the officials (I have yet to hear a satisfactory reason why the dude waited so long). If a suspected rules infraction can be reviewable after a full day has passed, then why not a week, a month, or even a year? If I were Ken Venturi, I’d consider rekindling the Palmer controversy at the 1958 Masters. Using the Wie incident as a precedent, maybe he could find enough evidence to have Palmer DQ’d from the Masters, giving Venturi the Green Jacket!

Now you can only imagine the sheer pandemonium that could erupt from people exploiting the system. The opportunities in sports betting alone would be too great for some to pass up. Consider, for the moment, if a slightly different situation occurred at the Samsung. Let’s assume that everything were the same except that Wie tied Annika for the lead and both were far ahead of the pack after the 3rd round. The situation now is such that only either Wie or Sorenstam have a realistic chance to win the tournament. Someone, like Mr. Bamberger, who witnessed Wie commit a bad drop during the 3rd round, could wager a sizeable amount on Annika to win the tournament with minimal risk. If Annika beats Wie, the wager is won fair and square. However, if Wie beats Annika, the witness can simply alert officials of the rule infraction to DQ Wie and win the wager!

Unfortunately, most of deficiencies in golf officiating can’t be resolved overnight. But there is a partial solution that would alleviate some of the headaches - Simply require all suspected rule infractions to be submitted within an hour of the conclusion of the round. Any submissions after that time would be deemed not reviewable. If any suspected infractions are found to be valid, penalties could be assessed without incurring a DQ. If such a rule had been in affect at the Samsung, Wie’s alleged bad drop could have been addressed in a fair and timely manner without triggering a DQ. In the meantime, be sure to program the numbers of rules officials and bookies into your speed dial!

P.S. Word is going around that Mr. Bamberger will be releasing a new book in the coming weeks. Merely a coincidence?