Calls from the couch

Published February 9, 2011 5:00am EST



Those who criticize golf for enforcing infractions called in by television viewers often refer to the proverbial “guy on his couch in Des Moines.”

Disparaging eagle-eyed sticklers for rules is understandable — after all, nobody likes a snitch. But the guy in Des Moines is not to blame.

The issue already has bubbled up this season with the recent DQs of Padraig Harrington and Camilo Villegas. Both committed rules violations — spotted by TV viewers — that to most sports fans fall under the heading “no harm, no foul.” But both were guilty nonetheless, and in golf there is no gray area.

Both should have been penalized, and both should have known better. At Abu Dhabi, Harrington touched his ball — be it ever so slightly — while sloppily removing his ball marker. In Hawaii, Villegas altered his lie by tapping down a divot.

But should they have been disqualified from their respective tournament for signing an incorrect scorecard when they weren’t even aware of their infractions?

PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem said Tuesday that disregarding fan input is “not an option.”

“We like the fact that people call in,” Finchem said. “We don’t want to turn those people off. We want to accept the information and deal with it.”

This is the first time we’ve ever written this: Way to go Commish!

On Wednesday, speaking at Pebble Beach, Harrington suggested that the best way to arbitrate violations would be with a rules official monitoring the television feed, then “he signs off at the end of the day and that’s it.”

Harrington’s solution would mitigate the time gap and disqualification dilemma because a player guilty of a violation would be informed of it before signing his scorecard.

But even Harrington admits there are potential flaws with any solution.

“When a committee actually sits down and examines it, I think they will find it very difficult to find a new rule that covers all angles,” Harrington said. “The old rule does cover all angles, albeit harshly at times, but it covers every eventuality. I think any new rule brought in, they’re going to have to work hard to find one that encompasses every situation you can envisage.”

[email protected]