I guess it was DGLO, Humphries was "late" to his 12:30 tee time, however, he ran up to the box and threw in order on hole 1? Not sure if the specifics/details, so correct anything I'm missing.
Heinold informed him on 3 that he was par + 4 for missing his tee time in 1.
Set aside opinions about the rule and whether Luke failed to comply.
What allows Heinold to make a call with regards to a violation he did not witness?
Was there a tournament official present to observe Luke being late?
Note—it has been stated that Luke protested the ruling and the rules committee upheld the ruling all between holes 3&4. We have 2 RC members here I know of. Please clarify how a violation that was not witnessed can be called? Clarify what the protest and RC committee confirmation involved? Who specifically reviewed the call and the logic underpinning support of the call by an official not present at the incident.
If there was an official present at the time, why did that person not make the call? Sports don't do well with retroactive referring once the play is over and the next event occurs.
Heinold informed him on 3 that he was par + 4 for missing his tee time in 1.
Set aside opinions about the rule and whether Luke failed to comply.
What allows Heinold to make a call with regards to a violation he did not witness?
Was there a tournament official present to observe Luke being late?
Note—it has been stated that Luke protested the ruling and the rules committee upheld the ruling all between holes 3&4. We have 2 RC members here I know of. Please clarify how a violation that was not witnessed can be called? Clarify what the protest and RC committee confirmation involved? Who specifically reviewed the call and the logic underpinning support of the call by an official not present at the incident.
If there was an official present at the time, why did that person not make the call? Sports don't do well with retroactive referring once the play is over and the next event occurs.