Some common sense has to be used by the officials.  Did either of the last two so called violations result in  the player obtaining a benefit. NO.  The phase " MIGHT OBTAIN " a  benefit is so arbitrary, it is actually stupid.  I know someone out there is going to say a rule is a rule. That said,  can anyone give me the exact size of a "MIGHT OBTAIN AREA" on the side of a hill, is it 10sq. ft., 20 sq. ft., the part that is really disturbing is that the players ball DID NOT roll over the area where he removed the loose grass from.

As to Harrington, the ball wavered when he put his marker down. Give me a break. Try some COMMON SENCE.

Possible solution.  TV should stop taking close ups of the players golf ball.  It is as if the TV company is looking for a problem.  The magnification of their lenses compounds any slight wavering of the ball by making it appeared that the ball actually moved a significant amount.

"Some common sense has to be used by the officials.  Did either of the last two so called violations result in  the player obtaining a benefit. NO.  The phase " MIGHT OBTAIN " a  benefit is so arbitrary, it is actually stupid.  I know someone out there is going to say a rule is a rule. That said,  can anyone give me the exact size of a "MIGHT OBTAIN AREA" on the side of a hill, is it 10sq. ft., 20 sq. ft., the part that is really disturbing is that the players ball DID NOT roll over the area where he removed the loose grass from.

As to Harrington, the ball wavered when he put his marker down. Give me a break. Try some COMMON SENCE.

Possible solution.  TV should stop taking close ups of the players golf ball.  It is as if the TV company is looking for a problem.  The magnification of their lenses compounds any slight wavering of the ball by making it appeared that the ball actually moved a significant amount."

What???????????

Why did he move the clumps? Because he thought his ball might hit it. I'm sure he was thinking this is the right thing to do, to allow his ball to roll as far as it will. But that's not the case, the right thing to do is leave everything alone until his ball stops moving. This is a simple case of not knowing the rules.

Harrington did not move the ball when putting his marker down, he moved his ball when picking his marker up. In either case there is no penalty for moving the ball, however it is required (without penalty) that you replace the ball in its original position, this he did not do, therefore he played from the wrong spot(and it was a spot closer to the hole). How can you mark, or remove your marker without seeing the ball move?  I really hope that somehow he did not see the ball move, and he wasn't hoping to avoid a penalty(which there would not have been anyway----know the rules).

But in both cases they were DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard, in which the score was lower than the actual score, because they did not apply the appropriate penalty.

It is the players responsibility to know the rules.

Read that the pga tour is considering a rules official watching any tv broadcast for rules infractions.  If he sees an infraction, he brings it to the attention of the player before the card is signed.  This might work.....

The fact that players who are afforded TV coverage could be called in to a penalty situation by a viewer, when others do  not have the same level of scrutiny by the same "viewing audience", seems to make a case for adjusting the penalty for a wrongly signed card.

I've stated this in other forums. If a rule like this is going to be allowed "post round," then each match must have an official assigned to call penalties on the spot. Making players aware after the fact and the DQing them is not in the spirit of the rules gviven today's media....

I will para phrase what Harrington said about this incident. He did not see his ball move. If he had he would have moved it back. Since he struck his ball from the wrong place, closer to the hole, he agrees with the penalty. How far from the original spot is the wrong place. A 1/2 inch, 1 inch, 5 inches ? It was just a mistake that he did not intend to have an advantage on the field but the rule is there for a reason. He said he concurs with the ruling.