What
follows is one of the more incredible DQ stories you may hear this year.
Matt Bettencourt was disqualified from the Web.com Tour
event for signing for a score lower than he had actually received. Since Bettencourt is a Northern
California guy we were able to dig and find out the details.
Bettencourt
went into the scoring area and signed a scorecard for a 72, which gave him a
139 which was good enough to make the cut. He returned his card and left the scoring area. His fellow-competitor, Matt Davidson
called him back into the scoring area to correct a score for the 13th
hole. Davidson had made a 3 and
Bettencourt had written a 4. Since
Davidson had not left the scoring area or returned his card it could be
corrected. The volunteer scoring
official handed Bettencourt a card back and he changed the 13th hole
from a 4 to a 3, initialed it and left again.
Bettencourt
later looked online only to see that his score was listed as a 71 and not a
72. He called and then returned to
the course to find out what had happened.
It turned out, that the volunteer had handed him his own score card to
be corrected instead of Davidson’s.
Both of them being a Matt, the volunteer had made an error in the card
and as the scores were very similar, he failed to notice which Matt the score
card belonged to. The end ruling
by the Web.com Tour officials was that Bettencourt was disqualified for signing
for a lower score and Davidson (who actually shot 65) was stuck with the 4 he
originally signed for.
There
are several issues with this ruling: first, if ever there was Committee error,
this was it. He came back to
correct Davidson’s card, was handed a card by the scoring volunteer and
corrected it. He was not supposed
to be correcting his own card. But
we can overlook that, perhaps Bettencourt should’ve checked the name twice.
What I cannot overlook is that
Bettencourt had returned his card to the Committee and had left the scoring
area. He had returned his card - and
left the scoring area. Rule 6-6c
states specifically, “No alteration may be made on a score card after the competitor
has returned it to the Committee.”
Furthermore, Decision 6-6c/1 tells us that a player “is considered to
have returned his score card when he has left the scoring area.” The alteration that Bettencourt made
should not have been permitted and it should have been declared null and
void. He had signed and returned a
correct card to the Committee, and the alteration should not have
mattered. In my opinion, (which
believe it or not is decently respected), he should be playing this weekend. Ouch.
No comments:
Post a Comment