None of which make it any less mad. There's a punishment assigned for what she did - 2 stroke penalty. Again, I have no problem with that. If you want to argue that she should have been disqualified because of the 2 inch advantage she might have given herself, we can have that debate - but it's still a separate question. At the end of the day, she played well enough that she should have won this tournament regardless.
But because for some reason, there's then an entirely arbitrary cut-off point when she signs the card, for no real reason that punishment gets doubled. I don't get this. If they're accusing her of cheating and failing to come clean, then surely disqualification is the only option? And if they're accusing her of making an honest mistake, how on earth was she supposed to have realised and declared this before the end of the round? That's presumably what the officials are for?
By failing to punish her at the time, they've then felt obliged to give her an extra two stroke penalty, which resulted in her losing a tournament she would otherwise have won comfortably. So in the end, the tournament wasn't decided by anything that happened on the course, but rather by the fact that a match official happened to be looking at a different screen at the moment this happened. And that seems right to you?
But because for some reason, there's then an entirely arbitrary cut-off point when she signs the card, for no real reason that punishment gets doubled. I don't get this. If they're accusing her of cheating and failing to come clean, then surely disqualification is the only option? And if they're accusing her of making an honest mistake, how on earth was she supposed to have realised and declared this before the end of the round? That's presumably what the officials are for?
By failing to punish her at the time, they've then felt obliged to give her an extra two stroke penalty, which resulted in her losing a tournament she would otherwise have won comfortably. So in the end, the tournament wasn't decided by anything that happened on the course, but rather by the fact that a match official happened to be looking at a different screen at the moment this happened. And that seems right to you?
