CADDIE'S ROLE:PART OF THE downside of success on the PGA Tour is that you are obliged to play in the pro-am that precedes the weekly events on tour.

The pro-am is a money-spinning exercise which permits the tour to charge teams of three, almost always male amateurs, handsomely for the privilege of getting up close to a golfing idol. The price is about $20,000 (€12,825) a team.

It is a particularly odd phenomenon unique to golf whereby amateurs get to mingle during the professionals' final preparation for a tournament.

It would be akin to the Irish rugby team, as a final tune-up for their match against England, having to throw the ball around at a practice pitch in Richmond on Friday last with a bunch of portly, middle-aged men of limited talent who had the wherewithal to finance the junket.

I am not certain, but I don't think most coaches would sanction such pre-game frivolity, even with the financial lure.

In their graciousness the tour allows the players to request a morning or afternoon tee-time.

Tiger Woods is always first out in the morning because he prefers getting the pro-am obligation out of the way as early as possible.

Last week at the Bay Hill Invitational, or Arnold Palmer's event, as he owns the Bay Hill Club and effectively controls the Bay Hill tournament, there was a bit of a scene for the early Wednesday pro-am.

Palmer had decided to invite the flagging John Daly to play in his event.

Because he is affable and extremely popular with the punters, Daly was also invited to play in the pro-am.

Unfortunately for him and a couple of other competitors, not to mention his amateur partners, who had considered themselves fortunate to be drawn to play with him, Big John never made it to the first tee and he did not have a valid excuse.

Under tour rules this means not only disqualification from the pro-am, which would be a blessing, but more seriously it means you get kicked out of the tournament itself.

The tour also has a policy whereby two "alternate" players for the pro-am must stand by from 6.45am till the last morning tee time in case there are any no-shows.

Neither of the "alternates", Ryuji Imada and Nick O'Hern, was at the course when it became apparent that JD was not going to make it. That meant they also got disqualified from the tournament.

Harsh, crazy or entirely fair?

It was the topic of conversation on the range last Wednesday in Bay Hill.

We all live by the rules set to try to control the lowest common denominator. Those of us who travel the world have long since become used to being treated like terrorists every time we move through an airport.

It is interesting how accustomed we have become to undressing in public in the name of security.

So it is on the PGA Tour. Three years ago the tour, based on the consensus of the players' committee, brought in the seemingly draconian "pro-am no-show" disqualification rule.

The word from the locker-room was that it was to curb the most serious offender for not showing up for his Wednesday tee time and disappointing the three amateurs who had paid a premium to play with him.

Of course there were other offenders but the high-profiles always bear the brunt of a bad rap.

A lesser-named player had reportedly missed more than a dozen of his pro-am tee times in one of the years.

The tour most definitely needed to enforce some discipline with the offending players.

Somebody screws up and the rest end up paying for the mistake.

We have all suffered an inconvenience for someone else's bad behaviour.

But just as a high-profile offender must be seen to have been disciplined, the rules have been conveniently adjusted to accommodate another superstar.

On occasion, Phil Mickelson's tee time has been altered at the last minute on the day of the pro-am in order to suit him.

For the authorities it does make sense to try to accommodate the superstars; after all, they ensure the financial health of the tour.

Which leads to the question of why the same players must play in the dreaded pro-am every week that they play a tournament.

Surely it would be better to use the social services of the entire field of players each week, thus giving the high-profile players a break from the laborious entertainment duty and the lesser players a chance to increase their profiles.

My own player, Retief Goosen, was innocently at the wrong end of the present harsh rule in Los Angeles three years ago.

The amateur partners would have been happy to have played 17 holes with Retief instead of 18 with the stand-in, as he had arrived at the course by the time they were on the first green with the "alternate" professional.

In the world we live in now slack airport security can be fatal. A no-show for a pro-am can be a minor inconvenience that can be dealt with in a better way than disqualifying three competitors for one's tardiness.

The punishment of disqualification for the innocent pro-am "alternates" was too harsh.

It is time to reconsider the tour justice system.