Quote:
Originally Posted by
sean_miller 
Bringing into the picture armchair rules officials sitting at home on their couchesenhances the sport exactly how?
It preserves the sanctity of the rules. Camilo violated a rule, and was given the penalty for violating the rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sean_miller 1.) Tthere is absolutely no way every player in the field would be held to the same standard of officiating (if that's what you want to call it) since there's no cost effective way to ensure consistent viewership, or in other words, more rulies would be watching Tiger events than the Bob Hope which is barely even televised as it is.
So? That's an argument without any merit. The fact doesn't change: a rule is violated. Who cares who reports it? Under what other conditions are you okay with people violating rules and getting away with it?
What's fairer: a player on TV violating a rule and getting away with it or a player, on TV or not, calling a penalty on himself or even having a penalty called on him by the rules official? In both cases a rule is violated. What's it matter who sees it?
Heck, the announcers should have seen it. Can they call a penalty? They should be able to - the facts are that a rule is violated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sean_miller 2.) There is already a precident for applying this kind of off-the-field rules officiating to a major sport. The systems that MLB, the NFL and the NHL use are different from each other, but all effective in their own way. One way these systems work is by ensuring the people watching the video are trained properly and that all venues have standard camera placement and video quality. They also limit which plays (i.e. rules) are reviewable and for which the official on the field of play has the final say.
Applying an NFL rules mentality doesn't make any sense. As I said in my comment to Sobel (below), that's not even close to being a legitimate analogy. In the end, again, a rule is broken, and that fact never changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sean_miller 3) What type of background check would the caller be subjected to in order to ensure the callers are qualified and they have no connection to any of the players, officials, or sponsors?
How the heck does that matter? Either the player violates a rule or he doesn't. They don't just accept the caller's word and DQ people. They look at the tape, talk to the player, discuss, and make the correct ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sean_miller 4.) If the viewer at home has nothing to gain or lose within the context of the tournament, as they are clearly not a participant, what penalty is there for people who choose to ignore rules infractions. If their favourite player commits an infraction, and they choose not to rat them out, are they cheating too?
The responsibility to abide by the rules lies with the player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JayMc It's unregulated interference; if it's going to be allowed then put some rules around it. As it stands it's inconsistent interference.
I'm fine with putting some sort of time frame on it. Within 24 hours of the completion of the day's play would be a start. It wouldn't have helped Camilo, of course.
I also think players should be asked whether they want to be notified mid-round of a possible rules violation or wait until afterwards. It can affect how they might play the rest of their round(s), but some might not want the distraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sean_miller
Kudos to the self-important person who called in. You just cost him how much money in this limited field event with no cut?
Another fallacy. People who vote "no" on this want to pretend that everyone at home is some rules dweeb itching to call in and make a name for themselves. The caller never gets any fame, earns no money, etc. They strike me simply as people that want to see the game played by the rules.
Here's my comment on Sobel's blog post at ESPN:
Quote:
As I said on Twitter, the "level playing field" thing doesn't hold water. How many rules violations have Tiger or Phil ever had? They know the rules.
The sanctity of the competition and thus the rules must come first. If a player violates a rule, then a rule's been violated. That's a fact, and it doesn't change based on who reports the fact.
Bummer for Villegas, but in the end, he's responsible for policing himself and he failed in that responsibility. In football it's commonly said "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'" but that analogy fails when applied to golf: there aren't referees or umpires on the golf course. If a player fails in his responsibility to know and apply the rules, the violation still occurred and should be enforced.
You're suggesting that crimes which go unnoticed by a handful of people (playing partner, etc.) shouldn't be punishable. Imagine if our justice system worked that way!
Hey, I stole your wallet, took out your money, and threw it your wallet the lake, but since you didn't see me and the police didn't see me, the fact that fourteen eye witnesses saw me means nothing. This $6430 is all mine!
