And that's the type of thing someone says when their argument is being eroded away.
So now it's about being out of position? I thought it was about taking too long to hit a shot.
Tell me why it isn't common sense to say that not everyone taking more than 60 seconds has been penalized? I can't prove it, as I do not have a vault of video or pour through (nor the time), but to turn the argument around, prove to me that everyone has. You can't prove it either. Therefore we have to go to 'common sense'. Doesn't mean I'm losing the argument. In other words, I'm not losing the arugment because you think I am.
I can only conclude that you've not read the rules, or you've read them but not thought about how they work.
"Out of position" is inextricably connected to this discussion because it is a basic part of the rule that is being enforced.
The rule goes on to define quite clearly and specifically what "out of position" means. What is the importance of being out of position? Read on in the rule to find
this in the clearly labeled "Pace of Play Rules" section.
1. The player takes more than sixty (60) seconds to play one shot, including putts; and/or
2. The player exceeds the average amount of time for the total strokes taken on a given hole by more than ten (10) seconds.
There is no penalty if a group is not "out of position." No one who is keeping up with the group ahead needs to be timed. This is not arbitrary, this is not an oversight, this is completely sensible.
Your side is the one making an extraordinary claim---that the rules are being unfairly applied---so you need to support that. We have a rule which, while it could perhaps be written more clearly, does not approach brocks' hyperbolic criticism. It does have cases of discretion in terms of when to start the clock. From Folz' quote above, it seems that this discretion was used both reasonably and in Pressel's favor. So unless you have some evidence that Folz was wrong and the official was starting the clock as soon as he possibly could, you can't complain about abuse of that discretion in this case: it didn't contribute to the penalty.
The group was clearly out of position, the reports are that they had two warnings. That is consistent with the rule which states that, once they've been determined to be out of position, they should be warned and given a chance to catch up or improve their position. So it sounds to me like they were out of position and warned, given a chance to imrpove, and warned that they did not. At that point they should be (and it seems, were) put on the clock.
So the evidence we have sure seems to indicate that the rule was applied as it was written, and that if anything, discretion was used to lessen the likelihood of a penalty.
If you have any facts to support your claim (gut feelings don't count), please present them. As it is, you are arguing for suspension of a rule because the situation was "important." That is the only thing I've seen in this thread that matches the definition of "arbitrary."