Is There a Golf Equivalent of the Houston Astros Scandal?

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, leftybutnotPM said:

I knew you'd respond as you did - but it's more than Do X, get Y, end of story.

It isn't just because you say so.

3 minutes ago, leftybutnotPM said:

They were penalized for "breaches of rules" and that affected their scores. But the governing bodies are too gutless to call them out as cheats.

What ground does the USGA have to do that? Or the R&A?

3 minutes ago, leftybutnotPM said:

It's not like they made "mistakes" innocently.

You have no proof of that.

3 minutes ago, leftybutnotPM said:

Mickelson should have got a holiday too.

Mickelson's conduct was unbecoming, but it wasn't in a PGA Tour event.

[leftybutnotPM]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

It isn't just because you say so.

I get that.

If I came to Erie and we met and you invited me to play in your group and I did things a few times where you pointed out that I'd effectively cheated and imposed a penalty and I kept doing it my guess is that you would come up to me after a couple of games and say "Lefty, the guys aren't happy with the way you play - doing X, Y and Z after we warned you about it.  We think you need to find another group to play with." No?

 

[saevel25]

15 minutes ago, leftybutnotPM said:

They were penalized for "breaches of rules" and that affected their scores. But the governing bodies are too gutless to call them out as cheats. It's not like they made "mistakes" innocently.  There should have been additional penalties for not playing in the spirit of the game, bringing the game into disrepute and cheating.

Should NFL players be suspended for holding? What if a DB knows they are beaten, you grab the WR and drag him down. You save a TD, but get a 10 yard penalty. There are DB's who accidentally grab the player and get called for PI. 

Come on. It's not like he betted on golf. 

15 minutes ago, leftybutnotPM said:

Both players tried to gain unfair advantage by blatantly cheating. and in both cases it was BLATANT. They didn't run to the rules guys and say I think I inadvertently did something wrong".

So what? They got caught and penalized. That is why the rule is there. It's for those who intently cheat and those who make a mistake. The USGA doesn't say, "If they intently cheat they are banned from the next x-amount of tournaments." 

6 minutes ago, leftybutnotPM said:

say "Lefty, the guys aren't happy with the way you play - doing X, Y and Z after we warned you about it.  We think you need to find another group to play with." No?

Well, if you were in a tournament in Erie, you would have been penalized for X,Y, and Z. Which means you'd probably not finish well. If you wanted to come back to the tournament you could. 

The only way I see a person getting banned from a tournament is if they act out in a way that would give the tournament a bad reputation. Like showing up drunk on the 1st tee. The onus is on the golfer to play by the rules, and the penalties are what they are. You can't compare a small golf outing with a PGA tournament. That is apples to oranges. 

[leftybutnotPM]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

You can't compare a small golf outing with a PGA tournament. That is apples to oranges. 

OK - but I believe that if Reed and Thomson had been suspended - even for a fortnight - it would have sent a meaningful message to players and spectators alike. And I don't think they would have got very far if they complained. Instead, they both persist as emboldened, revolting human beings who we're happy to root against.

But I have tp say, it did feel weird rooting for DeChambeau against Reed.

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, leftybutnotPM said:

I get that.

But… you don't, because then you keep arguing and ignoring the facts:

• The USGA/R&A have nothing to do with this, and the PGA Tour had nothing to do with Phil Mickelson.
• He was penalized. She was penalized.
• You have no proof that they intended to actually "cheat." None.

1 hour ago, leftybutnotPM said:

If I came to Erie and we met and you invited me to play in your group and I did things a few times where you pointed out that I'd effectively cheated and imposed a penalty and I kept doing it my guess is that you would come up to me after a couple of games and say "Lefty, the guys aren't happy with the way you play - doing X, Y and Z after we warned you about it.  We think you need to find another group to play with." No?

Yeah, cuz that's apples to apples.

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Should NFL players be suspended for holding? What if a DB knows they are beaten, you grab the WR and drag him down. You save a TD, but get a 10 yard penalty. There are DB's who accidentally grab the player and get called for PI.

That's a good analogy.

1 hour ago, leftybutnotPM said:

OK - but I believe that if Reed and Thomson had been suspended - even for a fortnight - it would have sent a meaningful message to players and spectators alike.

You're assuming intent here despite absolutely no evidence to support that.

[leftybutnotPM]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

You're assuming intent here despite absolutely no evidence to support that.

The video evidence is conclusive, I believe, but I understand the semantics of the notion of "proof". I get that.

Yep  - I am assuming intent and I fully believe that they intended to cheat. I could not prove it in court and my prejudice may mean that they would have a field day with me in court. I don;t want to be 

Suffice to say that it is obvious to many that they both deliberately and blatantly cheated - but you cannot prove intent because you can't prove what someone thought.

I am not going to assume that you are playing the devil's advocate or simply  trying not to prove something unprovable or making a philosophical point - I get that you are basically coming down on the side of what can or cannot be reasonably assumed. And that is more than reasonable.

I am happy to be o the side of Peter Kostis, Brooks Koepka, Cam Smith and presumably many others.

And yes.....I get that your critique of my position applies equally to them. And that is perfectly fair.

 

 

 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, leftybutnotPM said:

The video evidence is conclusive

Not true.

1 minute ago, leftybutnotPM said:

Yep  - I am assuming intent and I fully believe that they intended to cheat.

Then the conversation ends there, as one cannot suspend a player based on what you think they were thinking.

[leftybutnotPM]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

Not true.

Then the conversation ends there, as one cannot suspend a player based on what you think they were thinking.

OK -  let me make one final post on this as this horse is well and truly beaten. Just so that I'm fully clear on where you stand in the context of this particular discussion. 

Please indulge me.

1. What they DID matters.

2. Why we THINK they did it doesn't matter.

3. Your (and my) opinion of what they did or why they did it is irrelevant

4. The only relevant discussion is the penalty for the infringement.

5. A person's opinion of the character any of the people under discussion has nothing to do with the thread.

6. Anything beyond that is essentially moot.

Is that a fair summation?

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by leftybutnotPM

[iacas]

It is not.

You’re continuing to confuse several things. You can’t suspend without actual proof, either. Opinions aren’t proof, and in a different context, they still matter.

[saevel25]

9 hours ago, leftybutnotPM said:

What they DID matters.

Yes

9 hours ago, leftybutnotPM said:

Why we THINK they did it doesn't matter.

We can hold our opinions, but our opinions can not be the reason to punish someone. You can go ahead and hate on Reed for eternity, but a the ruling body that governs the PGA Tour can not be making their judgments based on opinions. Especially when we have the clear cut  penalty put down by the USGA Rules. 

9 hours ago, leftybutnotPM said:

The only relevant discussion is the penalty for the infringement.

That isn't even relevant to discuss since the facts are clear. He violated the rules, and he got the appropriate penalty. There isn't much to talk about. It wasn't like the situation were DJ grounded his putter at Oakmont and the ball moved. That had a lot of uncertainty into what caused the ball to move. That was a much more interesting discussion. Discussing Reed's penalty based on the facts is like talking about someone who got pulled over by a cop for speeding and the cop shows you he's been going 15 mph over the speed limit. There isn't much of a discussion to be had. 

9 hours ago, leftybutnotPM said:

A person's opinion of the character any of the people under discussion has nothing to do with the thread.

Since the thread is "Is there a golf equivalent of the Houston Astros Scandal." Then no. The Astros scandal is based on a lot of facts. You can then hold the opinion that the penalty should have been more severe based on those facts, but MLB is not like golf. There is not a clear cut penalty for steeling signs. In golf you have a very clear defined penalty for what Reed did. The only reason why we can discuss the severity of penalty for the MLB players is because the penalty is basically a person's opinion, the commissioner. 

If the PGA Tour wants to add in a rule that players can get suspended for blatant and consistent cheating, then fine. BUT... They must make this rule clear. It just can't come from the PGA tour by some whim or opinion. Golf doesn't have rules like that. If you wanted to start another thread to talk about how there should be a harsher penalty for blatant cheating, then fine. I don't see how talking about Reed should be suspended is actually on topic for this thread. 

[ncates00]

12 hours ago, iacas said:

You have no proof that they intended to actually "cheat." None.

We cannot read a person's mind to obtain the person's mental state of intent.  Intent can be proven based upon a logical assessment of the circumstances.  Whether Reed and Lexi (or any other player for that matter) acted willfully, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently can be of some debate.  For Lexi and her ball-marking incident, based upon how she marked the ball, she was at least reckless because a reasonable golfer on the PGA Tour would not act as she did.  Same goes for Reed.

Note, none of this matter for the breach of the rule, but it is certainly a worthy consideration for a person's own subjective view and distaste/distrust of the player moving forward.  

12 hours ago, iacas said:

You're assuming intent here despite absolutely no evidence to support that.

You're making an incorrect statement here as noted above.  Intent is "proven" every day in courts of law.  It's no different here.  It's too convenient of a defensive tactic for a rule-breaker to employ (note: I'm not calling you a rule-breaker; I'm stating that defense does not fly as you present it).  Simply arguing "you don't have evidence of intent" isn't enough.  Intent can be proven based upon the circumstances because otherwise, you're requiring clairvoyance, hardly an attainable skill at present.  The law does not require clairvoyance and neither should you.

[rehmwa]

11 hours ago, leftybutnotPM said:

Yep  - I am assuming intent and I fully believe that they intended to cheat. I could not prove it in court and my prejudice

 

Stop right there and the point is made - insisting on placating your prejudice by penalizing someone else is more morally wrong that what you want to fix.

You want to regulate attitudes and behavior to 'send a message' - that philosophy is completely rife with abuses and unequal application, etc etc etc.  (I don't care if it's a game, or laws pertaining to society).  I don't really want to see players punished on an ad hoc basis just because they aren't popular.

The rules regulate the play of the game.  Break a rule?  take your penalty and keep going.  The penalties are defined.  Just because someone 'feels' that's not sufficient is not reason to turn into judge and jury and mind reader.

 

edit:  but then I went to your summarized post.  I'm good with that.  take care

Edited February 26, 2020 by rehmwa

[Vinsk]

12 hours ago, iacas said:

That's a good analogy.

I don’t really agree. Golf holds its rules to a much higher level in that its the only sport players call penalties on themselves. Breaking a rule in Football is hardly comparable with breaking a rule during a professional golf tournament. And in Football if you commit certain penalties you are in fact removed from the game and sometimes even suspended. It’s a little ambiguous that they can immediately call a penalty in football ‘ intentional’ yet we’re saying in golf there’s no way to know if it was intentional. 
Football: ‘ He intended to make that hit to the head. He targeted the player.’ 

Golf: ‘ We don’t know if he meant to rake that sand behind the ball twice.’

 

[iacas]

I have more time now, so…

56 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Yes

Agreed.

56 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

We can hold our opinions, but our opinions can not be the reason to punish someone. You can go ahead and hate on Reed for eternity, but a the ruling body that governs the PGA Tour can not be making their judgments based on opinions. Especially when we have the clear cut  penalty put down by the USGA Rules.

Bingo.

56 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That isn't even relevant to discuss since the facts are clear. He violated the rules, and he got the appropriate penalty. There isn't much to talk about.

Disagree. There's much to talk about… But @leftybutnotPM is steering wrong on the second quote in this post - by calling for a suspension because of his opinion.

I think PReed has a propensity to breach the rules. That's worth discussing, IMO.

56 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Since the thread is "Is there a golf equivalent of the Houston Astros Scandal." Then no.

I agree it's "no" but it's not the same at all. There almost can't be a "cheating scandal" like the Astros because golf isn't a team sport. The equivalent would be something like the U.S. team hiring kids to step on the balls of the European players in the Ryder Cup or something.

The Astros thing was a conspiracy. It's tough to have a conspiracy in a solo sport. At most there's two people: a player and caddie, really. I know that's enough for a technical definition of "conspiracy" but in the Rules they're often effectively one entity. A true conspiracy like the Astros would involve more than one players and/or caddie combo.

3 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

We cannot read a person's mind to obtain the person's mental state of intent. Intent can be proven based upon a logical assessment of the circumstances.

Sometimes.

But there's nowhere near enough evidence to "convict" in this instance.

[Vinsk]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

I think PReed has a propensity to breach the rules. That's worth discussing, IMO.

This.

[rehmwa]

Back to the original topic -

About as generalized as I can take it and not feel too dirty - Astros was a group effort to gain an advantage - not explicitly illegal, but very much out of the intent of the game.  So golf isn't really a group sport (other than the cups which I can't think of anything equivalent).

"Backstopping" is about as close as I can think of....

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I don’t really agree. Golf holds its rules to a much higher level in that its the only sport players call penalties on themselves. Breaking a rule in Football is hardly comparable with breaking a rule during a professional golf tournament.

I'm talking about further penalizing a player after the fact, not that NFL players are subtly trying to toe the line.

[cutchemist42]

4 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

Back to the original topic -

About as generalized as I can take it and not feel too dirty - Astros was a group effort to gain an advantage - not explicitly illegal, but very much out of the intent of the game.  So golf isn't really a group sport (other than the cups which I can't think of anything equivalent).

"Backstopping" is about as close as I can think of....

Technically as I understand it, it was illegal in the sense the rule says "no technology" to be used for sign stealing. Sign stealing is not illegal as long as it's done through in game and naturally. Its using outside factors of the field to gain an advantage that is the problem.

 

So yeah, not much really close in golf as this activity was prolonged.

So for prolonged cheating.....how possible would it be to play with an illegal club or ball without being caught?