Rule Change on Incorrect Scorecard

[billchao]

8 hours ago, GolfLug said:

And do none of you agree that this has somewhat to do about the business angle to it? Pandering to the talent.

I’m pretty sure most of us agree on this point as it’s been mentioned in the thread that this likely only happened because the incident involved Jordan Spieth as opposed to some random journeyman.

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, billchao said:

I’m pretty sure most of us agree on this point as it’s been mentioned in the thread that this likely only happened because the incident involved Jordan Spieth as opposed to some random journeyman.

Right, and this is actually a disincentive to some of us.

Think about how the backlash was when Tiger was "just" given a two-stroke penalty the next morning at the Masters when I was involved… 😉  Many people thought he should WD, or effectively DQ himself, for the incident.

I can imagine a situation where a player is known to have been called back after signing for a 3 when they made a 4 and getting backlash for it. It may actually not work out as they think. And what if the player is shown preferential treatment in the "timing" of things: they come back at 18:00 but the PGA Tour fudges things to say "no, it was only 14 minutes later…?"

Rules are best, IMO, when they're black and white. It's just golf — we're not sending someone to prison or to be executed. We don't need to leave a lot of wiggle room. KISS: when you've turned your card in and crossed the line they put on the ground that denotes the scoring area, you're done. It's turned in.

[GolfLug]

29 minutes ago, billchao said:

I’m pretty sure most of us agree on this point as it’s been mentioned in the thread that this likely only happened because the incident involved Jordan Spieth as opposed to some random journeyman.

Brother! yes, not lost on me either. Will y'all give me a bit more credit? 😊. That's exactly what I mean by 'pandering to the talent (talent = the likes of Jordan)'. Others/journeyman = chopped liver. Special/preferential treatment. Believe me when I say I know a thing or two about it having being on the receiving side of it a few times. 

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

Right, and this is actually a disincentive to some of us.

Think about how the backlash was when Tiger was "just" given a two-stroke penalty the next morning at the Masters when I was involved… 😉  Many people thought he should WD, or effectively DQ himself, for the incident.

I can imagine a situation where a player is known to have been called back after signing for a 3 when they made a 4 and getting backlash for it. It may actually not work out as they think. And what if the player is shown preferential treatment in the "timing" of things: they come back at 18:00 but the PGA Tour fudges things to say "no, it was only 14 minutes later…?"

Rules are best, IMO, when they're black and white. It's just golf — we're not sending someone to prison or to be executed. We don't need to leave a lot of wiggle room. KISS: when you've turned your card in and crossed the line they put on the ground that denotes the scoring area, you're done. It's turned in.

I'm not disagreeing with any of what you are stating. And not being argumentative, but my guess is that they (PGAT/RA/USGA collectively ) have considered all the scenarios/complications that can transpire and how this looks (preferential treatment wise) as well as anyone on this thread. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit. We will see.   

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

I'm not disagreeing with any of what you are stating. And not being argumentative, but my guess is that they (PGAT/RA/USGA collectively ) have considered all the scenarios/complications that can transpire and how this looks (preferential treatment wise) as well as anyone on this thread. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit. We will see.   

We aren't saying they didn't do that. At least I'm not. I'm saying it might backfire, and it's unnecessarily complicated and reeks of stupidity when the previous rule was pretty simple, and works 99.999% of the time.

[billchao]

38 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

Brother! yes, not lost on me either. Will y'all give me a bit more credit? 😊. That's exactly what I mean by 'pandering to the talent (talent = the likes of Jordan)'. Others/journeyman = chopped liver. Special/preferential treatment. Believe me when I say I know a thing or two about it having being on the receiving side of it a few times. 

I’m not discrediting you at all, it just seemed from the way you wrote the part that I quoted that you seem to think you were in the minority on that point. I believe most of us here feel the same way, that it was a reaction to an incident involving a high profile player, and only because it was a high profile player.

[GolfLug]

1 hour ago, billchao said:

I’m not discrediting you at all, it just seemed from the way you wrote the part that I quoted that you seem to think you were in the minority on that point. I believe most of us here feel the same way, that it was a reaction to an incident involving a high profile player, and only because it was a high profile player.

 

22 hours ago, GolfLug said:

 All good. Jordan's incidence might have been a high profile conduit. It falls within USGA/RA rules. I agree this is high profile pandering but what's the problem? If this is about getting the scoring information correct at the end of the day then I am okay. They have resources and a billion reasons ($$$) to make this work so let them have it. 

You've got me fooled then. See my post above. Haven't denied it from the beginning. I'm not in the minority on that point. 

[billchao]

27 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

 

You've got me fooled then. See my post above. Haven't denied it from the beginning. I'm not in the minority on that point. 

Uh okay… I don’t even understand what you’re arguing about at this point, but I’m out.

[GolfLug]

6 minutes ago, billchao said:

Uh okay… I don’t even understand what you’re arguing about at this point, but I’m out.

Nothing. Just defending what I didn't say.

 

Edited June 20 by GolfLug

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

We aren't saying they didn't do that. At least I'm not. I'm saying it might backfire, and it's unnecessarily complicated and reeks of stupidity when the previous rule was pretty simple, and works 99.999% of the time.

Pretty much my stance on this. 

I do not know how many times a player gets DQ'd for this. I think it is one of the rarest penalties called. To change it to a convoluted process because some loud, and wrong, social media personalities made click-bait worthy headlines out of this is sad. 

99.99999999% of the time Jordan sits down and goes through the process of validating hole by hole. I understand that he was suffering from a stomach issue and had to evac to a bathroom. We have all been there, you are in a store, and you need to run to the restroom. You disregard everything to make it to that toilet. 

Just allow them to go use the restroom before signing a card. Is there any benefit to delaying the signing and returning of the card immediately after a round? Put a porta-john right next to the signing tent/building. There you go, you can use the restroom before signing the card. Maybe the card needs to be passed along to a scoring official first so you can't carry it with you. That way there wouldn't be some nefarious ideas. There are so many easier ways to fix this without having this convoluted process. 

Like, off the top of my head, here are a list of reasons someone could want to delay signing a card. 

1. Restroom (as we found out)
2. A family/friend intercepts them and tells them about something that happened (emergency).
3. Medical issue (like heat stroke or what not). 

I mean, that is it. Any other situation, if the golfer actually signs for an incorrect score, is because they messed up during the review of the cards before signing it. If they messed up that process then tough, DQ. 

[GolfLug]

6 minutes ago, billchao said:

 but I’m out.

Yeah, me too.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Just allow them to go use the restroom before signing a card.

They don't need to change that. There's no rule that you have to go to scoring within 60 seconds of finishing your round, only that you have to get there promptly. HIs marker would have hung around for five or six minutes while Jordan dropped the kids off at the pool.

4 hours ago, GolfLug said:

Yeah, me too.

We legit don't know what you were reading or saying at certain points, man. We all understand WHY they did it, some of us just don't think it was necessary.

[GolfLug]

33 minutes ago, iacas said:

We legit don't know what you were reading or saying at certain points, man. 

Things can come off differently than intended on the internet. I can understand that.  No worries.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

We all understand WHY they did it

Seems like that's what I missed. 😊

[GolfLug]

On 6/20/2024 at 8:40 AM, GolfLug said:

Maybe I'm giving them too much credit. 

Welp, it seems I have. I talked to some folks much more knowledgeable than me and read through the posts thus far and let's just say I missed a few critical points and was a bit hasty and off the mark in posting rebuttals. Like some of you, the onset mark of 15 minutes and control of expiration remain ambiguous and opens things for favoritism, etc. 

What is clear though, is that this does ruin simplicity of what was and doesn't seem like to resolve the 'problem' anyway.  My bad on my original take.

20 hours ago, iacas said:

some of us just don't think it was necessary.

Yes. If y'all giving out mulligans, I'll take one. 

[billchao]

1 hour ago, GolfLug said:

If y'all giving out mulligans, I'll take one.

Mulligans cost a beer 

[GolfLug]

10 minutes ago, billchao said:

Mulligans cost a beer 

Done! 

[Ty_Webb]

31 minutes ago, billchao said:

Mulligans cost a beer 

I knew there was an easier way to get my handicap down!

[boogielicious]

5 hours ago, GolfLug said:

Done! 

Modelo? 😁

[GolfLug]

14 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Modelo? 😁

Ya know it. Love it when someone remembers..