Should Viewers Be Able to Call in Rules Violations

[Radford Wooly]

Not all spectators know the rules, so play stoppage would be excessive and needless in most cases.

[jakatan]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakatan

I never said he wasn't in the wrong. How many times do people have to tell you this? We all agree what Camilo did was wrong.  What we are discussing right now is whether or not viewers at home should be able to call in penalties. No number of silly analogies are going to change that.

I've never said anything that I intended to sound as if other people didn't think Camilo did anything wrong. I haven't seen anyone saying he didn't do something wrong, but I have seen people suggesting he "get away with it" (my words, not a quote) simply because a viewer spotted it.

Again, I'm fairly certain everyone here understands that he broke the rules, and I don't believe I've ever said or implied anything to the contrary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakatan

Efficiency has everything to do with this issue.  Would it be okay for a rules official, who could perhaps have money on the game, to observe a player commit an infraction and not alert him immediately? Are you saying that it is okay for this official to wait until after Camilo signs his card to announce his infraction, thus turning his 2 stroke penalty into a DQ?

I think you may have misunderstood. I'm saying "efficiency" was not a problem in this case. This did not take a long time - it was handled "efficiently."

Michael Bamberger when Michelle Wie was DQed for her drop that may or may not have been a few inches closer to the hole, on the other hand, should have raised his concerns immediately, and I find his story about "consulting with his editors" later that night tough to swallow. In that case, "efficiency" (if we want to use that term - "reporting the incident quickly" or something like that might be more accurate) was a concern.

I don't believe it is a concern with Camilo - the guy alerted people as soon as he saw the infraction and unfortunately it wasn't quickly enough to prevent the DQ, but short of a super-human effort he couldn't have done it more quickly.

In the end, that responsibility still lies with Camilo (and me saying that doesn't mean I'm suggesting you don't think Camilo did anything "wrong"), so even the "quickly" argument has a limit. If a Tour official didn't play the voicemail from the viewer until Sunday morning, would Camilo still have been DQed? Yes, because the committee's obligation is to render the accurate ruling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakatan

There's also no guarantee that the viewers are going to catch every single infraction either.  Where do you draw the line?  Once again you bring up another off-the-wall analogy.  All you did was say that I want to "let known rules violations remain unpunished" and "that's stupid."  I don't want to let known rule violations go unpunished, I simply want the punishment to occur in a timely manner.  Once again, I'll simply refer to a rules official waiting for the player to turn in their card before the infraction is announced.

Where do I draw the line? I draw the line at trying to be as good as you can be, at trying to be as perfect as you can be. That's where I'd draw the line. B-Con said it well above, and I agree with his post. Fourputt has made several good posts as well.

I don't see efficiency or rapidity as being a problem here. The guy broke the rule, you seem to agree that he should be punished, and I'm at a loss for how you think it could have been handled more quickly. Do you think there should be a rules infraction hotline or something? Tell me. How could it "occur in a timely manner"?

A rules official did not "wait for the player to turn in his card" this time. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.

I apologize if I read into your comments as being a "no" supporter for the typical reasons. I now understand that you're primarily concerned with efficiency, but I'm confused as to how that really matters. If a rules infraciton is made known prior to the close of competition, I might be able to argue that it was "efficient enough" to result in the fairest outcome, so long as a guy doesn't wait a day like Bamberger did.

And I can draw a clear line between Bamberger and this guy. This guy did not sit on the information - he acted quickly. I'm with you in wanting some "efficiency" - Bamberger should have raised his concerns more quickly.

To put it simply, I believe that "reporting the incident quickly" would be more-so in a matter of minutes rather than multiple hours.  I don't believe this to be a realistic desire, which is why I don't support the T.V. viewer to announce infractions.  If such a "hotline" could be introduced (which I don't believe it reasonable to do so) then I'd support this.  Until T.V. viewers will be able to make their voices heard as quickly (or reasonably close) as an on-the-course spectator, I simply don't think it's a good idea.

But, like it has been alluded to earlier in this thread, there are very few infractions at all throughout an entire season, so this is really not that big a deal.  Camillo won't be losing any sleep over it, and I think I'm going to move on from the discussion myself.

[Dave40]

I vote no.  Officiating should not be done by video in any sport.  In football, for example, all of the officiating by video review has become intolerable. Seems like every other play gets reviewed. It takes away from the flow of the game.

[B-Con]

I vote no.  Officiating should not be done by video in any sport.  In football, for example, all of the officiating by video review has become intolerable. Seems like every other play gets reviewed. It takes away from the flow of the game.

Almost all video review is done after the round. What's more, this sort of thing rarely happens. How could it detract from the game? Is the goal to golf or to sort-of golf?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by B-Con

Almost all video review is done after the round. What's more, this sort of thing rarely happens. How could it detract from the game? Is the goal to golf or to sort-of golf?

People don't bother to read previous posts before adding their own opinions. The "golf is not the NFL" angle has been covered, as you know.

Like I said in the other thread, I'm done with this, because there are worse things in life than being known as a stickler for the Rules of Golf.

[imtomtomim]

I voted no.

I understand that everyone would like to uphold the rules to sustain the integrity of the sport but the fact is spectators are not a part of the competition, therefore their statements should have no bearing in the results.  That is the job of the officials and any official acting upon suggestion of outside instances is unfair and biased.  A baseball umpire cannot call a pitch a strike through the statement of a spectator.

Furthermore, in the most recent example of Villegas, he was penalized following the completion of a round.  I have no problems with the disqualification as he cannot complete the competition within the rules of the game.  However, I do have a problem with him receiving penalty following the end of his round and his score posting.  In no other sport can a decision be changed following competition.  Bad calls are a part of sports and regardless of it being incorrect, once the match ends, the decision cannot be changed and should remain such.

[Phil McGleno]

Spectators aren't making themselves a part of the competition. They're simply saying "hey, that pro has failed in fulfilling his responsibilities." That is the JOB OF THE GOLFERS and if they fail in that the official is not "acting upon suggestion of outside instances." They're simply evaluating the reality of what has or hasn't happened.

And like other people above said stop comparing golf to other sports. Competitors cheat regularly in other sports, and there's no comparison to be made.

Originally Posted by imtomtomim

I voted no.

I understand that everyone would like to uphold the rules to sustain the integrity of the sport but the fact is spectators are not a part of the competition, therefore their statements should have no bearing in the results.  That is the job of the officials and any official acting upon suggestion of outside instances is unfair and biased.  A baseball umpire cannot call a pitch a strike through the statement of a spectator.

Furthermore, in the most recent example of Villegas, he was penalized following the completion of a round.  I have no problems with the disqualification as he cannot complete the competition within the rules of the game.  However, I do have a problem with him receiving penalty following the end of his round and his score posting.  In no other sport can a decision be changed following competition.  Bad calls are a part of sports and regardless of it being incorrect, once the match ends, the decision cannot be changed and should remain such.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by imtomtomim

I voted no.

I understand that everyone would like to uphold the rules to sustain the integrity of the sport but the fact is spectators are not a part of the competition, therefore their statements should have no bearing in the results.  That is the job of the officials and any official acting upon suggestion of outside instances is unfair and biased.  A baseball umpire cannot call a pitch a strike through the statement of a spectator.

Furthermore, in the most recent example of Villegas, he was penalized following the completion of a round.  I have no problems with the disqualification as he cannot complete the competition within the rules of the game.  However, I do have a problem with him receiving penalty following the end of his round and his score posting.  In no other sport can a decision be changed following competition.  Bad calls are a part of sports and regardless of it being incorrect, once the match ends, the decision cannot be changed and should remain such.

How is an official acting on the suggestion of a spectator "unfair and biased"? Any ruling comes from watching video and talking to the player in question, not merely taking the spectator's word for it.

Your argument of "In no other sport does x happen" isn't valid because your premise is faulty: Golf is *not* other sports. I could use your reasoning to say 'In no other sport do the players call penalties on themselves, therefore that shouldn't be a rule in golf either".  Does that make sense to you? (And btw, you're wrong on that anyway: In auto racing the results of a finished race can be changed as a result of a competitor protest or steward review, resulting in the racer in question finishing lower or being DQd altogether.)

In one sense this has been an enjoyable thread in that it's very polarizing, but in another sense it's been very frustrating for me to see one no-voter after another fail to understand or simply ignore the arguments given by the yes-voters.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by B-Con

I think the real question is, "What is the objective of enforcing the rules?"

1) One group says that the objective is to enforce the rules as closely as possible. This means using all available data from any source. The only thing preventing a perfectly ruled game is lack of information, and any form that reduces that barrier is welcome. The goal is to find every single rules violation and deal with it appropriately, and while perfection is not humanly attainable, it should be the goal.

2) Another group says that the objective is to provide a relatively fair playing surface under which all players are subjected to. Rules should only be enforced as fairly as strictly as they can be enforced on all players. If one player is scrutinized more closely than another player, this player is at a scoring disadvantage and the rules are no longer providing a "fair" playing field.

I see the point of option 2, but I personally agree with option 1. I think that as long as you do not favor or neglect a player by intentionally making incorrect rulings, you should strive to officiate the game as perfectly as possible. You won't be successful, but it's better than trading missed rules violations amongst the players and hoping that it evens out.

Plus, practically speaking, the players that are most scrutinized are the ones who are the best and have had the most extensive training, coaches, best caddies, etc, so the ones most scrutinized are the ones with the fewest excuses to violate the rules in the first place.

With all scoring violations, I believe that there should be a time limit set as to how long after the end of a round the violation can be called because we have to accept that some events need to be set in stone so that we can move on. The number of eyes we can have looking for rules violations is almost unlimited. The amount of time we can devote to a tournament, however, is not.

But regardless, rules are rules, and golf is a sport where players are expected to officiate themselves. If they're expected to call themselves as perfectly as possible, I don't think you can build a case for insisting that others cannot do the same thing. The bottom line is that facts are facts, regardless of who mentions them. We play golf bound to the facts as closely as possible, not a pre-set standard of human interpretation of the facts.

The Rules of Golf are self enforced.   That is Rule 6-1.  The "objective" of enforcing the rules is to protect the rest of the field in the competition.  It is not to punish the player who committed the infraction.  The penalty incurred is commensurate with the severity of the infraction, again to ensure that the player does not gain an advantage over the rest of the field by committing the infraction.

Originally Posted by imtomtomim

I voted no.

I understand that everyone would like to uphold the rules to sustain the integrity of the sport but the fact is spectators are not a part of the competition, therefore their statements should have no bearing in the results.  That is the job of the officials and any official acting upon suggestion of outside instances is unfair and biased.  A baseball umpire cannot call a pitch a strike through the statement of a spectator.

You need to read the entire thread.  There is no official in a golf tournament whose job it is to call penalties.  Rules officials are NOT umpires.  They are on the course to be available as a resource for the player if he needs them.  It is not their job to police the players.  Rule 6-1 tells us that it is the job of the players to police themselves, and if they fail to do so there is no official oversight.  If such information comes to the attention of the committee, they are required to act on that information, no matter how is is obtained.  They are not acting with bias, they review the tape and are acting on the evidence .  If indeed there is a breach, then the player should have called it on himself.  If he doesn't, whether through ignorance or intent, then the committee still has an obligation to the rest of the field to penalize the player.  Again, it is not to punish the player, but to protect the field from that player gaining an advantage through his error.

By what you say, it appears that you feel that if a player doesn't know the rules and isn't being watched by his fellow competitor, then he should be allowed to get away with anything.  Or are you suggesting that they should have an umpire follow every player on the course to babysit him?  140 players and 140 umpires?

[zeg]

I read most of the posts (skimmed a few of the long ones), but my vote is absolutely yes.  It does not equal "officiating" by viewers, since the procedure is the same as any eyeball on the course or otherwise who believes they observe an infraction.  They investigate, including asking the player about the incident, and ensure that the rules are applied.  If the player disagrees, he certainly has the opportunity to explain his view of what happened.  There's no referee or umpire blowing a whistle and calling the foul.  As has been said, the player is responsible for obeying the rules.

In every case of a "call-in" infraction I'm aware of, including this one, the player has been sportsmanlike, realized that he had made a mistake, and accepted the penalty.  As far as I know, they've all been cases where the player did not realize there was a penalty involved, and unless there was a question of fact, there's simply no way around it.

IMO it doesn't matter who notices it, every penalty that is initially missed then caught improves the integrity of the competition.  Sure, top names are slightly more likely to be scrutinized, but I think it's better to use all the information available to enforce the rules rather than speculating about potential "unfairness" because of unseen, unrecorded penalties.  As was aptly observed up-thread, call-in penalties are extremely rare, and certainly don't seem to be concentrated amongst the marquee players.

[iPutt]

I originally voted no, now my mind is changed to yes. I do disagree, however, with Camillo being disqualified. I think that he should have just had the 2 shot penalty added to his score but should have been allowed to continue playing in the tournament. I know that intent doesn't matter when breaking a rule, but if he himself didn't notice it, none of the rules officials saw it, then i think that signing for the wrong score is going a little too far. Then again I guess there's no way to tell whether he broke the rule intentionally or not so you have to DQ him. I don't know, I'm conflicted hahaha.

[doublesuited77]

My take is somewhere in the middle.   I have no issues with someone from home bringing up a potential rule infringement and don't buy the argument about how it hurts some players more than others.

I still have two major issues, both really around the statue of limitations

1) I dont believe players should be able to be DQs well after they have signed their scorecard.   If this had happened on a Sunday and he had won a tourney, the victory would stand.

2) I believe that if the PGA is going to be soliciting input from fans at home, then golfers should have the right to be informed of these rules prior to signing their scorecards, just like they would if there was an actual rules official.   The PGA incident with DJ is how this SHOULD have been handled.

[basscat348]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayMc

I vote no, unequivocally.  A viewer at home has no business interfering in a tournament.  The players and officials are plenty of eyes on the situation.

If a rule is broken and goes unnoticed, then clearly they're not "plenty of eyes."

If a tree falls in the forrest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a noise ?

Its amazing to me that the amount of people that think this is ok.Would you think it would be ok if the government put cameras inside your house,at your job,in your car to watch you in case you do something your not supposed to then they will penalize you ,your gonna laugh now but mark my word it will happen sooner than later if it has already happened without your knowledge..Big brother is watching you belive me.Why cant people just worry about there own lives and just watch the golf tournament ? I used to fish professional bass tournaments FLW tour for a living until I found out and realized that most If not all consistant anglers all have LOTS of help prior to a tournament.This is totally unfair in all aspects and that is why I quite fishing and now although this has been going on for awhile now and I dont plan on being a tour level golfer any time soon this stuff has been a topic for ahwile and I say they shouldnt allow call in's to interfere with the game.It all goes back to the tree in the woods,wether someone does something on purpose or by mistake is part of life and if it goes unnoticed then that is the way it should be.

[max power]

Of course I wouldn't.  How exactly does the PGA Tour = the Government?

Originally Posted by basscat348

If a tree falls in the forrest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a noise ?

Its amazing to me that the amount of people that think this is ok.Would you think it would be ok if the government put cameras inside your house,at your job,in your car to watch you in case you do something your not supposed to then they will penalize you ,your gonna laugh now but mark my word it will happen sooner than later if it has already happened without your knowledge..Big brother is watching you belive me.Why cant people just worry about there own lives and just watch the golf tournament ? I used to fish professional bass tournaments FLW tour for a living until I found out and realized that most If not all consistant anglers all have LOTS of help prior to a tournament.This is totally unfair in all aspects and that is why I quite fishing and now although this has been going on for awhile now and I dont plan on being a tour level golfer any time soon this stuff has been a topic for ahwile and I say they shouldnt allow call in's to interfere with the game.It all goes back to the tree in the woods,wether someone does something on purpose or by mistake is part of life and if it goes unnoticed then that is the way it should be.

[jamo]

Originally Posted by doublesuited77

2) I believe that if the PGA is going to be soliciting input from fans at home, then golfers should have the right to be informed of these rules prior to signing their scorecards, just like they would if there was an actual rules official.   The PGA incident with DJ is how this SHOULD have been handled.

Am I missing something? Camilo had access to and should have known the rules, just like Dustin Johnson.

Originally Posted by basscat348

If a tree falls in the forrest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a noise ?

Its amazing to me that the amount of people that think this is ok.Would you think it would be ok if the government put cameras inside your house,at your job,in your car to watch you in case you do something your not supposed to then they will penalize you ,your gonna laugh now but mark my word it will happen sooner than later if it has already happened without your knowledge..Big brother is watching you belive me.Why cant people just worry about there own lives and just watch the golf tournament ? I used to fish professional bass tournaments FLW tour for a living until I found out and realized that most If not all consistant anglers all have LOTS of help prior to a tournament.This is totally unfair in all aspects and that is why I quite fishing and now although this has been going on for awhile now and I dont plan on being a tour level golfer any time soon this stuff has been a topic for ahwile and I say they shouldnt allow call in's to interfere with the game.It all goes back to the tree in the woods,wether someone does something on purpose or by mistake is part of life and if it goes unnoticed then that is the way it should be.

How does this even make sense when the players are being filmed the entire time anyways? The PGA Tour isn't sneaking a camera into Camilo's bag to detect when he messes up.

[CassinoNorth]

As soon as I'm allowed to call in penalties in NHL games, then yeah, maybe I'll say yes.

The player that just crosschecked my team broke the rules and got away with it. Why is that fair?

[max power]

Sure.  NHL = PGA.  Very similar games.

Originally Posted by CassinoNorth

As soon as I'm allowed to call in penalties in NHL games, then yeah, maybe I'll say yes.

The player that just crosschecked my team broke the rules and got away with it. Why is that fair?

[CassinoNorth]

Originally Posted by max power

Sure.  NHL = PGA.  Very similar games.

Why is it any different?

Case A:

-Official missed rule infraction

-Player not penalized

-Game went on as it was

Case B:

-Official missed rule infraction

-Player not penalized

-Game went on as it was

-5 HOURS AFTER THE GAME WAS OVER THE PLAYER IS KICKED OUT.

Oh right, totally different.