Should Viewers Be Able to Call in Rules Violations

[Phil McGleno]

Oh goodness.

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.

Guess what? The golfers ARE informed of these rules. What the heck do you think these things are? http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rules-and-Decisions/

Originally Posted by CassinoNorth

Why is it any different?

Rule 6-1 exists in golf and not in the NHL or, well, any other sport that I know of.

Rules officials are there to assist players, not to call penalties. Other gentlemen have said this already.

Maybe you're the type that has never called a penalty on yourself.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by CassinoNorth

Quote:

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.

Yes, it is totally different.   In hockey, football, baseball there are referees and umpires whose job it is to call rules infractions.  It is NOT so in golf.  How many times does that have to be said before you see it.  On course rules officials are there to assist the players with questions on the rules and procedures.  They are NOT there to be referees or cops.

[Zeph]

Please read the thread before replying, the NHL/NFL issue has been brought up and discussed before. Golf is nothing like NHL, so there is no point in bringing it up again.

[shades9323]

Exactly!

Originally Posted by Phil McGlenno

That is the JOB OF THE GOLFERS

[Quinn07]

First and foremost I agree with people being able to call in regarding the rules...however I did vote no.  I voted no because I hate the idea of the players being able to sign the scorecard and then return the next day only to find out that they have been disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard.  Why can't they assess him with the appropriate penalty as it was discovered after he signed his scorecard?  He's still being penalized, but not being kicked out of the tournament.  I understand that the players themselves are the referees and they need to call themselves on the penalties, however how many other calls get missed or never discovered.  I get that this can hurt the integrity of the game and rules, however when the rules were made they didn't take into consideration that someone watching on TV could call in with a ruling.  So I believe that if a penalty is realized after the fact, as the player in not aware of the infraction they should only be assessed the penalty strokes to their score and not DQ'd.

I agree wholeheartedly that people should be able to call in with a rules infraction, but I don't believe a player should be DQ'd from a tournament for those types of rulings.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Quinn07

I agree wholeheartedly that people should be able to call in with a rules infraction, but I don't believe a player should be DQ'd from a tournament for those types of rulings.

Then you should've voted "yes" in this poll, and "no" here: http://thesandtrap.com/forum/thread/43144/should-players-be-dq-d-for-penalties-assessed-after-they-sign-their-scorecard

[Phil McGleno]

Originally Posted by Quinn07

Why can't they assess him with the appropriate penalty as it was discovered after he signed his scorecard? He's still being penalized, but not being kicked out of the tournament.

For the same reason you pay a monetary penalty when you don't pay your taxes. If all you ever had to pay was what you originally owed with no extra penalty, jail time, etc. then nobody would pay their taxes - they'd just wait until they were absolutely forced to do so.

Camilo signed an incorrect scorecard. If we didn't have the threat of a DQ, golfers might never count their penalty strokes and then hope nobody noticed. If nobody notices, they get away with it. If someone notices, they pay the same penalty they otherwise should have. It wouldn't make a difference.

[1par2win]

I think the most shocking thing was Camillo didn't know the rule. Or DJ (nor is caddie?!?!?) didn't know about the bunker rule posted since the day the players arrived for the PGA Championship? The seeming paradox that a player can rise to the level of the PGA Tour and take such a lax approach to the understanding of the rules (local or otherwise) confounds me. They should be able to quote the rule book chapter and verse. The fact that some doofus sitting on his couch watching and event can call out a player for a rules violation indicates to me the problem isn't with the viewers, it's with the players.

[Quinn07]

Originally Posted by Phil McGlenno

For the same reason you pay a monetary penalty when you don't pay your taxes. If all you ever had to pay was what you originally owed with no extra penalty, jail time, etc. then nobody would pay their taxes - they'd just wait until they were absolutely forced to do so.

Camilo signed an incorrect scorecard. If we didn't have the threat of a DQ, golfers might never count their penalty strokes and then hope nobody noticed. If nobody notices, they get away with it. If someone notices, they pay the same penalty they otherwise should have. It wouldn't make a difference.

So the guys on TV have to pay a more strict penalty for not realizing they have broken a rule? Isn't the penalty strokes enough? Isn't that the reason for having the penalty strokes in the first place? Similar to paying more for not filing your taxes?  I don't think you analogy truly works, I would think that going to jail for not paying your taxes (in some cases people do) would be more suitable, but not on the level you are referencing.

I don't think players consider being DQ'd as a reason not to follow the rules.  I believe the players follow the rules because it's been a integral part of the game for as long as it's been around, it's good sportsmanship and they are the rules.  It has nothing to do with being DQ'd.  If Camilo knew that he would be breaking the rules by moving the loose impediment, I don't believe he would have done it.

[johnny2balls]

I see no problem with viewers having the ability to call in.  The bottom line is an infraction may have occured no matter who called it or saw it.  Leaver it up to the on-course officials to make the determination.

And. from what I have seen first hand, many touring pros do not know simple rules.  That is why you see so many break rules and/or call in rules officials for simple situations. Many playing partners also will not call out their buddy for breaking a rule.

[Clambake]

Originally Posted by iacas

I'm disappointed in the folks that are voting no... Integrity schmintegrity, I guess. Disappointing.

So if someone chooses to disagree with you and vote "no" for a variety of other reasons, you're immediately branding them as being without integrity???    Nice attitude.....

[Phil McGleno]

Originally Posted by Quinn07

So the guys on TV have to pay a more strict penalty for not realizing they have broken a rule? Isn't the penalty strokes enough? Isn't that the reason for having the penalty strokes in the first place?

How is it "more strict"? The rules are the same for everyone. If a guy not on TV is found to have broken a rule and signed for an incorrect scorecard, he's DQed. There's no "more strict"?

And no, the penalty strokes were not enough. If you sign for an incorrect scorecard (lower score), you're DQed. The penalty strokes exist for the action. The DQ is for a second (much worse) action.

Originally Posted by Quinn07

I don't think players consider being DQ'd as a reason not to follow the rules.  I believe the players follow the rules because it's been a integral part of the game for as long as it's been around, it's good sportsmanship and they are the rules.  It has nothing to do with being DQ'd.  If Camilo knew that he would be breaking the rules by moving the loose impediment, I don't believe he would have done it.

And yet you want to excuse his inability to know the rules and sign for the correct score. It's his responsibility to know the rules and, police himself and write down the proper score. He failed to do so and was DQed.

If he had known the rules he would have saved himself the DQ at a minimum and possibly the two stroke penalty to begin with.

[iacas]

Phil, chill out. The last paragraph of your response was over the line.

Originally Posted by Clambake

So if someone chooses to disagree with you and vote "no" for a variety of other reasons, you're immediately branding them as being without integrity???    Nice attitude.....

Clambake, I believe I was clear in talking about the integrity of the game. If we no longer hold players responsible for their own actions - for the facts - and for reporting the correct score and knowing the rules, golf is no longer as special as it once was, because a big part of what makes golf special is the integrity and honor of those who play it.

If you vote "no" in this poll then you clearly feel differently than I do about the integrity of the game, because you're voting "no" to a situation where a fact is known, a rule a player should have known is violated, and yet you want to let it slide simply because of who happened to notice despite the fact that the pro is negligent in his responsibilities to the game and to the rest of the field.

I cherish golf's standard of integrity, and hold it up as one of the defining characteristics of the sport, and hope I'll always feel the same about it.

I said nothing about anyone's integrity outside of the game. I'm talking about the integrity of the rules and the game we all love.

Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to again be silent because, as I previously said, if "he's a rules stickler" is one of the bad things you can say about me, I'm fine with that.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by iacas

Phil, chill out. The last paragraph of your response was over the line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clambake

So if someone chooses to disagree with you and vote "no" for a variety of other reasons, you're immediately branding them as being without integrity???    Nice attitude.....

Clambake, I believe I was clear in talking about the integrity of the game. If we no longer hold players responsible for their own actions - for the facts - and for reporting the correct score and knowing the rules, golf is no longer as special as it once was, because a big part of what makes golf special is the integrity and honor of those who play it.

If you vote "no" in this poll then you clearly feel differently than I do about the integrity of the game, because you're voting "no" to a situation where a fact is known, a rule a player should have known is violated, and yet you want to let it slide simply because of who happened to notice despite the fact that the pro is negligent in his responsibilities to the game and to the rest of the field.

I cherish golf's standard of integrity, and hold it up as one of the defining characteristics of the sport, and hope I'll always feel the same about it.

I said nothing about anyone's integrity outside of the game. I'm talking about the integrity of the rules and the game we all love.

Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to again be silent because, as I previously said, if "he's a rules stickler" is one of the bad things you can say about me, I'm fine with that.

Very, very well stated.  The moment you have to start putting umpires on the course, the game of golf is dead.  We've gotten along fine for 400 years without them - now suddenly we need oversight?  Or babysitters?  Put the blame where it belongs, with the player.

He broke a basic rule (the heart of the matter, and totally his fault).  The committee found out (how they found out is irrelevant).  He had already returned his card (without adding the required penalty strokes).  He was DQ'ed (for returning an incorrect scorecard).  End of story.

Unfortunately, I'm sure that the next time this comes up, we will have exactly the same discussion, and exactly the same members will have exactly the same baseless arguments.

[Clambake]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clambake

So if someone chooses to disagree with you and vote "no" for a variety of other reasons, you're immediately branding them as being without integrity???    Nice attitude.....

Clambake, I believe I was clear in talking about the integrity of the game. If we no longer hold players responsible for their own actions - for the facts - and for reporting the correct score and knowing the rules, golf is no longer as special as it once was, because a big part of what makes golf special is the integrity and honor of those who play it.

If you vote "no" in this poll then you clearly feel differently than I do about the integrity of the game, because you're voting "no" to a situation where a fact is known, a rule a player should have known is violated, and yet you want to let it slide simply because of who happened to notice despite the fact that the pro is negligent in his responsibilities to the game and to the rest of the field.

I cherish golf's standard of integrity, and hold it up as one of the defining characteristics of the sport, and hope I'll always feel the same about it.

I said nothing about anyone's integrity outside of the game. I'm talking about the integrity of the rules and the game we all love.

I concur completely that the integrity of golf is one of the biggest things that separates it from nearly any other sport.    I and probably everyone here feel the same way in that we wish to ensure that golf continues to serve as a model for how all sport should be - a world by which character and honesty rule the competition and not "what can I get away with?" as seems to be the case with every other sport.

But back to the core question of your poll, it isn't whether or not one should uphold the integrity of the game but "what is the process?"   Your question was should viewers be able to call in and report violations, not whether we chuck out integrity of the game.    And for those who vote no, I expect it is their concern about the process and not an attack at the core integrity that you are championing.

One of the beauties of golf is that the rules are pretty clear - there are really no areas of gray between the black and white.    Yes, there is an occasional outcry over the results of the rules such as DJ grounding his club in a bunker at the PGA, but the rules are still very clear, and in that example it was crystal clear that he did indeed violate the rule.    The problem with the using viewers to report infractions is if we try to create a process that is as black and white as the rule book.   For example, what is the time limit?   If a person calls in a year later, should that be used to overturn the player's result at that tournament?    According to your argument, the answer would be yes because to do otherwise would damage the integrity of the game.   Afterall, the player did indeed commit a violation, so they must of course pay the appropriate penalty.      But having a long amount of time pass seems both impractical and overly punitive.     So instead, it seems logical to find a compromise of some shorter time period to create almost a statute of limitations.

But this inherently forces a gray area into something that should otherwise be black or white, and this is the inherent objection by many to using TV viewership as a group of virtual rules officials.   Is a penalty for a rules violation a year ago appropriate?   Most would argue no.   What about 6 months?   1 month?  1 week?   48 hours?   12 hours?     Where is the line drawn?    If one proposes 48 hours as an example, then why is that a magically OK number and not 54 hours?     To use your position on integrity, there would have to be zero tolerance and the ability to change a call for years afterwards because anything else would cheapen the integrity of the sport, but I'm sure that isn't what you have in mind, so you're indicating that you would compromise the integrity for practicality.   If you're willing to put a time limit on it, that means you're willing to let a rule slide under certain conditions.    It is that search for compromise and the process that I find difficult and too subjective, and hence I would prefer that golf not go down that path.

I feel there is still enough inherent integrity and honor in each of the players that they are able to police themselves and their fellow competitors with the aid and support of the on-course rules officials without either the need for or the opportunity of TV viewers to join the fray.

[Phil McGleno]

Sorry Erik for the earlier post. It was out of line. I get frustrated as you know but I'll try to behave more like my wife would want me to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clambake
One of the beauties of golf is that the rules are pretty clear - there are really no areas of gray between the black and white.    Yes, there is an occasional outcry over the results of the rules such as DJ grounding his club in a bunker at the PGA, but the rules are still very clear, and in that example it was crystal clear that he did indeed violate the rule.    The problem with the using viewers to report infractions is if we try to create a process that is as black and white as the rule book.   For example, what is the time limit?   If a person calls in a year later, should that be used to overturn the player's result at that tournament?    According to your argument, the answer would be yes because to do otherwise would damage the integrity of the game.   Afterall, the player did indeed commit a violation, so they must of course pay the appropriate penalty.      But having a long amount of time pass seems both impractical and overly punitive.     So instead, it seems logical to find a compromise of some shorter time period to create almost a statute of limitations.

I don't want to speak for Erik here but I think you're wrong when you say "according to your argument". Erik likes the Rules, and the Rules say that once a tournament is over, it's over. This was discussed several pages ago. It's unfortunate, and it would keep golf from being "perfect," but striving for perfection while the tournament is still ongoing must be the goal.

So again I don't want to speak for Erik, but I think he'd disagree entirely with what you think he would say in this case.

Rules of Golf, 34-1b:

In stroke play, a penalty must not be rescinded, modified or imposed after the competition has closed. A competition is closed when the result has been officially announced or, in stroke-play qualifying followed by match play, when the player has teed off in his first match.

I sense that Erik is not talking because he thinks that he'll piss people off if he keeps disagreeing with them, but let's all make sure that nobody acts like I behaved before, and actually get pissed off. Again, sorry for that. In the end we all enjoy golf, and without disagreements we wouldn't have much of a forum, and I'm up for a good debate as much as anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clambake

Where is the line drawn?

Per the rules... at the close of competition. Did you miss those posts?

[ElWagonne]

Here's the way I see the disagreement:  The gents that are for calling in rules violations think that those that aren't for it are a bunch of truth-less, uncouth hacks.  The gents that would not call in a violation think that those that will make the call have a bit too much time on their hands.  The truth is somewhere in the middle, IMO.  As for me, I voted no, because I use TV golf for entertainment purposes.  I would much rather worry about such things as 1) why I can't seem to get my putts per round below 30 or 2) how can I get my GIR closer to 50%.

That being said, both sides have salient points.  1) Camilo's incident is as close to an equivalent golf will have to instant replay.   On the other hand, golf is a game where golfers police each other (and themselves)

This is the sleeping dog that has been awoken.  Unfortunately, this 'dog' will be re-hashed more and more often.  It used to come up once every other year, but we can now count at least 4 incidents in the past 12 months (Inkster, Wie, Johnson, Camilo) and with twitter and other forms of real-time updating coming out, this will not be the last time.

I can't say that I have an equitable solution, but I do know that I will not be the one calling in to CBS (or whatever channel) to advise of a violation, if only because I've got bigger things to worry about.

[Fourputt]

It still all comes down to the player.  This debate has continued on a half dozen golf forums, and all that is really agreed on is that it just isn't fair.  Well DUH!!!.  Who the hell ever said it was supposed to be?

What is not fair is that some players take the time and effort to study the rules so they don't get caught by the cameras doing something stupid, and others don't bother.  Why should the ones who make that effort be put at a disadvantage in respect to those who don't?  Why should those who are too lazy to bother with such technicalities as the rules of their game get a pass when they screw up?  The answer is that they shouldn't.... and they don't.  I see this as one of the beauties of the game.  Just because every player on Tour isn't under the camera's eye every shot makes no difference, because it is still his duty to know the rules.  If he doesn't know the rules and he happens to get caught in a breach, then so be it - he gets what's coming to him.  If he doesn't get caught this time, well, I have faith that eventually kharma will catch up to him.