Should Viewers Be Able to Call in Rules Violations

[ghalfaire]

I see in the latest issue of "Golf World" (Jan 31 issue) there is an article that relates directly to this issue.  It does seem to be a harsh penalty to DQ someone that (1) know the rule, (2) knows the ball moved but thought it oscillated back to its' original position, and thus didn't think they had to replace it.  Only thorough the hi-power lens could one detect the movement.  Regardless of your opinion about viewers calling in this is a harsh penalty for these circumstances.  While Harrington made a mistake it was not because of ignorance of the rule or willful cheating, it was because he is human and couldn't detect a dimple and a half of rotation with the human eye.  I believe that the article isn't suggesting that there should not have been a penalty, just asking should it be DQ for an incorrect scorecard that Harrington had no way to know it was incorrect.  Good question, I don't know the answer.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

I see in the latest issue of "Golf World" (Jan 31 issue) there is an article that relates directly to this issue.  It does seem to be a harsh penalty to DQ someone that (1) know the rule, (2) knows the ball moved but thought it oscillated back to its' original position, and thus didn't think they had to replace it.  Only thorough the hi-power lens could one detect the movement.  Regardless of your opinion about viewers calling in this is a harsh penalty for these circumstances.  While Harrington made a mistake it was not because of ignorance of the rule or willful cheating, it was because he is human and couldn't detect a dimple and a half of rotation with the human eye.  I believe that the article isn't suggesting that there should not have been a penalty, just asking should it be DQ for an incorrect scorecard that Harrington had no way to know it was incorrect.  Good question, I don't know the answer.

Ok, imagine this scenario: The rule is changed as some are calling for to remove the DQ penalty. At a subsequent tournament, some tour player with fewer scruples than Paddy sees that his ball is directly behind a spike mark. He purposely nudges his ball to the side when picking up or putting down his marker, in an attempt to take the spike mark out of play. He doesn't call the rules official over because he doesn't want to introduce the possibility that there might be video evidence that would force him to put the ball back in line with the spike mark.

After he signs his card, either A) He gets away with it, or B) A viewer who's seen it has called it in, and with the DQ penalty now removed the player is just penalized a couple strokes.

There's the problem. There is no difference in actions between what Paddy did and what this fictional tour player I'm describing did. The only difference is intent. Since we cannot know intent, the rules as they exist must be there in order to prevent someone from trying to get away with claims like "I didn't know the rule", or "I didn't know the ball moved", or in Paddy's case, "I didn't think there was a reason to consult with the RO" (which, as has been pointed out in the thread talking about Paddy's incident specifically, would've exonerated Paddy from any penalty or DQ later.)

The reason the DQ penalty is there is to make sure the players know the rules and to provide a strong disincentive for breaking them. Lots of folks keep focusing on how unfair it was for Paddy, but he could have easily avoided the penalty by just following established procedure (calling the RO over).  Hundreds of pro golfers every year *don't* get penalized the way Paddy did, simply because it's so easy to avoid it.

The people who are saying "The DQ is unfair so the rule should be changed" are in essence saying "We want to make golfers less responsible for their actions, and we don't mind the side effect of also making it less penal to cheat."

Yes, I agree it was a harsh penalty if we assume Paddy was not trying to cheat (which I believe of course). But not a harsh penalty if a different golfer who had done the exact same things *was* trying to cheat. In the absence of being able to detemine intent with 100% accuracy in 100% of the cases, you need the DQ.

[sean_miller]

I wonder how many people mark their ball, then replace it to the best of their ability, but do so 2 or 3 dimples away from its original position. Unless the ball oscillates when being replaced, why would somebody check? They probably wouldn't check, but they should, because those players also need to be penalized (hopefully DQ'd - it's really the only just punishment). I can't wait until they get HD video of all players in the field marking their balls on every green for all 72 holes. We may have to work in shifts to scan all the video. So many cheaters and so little time.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I wonder how many people mark their ball, then replace it to the best of their ability, but do so 2 or 3 dimples away from its original position. Unless the ball oscillates when being replaced, why would somebody check? They probably wouldn't check, but they should, because those players also need to be penalized (hopefully DQ'd - it's really the only just punishment). I can't wait until they get HD video of all players in the field marking their balls on every green for all 72 holes. We may have to work in shifts to scan all the video. So many cheaters and so little time.

Straw man argument. No one ever has been or will be penalized for what you're talking about, which is quite a bit different than knowingly causing your ball to move and not doing anything about it.

(Btw, I didn't resond to each of your points using multi-quotes because I know how much you hate that. ( http://thesandtrap.com/forum/thread/43360/padraig-harrington-disqualified-in-abu-dhabi/72#post_568976 )

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I wonder how many people mark their ball, then replace it to the best of their ability, but do so 2 or 3 dimples away from its original position. Unless the ball oscillates when being replaced, why would somebody check? They probably wouldn't check, but they should, because those players also need to be penalized (hopefully DQ'd - it's really the only just punishment). I can't wait until they get HD video of all players in the field marking their balls on every green for all 72 holes. We may have to work in shifts to scan all the video. So many cheaters and so little time.

Straw man argument. No one ever has been or will be penalized for what you're talking about, which is quite a bit different than knowingly causing your ball to move and not doing anything about it.

(Btw, I didn't resond to each of your points using multi-quotes because I know how much you hate that.   (http://thesandtrap.com/forum/thread/43360/padraig-harrington-disqualified-in-abu-dhabi/72#post_568976)

Not placing it back where it was is exactly the broken rule at least a couple other posters have mentioned. I'll try to post more concisely so a multi-quote isn't necessary. Win win.

[ejimsmith]

I will continue to believe that it is not the tv-viewers place to call in violations.   Regardless of whether an infraction is missed or not, viewers should NOT be able to call in... IMHO

[Lefty-Golfer]

using the the old school thought process of use your damn head and things will be come much clearer...the ruling was reviewed with a super slomo video to confirm if the report from TV after the fact was correct - end of conversation, it doesn't pass the smell test.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Not placing it back where it was is exactly the broken rule at least a couple other posters have mentioned.

Not sure what point you're trying to make there. I'm just saying putting the ball back down a few dimples off is different than brushing it accidentally and causing it to move, and that the former has never been an issue but the latter clearly is.

Originally Posted by Lefty-Golfer

using the the old school thought process of use your damn head and things will be come much clearer...the ruling was reviewed with a super slomo video to confirm if the report from TV after the fact was correct - end of conversation, it doesn't pass the smell test.

Have you seen the video? It was posted in the thread specific to Paddy's issue. In regular speed, regular definition, it's clear the ball did not return to its original spot. But that's irrelevant anyway - the point is Paddy *knew* it moved and there was no due diligence on his part to follow the correct procedures afterwards.

Like the Paddy thread, I'm going to bow out of this one now too, at least until someone posts something new.

[sean_miller]

You have no idea what point I'm trying to make, yet you have no trouble posting a rebuttal? That's funny.

Isn't there a guy serving a suspension right now for placing his ball in the wrong spot? His is an extreme case, but how exactly do the rules differentiate that case from my scenario? And if potential scenarios are taboo, you should stop suggesting them as well.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

You have no idea what point I'm trying to make, yet you have no trouble posting a rebuttal? That's funny.

Isn't there a guy serving a suspension right now for placing his ball in the wrong spot? His is an extreme case, but how exactly do the rules differentiate that case from my scenario? And if potential scenarios are taboo, you should stop suggesting them as well.

Actually it wasn't a rebuttal, it was just a restatement of my previous post since you didn't appear to address it the first time. Since you've clarified in the above post, I can now respond: The guy serving a suspension is doing so because he had a pattern of advantageously moving his ball to a position well in excess of "2 or 3 dimples" from its previous location.

There is nothing in the rules that states how accurately a ball must be replaced after lifting - not "within an inch", not "within a micron" - nothing.  I think the idea is it's never going to be exact. So that's not an issue (unless it can clearly be shown that a player has a pattern of improper placing, like the guy you refer to), and never will be unless they change the rule.  But there *are* rules that address the procedures and consequences when you cause a ball to move that is in play . That's what Paddy did.

Hope that helps.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

You have no idea what point I'm trying to make, yet you have no trouble posting a rebuttal? That's funny.

Isn't there a guy serving a suspension right now for placing his ball in the wrong spot? His is an extreme case, but how exactly do the rules differentiate that case from my scenario? And if potential scenarios are taboo, you should stop suggesting them as well.

Actually it wasn't a rebuttal, it was just a restatement of my previous post since you didn't appear to address it the first time. Since you've clarified in the above post, I can now respond: The guy serving a suspension is doing so because he had a pattern of advantageously moving his ball to a position well in excess of "2 or 3 dimples" from its previous location.

There is nothing in the rules that states how accurately a ball must be replaced after lifting - not "within an inch", not "within a micron" - nothing.  I think the idea is it's never going to be exact. So that's not an issue (unless it can clearly be shown that a player has a pattern of improper placing, like the guy you refer to), and never will be unless they change the rule.  But there *are* rules that address the procedures and consequences when you cause a ball to move that is in play. That's what Paddy did.

Hope that helps.

That does help. So if Harrington (or someone else) wanted to move his ball to either side of a spike mark (established to be approximately 0.001" - citation pending) he needs to do it during the replacement process, since close enough is good enough, but he needs to be careful not nudge the ball or cause any oscillation in the process. Thank you.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

That does help. So if Harrington (or someone else) wanted to move his ball to either side of a spike mark (established to be approximately 0.001" - citation pending) he needs to do it during the replacement process, since close enough is good enough, but he needs to be careful not nudge the ball or cause any oscillation in the process. Thank you.

A spike mark is more like 0.1" than 0.001".  If you can't replace your ball to that accuracy or very near to it, you're not trying very hard.

Other than that, the rule on replacing the ball quite intentionally does not give a precision.  You are required to do it essentially to the limit of your ability, and a reasonable effort sort of test is all that anyone can ever hope to apply.  This is an area where there is wiggle room, and no, no one is *ever* going to start measuring golf balls to a micron and applying blanket penalties for incidental errors.  99% of the time there's no reason to care.  However, it is against the rules (and more importantly the principle of the rules and fair competition) to exploit this.  If there happened to be a camera that showed someone clearly move their ball around a spike mark, I wouldn't be surprised if a penalty were applied in that case.

Anyway, the difference between an inescapable limit of human precision and bumping a ball after it's in play is not a subtle one.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

You have no idea what point I'm trying to make, yet you have no trouble posting a rebuttal? That's funny.

Isn't there a guy serving a suspension right now for placing his ball in the wrong spot? His is an extreme case, but how exactly do the rules differentiate that case from my scenario? And if potential scenarios are taboo, you should stop suggesting them as well.

Actually it wasn't a rebuttal, it was just a restatement of my previous post since you didn't appear to address it the first time. Since you've clarified in the above post, I can now respond: The guy serving a suspension is doing so because he had a pattern of advantageously moving his ball to a position well in excess of "2 or 3 dimples" from its previous location.

There is nothing in the rules that states how accurately a ball must be replaced after lifting - not "within an inch", not "within a micron" - nothing.  I think the idea is it's never going to be exact. So that's not an issue (unless it can clearly be shown that a player has a pattern of improper placing, like the guy you refer to), and never will be unless they change the rule.  But there *are* rules that address the procedures and consequences when you cause a ball to move that is in play. That's what Paddy did.

Hope that helps.

That does help. So if Harrington (or someone else) wanted to move his ball to either side of a spike mark (established to be approximately 0.001" - citation pending) he needs to do it during the replacement process, since close enough is good enough, but he needs to be careful not nudge the ball or cause any oscillation in the process. Thank you.

Sure, that's one way to cheat, if one wanted to. Look, I get that you feel what happened to Paddy was inequitable, and I get that you think the rule should be changed because of it. But the downside of allowing more flexibility in this rule regarding nudging a ball that's in play is that when the rules get more lenient it opens the door for more ways to bend them - whereas the downside of keeping it the way it is is that once every 10 years someone will get penalized like Paddy did, and only because they failed to follow the simple procedure of consulting with an RO.

[MasterP]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterP

How is that fair to the player, or the integrity of the game?  In this situation does a DQ fit the crime committed (if you can consider that a crime), or should it just be a simple 2 stroke penalty?  How long after the fact can these infractions be called in?  Can I call in a week later?  A month?  What if I find an infraction from the 1997 Masters 4th round?  Can Tom Watson be DQ'ed and his money taken away?

This has been answered several times: close of competition.

Close of competition for that day, or close of competition as in after the final round completes?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Sure, that's one way to cheat, if one wanted to. Look, I get that you feel what happened to Paddy was inequitable, and I get that you think the rule should be changed because of it. But the downside of allowing more flexibility in this rule regarding nudging a ball that's in play is that when the rules get more lenient it opens the door for more ways to bend them - whereas the downside of keeping it the way it is is that once every 10 years someone will get penalized like Paddy did, and only because they failed to follow the simple procedure of consulting with an RO.

No, I think you guys are right on the money. They have to penalize cheaters and people who inadvertantly break rules to the full extent of the rules, because there's really no infallible way to tell the difference. Paddy was rumoured to be a cheater for years before this incident. He very well might be a cheater. It's karma.

@ zeg regarding the width of a spike mark: I know it's wrong, but considering I was the only one to question it in the Saltman thread, I'll continue to use it.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

@ zeg regarding the width of a spike mark: I know it's wrong, but considering I was the only one to question it in the Saltman thread, I'll continue to use it.

Here's a tip: Once you've resorted to supporting your argument by using facts that by your own admission are wrong, you've lost the argument.

[iacas]

Mark O'Meara, I think, came under scrutiny a decade or so ago for "putting his ball back closer than his mark" IIRC. I think he put his coin right up against the bottom/back of the ball, and then set it down half an inch closer, according to a playing partner... or something like that.

That's not "to the limit of his ability" (I like that phrasing for this).

[sean_miller]

Now you're joking right? Put in any distance, the message is the same.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

@ zeg regarding the width of a spike mark: I know it's wrong, but considering I was the only one to question it in the Saltman thread, I'll continue to use it.

Here's a tip: Once you've resorted to supporting your argument by using facts that by your own admission are wrong, you've lost the argument.