Should Viewers Be Able to Call in Rules Violations

**zeg** · February 1, 2011

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.

Ok, I couldn't remember where I'd seen that original claim or who was on which side of it. In any event, I'm going to start specifying printed circuit board layouts in spikemarks instead of 1000ths of an inch. :-)

**sacm3bill** · February 1, 2011

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

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.

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

I thought your message (at least the only one I've been able to make out) was that if someone wanted to replace their ball in a different location to avoid a spike mark, they could do it without anyone noticing. But your claim was predicated on a spike mark being 100 times smaller than it actually is. *My* message is that in actuality, if someone were to try to place their ball far enough away from its original spot to get around a spike mark, it would be quite noticeable. So now that you're admitting a spike mark isn't really that small, it minimizes the effectiveness of your argument.

So no, I wasn't joking. I'm starting to get the feeling you are though, just to keep the argument going.

**ghalfaire** · February 2, 2011

I guess in my earlier post I was trying to address the precision (and slow motion capability) of the device measuring the location of the ball placement versus the human eye. Seems to me that in order for a violation of the rules to occur there should be an opportunity for the golfer to detect the violation. It isn't clear the Paddy had a chance to detect the change in location after he brushed the ball. At some level of precision none of ever put the ball back in the "exact position" it was prior to our marking it. 20 years ago it there were no cameras that could have determined such a small ball movement from a distance. It is my belief that there should be some fairness in the rules and if it is the case that Paddy could not with his eyes at the time determine the ball moved, it should not be a violation and certainly not one that caused a DQ.

Just as a last statement I am not excusing ignorance of the rules or mis-placing of the ball when it is clear that the golfer should have known it was being mis-placed. I have played with some ethically challenged golfers and know that isn't what I want to see tolerated. So while scam3bill is correct that knowing the intent of the golfer isn't possible, it is possible to define with what precision the position measuring device can be that determines when a ball is misplaced can be before a violation is called. If we are going to permit a TV viewer to call in violations there should be some consideration of "is it reasonable to expect that the golfer had an opportunity to detect the violation if they knew the rule?".

**sean_miller** · February 2, 2011

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

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.

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

I thought your message (at least the only one I've been able to make out) was that if someone wanted to replace their ball in a different location to avoid a spike mark, they could do it without anyone noticing. But your claim was predicated on a spike mark being 100 times smaller than it actually is. *My* message is that in actuality, if someone were to try to place their ball far enough away from its original spot to get around a spike mark, it would be quite noticeable. So now that you're admitting a spike mark isn't really that small, it minimizes the effectiveness of your argument.

So no, I wasn't joking. I'm starting to get the feeling you are though, just to keep the argument going.

Now I admit a spike mark isn' that small? Is that your statement?

I know you read the Saltman suspension thread, because this is a hot button issue for you, so I know you know I previously called the OP on that made up stat. That was a joke, but regardless of the actual width of the average spike mark, the message is the same.

BTW - I wasn't directly responding to your post when suggested people cheat all the time with ball placement, so why would I have needed to address anything you made up in your fabricated scenario.

**shades9323** · February 2, 2011

Looks like the NO's have it. What is our next step boys? Petition the PGA Tour to not allow TV viewers to call in penalties? Surely the sand trap has some clout on tour!

**sacm3bill** · February 2, 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

If we are going to permit a TV viewer to call in violations there should be some consideration of "is it reasonable to expect that the golfer had an opportunity to detect the violation if they knew the rule?".

Sure, I agree with that - and in Paddy's case the opportunity was there (he could've called the RO over for a ruling and in doing so completely covered his bases).

@Sean: Apparently we have no common ground for logical discussion. Cheers.

**sean_miller** · February 2, 2011

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

If we are going to permit a TV viewer to call in violations there should be some consideration of "is it reasonable to expect that the golfer had an opportunity to detect the violation if they knew the rule?".

Sure, I agree with that - and in Paddy's case the opportunity was there (he could've called the RO over for a ruling and in doing so completely covered his bases).

@Sean: Apparently we have no common ground for logical discussion. Cheers.

Based on past experience, that's probably true. At the end of the day, what they do on the PGA Tour has no effect on my life so, whatever. Cheers

**ghalfaire** · February 2, 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Sure, I agree with that - and in Paddy's case the opportunity was there (he could've called the RO over for a ruling and in doing so completely covered his bases).

You're correct it might have kept Paddy from being DQed but I doubt a rules official would have made a ruling on something he didn't see. So not sure of the result as I think rules officials just tell you what the rule is, not if the ball position changed or not. But it is an interesting question as to just what a rules official would have done if Paddy had ask for a ruling on if the ball had changed positions or not. Of course it is hypothetical since Paddy didn't believe the ball position had changed. But you're also right we have beat this one death and there really isn't a good resolution I can think of.

**sacm3bill** · February 2, 2011

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

You're correct it might have kept Paddy from being DQed... Of course it is hypothetical since Paddy didn't believe the ball position had changed.

It *definitely* would have kept him from being DQd. I guess that's the crux of my frustration with the people on the other side of the fence. Rules experts here have weighed in, citing rules and decisions, confirming that once he calls the RO over it doesn't matter what the ruling is, he cannot be DQ'd. So all I''m saying is, if Paddy knew the ball moved *at all*, it's not up to him whether the ball came back to uts original position. Maybe the RO would've looked for video, maybe not - the point is, once the RO is involved at all, Paddy could not have been DQ'd later no matter what. I.e., something as simple as following a well established procedure that many other players know about and follow, could have saved Paddy the DQ and us pages of discussion about it.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

At the end of the day, what they do on the PGA Tour has no effect on my life so, whatever. Cheers

Well actually.... ( sorry, I know it seems I'm just being argumentative, but hear me out...) It does have an affect on me or anyone else who follows the rules, whether in casual rounds or a tournament, because the PGA Tour rules are the same rules that amateurs use. So if they change a rule on the Tour that makes it easier to cheat (I know Sean, we disagree on that), it makes it easier for millions of amateurs to cheat too. That's why some of us do have a vested interest in this topic.

sharkhark · February 2, 2011

No. definitely not.

when we watch a nfl game can we call it in when we notice once player do something that is a penalty that the ref missed? the officials missed or the review booth missed?

no...we cannot.

when i see something in hockey in the nhl can i call in? no.

when its soccer? no.

when its baseball..when clearly the ball was out and called a strike...can i call in? no..no i cannot.

so why golf? why does every other sport have officials to watch the game and to step in if needed and golf is the only one that lets people call in. you are supposed to be honset and call penatlties on yourself and that happens. so if it is a gentlemans game and there are already walking officials etc around, why add the unnecessary layer of home viewers getting to play arm chair quarterback...er...official.

no...no...no..should you be allowed to call in. no other sport does it. golf doesnt need it. if a player missed a microscopic rules infraction and so did the other walking officials...lets not have a old geezer sitting in his barka lounger doing the officiating from iowa.

no.

**RemyM** · February 2, 2011

The PGA Tour had a rules official watching the final 90 minutes of the Farmers on TV.

**sacm3bill** · February 2, 2011

Originally Posted by RemyM

The PGA Tour had a rules official watching the final 90 minutes of the Farmers on TV.

Good move IMO.

Originally Posted by sharkhark

...so why golf? why does every other sport have officials to watch the game and to step in if needed and golf is the only one that lets people call in.

Asked and answered several times in this thread.

**sean_miller** · February 2, 2011

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

At the end of the day, what they do on the PGA Tour has no effect on my life so, whatever. Cheers

Well actually.... ( sorry, I know it seems I'm just being argumentative, but hear me out...) It does have an affect on me or anyone else who follows the rules, whether in casual rounds or a tournament, because the PGA Tour rules are the same rules that amateurs use. So if they change a rule on the Tour that makes it easier to cheat (I know Sean, we disagree on that), it makes it easier for millions of amateurs to cheat too. That's why some of us do have a vested interest in this topic.

Which amateurs are cheating more or less based on which rules are being called in? In 25+ years of golf I've never noticed a player try to gain an advantage by creatively mark his or her ball, building a stance by kneeling on a jacket, or flipping a divot into their ball's path as it rolled back from a lackluster chip.

The day a 7 (or a 17) handicapper has a vested interest in any subtle rule changes relevant to the PGA Tour is the day I virtually die laughing.

**sacm3bill** · February 2, 2011

Allow me to sum up this (and the Paddy-specific) thread

Point: Viewers should be able to call in infractions.

Counterpoint: No they shouldn't, because some lazy couch-sitting cheetos-eatin' high-handicapper bastard shouldn't affect the outcome of a professional tournament!

Point: So you're ok with someone getting away with a rule infraction simply because an official at the scene didn’t see it?

Counterpoint [Ok, I better change my argument]: Well they shouldn't be DQ'd over one, that's for sure!

Point: Even though any DQ is easily avoidable by simply knowing the basic rules and following well estabished procedures (consulting with an RO, for example) that 99.99% of the golfers 99.99% of the time know to do?

Counterpoint [Oops, better change my argument again]: Well it shouldn't be illegal to nudge the ball a bit when it's in play, because no one ever puts their ball back exactly where they marked it anyway!

Point: So you want to make it legal in the rules of golf to nudge the ball to a different position even though it means the guy you're playing the tournament against this weekend can now use that technique to get around an imperfection in the green?

Counterpoint: But they can already do that by putting it in a different position when they place it!

Point: Uh, actually the guy who is on suspension right now is proof that you *can't* get away with that.

Counterpoint: ---sounds of crickets chirping---

Someone (Hi Sean) please correct me if I have anything wrong.

sharkhark · February 2, 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharkhark

...so why golf? why does every other sport have officials to watch the game and to step in if needed and golf is the only one that lets people call in.

Asked and answered several times in this thread.

...answered poorly.........if you ask me 2+2 and i answer 5.....its still an answer....a poorly one....but still an answer....skipping my main point....soccer allows people to call in? no....baseball...no....hockey...no...football...no....lacrosse...no...figure skating...no...skeet shooting...no....naked volleyball...no....bowling...no...

golf? yes.....makes zippo sense

sharkhark · February 2, 2011