Should Viewers Be Able to Call in Rules Violations

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by zeg

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMikey

People getting DQ'd after rounds are over for balls moving 1.5 dimples back are not knee jerk reflex's.  It's simply golfers in a community saying enough of the BS, you loosing the whole spirit of the original game.  Now if you place a ball back by your marker it has to be exactly in the spot to the dimple.  Come on man... freaking ridiculous!

You seem to misunderstand the spirit of the original game.

Did the original game include marking your ball on the green in order to clean it (or whatever else one chooses to do with once they've picked it up). I thought the orignal game included stymies.

[ghalfaire]

Well I guess I thought we had beat this to death and then there were three more pages of comments after my last post.  I think that would indicate there is something different about what happened to Paddy versus what happened to Julie Inkster, Dustin Johnson or Camilo Villegas.  If I remember those threads almost all posts, including me, supported TV viewer calls reporting rules violations.  In these three cases the players were apparently ignorant of the rules and you could clearly see the violation real time with your eyes.  I know what bothers me about the Harrington incident is it isn't clear that he could have reasonably been expected to detect the ball placement change without the use of slow motion hight resolution video (like the NFL uses for replay). So do we want rules that DQ a player for a violation, and there was a violation, where the player could not have been reasonably expected to detect the violation?  I think that is a legitimate discussion and shouldn't be just brushed aside as "a rule is a rule".  Lots of rules have been modified or changed over the history of golf as a result of incidents that occurred in tournament play.   I also find the "he could have called over a rules official" to be unappealing as before any player would do that he would have to have some question whether they had committed a violation or not.  But in this case Paddy knew the rule and not having access to better resolution than his eyes determined he had not changed the location of the ball when he brushed it.  Should have have been penalized?  Probably so.  Should it be DQ?  Not in my opinion.

I bet next time a PGA player 'brushes" a ball we'll get a video replay whether we/the committee/PGA likes the delay in play or not.

[BigMikey]

Originally Posted by zeg

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMikey

People getting DQ'd after rounds are over for balls moving 1.5 dimples back are not knee jerk reflex's.  It's simply golfers in a community saying enough of the BS, you loosing the whole spirit of the original game.  Now if you place a ball back by your marker it has to be exactly in the spot to the dimple.  Come on man... freaking ridiculous!

You seem to misunderstand the spirit of the original game.

And I'm sure you put the ball in the same spot to the dimple right???

And to ghalfaire's point with PH, I gotta side with you on that one,  PH when he says 'how would he have known that the ball wasn't in the same spot?'  There was no advantage to his placement, but that isn't taken into account right and I understand that.  But PH didn't have slow motion video and his eyes might have been on his ball marker, the putting surface etc... There is just a point where... rules are the rules etc... is crazy.

Let's be honest guys, how often do you pay attention if you ball is slightly more to the hole or farther away when you put it down by the marker, or when you use a club head to mark the ball marker out of another's putt line path.  I know I'm pretty conscious of where I put it and I don't move it up a 1/4 or 1/2 inch but I put it where I think the spot was.  I know the PH thing has more to do with the ball moving as he picked up the marker and caused the ball to move, but have to side with his statement that even if he wanted to he could not of repositioned it back because he thought it was in the correct spot.  So IMHO the DQ and rule infraction which I understand really sucks because It's pretty obvious he was not intending to cheat or give himself and advantage.  I know also that rules have some intent included but in the grand scheme of things I imagine I'm correct in saying that way these rules came into being don't really fit some of the infractions.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by BigMikey

And I'm sure you put the ball in the same spot to the dimple right???

This entire "debate" could be solved by the networks deciding not to show players during the ball marking, lifting, and replacing process. There's no mention in the rules that a television network needs to show anything specific during their broadcast.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMikey

And I'm sure you put the ball in the same spot to the dimple right???

This entire "debate" could be solved by the networks deciding not to show players during the ball marking, lifting, and replacing process. There's no mention in the rules that a television network needs to show anything specific during their broadcast.

Yes, that would solve the debate, unless a viewer happened to notice a violation on the tee box, fairway, rough, hazard, bunker, chipping from just off the green... Yeah, let's just limit the TV broadcasts to commercials.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMikey

And I'm sure you put the ball in the same spot to the dimple right???

This entire "debate" could be solved by the networks deciding not to show players during the ball marking, lifting, and replacing process. There's no mention in the rules that a television network needs to show anything specific during their broadcast.

Yes, that would solve the debate, unless a viewer happened to notice a violation on the tee box, fairway, rough, hazard, bunker, chipping from just off the green... Yeah, let's just limit the TV broadcasts to commercials.

It's basically a 2 hour commercial now. The players wear every brand under the sun on every piece of clothing and gear, but that's another topic.

If people need to have HD coverage of people marking balls, there should be separate feeds. One feed for the guys watching for rules violations, one for Tiger's every move, and broadcast to the audience at home showing actual golf.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

If people need to have HD coverage of people marking balls, there should be separate feeds. One feed for the guys watching for rules violations, one for Tiger's every move, and broadcast to the audience at home showing actual golf.

I agree that we need to see less putting in general, and even more so that I don't want to see someone marking his ball and replacing it unless he's the last guy on the course and needs the putt to tie or win.

But y'know... that's more for the "How would you improve..." thread. ;-)

[zeg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

Well I guess I thought we had beat this to death

I think we have, but it's the Internet so...

Quote:

I know what bothers me about the Harrington incident is it isn't clear that he could have reasonably been expected to detect the ball placement change without the use of slow motion hight resolution video (like the NFL uses for replay). So do we want rules that DQ a player for a violation, and there was a violation, where the player could not have been reasonably expected to detect the violation?

That is a fair question, but from the video I watched, it hardly required "slow motion high resolution video."  Just keeping your eye on the ball after you let go of it would have been more than enough to see it move.  That's why these analogies to "replacing to a single dimple" seem off-base.  There's a difference between ignoring (or being careless about) the ball's moving after you've replaced it and being limited in your ability to replace to extraordinary precision (although I don't think "a single dimple" is an unreasonable precision; it's toward the limit of ability, but I believe you can replace to pretty close to that if you take reasonable care).

Anyway, this is all off-topic, really.  If you have a problem with the rule, that belongs in a "Should the player be penalized for not noticing his ball move" thread, because arguing that home viewers shouldn't be a source of info for rules enforcement because you disagree with how it impacted one rule you don't like is poor logic.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeg

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

Well I guess I thought we had beat this to death

I think we have, but it's the Internet so...

Quote:

I know what bothers me about the Harrington incident is it isn't clear that he could have reasonably been expected to detect the ball placement change without the use of slow motion hight resolution video (like the NFL uses for replay). So do we want rules that DQ a player for a violation, and there was a violation, where the player could not have been reasonably expected to detect the violation?

That is a fair question, but from the video I watched, it hardly required "slow motion high resolution video."  Just keeping your eye on the ball after you let go of it would have been more than enough to see it move.  That's why these analogies to "replacing to a single dimple" seem off-base.  There's a difference between ignoring (or being careless about) the ball's moving after you've replaced it and being limited in your ability to replace to extraordinary precision (although I don't think "a single dimple" is an unreasonable precision; it's toward the limit of ability, but I believe you can replace to pretty close to that if you take reasonable care).

Anyway, this is all off-topic, really.  If you have a problem with the rule, that belongs in a "Should the player be penalized for not noticing his ball move" thread, because arguing that home viewers shouldn't be a source of info for rules enforcement because you disagree with how it impacted one rule you don't like is poor logic.

In reality, Harrington was penalized for using poor judgment as much as anything.  He made the decision to play on without questioning the movement of the ball or calling in an official for assistance, and it cost him a disqualification penalty.  It may seem harsh to some, but it's just how it is.  I still can't believe that he didn't have mental alarms ringing all over the place when the ball moved as much as it did.  Really poor situational awareness, in my opinion.

[sharkhark]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeg

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharkhark

for example in football a player might try to get a way with a hold...that semi cheating is cheating but part of the game..in golf it appears that an innocent mistake should be allowed to be influenced by someone calling in.

This difference between football and golf is a beautiful thing about golf and an unfortunate, bordering on disgusting, feature of football.  That the mistake was innocent is mostly irrelevant.  Do you really want to see golf turn into everyone bending the rules just shy of breaking them they way football players do?  That's what you're asking for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMikey

People getting DQ'd after rounds are over for balls moving 1.5 dimples back are not knee jerk reflex's.  It's simply golfers in a community saying enough of the BS, you loosing the whole spirit of the original game.  Now if you place a ball back by your marker it has to be exactly in the spot to the dimple.  Come on man... freaking ridiculous!

You seem to misunderstand the spirit of the original game.

Rule 1-1:

The Game of Golf consists of playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules .

So yes, you need to replace the ball in exactly the same spot the best you possibly can.  If your ball moves other than by a stroke, unless there's a rule that says otherwise, you need to take a penalty. The DQ here is about as close to the original spirit of the game as you can be.

wow. you must be a reporter.........love how you took a small portion of what i actually wrote and quoted and made what i actually said into something completely different..

funny how the line below was conveniently deleted from your quote of me. nice try to be misleading.......next time dont cut an paste to create something so wrong....

when a game i love like nfl is influenced by a missed call..it dont bother me and it would not in golf. if i thought the guy purposely cheated?

sure.

[jamo]

Originally Posted by sharkhark

when a game i love like nfl is influenced by a missed call..it dont bother me and it would not in golf. if i thought the guy purposely cheated?

sure.

Seriously? ESPN spends entire shows "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" questioning referees calls nonstop. A few years ago with the Ed Hochuli "inadvertent whistle" call in the Broncos game, people were calling for his head! People are "bothered" by football referees' calls (missed or not) all the time.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by jamo

Seriously? ESPN spends entire shows "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" questioning referees calls nonstop. A few years ago with the Ed Hochuli "inadvertent whistle" call in the Broncos game, people were calling for his head! People are "bothered" by football referees' calls (missed or not) all the time.

A friend of mine - a Browns fan - cares more about the Steelers than the Browns and posts on Facebook virtually every day during football season linking to articles that show some sort of referee bias towards the Steelers or who knows what. Big conspiracy theories type stuff.

So exactly what you said.

I'm glad this thread has died down a little. I like disagreeing with people because it gets and keeps conversation going, but when people start to get hurt feelings it's best if things simmer down. I'd still love to play 18 with anyone on this site... we'll just have to make sure it's not televised. :-)

[zeg]

Originally Posted by sharkhark

wow. you must be a reporter.........love how you took a small portion of what i actually wrote and quoted and made what i actually said into something completely different..

funny how the line below was conveniently deleted from your quote of me. nice try to be misleading.......next time dont cut an paste to create something so wrong....

when a game i love like nfl is influenced by a missed call..it dont bother me and it would not in golf. if i thought the guy purposely cheated?

sure.

Excuse me, but I was not trying to be misleading at all, and I don't really appreciate personal attacks.  If you feel I misrepresented what you were saying, just say so, but there's no sense making it personal.  In the end, we're having a discussion: I'm not attacking you, just expressing my opinion.

The line that you claim I intentionally omitted doesn't change anything I said.  My point is that the "no tolerance" feature of golf's rules---the conscious decision to ignore intent---is what keeps it from devolving into players gaming the system, trying to walk the fine line of bending the rules as much as possible without getting caught.  Since you claim you'd be upset with intentional cheating but not with a missed call, how do you draw the line?

[sacm3bill]

Not trying to stir the pot, but put Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem down as a "Yes" vote:

Originally from Tim Finchem:

We like the fact that people call in. We like the fact people who watch the telecasts get excited about something they see... We don't want to turn those people off. We want to accept the information and deal with it. Cutting them off is not an option.

Full article at golf.com . He did say the USGA is taking a look at the DQ rule (the fairness of which in certain circumstances I do think reasonable minds can disagree on), but the practice of taking calls from viewers is not going away anytime soon.

[shades9323]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Not trying to stir the pot, but put Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem down as a "Yes" vote:

Quote:

Originally from Tim Finchem:

We like the fact that people call in. We like the fact people who watch the telecasts get excited about something they see... We don't want to turn those people off. We want to accept the information and deal with it. Cutting them off is not an option.

Full article at golf.com. He did say the USGA is taking a look at the DQ rule (the fairness of which in certain circumstances I do think reasonable minds can disagree on), but the practice of taking calls from viewers is not going away anytime soon.

So that makes it 32 for yes and 66 for no.  The no's are just barely squeaking out the victory...

[iacas]

Originally Posted by shades9323

So that makes it 32 for yes and 66 for no.  The no's are just barely squeaking out the victory...

Why are you so concerned with the vote totals? They don't prove "what's best," and at least a few of the "no" voters said earlier in the thread that they'd change their votes to "yes" given some of the facts presented. I've yet to see a "yes" say he'd go to the "no" side.

And it's probably 34, because you need to include Camilo and Padraig in there too, and certainly their votes - as well as the Tour Commissioner's - carry a little more weight than, say, yours (or mine).

Many of the "no" voters seem to confuse the role of the Committee and the Rules Officials. None of them can escape or change the fact that a rule was violated.

Again, if a thief breaks into your house and steals ten thousand dollars from you, but the police didn't see it happen live (there was a patrol car a few blocks away) and you weren't home to see it live, but your neighbor's security system caught it all on tape with crystal clear shots of the guy's face, his getaway car's license plate, him leaving the house with your cash, etc., that person should not be convicted?

No. That makes no sense. And yet every "no" voter is saying that the criminal should go free because a cop or judge didn't see it and neither did you.

Votes don't determine what's best. They merely determine the popularity of something.

[shades9323]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by shades9323

So that makes it 32 for yes and 66 for no.  The no's are just barely squeaking out the victory...

Why are you so concerned with the vote totals? They don't prove "what's best," and at least a few of the "no" voters said earlier in the thread that they'd change their votes to "yes" given some of the facts presented. I've yet to see a "yes" say he'd go to the "no" side.

And it's probably 34, because you need to include Camilo and Padraig in there too, and certainly their votes - as well as the Tour Commissioner's - carry a little more weight than, say, yours (or mine).

Again, if a thief breaks into your house and steals ten thousand dollars from you, but the police didn't see it happen live (there was a patrol car a few blocks away) and you weren't home to see it live, but your neighbor's security system caught it all on tape with crystal clear shots of the guy's face, his getaway car's license plate, him leaving the house with your cash, etc., that person should not be convicted?

No. That makes no sense. And yet every "no" voter is saying that the criminal should go free because a cop or judge didn't see it and neither did you.

Votes don't determine what's best. They merely determine the popularity of something.

Settle down skippy, I was adding to your side!  Plus I was just replying to scams' stirring the pot.

You are going to dismiss other sports because they are not the same, but you are going to throw out that ridiculous analogy? That is possibly the most absurd thing to come from your mind relating the two.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by shades9323

Settle down skippy, I was adding to your side!  Plus I was just replying to scams' stirring the pot.

You are going to dismiss other sports because they are not the same, but you are going to throw out that ridiculous analogy? That is possibly the most absurd thing to come from your mind relating the two.

Settle down? I'm not riled up. I'm merely presenting the foundation for my opinion - perhaps you should try it instead of the personal attacks.

As myself and others have mentioned before, other sports are different. Participants in other sports try to bend the rules or get away with as much as possible, and other sports have rules officials whose sole job is to penalize players (teams, etc.). Golf is almost the complete opposite, or is (under the rules) supposed to be: players are supposed to follow the rules, and officials are there to inform. No official has ever "given" a player a penalty - they've merely informed the player that they've incurred a penalty, and the player writes it down himself. (That's entirely different than the committee DQing players.)

How is my analogy "ridiculous"? Is it so simply because you said it was? Because that seems to be your only proof. If it's so bad, why? Explain yourself. A law (rule) is broken, neither an official nor a playing partner (cop, you) saw it take place, and only a third-party with the assistance of video can prove it. How is that different (outside of the obvious - Camilo won't literally be going to jail, etc.)? How is it more different than the NFL?