Jump to content
IGNORED

Should Viewers Be Able to Call in Rules Violations


Note: This thread is 3817 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

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. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic


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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?".

Link to post
Share on other sites



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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites



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

Link to post
Share on other sites



Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites


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.

Link to post
Share on other sites



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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites



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

Link to post
Share on other sites



Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

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.


...sooooo are you telling me that rules infractions don't happen in any other sport? that missed calls even ones done innocently and unnoticed by participants doesnt happen in every single sport?

so if they allow those games and outings to move on unhindered why does golf alone...allow a cheesie eating goofball to determine the outcome of a game when every single other sport...i repeat...every...other sport...does not allow this behaviour?

or are you trying to enable those that lift their noses at golf and claim its not a sport? i guess you are. because all other sports would never allow this nonsence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@sharkhark: Other sports have referees whose job it is to call infractions.  Golf has no such referees, only rules officials who are there to assist the players with questions. In golf, the players themselves are responsible for calling the penalties. That's part of the beauty of golf that makes it different from other sports.

There, asked and answered one more time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by sharkhark

so what is the point of walking officials and that main rules official guy you see at every tourney? those are the refs. to say that golf does not have refs is playing with words. they call them refs in hockey, them call them umpires in baseball and they call them walking officials in golf.

its just a name, but its all the same.

none of those let you overrule an umpire by calling in...or jump on the ice to change a goal..but why golf?

its silly.

every time i bring up the fact that no other sport does it...people are unable to adquately explain why golf does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 3817 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • I'm watching this video and he mentions "he got himself a little more out onto the front of his feet" and "he's got himself more centred in to back of his feet" in the other comparison https://youtu.be/S8dkDx8YVkI?t=242  Does that mean he puts more weight on the front of his feet than the back?   One more question: how do you create more space for the right arm during impact as mentioned here? He's more tipped over which allows this , I think http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8dkDx8YVkI?t=280 Would reducing how much your right forearm can rotate clockwise help with this, duringthe end of your backswing?
    • Sounds like he may have originated from my neck of the woods,   ‘Awayanbileyerheid’ is a fairly humorous response to someone ,  sort of like ,get lost your talking drivel (nonsense) If you want to get an insight of the meaning , Google ‘ Parliamo Glasgow’ -;))
    • I don’t think there is anything wrong with watching YouTube golf instruction videos, if and only if you stick to one or two instructors. I personally like Matt Fisher and Danny Maude myself.    Funny story: I played golf with three guys I haven’t seen in person since about 2003 today. Anyway one of the guys I played with, reminded me of a video I watched on posture recently, with Danny Maude. Me as a low single figure handicap my arms look like / at address down the line. You want them like | or \ slightly on the latter. My posture sucks… and I shot 1 under on the back today.
    • Can you share some information about your computer, such as OS?
    • There used to be a joke about the instructional articles in Golf Digest.  It might still be there, I haven't subscribed in years.  Anyway, every odd-numbered month, the lesson would be "fix your slice," but what they wouldn't tell you is that it'd cost you 10 yards.  In even numbered months, they'd tell you how to gain 10 yards on your tee shot, but not tell you that it'd cause you to slice. YouTube instruction is a bit like that.  You'll get conflicting information that may or may not cancel out.  Find someone reputable and get lessons for you not for some generic you. If you need someone online to give you something to work on, and don't feel like spending the money for something quality like Evolvr (hey, money was tight when I took up golf, I understand), at least make a "My Swing" thread and try what ends up being suggested for you.  The first time I did this, I was shocked at how someone could watch a few swings on video and give me good advice of what to practice that resulted in some improvement.
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Armando Araujo
      Armando Araujo
      (46 years old)
    2. chris3putt
      chris3putt
      (54 years old)
    3. CrazyHorsePete
      CrazyHorsePete
      (34 years old)
    4. DHak20
      DHak20
      (44 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...