Should Viewers Be Able to Call in Rules Violations

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by shades9323

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.

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?

Maybe there should be a poll asking which is a more valid comparison?!?

1.)  a one televised professional sport with rules officials positioned all over the place versus another televised professional sport with rules officials positioned all over the place, or

2.) one of the aforementioned televised professional sports versus criminal activity involving B&E; and robbery that will undoubtedly be processed through the criminal courts unless the neighbour is somehow involved

[shades9323]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

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?

What personal attack have I made towards you?

A rule is not a law.  If you break a law you face serious consequences, if you break a rule not so much.  Comparing something as serious as you did with a GAME(entertainment) makes it ridiculous.  And your assertion that those who chose "no" in your poll are saying the criminal should go free even further perpetuates your ridiculousness.

[sacm3bill]

Leaving aside the issue of analogies/comparisons, I still haven't seen an answer from any of the "No" voters in this thread to this one simple question:

"Why should a player be allowed to break a rule just because an official (and remember, the closest one may have been 2 or 3 holes away) didn't see it... even though thousands of viewers did?"

Tim Finchem (the one person whose opinion matters, and the one person who has the largest vested interest in making the correct decision), has in essence said "Yeah, a broken rule is a broken rule, no matter who saw it."

[sean_miller]

The exact poll question is simply a matter of opinion.

That the Tours will continue to accept calls from viewers is a given. That the Tours have asked the USGA and R&A; to look into penalties currently applied (most notably disqualification) is also a given.

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/blogs/local-knowledge/2011/02/usga-brainstorm-on-potential-dq-scenarios.html

http://www.golfweek.com/news/2011/feb/08/finchem-tour-wont-stop-tv-viewer-call-ins/

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I still haven't seen an answer from any of the "No" voters in this thread to this one simple question:

"Why should a player be allowed to break a rule just because an official (and remember, the closest one may have been 2 or 3 holes away) didn't see it... even though thousands of viewers did?"

Originally Posted by sean_miller

The exact poll question is simply a matter of opinion.

See, this is what I mean. Of course it's a matter of opinion, but *why* is it your opinion that players should get away with infractions as long TV viewers were the only ones who saw it? You just had a chance to go on record with a summary of your reasons and let it pass.

I honestly have been trying to see the other side on this, and like I say I think reasonable minds can disagree on what the rules should be on how penalties are applied, but I just haven't seen a cogent argument for why a broken rule should have different consequences based on who saw it. The closest I've seen to an argument that I did think had some merit was "Other sports don't let TV viewers call in", but then I realize A) It sure would be nice if they *did*, and B) They can't because of the nature of those sports and how fast things move. That's one reason (and there are many others, such as the differences in the very nature of the rules officials) why we've been saying you can't compare golf to other sports.

At any rate, I used to be frustrated by some of the posts and the thought processes behind them, but now I'm just fascinated - so carry on!

[iacas]

Originally Posted by shades9323

A rule is not a law.  If you break a law you face serious consequences, if you break a rule not so much.  Comparing something as serious as you did with a GAME (entertainment) makes it ridiculous.  And your assertion that those who chose "no" in your poll are saying the criminal should go free even further perpetuates your ridiculousness.

"A rule is not a law"? That's your attempt to show my analogy to be faulty?

Within the context of the sport it is "law." A two-stroke penalty or a DQ, within the context of golf, is a "serious consequence."

And if that's all it takes to defeat any analogy, then golly gee, "golf ain't football." (Or basketball, or baseball, or tennis...).

Games:Rules::Civilization:Laws

Keep diggin' my friend...

[shades9323]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by shades9323

A rule is not a law.  If you break a law you face serious consequences, if you break a rule not so much.  Comparing something as serious as you did with a GAME (entertainment) makes it ridiculous.  And your assertion that those who chose "no" in your poll are saying the criminal should go free even further perpetuates your ridiculousness.

"A rule is not a law"? That's your attempt to show my analogy to be faulty?

Within the context of the sport it is "law." A two-stroke penalty or a DQ, within the context of golf, is a "serious consequence."

And if that's all it takes to defeat any analogy, then golly gee, "golf ain't football." (Or basketball, or baseball, or tennis...).

Games:Rules::Civilization:Laws

Keep diggin' my friend...

No, the rest of my post was.  BTW, I never compared other sports to golf. That is rich, comparing a dq to jail/prison.

games:rules=/=civilization:laws

Your assertion that those who chose "no" in your poll are saying the criminal should go free is ridiculous.

we are not friends...

[shades9323]

I'll change my vote to yes when everyshot by everyplayer is shown on tv and there is a statute of limitations to the call in.   The person who commits the penalty on Friday, should be given the same consideration as the player who commits the penalty on the back 9 Sunday.

[BigMikey]

The only bonus out of this thread is that the PGA Commissioner and ruling bodies are going to consider changing the application of the rules.  I completely agree with that move.

I watched Morning drive this morning as they discussed it and this is one time where I actually agree with Hawk.  The fact that viewers actually call in, highlights a bigger problem for the PGA that it doesn't know how to deal with effectively.  If they can't get the calls right, and it takes a viewer to call in, it absolutely does nothing good for the sport.

They have not intention of dis-allowing viewers to call, text, e-mail, twitter, facebook or vulcan mind meld their observations in.  And why would the alienate any of a fan base they are struggling to grow.  The larger problem is growing the sport when any new comers will look at the rules, and recent rule violations as BS like the 60 - 70% of us who stated no in the poll.

http://www.thegolfchannel.com/golf-videos/morning-drive-february-9-2011-15217/?ref=26000

Check out 0:58 - The guys talking about snitches and right around 4:00 when they talk to Hawk.  Couldn't agree more with all 3 of them.

iacas -  you seem like the ha, ha guy they refer too around 1:05.

[B-Con]

If they can't get the calls right, and it takes a viewer to call in, it absolutely does nothing good for the sport.

They have not intention of dis-allowing viewers to call, text, e-mail, twitter, facebook or vulcan mind meld their observations in.  And why would the alienate any of a fan base they are struggling to grow.  The larger problem is growing the sport when any new comers will look at the rules, and recent rule violations as BS like the 60 - 70% of us who stated no in the poll.

http://www.thegolfchannel.com/golf-videos/morning-drive-february-9-2011-15217/?ref=26000

Check out 0:58 - The guys talking about snitches and right around 4:00 when they talk to Hawk.  Couldn't agree more with all 3 of them.

iacas -  you seem like the ha, ha guy they refer too around 1:05.

Are you kidding? It does nothing to help the sport... except make the calls more accurate by allowing officials to examine situations that may have slipped past their eyes the first time. But who wants that? Clearly not you. This isn't a "players vs referees" event. Pointing out REALITY is not snitching, it's pointing out reality. This GOAL is to have a contest of the players vs reality, not the referee's perception of reality. The "haha" guy? (Which, BTW, is at 1:22, not 1:05.) That's an Ad Hominem, and a lame one at that. Again, no one is making decisions based on feelings or subjective data, we're talking about reality. The pros try to hold themselves to reality as best possible, but it's the game that penalizes them, not the viewers. The viewers just picked up a spot that the player didn't, but the player would have if they'd known about it. These are arguments of fact, and so long as it is an argument of fact -- whether or not something happened -- feelings are 100% irrelevant. This has nothing to do with "got you", this has everything to do with "you are responsible for not making mistakes, but you make a mistake and didn't catch it, so I pointed it out to you". Would you help a friend by pointing out a mistake to him if it were going to help him? Eg, "You put that together backwards" before they stand on it and it breaks? If so, then why not do it here? Just because you have the option of getting away with no penalty doesn't make the reality of the situation any different. If you don't like the rule then hate the rulebook, not the person who enforces it. [quote name="shades9323" url="/forum/thread/43116/should-viewers-be-able-to-call-in-rules-violations/270#post_572876"]That is rich, comparing a dq to jail/prison.

games:rules=/=civilization:laws

Your assertion that those who chose "no" in your poll are saying the criminal should go free is ridiculous.

we are not friends...

[/quote] In life if you break the rules you can be punished by being removed from the general playing field of life. In golf if you break the rules you can be removed from the playing field of golf. Do you understand the concept of an analogy? Remember: [b]No viewer is actually enforcing penalties[/b]. The referees enforce the penalties, so just assume they would have seen it anyway. You wouldn't be complaining if the referee had already seen it themselves. This has nothing to do with "snitching", this isn't grade school anymore.

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

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?

Criminals aren't expected to "call" crimes on themselves. That's what police, neighborhood watches, and other devices are for. Players are expected to call penalties on themselves. As has been said time and again in this thread, there are no referees in golf (except the players).

Not only that, but a criminal's intent is to break the law. Are you suggesting that the pros are intent on breaking the rules and thus the need for outside video surveillance?

At least analogies to football are comparisons between sports; although I agree they aren't an equal situation to compare.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Dave H

Criminals aren't expected to "call" crimes on themselves.

How is that relevant?

Camilo didn't call the penalty on himself. Neither did the criminal in my example.

The "no" voters are asking that the committee not consider factual evidence simply because the playing partner (homeowner) or an official (cop) didn't see the penalty first-hand, and is instead relying on verifiable evidence submitted by a third-party.

Originally Posted by Dave H

Not only that, but a criminal's intent is to break the law. Are you suggesting that the pros are intent on breaking the rules and thus the need for outside video surveillance?

Nope. Not at all. And once again, intent is irrelevant throughout most of the Rules of Golf.

And besides, who's to say the criminal's intent is to get the money. I've heard of criminals trying to explain that "they didn't know it was against the law."

---

Let's put it this way. If the intent in running a golf tournament is to follow the rules as perfectly as possible, how can anyone justify letting a known, provable violation go unpunished? How does that make any sense?

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Dave H

Criminals aren't expected to "call" crimes on themselves. That's what police, neighborhood watches, and other devices are for. Players are expected to call penalties on themselves. As has been said time and again in this thread, there are no referees in golf (except the players).

Not only that, but a criminal's intent is to break the law. Are you suggesting that the pros are intent on breaking the rules and thus the need for outside video surveillance?

At least analogies to football are comparisons between sports; although I agree they aren't an equal situation to compare.

Erik's analogy serves its purpose well.  You're correct, it's not exactly the same in all aspects, but no analogy ever is.  The relevant piece, however, is that in both cases a (nominally) disinterested third party provides information that forms part of the investigation.  If you (or someone, since I can't keep track of who is actually disagreeing with whom or what, so don't take this as an attempt to put words in your mouth) want to argue against that point, you've got to explain why a third-party witness should be used as a source of information in one instance and not the other.  In both cases the goal is to determine whether a rule (i.e., law) was broken.

[Phil McGleno]

Don't you know zeg that in order to defeat sound arguments all one has to do on the Internet is behave like a child and say things like "that's ridiculous and I'm right, so there!"?

Reminds me of the people who think hitting your ball in a divot should get you a free drop. Not a one of them can actually write a rule that makes sense because not a one of 'em can define "divot" properly, but that doesn't stop 'em from asserting how correct they are.

[Fourputt]

Erik, Zeg, et al..... we might as well just end it.  This is like arguing politics.  Their minds are closed, their position was set 16 pages ago, and no amount of logic or reason is going to sway them.  They will never acknowledge that it is illogical and just plain wrong to ignore a rules violation no matter how it comes to light.  They have decided that since they are in the majority in the voting, their opinion is automatically correct.  As if the majority has never been wrong in a political election (reference every "election" ever held in the Soviet Union, not to mention a few right here).

When and if the rule is ever modified (I'm not holding my breath at this point) we can start the discussion all over again.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Erik, Zeg, et al..... we might as well just end it. This is like arguing politics. Their minds are closed, their position was set 16 pages ago, and no amount of logic or reason is going to sway them. They will never acknowledge that it is illogical and just plain wrong to ignore a rules violation no matter how it comes to light.  They have decided that since they are in the majority in the voting, their opinion is automatically correct.

Agreed.