Should Viewers Be Able to Call in Rules Violations

[jakatan]

If calling in infractions has worked so flawlessly for these many years, why was Villegas not made aware of the situation before he turned in the scorecard?  You keep saying that it is sad that this many of us voted "no."  It's not like we support cheating and unfair play, we simply do not see the audience calling in infractions as being efficient enough.  If having the audience call in infractions worked as well as you are making it out, then Villegas would have been immediately made aware of his penalty and he would not have been DQ'd.

The solution to have a dedicated official view the live broadcast satisfies both parties.  Whatever infractions the audience would have called in would be noted by this official(s) and he or she would have direct contact with the field to make the culprit known of their infraction.

[walk18]

Originally Posted by iacas

If golfers should not get away with infractions who cares who notices the infraction?

The majority of people voting here. Come on, don't be "disappointed in humanity", it does not mean the NO voters are dishonest and want to see rules broken, that's not the case. They feel it crosses a line for fans to be able to call in and affect the outcome, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. And I don't think it's hypocritical, but maybe we can all just agree to disagree on that part.

FWIW, I'd wager that the NO voters would not hesitate to call a penalty on themselves in a tournament, I know I would. But that's not what the thread is asking anyway.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by walk18

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

If golfers should not get away with infractions who cares who notices the infraction?

The majority of people voting here. Come on, don't be "disappointed in humanity", it does not mean the NO voters are dishonest and want to see rules broken, that's not the case. They feel it crosses a line for fans to be able to call in and affect the outcome, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. And I don't think it's hypocritical, but maybe we can all just agree to disagree on that part.

FWIW, I'd wager that the NO voters would not hesitate to call a penalty on themselves in a tournament, I know I would. But that's not what the thread is asking anyway.

The real question here is not whether you would be willing to call a penalty on yourself, but whether the field should be protected from your ignorance.  You have no right to get away with a rules breach just because nobody saw you do it.  It may well happen, but that doesn't make it right.  By the same token if that breach is called to the attention of the committee, they are obligated to pursue it for the protection of the field, no matter how it came to light.  As long as the report is brought to them prior to the close of the competition, they have no choice.  It still devolves on the PLAYER to know the rules and to accept the consequences if he breaches a rule.  All that is important to the rules is the fact that a breach occurred, not how it comes to be known.

[ERC7.5]

I was going back and forth on this topic and was actually leaning toward saying No because not every shot by every player is shown on television. This means the higher profiled players which get the majority of the TV time have the greater odds of "being caught". Then I realized that was a poor reason since a) the players should be policing themselves and not committing these infractions or calling themselves out on them and b) the number of times that this will happen will be minimal. I just hope it doesn't turn into a segment on the Golf Channel or during the broadcast.

So, Yes....viewers should be able to call in Rules Violations the infraction should be penalized no matter who noticed. If there were actual officials/umpires/referees....I'd have said no

I'm just glad I won't be the one taking the phone calls.

[MSDOGS1976]

Originally Posted by walk18

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

If golfers should not get away with infractions who cares who notices the infraction?

The majority of people voting here. Come on, don't be "disappointed in humanity", it does not mean the NO voters are dishonest and want to see rules broken, that's not the case. They feel it crosses a line for fans to be able to call in and affect the outcome, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. And I don't think it's hypocritical, but maybe we can all just agree to disagree on that part.

FWIW, I'd wager that the NO voters would not hesitate to call a penalty on themselves in a tournament, I know I would. But that's not what the thread is asking anyway.

Well said and my view as well. If that disappoints anyone, so be it.

[boogielicious]

I voted no because in principle it may be a good idea, but I don't think it could be done equitably.  We don't have cameras on all players in all tournaments.  We didn't have cameras in past generations.  The logistics would be mind-boggling.  Paparazzi would be in trees with cameras hoping the catch someone.

Where do we draw the line?  Could it be done retroactively?  What if I scour the Ryder Cup film and see Ian Pouter do a violation that nobody caught. I report it and sure enough he should have been DQ'd.  It's two months later and the US wins the Ryder Cup over Europe because Poulter didn't win his matches.  I know this would upset Eric because he is Poulter's Number One Fan

What if we pointed out the violation before Camillo signed the card.  I saw Camillo do it live and wondered if it was a violation.  If I Tweeted then, the rules official could have warned Camillo and then he wouldn't have been DQ'd.  Or I could Tweet Camillo directly.  "Dude!  You just commited a violation!"

Yesterday, I saw Graham McDowell tug at the lump of grass behind the ball and swear his ball moved.  Do I call now and have them review the film?

If we could figure the equitable way to do it, then maybe.  It just would be a very difficult task.

I'm a big Pro Football fan.  If viewers could call in infractions there, then Super Bowls would have had different results.  Other Sports: Ireland goes to the World Cup because Henry's hand ball is seen.  It can become endless.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Quote:

Originally Posted by walk18

The majority of people voting here. Come on, don't be "disappointed in humanity", it does not mean the NO voters are dishonest and want to see rules broken, that's not the case. They feel it crosses a line for fans to be able to call in and affect the outcome, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. And I don't think it's hypocritical, but maybe we can all just agree to disagree on that part.

FWIW, I'd wager that the NO voters would not hesitate to call a penalty on themselves in a tournament, I know I would. But that's not what the thread is asking anyway.

The real question here is not whether you would be willing to call a penalty on yourself, but whether the field should be protected from your ignorance.  You have no right to get away with a rules breach just because nobody saw you do it.  It may well happen, but that doesn't make it right.  By the same token if that breach is called to the attention of the committee, they are obligated to pursue it for the protection of the field, no matter how it came to light.  As long as the report is brought to them prior to the close of the competition, they have no choice.  It still devolves on the PLAYER to know the rules and to accept the consequences if he breaches a rule.  All that is important to the rules is the fact that a breach occurred, not how it comes to be known.

The average golfer might be more likely to cheat during a casual round than someone playing another pickup sport, if for no other reason there are so many rules that the average golfer doesn't know or care about.

Tournament golf is like another sport in that regard. Players have a responsibility to police themselves. Each player also has a right to consistent policing by the rest of the field: whether this is to be done by the players or a neutral third party is to be debated. With the amount of money involved, there should be a neutral party involved in the process, especially since it can be proven that not all athletes from all countries treat the rulebook with the same reverence. Look at soccer as a prime example of that. Clearly more scrutiny is necessary than having an official walk the course with the players. I mean, that guy is virtually useless. And a rules official riding around the course in a power cart? Useless.

When one considers the sheer number of shots taken during a golf tournament, the mind wanders to the number of players preparing to and playing shots all over the course at any given time. There could be a myriad of rules being broken during all 4 rounds by any number of players, most of which goes untelevised. There's a lot of action captured by the networks that goes untelevised, and of course much more action that goes unseen by the cameras. Ask yourself how many shots you see of the player in the final group who's having a bad day. Can anyone even remember who Dustin Johnson was paired with during the final round of the masters (you know the guy who fell apart) without looking it up? I wonder how many times he grounded a club in the sand. Who cares, since we didn't see it?!?

When every action, not just the shots, taken by every player in the field can be viewed objectively by a neutral third party with the same scrutiny, and rulings can be made in a timely manner I'd agree wholeheartedly with that sort of process. Clearly this would mean an even more resounding NO on the question in this thread. That there is a problem with officiating in professional golf is a no brainer. Look at the LPGA for even more examples. Allowing viewers at home who see only a small fraction of the action, and who are accountable to noone, is not the solution. And to allow that type of ruling take place after the round is not acceptable in any way. The players should be united on this issue - the PGA tour either needs to get it right the first time or they need to let it go. If the golf was televised, then people had ample opportunity to call in while the player was still on the course. The PGA Tour looks more bush league every day.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by jakatan

If calling in infractions has worked so flawlessly for these many years, why was Villegas not made aware of the situation before he turned in the scorecard?

Because the guy didn't alert PGA Tour and Golf Channel representatives right away. Camilo screwed up on the 15th hole. There wasn't much time before his round was over. And I don't care if the infraction occurs two minutes before he signs his scorecard. The Rules of Golf are clear, and Camilo was responsible for knowing the rules and following them. He then signed an incorrect scorecard and was DQed. Ignorance is no excuse. If I torch your house and claim not to know it was illegal I'm still goin' to prison.

Originally Posted by jakatan

You keep saying that it is sad that this many of us voted "no."  It's not like we support cheating and unfair play, we simply do not see the audience calling in infractions as being efficient enough.

What the heck does "efficiency" have to do with anything? Camilo broke the rule, it was reported, he was given the appropriate penalty, and the whole thing took about twelve hours, most of which he was sleeping. Seems pretty efficient to me.

Originally Posted by jakatan

The solution to have a dedicated official view the live broadcast satisfies both parties.  Whatever infractions the audience would have called in would be noted by this official(s) and he or she would have direct contact with the field to make the culprit known of their infraction.

No it doesn't. There's no guarantee he's going to see everything either.

You're arguing for situations which let known rules violations remain unpunished simply because of who sees them. That's stupid. That's like saying a bank is free to do what they want, even if a customer points out that they're violating banking regulations, because the SEC or whomever didn't catch them. Nope, can't prosecute... a customer reported the crime.

Originally Posted by walk18

The majority of people voting here. Come on, don't be "disappointed in humanity", it does not mean the NO voters are dishonest and want to see rules broken, that's not the case. They feel it crosses a line for fans to be able to call in and affect the outcome, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. And I don't think it's hypocritical, but maybe we can all just agree to disagree on that part.

I'm going to continue to be disappointed. I hold the sanctity of the rules and the behavior of the professionals to the highest standards, and I respect the truth. The "no" voters are saying that "if one of four or five people don't call the penalty, then it may as well have not happened." That's silly.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The real question here is not whether you would be willing to call a penalty on yourself, but whether the field should be protected from your ignorance. You have no right to get away with a rules breach just because nobody saw you do it. It may well happen, but that doesn't make it right. By the same token if that breach is called to the attention of the committee, they are obligated to pursue it for the protection of the field, no matter how it came to light. As long as the report is brought to them prior to the close of the competition, they have no choice. It still devolves on the PLAYER to know the rules and to accept the consequences if he breaches a rule.  All that is important to the rules is the fact that a breach occurred, not how it comes to be known.

I bolded the parts with which I agree.

Originally Posted by boogielicious

I voted no because in principle it may be a good idea, but I don't think it could be done equitably.  We don't have cameras on all players in all tournaments.  We didn't have cameras in past generations.  The logistics would be mind-boggling.  Paparazzi would be in trees with cameras hoping the catch someone.

I think we've already discussed how that's a weak argument. Tiger's on TV more than anyone, knows the rules, has a bunch of "haters," and has never been in such a situation. We've had the Internet and TV and phones for 20 years and we're not suddenly seeing a rise in the reports of rules violations. "Equitable" is irrelevant, and if it does to you then try to explain how equitable it is to let a known rules violation slide simply because it was on TV.

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Could it be done retroactively?

That's already been answered. The answer is no. Close of competition.

And no, pros aren't out there cheating their tails off, which is why it's not really a common issue. Quick, someone name the last time a viewer noticed a rules infraction and called it in... Exactly.

Originally Posted by boogielicious

What if we pointed out the violation before Camillo signed the card. I saw Camillo do it live and wondered if it was a violation. If I Tweeted then, the rules official could have warned Camillo and then he wouldn't have been DQ'd. Or I could Tweet Camillo directly. "Dude!  You just commited a violation!"

You could have. He probably would have appreciated it. His caddie could have said something too. If the caddie can't prevent the rule infraction from occurring, two strokes is better than a DQ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

I'm a big Pro Football fan.  If viewers could call in infractions there, then Super Bowls would have had different results.  Other Sports: Ireland goes to the World Cup because Henry's hand ball is seen.  It can become endless.

Also already discussed... football players are not responsible for enforcing the rules upon themselves. That analogy doesn't work.

[iacas]

"Send out a Rules Official to watch every shot."

"Make a guy watch the telecast."

"Some guys are on TV more than others. It's not fair/equitable."

"They don't let people call in to the NFL."

All straw men arguments.

A pro is responsible to himself, the field, and the integrity of the game breaks the rules. Someone notices, I don't care who. The committee must pursue it, finds the truth, and must hand out the appropriate penalty.

Golf isn't perfect, but arguing against what I just said will only make golf less perfect. Our justice system already lets people walk because of clerical errors made on the part of the police, why would we want to make golf less perfect?

If a rules infraction occurs, and the competition is not closed, the committee is obligated to investigate it. And the pro, who should have the respect for the game and the fans and himself, to know the rules.

If these rules infractions called in by people occurred twice a week I might be right there with ya in saying "we need to figure out a way to do better here." But they happen, what, once every four years? Longer? Hardly reason to make massive, sweeping, costly changes.

I'm on the side of the truth being the truth, absolutely. It doesn't change based on who noticed or who would get away with something.

[Dave H]

I voted NO to the question "should viewers be able to call in rules violations?". My opinion is simply that the only people who should be calling penalties are the people participating in the tournament - players, caddies, officials, etc.

I am NOT condoning cheating or suggesting that somehow a rule is not broken because it wasn't called at the time.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Dave H

I voted NO to the question "should viewers be able to call in rules violations?". My opinion is simply that the only people who should be calling penalties are the people participating in the tournament - players, caddies, officials, etc.

They're not calling penalties on people. They're calling in possible rules infractions. That may not make a difference to you, but it does to me.

And since this is about a specific case (the first in how many years?) here are the tweets. The guy never called and isn't even sure if his email to the PGA Tour went through from their website:

http://twitter.com/#!/DaveAndrews723/status/23187604400775168

Rules violation??? Camillo Villegas on the 15th hole moved a piece of turf (loose divot) as his ball was rolling back towards him. Penalty??

http://twitter.com/#!/DaveAndrews723/status/23188077719588866

@ GolfChannel Rules violation??? Camillo Villegas on the 15th hole moved a piece of loose turf as his ball was rolling back towards him.

http://twitter.com/#!/DaveAndrews723/status/23199437316685824

@ GolfChannel Check your video. Camillo violated rule 23-1.Relief on 15th hole by a moving loose impediment while his ball was in motion.

http://twitter.com/#!/DaveAndrews723/status/23202270720040960

@ kokogirl @ TheGolfClub LOL my buddies and I were watching the shot and we checked the rules... looks like a violation to us.

http://twitter.com/#!/DaveAndrews723/status/23212326677118976

@ nothreeputt @ PGA_com My buddies who know the rules pretty well said it was clearly a violation. They looked it up and cited 23-1 (relief)

http://twitter.com/#!/DaveAndrews723/status/23213156239151104

USGA Rule 23-1 "When a ball is in motion, a loose impediment that might influence the movement of the ball must not be removed."

http://twitter.com/#!/DaveAndrews723/status/23230847284944896

@ PGATOUR_EP You should check the rules violation on 15 by Villegas... USGA Rule 23-1 "When a ball is in motion, a loose impediment that..."

[Phil McGleno]

How many threads do we have on this forum where someone asks "Did I break a rule?" or "Who won this bet (rules question)?" Do we answer them all "well, since we weren't your opponent we can't tell you"?

If you violate a rule of golf you should want to know, and I think most pros do. They're honorable guys.

If anyone - anyone at all - has grounds to say "people shouldn't be able to report the truth" - then it'd be Camilo. He didn't. He took it like an upstanding man and I hope he reads a rule book so he can avoid the embarrasment of being found to be either absent minded or failing in his responsibilities as a player.

This is like those people who claim it's not cheatin' if you're in another zip code. "Well, a guy watching me from behind the gallery ropes saw it, or on TV, so that means it doesn't count." Nope, you still cheated on your wife, or you still broke the rules of golf, buddy.

[JayMc]

I didn't realize that Azinger had been the subject of a call in rules event in the past...

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2010-08/photos-rules-blunders#slide=7

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Paul Azinger said this on Twitter :

A TV viewer call in DQ stinks for the player, but no player wants to get away with breaking a rule. Calling in violations protects the field

[max power]

There is no solid argument against this.  Having someone call in doesn't "affect the outcome."  If a rule is broken it's broken-a player isn't being punished by having the rule enforced. Golf is a different sport than all the other major sports, and the rules are different too.  As has been pointed out this has been going on for years-people calling in hasn't ruined the game of golf or punished anyone unfairly (because that's impossible).  Apparently Tiger isn't only the best golfer of the last 15 years, he also knows the rules better than anyone, because every single shot he makes is seen by tons of people, but he never gets rules violations called in against him.  I think iacas has said this numerous times, but it bears repeating-these are PGA tour-level pros, knowing the rules is part of their job.  I can break all the rules I want when I'm playing, and I only have to answer to myself.  They're supposed to know the rules.

[B-Con]

I think the real question is, "What is the objective of enforcing the rules?" 1) One group says that the objective is to enforce the rules as closely as possible. This means using all available data from any source. The only thing preventing a perfectly ruled game is lack of information, and any form that reduces that barrier is welcome. The goal is to find every single rules violation and deal with it appropriately, and while perfection is not humanly attainable, it should be the goal. 2) Another group says that the objective is to provide a relatively fair playing surface under which all players are subjected to. Rules should only be enforced as fairly as strictly as they can be enforced on all players. If one player is scrutinized more closely than another player, this player is at a scoring disadvantage and the rules are no longer providing a "fair" playing field. I see the point of option 2, but I personally agree with option 1. I think that as long as you do not favor or neglect a player by intentionally making incorrect rulings, you should strive to officiate the game as perfectly as possible. You won't be successful, but it's better than trading missed rules violations amongst the players and hoping that it evens out. Plus, practically speaking, the players that are most scrutinized are the ones who are the best and have had the most extensive training, coaches, best caddies, etc, so the ones most scrutinized are the ones with the fewest excuses to violate the rules in the first place. With all scoring violations, I believe that there should be a time limit set as to how long after the end of a round the violation can be called because we have to accept that some events need to be set in stone so that we can move on. The number of eyes we can have looking for rules violations is almost unlimited. The amount of time we can devote to a tournament, however, is not. But regardless, rules are rules, and golf is a sport where players are expected to officiate themselves. If they're expected to call themselves as perfectly as possible, I don't think you can build a case for insisting that others cannot do the same thing. The bottom line is that facts are facts, regardless of who mentions them. We play golf bound to the facts as closely as possible, not a pre-set standard of human interpretation of the facts.

[PaulaFan]

I don't think players should be able to cause any kind of change to the outcome.  I'm sure if I called an NFL official after a big football game was over they would not change their call on a play just because I told them they messed up a call.

[jakatan]

Originally Posted by iacas

Because the guy didn't alert PGA Tour and Golf Channel representatives right away. Camilo screwed up on the 15th hole. There wasn't much time before his round was over. And I don't care if the infraction occurs two minutes before he signs his scorecard. The Rules of Golf are clear, and Camilo was responsible for knowing the rules and following them. He then signed an incorrect scorecard and was DQed. Ignorance is no excuse. If I torch your house and claim not to know it was illegal I'm still goin' to prison.

I never said he wasn't in the wrong.  How many times do people have to tell you this?  We all agree what Camilo did was wrong.  What we are discussing right now is whether or not viewers at home should be able to call in penalties.  No number of silly analogies are going to change that.

Originally Posted by iacas

What the heck does "efficiency" have to do with anything? Camilo broke the rule, it was reported, he was given the appropriate penalty, and the whole thing took about twelve hours, most of which he was sleeping. Seems pretty efficient to me.

Efficiency has everything to do with this issue.  Would it be okay for a rules official, who could perhaps have money on the game, to observe a player commit an infraction and not alert him immediately?  Are you saying that it is okay for this official to wait until after Camilo signs his card to announce his infraction, thus turning his 2 stroke penalty into a DQ?

Originally Posted by iacas

No it doesn't. There's no guarantee he's going to see everything either.

You're arguing for situations which let known rules violations remain unpunished simply because of who sees them. That's stupid. That's like saying a bank is free to do what they want, even if a customer points out that they're violating banking regulations, because the SEC or whomever didn't catch them. Nope, can't prosecute... a customer reported the crime.

There's also no guarantee that the viewers are going to catch every single infraction either.  Where do you draw the line?  Once again you bring up another off-the-wall analogy.  All you did was say that I want to "let known rules violations remain unpunished" and "that's stupid."  I don't want to let known rule violations go unpunished, I simply want the punishment to occur in a timely manner.  Once again, I'll simply refer to a rules official waiting for the player to turn in their card before the infraction is announced.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by jakatan

I never said he wasn't in the wrong. How many times do people have to tell you this? We all agree what Camilo did was wrong.  What we are discussing right now is whether or not viewers at home should be able to call in penalties. No number of silly analogies are going to change that.

I've never said anything that I intended to sound as if other people didn't think Camilo did anything wrong. I haven't seen anyone saying he didn't do something wrong, but I have seen people suggesting he "get away with it" (my words, not a quote) simply because a viewer spotted it.

Again, I'm fairly certain everyone here understands that he broke the rules, and I don't believe I've ever said or implied anything to the contrary.

Originally Posted by jakatan

Efficiency has everything to do with this issue.  Would it be okay for a rules official, who could perhaps have money on the game, to observe a player commit an infraction and not alert him immediately? Are you saying that it is okay for this official to wait until after Camilo signs his card to announce his infraction, thus turning his 2 stroke penalty into a DQ?

I think you may have misunderstood. I'm saying "efficiency" was not a problem in this case. This did not take a long time - it was handled "efficiently."

Michael Bamberger when Michelle Wie was DQed for her drop that may or may not have been a few inches closer to the hole, on the other hand, should have raised his concerns immediately, and I find his story about "consulting with his editors" later that night tough to swallow. In that case, "efficiency" (if we want to use that term - "reporting the incident quickly" or something like that might be more accurate) was a concern.

I don't believe it is a concern with Camilo - the guy alerted people as soon as he saw the infraction and unfortunately it wasn't quickly enough to prevent the DQ, but short of a super-human effort he couldn't have done it more quickly.

In the end, that responsibility still lies with Camilo (and me saying that doesn't mean I'm suggesting you don't think Camilo did anything "wrong"), so even the "quickly" argument has a limit. If a Tour official didn't play the voicemail from the viewer until Sunday morning, would Camilo still have been DQed? Yes, because the committee's obligation is to render the accurate ruling.

Originally Posted by jakatan

There's also no guarantee that the viewers are going to catch every single infraction either.  Where do you draw the line?  Once again you bring up another off-the-wall analogy.  All you did was say that I want to "let known rules violations remain unpunished" and "that's stupid."  I don't want to let known rule violations go unpunished, I simply want the punishment to occur in a timely manner.  Once again, I'll simply refer to a rules official waiting for the player to turn in their card before the infraction is announced.

Where do I draw the line? I draw the line at trying to be as good as you can be, at trying to be as perfect as you can be. That's where I'd draw the line. B-Con said it well above, and I agree with his post. Fourputt has made several good posts as well.

I don't see efficiency or rapidity as being a problem here. The guy broke the rule, you seem to agree that he should be punished, and I'm at a loss for how you think it could have been handled more quickly. Do you think there should be a rules infraction hotline or something? Tell me. How could it "occur in a timely manner"?

A rules official did not "wait for the player to turn in his card" this time. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.

I apologize if I read into your comments as being a "no" supporter for the typical reasons. I now understand that you're primarily concerned with efficiency, but I'm confused as to how that really matters. If a rules infraciton is made known prior to the close of competition, I might be able to argue that it was "efficient enough" to result in the fairest outcome, so long as a guy doesn't wait a day like Bamberger did.

And I can draw a clear line between Bamberger and this guy. This guy did not sit on the information - he acted quickly. I'm with you in wanting some "efficiency" - Bamberger should have raised his concerns more quickly.