I have more time now, so…
Disagree. There's much to talk about… But @leftybutnotPM is steering wrong on the second quote in this post - by calling for a suspension because of his opinion.
I think PReed has a propensity to breach the rules. That's worth discussing, IMO.
I agree it's "no" but it's not the same at all. There almost can't be a "cheating scandal" like the Astros because golf isn't a team sport. The equivalent would be something like the U.S. team hiring kids to step on the balls of the European players in the Ryder Cup or something.
The Astros thing was a conspiracy. It's tough to have a conspiracy in a solo sport. At most there's two people: a player and caddie, really.
But there's nowhere near enough evidence to "convict" in this instance.
I don’t really agree. Golf holds its rules to a much higher level in that its the only sport players call penalties on themselves. Breaking a rule in Football is hardly comparable with breaking a rule during a professional golf tournament. And in Football if you commit certain penalties you are in fact removed from the game and sometimes even suspended. It’s a little ambiguous that they can immediately call a penalty in football ‘ intentional’ yet we’re saying in golf there’s no way to know if it was intentional.
Football: ‘ He intended to make that hit to the head. He targeted the player.’
Golf: ‘ We don’t know if he meant to rake that sand behind the ball twice.’
Stop right there and the point is made - insisting on placating your prejudice by penalizing someone else is more morally wrong that what you want to fix.
You want to regulate attitudes and behavior to 'send a message' - that philosophy is completely rife with abuses and unequal application, etc etc etc. (I don't care if it's a game, or laws pertaining to society). I don't really want to see players punished on an ad hoc basis just because they aren't popular.
The rules regulate the play of the game. Break a rule? take your penalty and keep going. The penalties are defined. Just because someone 'feels' that's not sufficient is not reason to turn into judge and jury and mind reader.
We cannot read a person's mind to obtain the person's mental state of intent. Intent can be proven based upon a logical assessment of the circumstances. Whether Reed and Lexi (or any other player for that matter) acted willfully, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently can be of some debate. For Lexi and her ball-marking incident, based upon how she marked the ball, she was at least reckless because a reasonable golfer on the PGA Tour would not act as she did. Same goes for Reed.
Note, none of this matter for the breach of the rule, but it is certainly a worthy consideration for a person's own subjective view and distaste/distrust of the player moving forward.
You're making an incorrect statement here as noted above. Intent is "proven" every day in courts of law. It's no different here. It's too convenient of a defensive tactic for a rule-breaker to employ (note: I'm not calling you a rule-breaker; I'm stating that defense does not fly as you present it). Simply arguing "you don't have evidence of intent" isn't enough. Intent can be proven based upon the circumstances because otherwise, you're requiring clairvoyance, hardly an attainable skill at present. The law does not require clairvoyance and neither should you.
Yeah, exactly. So why the "oh I've taken his classes and never heard of the different setups for different abilities" response then, when I said I watched a video of him showing exactly what you just said.
It's like asking a 20 HC to score the same as you. I don't know how to do what you're asking. Besides, read my last post. The guy who took the class even says now, that he has different setups for beginners, or less flexible people, which is exactly what I said I watched in the video.