LPGA blows it with Morgan Pressel slow play penalty

[newtogolf]

While I agree with the decision of the LPGA to penalize Pressel I think some of you are holding too tightly to the letter of the law or in this case rule book.

There are rules and laws but they are subject to interpretation and judgement may be used to how and when they are applied.  If you're speeding on a highway for no reason and get pulled over you're likely to get a ticket, if you have a medical emergency you'll likely not get a ticket.  The officer uses his discretion.

Same happens in sports all the time, whether you agree or not.  Calls are missed, made up for, not called if ref or umpire believes making a call would have a more significant impact on the game than not calling it.  I've seen plenty of slow play on the PGA and LPGA Tours.  Why they chose this moment to penalize Pressel and cost her the match is anyones guess.  Did she warrant a penalty, yes, was she singled out amongst hundreds of instances of non-calls, possibly.

IMO The PGA and LPGA need to be consistent in enforcing slow play penalties otherwise it will continue to appear that they are singling out specific players.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Well, you've got two slow players, and admittedly, the other player was a self-confessed slower player. I think rules officials need to consider the reason for the slow play on a particular hole before assessing a penalty that unfortunately turned the match.

So I'm not a big fan of the rules officials taking advantage of a particularly difficult situation to turn a match.

Stupidity

Abuse.

And the rules official, Doug Brecht, has a history of calling out the game's top players at inopportune times just to grandstand. For instance, last year at the KIA Classic he penalized Michell Wie two strokes (the margin by which she missed a playoff) for grounding her club in a hazard, even though she claimed she did it for balance after playing her shot (which did not get the ball out of the hazard).  If Tiger or Phil said they ground the club for balance that would have been the end of it. They wouldn't look at a video that was clearly inconclusive for 25 minutes and decide against the player. Remember the Kenny Perry incident where they refused to penalize him for improving his lie behind the ball? Conversely, Doug Brecht seems to relish making examples out the LPGA's big names.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by Elvisliveson

And the rules official, Doug Brecht, has a history of calling out the game's top players at inopportune times just to grandstand. For instance, last year at the KIA Classic he penalized Michell Wie two strokes (the margin by which she missed a playoff) for grounding her club in a hazard, even though she claimed she did it for balance after playing her shot (which did not get the ball out of the hazard).  If Tiger or Phil said they ground the club for balance that would have been the end of it. They wouldn't look at a video that was clearly inconclusive for 25 minutes and decide against the player. Remember the Kenny Perry incident where they refused to penalize him for improving his lie behind the ball? Conversely, Doug Brecht seems to relish calling out the LPGA's big players.

Surely you saw that incident. No way was Wie telling the truth.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Surely you saw that incident. No way was Wie telling the truth.

Of course I did and it was inconclusive. I don't think anyone could possibly and positively conclude she was lying unless they have an axe to grind with her.

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by Elvisliveson

And the rules official, Doug Brecht, has a history of calling out the game's top players at inopportune times just to grandstand. For instance, last year at the KIA Classic he penalized Michell Wie two strokes (the margin by which she missed a playoff) for grounding her club in a hazard, even though she claimed she did it for balance after playing her shot (which did not get the ball out of the hazard).  If Tiger or Phil said they ground the club for balance that would have been the end of it. They wouldn't look at a video that was clearly inconclusive for 25 minutes and decide against the player. Remember the Kenny Perry incident where they refused to penalize him for improving his lie behind the ball? Conversely, Doug Brecht seems to relish making examples out the LPGA's big names.

Sigh.  This thread is definitely heading towards the absurd.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

Sigh.  This thread is definitely heading towards the absurd.

Care to elaborate? I'll tell you what's absurd, making statements like that without an explanation as to why you feel that way.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

My rhetorical point is neither offensive or absurd - but it may be to those who take things personally or have no inclination to observe their actions. I think we all must remind ourselves to be accountable and not offer excuses - it is being aware. We are not perfect beings, but we are better beings when we are aware.

Ok, I see now. People who applaud enforcement of a clearly defined rule are doing so because they don't play by the rules. Got it. And they also cheat on their wives and are dishonest with their friends.

If that's not absurd, I don't know what is.

If the rule is not being enforced evenly, the problem lies in the cases where it's overlooked.

[Chas]

Your rhetorical point is offensive and absurd.

Personally I'm not in the least offended. I would say his remark is utterly irrelevant and a bit silly. Such an argument could in principle be used in every conceivable situation to block criticism (unless you're a Saint) - therefore it's useless. So yes, it's 'absurd'.

[zipazoid]

zeg has a point, and it's valid, imo.

Gigging a player for slow play isn't like grounding in a hazard or not replacing a marked ball - those kinds are black & white, cut & dried. You either grounded the club or you didn't.

It appears the slow play penalty is somewhat vague (when does the 30 seconds start, what about conditions like wind or rain, etc), and likely not evenly enforced. I mean, you would have to really make a compelling case that Pressel was the only violator that week. I would imagine there were others - were they gigged too?

So here we are in the back nine of a semifinals match where Pressel just won a hole to take a 3-up lead...and in steps the rules official to relay the news that - surprise - you lose the hole, and your 3-up lead is now 1-up. It essentially decided the match. I know I wouldn't be the same after that ruling.

It may have been a technically correct ruling, but it was horrible timing in the arbitrary enforcement of it.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by zeg

I think it's amusing that people talk about "letting the players win or lose" as if the referees are somehow responsible for those players commiting fouls. Basketball refs letting obvious travels go uncalled is not something fans should be crowing about as though it's a good thing.

Rules that are only enforced when there's nothing on the line aren't really rules.

This is true.  However, using the basketball example, they let obvious travels go the entire game.  (One could definitely argue that its not really a rule - more of a suggestion)  The problem arises when they arbitrarily decide to go by the letter of the law at the most inopportune time.  I am OK with the refs continuing to ignore it throughout the entire game, I am OK with the refs being sticklers the entire game.  What is not OK, is letting it go for 46 minutes and then deciding to call it on someone when the game is on the like.  That's when the subject of "letting the players decide the game" starts getting discussed.

Another example would be an umpire calling a guy out on a letter high strike to end a close game.  According to the rule book, its a strike, but he wasn't calling it that way all game (they never do) so that would be wrong.

Now I don't know exactly how to take this particular situation because I didn't see it or read about it (just whats in this thread) and I've seen some suggest she wasn't warned and others suggest she was warned twice.  If she wasn't warned, I'd say it was a bad call.  But if she really had two warnings, its hard to feel bad for her.

Another baseball analogy would be when an umpire warns BOTH teams after one guy gets hit and he thinks its intentional.  Now the pitcher who did nothing wrong knows that if he hits a guy, even accidentally, there is a good chance he can get kicked out of the game.  Is that fair?  Not really, but its the rule and that pitcher has to know it.  Same with Pressel - even though its her opponent that put them on the clock, she knows the rules and (assuming she was warned) should've stayed aware.

[NM Golf]

The only problem with this ruling is it doesn't happen enough. The LPGA did a fantastic job of assessing this penalty to an excruciatingly slow player who had been warned REPEATEDLY! If the LPGA and PGA Tours would quit being so wishy washy and get with the program we would see this penalty assessed much more frequently. What a lot of people don't realize is the trickle down effect these snails on TV have on golf in general, especially junior golf. I help with several junior and high school events each year and I watch as these kids emulate their favorite Tour players, plumb-bobbing five foot putts from 4 angles, taking 5 practice swings, and taking 10 minutes to decide what club to hit into a 5mph breeze. I worked a junior event last summer and it took 5 1/2 hours for the FIRST group to finish. I asked one of them what took them so long he replied "We are in a tournament, we can't play any faster".

So our junior golfers think its perfectly acceptable to take 5 1/2 hours to play a round of golf. These are the PGA Tour players of the future; unless  golf's governing bodies get serious about slow play, by the time my kids are adults it will take an entire day to get in 18.

[Golfingdad]

One other thing I don't think anybody has mentioned (if they have, sorry) is how unbelievably harsh the penalty for a bad time is in match play versus stroke play.  Isn't it a one stroke penalty in stroke play?  In this case, she won the hole, so if you applied it the same way, assuming that she won the hole by one stroke, it should have been a halve, yet she automatically lost the hole.

Ouch.

EDIT:  I just read that its a 2-stroke penalty in stroke play, so it would have worked out the same.  In that case, I think BOTH penalties are too harsh.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Chas

Personally I'm not in the least offended. I would say his remark is utterly irrelevant and a bit silly. Such an argument could in principle be used in every conceivable situation to block criticism (unless you're a Saint) - therefore it's useless.

So yes, it's 'absurd'.

My original quote was: ".... a rule is broken and someone must be punished. I wonder if they are accountable in the same way?"

It was not designed for a response, but to reflect.

The fact that some commented may say they are too busy talking to reflect.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

It appears the slow play penalty is somewhat vague (when does the 30 seconds start, what about conditions like wind or rain, etc), and likely not evenly enforced. I mean, you would have to really make a compelling case that Pressel was the only violator that week. I would imagine there were others - were they gigged too?

So here we are in the back nine of a semifinals match where Pressel just won a hole to take a 3-up lead...and in steps the rules official to relay the news that - surprise - you lose the hole, and your 3-up lead is now 1-up. It essentially decided the match. I know I wouldn't be the same after that ruling.

It may have been a technically correct ruling, but it was horrible timing in the arbitrary enforcement of it.

The rule (I linked to it above if you missed it, at least, it's the most real looking definition of it I could find) seems fairly well defined. There's a bit of leeway for the official in terms of deciding when to start the timer, but not much. Basically, once it's unquestionably your turn and there is nothing interfering with your stroke. I assume this means you've actually reached your ball, the honor is yours, the group ahead has cleared out, etc.

Does anyone have any real data to support the claim that the enforcement was selective or arbitrary? This seems to be asserted by many of those who don't like the ruling, but it's not really fair to assume that. How many groups fell behind and should have been on the clock but weren't? Or how many were on the clock, ran over their time, and weren't penalized?

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by rediwat

It would be interesting to know just how many other times this rule has been

applied, and, particularly, when it was applied with such an important match

or stroke situation on the line. I would guess not much and not recently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Add that up & you get, imo, a serious breach of the spirit of the rule.

I know I know...so what - a violation is a violation. But you would have to prove to me that Pressel was the only one who breached it, i.e., the only one who deserved to get gigged.

I liken it to an NFL official who sees a violation but decides to keep the flag in his pocket, or an NBA official who sees a guy take an extra step but swallows his whistle. Could they penalize? Sure. Should they penalize is the question. Hell, NFL refs could flag for holding on damn near every play.

I have to disagree with you and others that assume there is some "spirit of the rule" violation here.  Some rules are so basic that the letter of the rule and the spirit of the rule are one and the same, and don't need any further extrapolation.  The spirit of the rule is to prevent slow play.  The rule of timing players who have been warned of slow play, prevents slow play.  Most rules that have a "spirit of the rule" interpretation have a subjective element to it.  "Holding" is subjective.  Time has no subjective element to it.  It is specific and measurable.  And you know that Pressel was the only one who breached it because of the way the rule is written; i.e., when a group is on the clock, both players are timed and the player who goes over the limit is dinged.  Whatever happens before that isn't applied.  If they are going to apply that, they would need to change the rule.  And the NBA's abuse of the traveling rule is not a good analogy to break PGA/LPGA Tour rules.

Originally Posted by zeg

I think it's amusing that people talk about "letting the players win or lose" as if the referees are somehow responsible for those players commiting fouls. Basketball refs letting obvious travels go uncalled is not something fans should be crowing about as though it's a good thing.

Rules that are only enforced when there's nothing on the line aren't really rules.

Well said.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Hey, some people are not into nuance or looking at the entire set of facts or the particular situation.

They're called judges, and they often evaluate matters of law...which are often subjective and open to interpretation.  They also mostly deal with differing stories and different suggestions of facts.  Here we know the alleged facts and they aren't really in dispute.  This isn't about a federal trial to determine whether a death rises to the definition of murder for a suspect, but rather akin to whether a person violated a speeding limit to warrant the citation they received.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

There is a rule, and there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to apply the rule, and a right time and wrong time to actually apply such a rule.

When was the rule last applied?

This is not stroke play ... this is match play. If they had not applied the rule in a long time or sporadically, they picked the wrong time to apply the rule.

They sucked in the application of the rule.

But if they wanted to bring attention to their Tour, they succeeded.

The point in the second part of my quote is rhetorical - are those applauding the application of the rule at this time accountable to rules? i.e. do they let themselves off scott-free, or do they admit or take responsibility in their life? Or do they use excuses to skirt the rules, their wives, their friends, their poor golf play?

What?  A rule is either enforced as it applies to any given situation, or it is not.  Whether you apply the rule correctly or not is a matter of fact.  Example: if they applied the "slow play" ruling while Azahara Munoz was being given a ruling on her "touch the line" issue, that would have been an improper application because as a matter of fact she was not able to hit her shot at that time because there was a pause in play while the officials deliberated.  Another extreme example would be if they applied the "slow play" rule to a person grounding their club in a hazard before hitting their shot in a timely manner.  As a matter of fact, the rule doesn't apply there.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

There are rules and laws but they are subject to interpretation and judgement may be used to how and when they are applied.  If you're speeding on a highway for no reason and get pulled over you're likely to get a ticket, if you have a medical emergency you'll likely not get a ticket.  The officer uses his discretion.

The cop uses discretion because it's a matter of life and death.  Not because he's deciding this person should be allowed to speed because they had a lot on their mind.

Brandon

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

There is a rule, and there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to apply the rule, and a right time and wrong time to actually apply such a rule.

What in the heck are you talking about? Right or wrong way to apply the rule?! Remind me never to play in a money game with you! I imagine the "right way" would only occur when it benefits you.

Last time I checked, the right way to apply a rule all the time when playing the game. Are we supposed to just pick and choose when rules are followed? You are a cheater and nothing else if you say yes.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

When was the rule last applied?

Who cares? When was the last time the NFL booted a coach for the season for his role is a pay for injury scandal? This is so not the point.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

This is not stroke play ... this is match play. If they had not applied the rule in a long time or sporadically, they picked the wrong time to apply the rule.

Again you apply the rule ALL the time. She broke it she paid the price. Its in the rule book, its not a surprise, and she was warned. And what does stroke play or match play have to do with this. Your arguments make no sense to me.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

They sucked in the application of the rule.

Actually they applied it correctly as the group was out of position.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

But if they wanted to bring attention to their Tour, they succeeded.

I don't think this was their intention but I hope the PGA Tour does see this as they need to grow some testicles themselves and start applying this rule. The LPGA issued 5 slow play penalties last year, the PGA Tour hasn't issued one since 1995. I have a lot more respect for LPGA Tour officials now.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

The point in the second part of my quote is rhetorical - are those applauding the application of the rule at this time accountable to rules? i.e. do they let themselves off scott-free, or do they admit or take responsibility in their life? Or do they use excuses to skirt the rules, their wives, their friends, their poor golf play?

Sounds like you are the one who is the proponent for only applying rules the "right way". I personally believe in playing by the rules all the time.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by NM Golf

What in the heck are you talking about? Right or wrong way to apply the rule?! Remind me never to play in a money game with you! I imagine the "right way" would only occur when it benefits you.

Last time I checked, the right way to apply a rule all the time when playing the game. Are we supposed to just pick and choose when rules are followed? You are a cheater and nothing else if you say yes.

Who cares? When was the last time the NFL booted a coach for the season for his role is a pay for injury scandal? This is so not the point.

Again you apply the rule ALL the time. She broke it she paid the price. Its in the rule book, its not a surprise, and she was warned. And what does stroke play or match play have to do with this. Your arguments make no sense to me.

Actually they applied it correctly as the group was out of position.

I don't think this was their intention but I hope the PGA Tour does see this as they need to grow some testicles themselves and start applying this rule. The LPGA issued 5 slow play penalties last year, the PGA Tour hasn't issued one since 1995. I have a lot more respect for LPGA Tour officials now.

Sounds like you are the one who is the proponent for only applying rules the "right way". I personally believe in playing by the rules all the time.

Let's put it this way, if you were in Morgan Pressel's shoes, what would be your argument?

Remember, this is in match play, where both players are slow, and a rule that is sporadically applied. Yes, she was on the clock but conditions were apparently difficult because of a wind. She is a professional and hit a couple of shots that ended up awry.

Was she used as an example?

What's her argument?

What is the purpose of the rule? There were only 4 players on the course.

It's golf, crap happens, and every hole counts in a close match.

Was the official grandstanding? Does he have an ego?

Take everything into consideration.

[erropod]

OK, so what would the official do if Pressel lost that hole in the first place.  Would he of told them of the penalty that Pressell lost the hole because of slow play.  She lost the hole anyway, thus no penalty.  They should of told her she lost the next hole due to slow play on the previous hole.  Does this make any sense?  Because she lost the hole she won, she really lost two holes.  Again, what would the official of done in Pressel took 4 on the hole and Munoz took a 3?  Nothing probably would of been said............