LPGA blows it with Morgan Pressel slow play penalty

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

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.

Brandon

I would have to disagree with that one.  The rules official has to make a judgment call as to when it is each player's "turn."  That is very subjective.  As they are walking up to their drives in the fairway, when does the clock start for the player that is away?  When she's 10 feet away from the ball, 5 feet, when she stops walking, once she's got the yardage?  For her opponent, does it start the second her shot takes off, or once it lands on the green?

And since the player probably doesn't know exactly when the clock starts, then how do they know how much time they have, and since they can't see it, how do they know if they are about to run out?   While I think there is certainly a need for this rule, I don't think its not nearly as cut and dry as some people are suggesting.

What if they got rid of the playclock in football but still had the delay of game rule?  [For the record, this was the case when I was in high school and it was absurd.]  What if they did the same in basketball with the shot clock?  You still only get 24 seconds to shoot, but we're not going to tell you when that time is about to run out.  Good luck!

[luu5]

Originally Posted by 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............

Does not make any sense because of too many of's.

[luu5]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

And since the player probably doesn't know exactly when the clock starts, then how do they know how much time they have, and since they can't see it, how do they know if they are about to run out?   While I think there is certainly a need for this rule, I don't think its not nearly as cut and dry as some people are suggesting.

I bet the group knows when they are on clock and there is a rules official close by to be consulted. So I think they should be quite aware about time and if it is running out.

And as general information, the time limits and exact penalties are not in the RoG, but in CoC.

[RemyM]

For those of you who used the argument that there were only four players on the course consider this.

This was the semi-final match in the morning and the finals were being played that afternoon.  So would it be ok with you if that twosome took 8 hours to play their match and screwed up the starting time of the finals?  It doesn't matter which player put them behind their time, once they were put on the clock, and they were informed of it, the player who gets the bad time gets the penalty.  I think the LPGA got it right and I like their pace of play policy because she could have taken extra time on the tee and made it up with her other shots on that hole, but she did not.  Most other pace of play policies aren't that lenient.

[Mr. Desmond]

If you're going to have rules, enforce them equally and for everyone.

There is more to this story than just a sporadic ruling...

[Chas]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

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.

I stand by my previous post which did not solely relate to your rather strange quote above, but certainly it is supportive.

As for "The fact that some commented may say they are too busy talking to reflect." ..... ???

Please explain ....

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Chas

I stand by my previous post which did not solely relate to your rather strange quote above, but certainly it is supportive.

As for "The fact that some commented may say they are too busy talking to reflect." ..... ???

Please explain ....

No, grasshopper, you don't get an explanation.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

If you're going to have rules, enforce them equally and for everyone.

If you're going to claim the rules are being selectively enforced, please provide your evidence.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I would have to disagree with that one.  The rules official has to make a judgment call as to when it is each player's "turn."  That is very subjective.  As they are walking up to their drives in the fairway, when does the clock start for the player that is away?  When she's 10 feet away from the ball, 5 feet, when she stops walking, once she's got the yardage?  For her opponent, does it start the second her shot takes off, or once it lands on the green?

And since the player probably doesn't know exactly when the clock starts, then how do they know how much time they have, and since they can't see it, how do they know if they are about to run out?   While I think there is certainly a need for this rule, I don't think its not nearly as cut and dry as some people are suggesting.

What if they got rid of the playclock in football but still had the delay of game rule?  [For the record, this was the case when I was in high school and it was absurd.]  What if they did the same in basketball with the shot clock?  You still only get 24 seconds to shoot, but we're not going to tell you when that time is about to run out.  Good luck!

My original point was that the rule isn't subjective and thus there doesn't require a "spirit of the rule" interpretation.  Yes, when to start the clock is an issue that needs definition and can be subjective, I agree.  But does it in any way shape or form alter the rule's intention to limit slow play?  IMO, the only time this subjective element would come into play is if a player was within a few seconds of breaking the rule.  Pressel wasn't.  She was nearly 30 seconds over if I remember correctly.  Out of curiosity, are you suggesting the rule needs to be more clearly defined to clarify when the clock starts, or are you suggesting the rule was improperly or unfairly applied to Pressel?

Also, high school football hasn't changed.  There are delay of game penalties all the time without the use of a play clock (the back judge keeps time on his personal stopwatch).  I only know this because I coach high school football.  It is our responsibility to get plays off on time as a team, the same way it is a golfer's responsibility to play faster once he or she has been notified that they are on the clock.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

If you're going to have rules, enforce them equally and for everyone.

There is more to this story than just a sporadic ruling...

Source?  During the broadcast yesterday they said that was the third time this season the LPGA has issued a penalty for slow play, and the first for Pressel in her career.  The conspiracy theorists should probably note the latter fact when suggesting somebody is trying to make an example of her.

Brandon

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by zeg

If you're going to claim the rules are being selectively enforced, please provide your evidence.

No, Grasshopper, it was a general statement.

Since you are interested in evidence, why don't you supply the forum with evidence that shows that this rule is being enforced on every occasion, and that all groups are clocked according to the rules.

Frankly, I'm not interested. I think professionals should be treated as such, and instead of making examples of your professionals and affecting the outcome of matches, they should try to encourage faster play with other methods. And maybe they've tried other methods. I do not know.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

My original point was that the rule isn't subjective and thus there doesn't require a "spirit of the rule" interpretation.  Yes, when to start the clock is an issue that needs definition and can be subjective, I agree.  But does it in any way shape or form alter the rule's intention to limit slow play?  IMO, the only time this subjective element would come into play is if a player was within a few seconds of breaking the rule.  Pressel wasn't.  She was nearly 30 seconds over if I remember correctly.  Out of curiosity, are you suggesting the rule needs to be more clearly defined to clarify when the clock starts, or are you suggesting the rule was improperly or unfairly applied to Pressel?

Brandon

Not at all suggesting that it was unfairly applied to Pressel, because I did read that she took 3 shots, was given 30 seconds for each plus a ten second buffer (100 seconds total) and she went over by another 29 seconds.  Combine that with the fact that they were warned (they were, right?) and that is egregious enough that it certainly warranted a penalty.  It's the fact that some people here are saying "a rule's a rule" to which I have an issue.  That would imply they'd agree with the penalty if she was one second over, because, hey, a rules a rule.  To that I say, there is enough nuance and subjectivity that there certainly has to be some sort of "spirit" applied.  Unless they were to add a shot clock to the sign the kid carries around with each group showing the score so they could know where they stand.  Then you could apply it as a cut and dried rule.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Also, high school football hasn't changed.  There are delay of game penalties all the time without the use of a play clock (the back judge keeps time on his personal stopwatch).  I only know this because I coach high school football.  It is our responsibility to get plays off on time as a team, the same way it is a golfer's responsibility to play faster once he or she has been notified that they are on the clock.

Brandon

Same thing here.  I do not disagree with you, it is your teams responsibility.  However, because the QB does not have the luxury of seeing when he's about to run out of time so he can make sure to get the play off on time, I would surely hope that the back judges use their discretion,  and apply the "spirit" of the rule.  If the clock expires while you are still in the huddle, that is an obvious penalty, but if you are at the line and your receiver has already gone in motion, you are clearly about to snap it, so unless everybody freezes (or its a fourth and short attempt to draw the other team offsides, or the end of the game and you are ahead) then I'd hope he lets it slide.

In both cases, I believe that there is subjectivity, nuance, and a "spirit" of the rule to know when it should and shouldn't be applied.

[newtogolf]

It's not just life and death decisions that police officers use in determining who they pull over and who gets a ticket but I understand your point.

In football and basketball there are clocks posted so you know how much time remains, there is no such clock in golf.  Maybe golfers need to carry stop watches or leaderboards need to be modified to show who's on the clock and how much time remains.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

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

[x129]

If slow play is a problem, shouldn't every shot be timed? Why wait til they get 10 mins behind? Each green could have a shot clock and when the player gets to the green they could see how much time they had to putt.  Think of the excitement when Tiger gets to the green with an eagle putt, looks at the clock and sees he has 5s to get the shot off.  Or give everyone a total time for the match and when you exceed it your DQed.  Imagine when you get to the 18th hole of the masters and the leader is up by 3 but he only has 60s left to hole out.  Imagine going from winning a a million bucks to zero in a couple of seconds.

If you showed 100 people the video of Morgan playing that hole, I doubt very many would cite her for slow play on that hole.  This wasn't a Kevin Na standing over the ball forever or a Keegan Bradley backing off and spitting ever shot.

[Chas]

No, grasshopper, you don't get an explanation.

That's OK, I wasn't expecting one. I like the reference to conspiracy theorists by another poster - this thread has really gone off the fairway (and into deep rough) .... lol

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Not at all suggesting that it was unfairly applied to Pressel, because I did read that she took 3 shots, was given 30 seconds for each plus a ten second buffer (100 seconds total) and she went over by another 29 seconds.  Combine that with the fact that they were warned (they were, right?) and that is egregious enough that it certainly warranted a penalty.  It's the fact that some people here are saying "a rule's a rule" to which I have an issue.  That would imply they'd agree with the penalty if she was one second over, because, hey, a rules a rule.  To that I say, there is enough nuance and subjectivity that there certainly has to be some sort of "spirit" applied.  Unless they were to add a shot clock to the sign the kid carries around with each group showing the score so they could know where they stand.  Then you could apply it as a cut and dried rule.

Well articulated point, and you have convinced me that the rule doesn't necessarily have to be applied to the letter.  I think I already stated that that subjectivity would only apply if a person was over by a few seconds, but I will amend that to say that IMO a rules official would have some discretion in applying the rule strictly if they are within a grace period.  However, reasonable minds can differ on that I believe.  If people want strict, 1-second-over application, I'd be fine with that as long as the rule was written very clearly defining when the clock starts for each shot and situation.  Also, I believe the rules official or some report DID say that there was a grace period involved that Pressel still went over, so perhaps the governing bodies have already taken this subjectivity into consideration?

Either way, my argument isn't with you, but with people suggesting that Pressel shouldn't have been punished because they should have taken into consideration that she was:

1) Not the reason for slow play before that hole (which I don't even think anybody can prove)

2) deliberating over a tough 2nd shot

3) dealing with wind gusts on one of her shots

Those are entirely subjective elements that have not a whole lot to do with a 2, or 5, or 10 second grace period in determining when the clock starts.  I think those are different arguments from the one we're having.

Originally Posted by x129

If slow play is a problem, shouldn't every shot be timed? Why wait til they get 10 mins behind?

I understand you're being a bit sarcastic, but if people have a problem with the rule process (that being, only after a group falls behind par time or the group ahead of them is out of sight are they actually put on a clock), then they may want to suggest a better way to do it.  I find the current one pretty reasonable, save the fact that they don't attempt to determine who caused the group to fall behind in the first place (which can be subjective).  Timing each person's shot and putting them on the clock for every hole is probably too cumbersome and definitely inefficient.

Brandon

[bplewis24]

One other point I wanted to make:

Of all the posters that don't like the rule, I haven't seen anybody bring up it's potentially biggest flaw.  It is a per-shot average rule.  Therefore, if Pressel were to miss her par putt, let's say, and quickly walk up and tap in her gimme-distance fourth shot, she wouldn't have broken any rule.  So it essentially penalizes the slow player that successfully executes, and not the slow player that unsuccessfully executes.

It's actually rather interesting to consider:

Scenario 1: She makes the putt, wins the hole.  Per-shot average is too high, so she violates the rule, and thus loses that hole and is only 1-up.

Scenario 2: She misses the putt and taps in quickly.  Per-shot average is within threshold.  She halves the hole because Munoz also bogied.  She is 2-up going to the next tee.

Brandon

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Well articulated point, and you have convinced me that the rule doesn't necessarily have to be applied to the letter.  I think I already stated that that subjectivity would only apply if a person was over by a few seconds, but I will amend that to say that IMO a rules official would have some discretion in applying the rule strictly if they are within a grace period.  However, reasonable minds can differ on that I believe.  If people want strict, 1-second-over application, I'd be fine with that as long as the rule was written very clearly defining when the clock starts for each shot and situation.  Also, I believe the rules official or some report DID say that there was a grace period involved that Pressel still went over, so perhaps the governing bodies have already taken this subjectivity into consideration?

Either way, my argument isn't with you, but with people suggesting that Pressel shouldn't have been punished because they should have taken into consideration that she was:

1) Not the reason for slow play before that hole (which I don't even think anybody can prove)

2) deliberating over a tough 2nd shot

3) dealing with wind gusts on one of her shots

Those are entirely subjective elements that have not a whole lot to do with a 2, or 5, or 10 second grace period in determining when the clock starts.  I think those are different arguments from the one we're having.

Brandon

Precisely what I think as well.

And you are right, I read that too.  30 seconds per shot + 10 extra seconds (read: grace period)  and it took her 129 seconds to play the hole.  So I kept saying she was 29 over the time, but she was really 39 over (thats 43% longer than its supposed to take) and still 29 over after the grace period was applied.  I am under the assumption that they all know the rules fully, and she was warned on the tee that she was on the clock.

[brocks]

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.

LOL, one thing you can say for this board, it really puts the "moderate" in moderator. But the guys who think it's so terrible to have the "rules" applied with discretion are IMO missing a couple of points. First, this isn't a Rule of Golf we're talking about; it's an LPGA policy. And second, the [url=http://lifeontour.wordpress.com/blog/pace-of-play/] timing policy[/url] has discretion written right into it. It practically reeks with discretion: "6. Commencing of Timing: Timing of a player officially commences when, [b][i]by the discretion of the LPGA Official[/b][/i], it is clearly the player’s turn to play and nothing interferes with her ability to play the stroke. Time taken for determining yardage, club selection, wind conditions, etc. will count against the player’s overall time. On the putting green, timing commences after a player, [b][i]by the discretion of an LPGA Rules Official[/b][/i], has had a reasonable amount of time to repair ball marks and remove loose impediments on her line of putt. Timing may commence before a player has replaced her ball on the putting green. [b][i]A few additional seconds [/b][/i]will be allotted to the first player in the group to play a: 1) tee shot on a par 3, 2) second shot, 3) chip shot, or 3) putt. [b][i]Every effort will be made by an LPGA Rules Official to notify a group when timing has commenced, however, timings accrued prior to such notification shall count[/b][/i] towards a player’s overall average for a given hole." (emphasis mine) So there's discretion as to when the timing starts, discretion as to how much time the player has to repair the green, discretion as to how much extra time the first player to hit gets, and even discretion as to whether it's too much hassle to let a player know that she's being timed. Not to mention the discretion involved in setting the proper times per hole in the first place (by rule 2 of the [url=http://lifeontour.wordpress.com/blog/pace-of-play/]policy[/url], that's done prior to the start of the round, so if unexpected bad weather rolls in six hours later, tough noogies). And the 30-second per shot thing sounds arbitrary, too, when you consider that the PGA gives the men at least 40 seconds per shot, and 60 seconds if you're hitting first. My wife ordering at a restaurant may not be the best example, but I haven't seen much evidence that women are twice as decisive as men. So can we please not call people cheaters, just because they have an honest difference of opinion?