LPGA blows it with Morgan Pressel slow play penalty

[mdl]

I don't think it was unfair.  She'd been warned twice and they showed a long portion of her play on that hole on Golf Central Sunday night, and she really was taking her time and looked 0% like she'd gotten two speed warnings.

The thing that makes it feel a little ugly I think is the fact that it was match play.  If you get assessed a penalty stroke or two in stroked play, that's one or two "points" out of something like the 270 or 280 that go into a win.  In match play you can think of the penalty as 1 of the 18 "points" needed to win, a MUCH more severe penalty than a slow play penalty in a 4 round stroke play tourney.

[Chas]

Agreed Brandon ...... "pour encourager les autres" as they say over there.  I can see why Munoz feels bad about it since she seems to think that she was the slower player of the two.  Perhaps she will buck her ideas up as well.

Open disclosure: in my early golfing life, not so long ago, I was on the slow side as well.  Too much time standing over the ball, which I now know was to my detriment but more importantly it irritates other players in the group.  I'm a lot better now, maybe I could be better still.  Point is that this sort of behavior can indeed change if there's the will, of course it can.

Just do it.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by mdl

I don't think it was unfair.  She'd been warned twice and they showed a long portion of her play on that hole on Golf Central Sunday night, and she really was taking her time and looked 0% like she'd gotten two speed warnings.

The thing that makes it feel a little ugly I think is the fact that it was match play.  If you get assessed a penalty stroke or two in stroked play, that's one or two "points" out of something like the 270 or 280 that go into a win.  In match play you can think of the penalty as 1 of the 18 "points" needed to win, a MUCH more severe penalty than a slow play penalty in a 4 round stroke play tourney.

Even worse, in this case since it happened on a hole that she won, and the penalty was loss of hole, it was worth two "points" out of the eighteen.  Extremely harsh in my opinion.  But that is an issue I have with the rule itself (as it applies to match play) and not with the enforcement.  Seems more and more like she certainly deserved the penalty.

It seems to me like the rule could be a little better if it was a 1 shot penalty for both stroke and match play.

[rustyredcab]

Why did they let the play continue after Pressel finished the hole? Was play still alive? Is the penalty not accessed until they both finish? Could Munoz have done anything to change the result after Pressel was in the hole? Does they rule say you don't tell anyone until the next tee?

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Even worse, in this case since it happened on a hole that she won, ...

[brocks]

Also seems like bad luck that she had honors on the tee, then was away, then was away on her putt.

Having the honor is not a matter of bad luck, and that is exactly why the penalty was arbitrary. The stupidly written policy says that in all three of those cases, she gets "a few additional seconds" to hit her shot. Apparently it's completely up to the official what that means, and I find it hard to believe that the experts here think that ten extra seconds is way more than the policy intended, but somehow they do. Neither of those lumps in the Golf Channel clip seemed aware of that clause in the LPGA policy. Heck, they weren't even sure that the PGA gives you an extra[b][i] 20[/i][/b] seconds per shot if you're the first to hit. How the heck can professional golf journalists, with a big time research staff, go on national TV in a prepared segment to discuss this very issue, and not even know what the policies are? And then they have the LPGA official saying she violated a Rule of Golf. No, she didn't. She violated your stupid, ambiguous, arbitrary policy. On the PGA tour, she would have had a total of 180 seconds to hit those three shots, and she was almost a minute below that. But the experts here are saying she played WAY too slowly. And Fotz is quoted as saying she didn't seem to be in a hurry, as if that proves she deserved the penalty. Really? Is that what all the True Golf Purists want to see --- players hitting their shots in a hurry? Why not just give them carts, if TV timing is so damn important?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

Why did they let the play continue after Pressel finished the hole? Was play still alive? Is the penalty not accessed until they both finish? Could Munoz have done anything to change the result after Pressel was in the hole? Does they rule say you don't tell anyone until the next tee?

From what I am understanding, you can't possibly know if you violated the rule until after the hole is over because its a per-shot-average-for-the-hole rule.  Meaning that if she takes 3 shots she gets 90 seconds, but if she takes 4 she gets 120.  Which brings us to what Brandon said earlier ...

Originally Posted by bplewis24

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

Could you imagine her having a discussion with her caddy on the green:

Caddy:  "Morgan, this putt breaks 3 inches to the left but you need to aim at the hole and blow it 3 feet past."

MP: "What?"

Caddy:  "You took 55 seconds to tee off and 45 seconds to hit you pitch shot."

MP:  "So?"

Caddy:  "If you make this putt, you're going to be at 110 seconds for this hole, and you only get 100, so you will lose the hole.  But if you miss it and make the next one - quickly, don't lolligag like you usually do! - then they'll give you 130 seconds so you won't be penalized and you'll halve the hole instead of lose it."

MP:  "So I have to miss this on purpose?"

Caddy:  "Yup, should've thought of that while you were daydreaming on the tee box."

[brocks]

Why did they let the play continue after Pressel finished the hole? Was play still alive? Is the penalty not accessed until they both finish? Could Munoz have done anything to change the result after Pressel was in the hole? Does they rule say you don't tell anyone until the next tee?

Good question. A literal interpretation of their stupid policy would be that if Pressel has the honor, and hasn't hit her tee shot within 60 seconds, then she's just lost the hole, and there is no need for either player to hit a shot on that hole --- they should just proceed to the next tee. If their intent is to speed play, then having them skip the hole would obviously be the best way to do that. And what would they have done if Munoz had taken 101 seconds to play the hole? Do they both lose the hole? If they do, then whoever "really" lost the hole is actually being rewarded for slow play --- without the penalties, she would have been 1 down, but with the penalties, she is even. What a stupid mishmash.

[brocks]

From what I am understanding, you can't possibly know if you violated the rule until after the hole is over because its a per-shot-average-for-the-hole rule.

No, there are two ways to violate the [url=http://lifeontour.wordpress.com/blog/pace-of-play/]policy[/url]. One is to average more than 30 seconds per shot, plus ten. The other is to take more than 60 seconds for any one shot. Hence my previous post.

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

From what I am understanding, you can't possibly know if you violated the rule until after the hole is over because its a per-shot-average-for-the-hole rule.  Meaning that if she takes 3 shots she gets 90 seconds, but if she takes 4 she gets 120.  Which brings us to what Brandon said earlier ...

...

Agree that Pressel needed to hit all her shots to know what here total second added up to. BUT AFTER she holed out, Munoz putted for what everyone thought was a half. She missed and picked her ball up, I'm sure without a Pressel conceding the putt since everyone then thought the hole was over.

Did Munoz last putt that she attempted matter? Could she have taken so long that she too had a time penalty or was the hole over? If her putt mattered, then so did the one she picked up.

It may be a stretched metaphor but it is like a 4th and inches play that goes for a touchdown and the ref comes in and says the second down play was really delay of game.

[brocks]

Agree that Pressel needed to hit all her shots to know what here total second added up to. BUT AFTER she holed out, Munoz putted for what everyone thought was a half. She missed and picked her ball up, I'm sure without a Pressel conceding the putt since everyone then thought the hole was over. Did Munoz last putt that she attempted matter? Could she have taken so long that she too had a time penalty or was the hole over? If her putt mattered, then so did the one she picked up.

That's another part of their [url=http://lifeontour.wordpress.com/blog/pace-of-play/]horribly written policy[/url] that makes no sense: "Note: Putts of approximately two (2) feet or less that can be hit within ten (10) seconds or less may be deemed tap-ins and, therefore, do not adversely affect a player’s average time for that hole." What the hell does that mean? If you can hit a shot within ten seconds, then OF COURSE it will help your average, so why would they say it won't adversely affect your average? They SEEM to be saying a tap-in should be disregarded, but if you do that, then the only possible outcome is to adversely affect your average. Or are they saying that you have unlimited time to make a two-inch putt, since it's not allowed to adversely affect your average? Just amazing.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by brocks

Good question. A literal interpretation of their stupid policy would be that if Pressel has the honor, and hasn't hit her tee shot within 60 seconds, then she's just lost the hole, and there is no need for either player to hit a shot on that hole --- they should just proceed to the next tee. If their intent is to speed play, then having them skip the hole would obviously be the best way to do that.

And what would they have done if Munoz had taken 101 seconds to play the hole? Do they both lose the hole? If they do, then whoever "really" lost the hole is actually being rewarded for slow play --- without the penalties, she would have been 1 down, but with the penalties, she is even. What a stupid mishmash.

Totally agree.  That's why it seems to me that the rule should be 1 shot penalty regardless of whether you are playing match or stroke play.  Obviously, if she breaks the 60 second rule both players can be notified immediately, but if she breaks the "hole" penalty then add a stroke to the total and see what happens - in this case, a halve.

[brocks]

Totally agree.  That's why it seems to me that the rule should be 1 shot penalty regardless of whether you are playing match or stroke play.  Obviously, if she breaks the 60 second rule both players can be notified immediately, but if she breaks the "hole" penalty then add a stroke to the total and see what happens - in this case, a halve.

But then you have the problem rustyredcab just brought up. Munoz didn't putt out, and Pressel didn't concede her putt. In effect, by picking up, Munoz conceded the hole, so you can add 400 shots to Pressel's score for the hole, and she still wins it.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by brocks

That's another part of their horribly written policy that makes no sense:

"Note: Putts of approximately two (2) feet or less that can be hit within ten (10) seconds or less may be deemed tap-ins and, therefore, do not adversely affect a player’s average time for that hole."

What the hell does that mean? If you can hit a shot within ten seconds, then OF COURSE it will help your average, so why would they say it won't adversely affect your average? They SEEM to be saying a tap-in should be disregarded, but if you do that, then the only possible outcome is to adversely affect your average. Or are they saying that you have unlimited time to make a two-inch putt, since it's not allowed to adversely affect your average?

Just amazing.

I read the whole policy to make sure you didn't leave something out because I thought 'that can't be right.'  What do you know, you didn't miss anything.  I'm no statistics professor, but the only way I can see 10 seconds adversely affecting your average is if your average leading up to that is 9 seconds per shot or less.

Maybe they are saying, like you said, to disregard the tap in altogether, INCLUDING as part of your 'score' for that hole?  In which case, it doesn't adversely affect your average because it doesn't affect it at all.  Meaning, if Pressel misses and leaves herself a tap-in, for time par purposes she still is at 3 shots and still is at 129 seconds.

And I am forced to guess because you are correct, that is very poorly written.

(I also like all the disclaimers in there.  For example, they will make 'every effort' to notify a player that she is on the clock, however, they might not be able to and that's just too bad, she's still on the clock)

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by brocks

But then you have the problem rustyredcab just brought up. Munoz didn't putt out, and Pressel didn't concede her putt. In effect, by picking up, Munoz conceded the hole, so you can add 400 shots to Pressel's score for the hole, and she still wins it.

Oh, good point.  Hadn't thought of that.  Then I guess it would only work my way if you were able to notify both players immediately ... before anybody picks up and concedes anything.

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Totally agree.  That's why it seems to me that the rule should be 1 shot penalty regardless of whether you are playing match or stroke play.  Obviously, if she breaks the 60 second rule both players can be notified immediately, but if she breaks the "hole" penalty then add a stroke to the total and see what happens - in this case, a halve.

Except Munoz never finished the hole. She picked up. She "may have" made that last putt but she did not, it was not conceded, and so who knows what would have happened. If they had told her Pressel was over the time limit, would she have rushed and missed? Gotten so flustered that she'd have taken too much time?

What was Munoz' time on the hole? Anyone know? I still have not seen anything with them both playing.

I'm guessing that the hole was over and her last putt and the putt she never hit, "never happened."

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by brocks

Having the honor is not a matter of bad luck, and that is exactly why the penalty was arbitrary. The stupidly written policy says that in all three of those cases, she gets "a few additional seconds" to hit her shot.

It was nothing close to "arbitrary."  You're going off to an extreme end here.

Brandon

[brocks]

It was nothing close to "arbitrary."  You're going off to an extreme end here.

Then tell me the scientific method they used for determining when to put her on the clock with only two groups on the course, and exactly when the timing for each shot began, and exactly how long she had to hit each shot, including the "few additional seconds" she was allowed by virtue of hitting first each time. Oh yeah, and tell me what the clause about tap-ins means.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by brocks

Then tell me the scientific method they used for determining when to put her on the clock with only two groups on the course, and exactly when the timing for each shot began, and exactly how long she had to hit each shot, including the "few additional seconds" she was allowed by virtue of hitting first each time.

Oh yeah, and tell me what the clause about tap-ins means.

Arbitrary implies that they just decided randomly to apply the rule for no apparent reason.  They had reason, the group was playing slow, and they were put on the clock and notified.  I think what you are saying is more that the rule is very ambiguous and leaves a lot of room for interpretation ... but its not arbitrary.

Does anybody know if there is a rules official (specifcally one capable of timing all of the players) with every group?  Or do the timers only join a group after it falls out of position?