LPGA blows it with Morgan Pressel slow play penalty

[brocks]

I don't know why you continue to try to make this point. A rule is a rule. A player picks their ball up without marking it, and immediately puts it back down. Should the player not be penalized because the LPGA didn't give a stronger warning that they were going to adhere strictly to the USGA Rules of Golf?

I repeated the point because you keep missing it. Yes, a rule is a rule, but an LPGA policy is not a USGA Rule of Golf, no matter what the official thinks. And it is well known that there is zero tolerance for violating a USGA Rule of Golf. That's why players are expected to call penalties on themselves, or at least call an official over to discuss it, even if nobody else sees it, and even if they are not completely sure that they actually violated the rule. It's only if they are sure that they DIDN'T violate the rule that they are not obligated to call an official. It's also well known that the slow play policy is not zero-tolerance, on either tour. By now, even the most casual golf fan knows that the PGA hasn't added a stroke to a player's score for slow play in over 15 years. The LPGA apparently isn't quite that bad, but that's just another way of saying they are less consistent, or more erratic. IMO the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that all LPGA players who average 31 seconds plus ten on the clock get stroke or hole penalties. The very fact that Pressel's penalty was the biggest story in golf last week shows how unusual it is for a big name player in the late stages of a big time event to be given anything more than a fine. Incidentally, I didn't record it, but to the best of my recollection TGC said that the times I posted were the latest available cumulative average for all shots by all players this season, which would include players on the clock. You have insisted that Pressel was taking WAY too long, and most people can estimate 30 seconds fairly accurately, so it's reasonable to assume she knew that she was taking WAY too long, or at least that she may have been. Unless you can honestly say you expected Pressel to forfeit the hole herself, whether or not the official called it, then you are acknowledging that the situation is not comparable to picking up her ball without marking it. And shifting emphasis a bit, I completely agree with rustyredcab (who, by the way, was completely accurate in his recollection of Wie's DQ) about the crucial point of when Pressel lost the hole. The only possible way for her to be one up rather than three up after Munoz conceded is if the first person to violate the timing immediately loses the hole, and that is unfair to whoever has the honor when the winds are gusting. If Pressel had three-putted (from more than "approximately two (2) feet," LOL), taking ten seconds per putt (which is how long she took to hit her putt on that hole), she would have been under the limit, even though she would have taken more time to play the hole, which is at least slightly ridiculous. Or, if Pressel had four-putted, and had taken five minutes to hit each putt, she would have incurred no penalty, since she lost the hole anyway, which is the most ridiculous of all. The obvious, fair solution is to play the hole out, and then deduct one hole from the score of either or both players if they violated the policy.

[brocks]

Back to my question: does anyone know when the hole is over in match play after a player takes too long and has incurred a loss of hole penalty? Should the players be told the status of the penalty as it happens?

It's quite clear. By picking up her ball, Munoz conceded the hole. By the rules of golf, a concession cannot be refused or withdrawn. It follows that the only way the LPGA could award Munoz the hole is to say that her concession was invalid because Pressel had already lost the hole before Munoz conceded. Therefore the hole is over as soon as either player violates the timing policy. There are two ways to violate the policy --- one is simple and clear, and one is clear as mud. The muddy one is that you must average 30 seconds or less per shot, plus ten seconds per hole, plus "a few additional seconds" per shot for the first to play each stage of the hole, plus (or minus, or nothing, God only knows) something or other for tap-ins. The simple and clear clause says if you take 61 or more seconds to hit a shot, you are penalized. So again, if you win the previous hole and have the honor, and the gusting winds make it difficult to choose a club on the next tee, the official should dash in and award the hole to your opponent as soon as his stopwatch reaches 61, before either of you have hit a shot. What is confusing or unfair about that?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by brocks

I repeated the point because you keep missing it. Yes, a rule is a rule, but an LPGA policy is not a USGA Rule of Golf, no matter what the official thinks.

Yes it is.

6-7 . Undue Delay; Slow Play

The player must play without undue delay and in accordance with any pace of play guidelines that the Committee may establish . Between completion of a hole and playing from the next teeing ground , the player must not unduly delay play.

I bolded the relevant portion for you.

[brocks]

I've snipped down what was an impressively long post. Unfortunately, it was filled with lots of irrelevant bits and conjecture.

That's the funniest thing I've read this week. This thread is approaching 200 posts, and apologies to anyone if I've missed one, but IMO Dooger's post was the only one that demonstrated a good knowledge of the LPGA tour and its practices. My posts are admittedly made in almost total ignorance of the LPGA, although they are based on its written slow play policy, and so they at least contain some factual material. Many of the others seem to be based on nothing more than general impressions about how golf should be played. The purpose of this board is to swap opinions, so there's nothing wrong with conjecture, but I think it's hilarious that you would single out the one well-informed post in the thread for it.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by brocks

That's the funniest thing I've read this week.

I'm happy to amuse you.

Just one point off the top of my head: he accuses a rules official of "grandstanding." Where's his evidence of that? He really has none, and when you boil it down, it's his opinion.

I follow the LPGA as well. I even attend more LPGA events than PGA Tour events most years. He has his opinion, I have mine. You like it because you feel it supported your own opinions. Which is fine.

But the funniest post I've seen? Right here. Take care. I'm out.

[brocks]

I bolded the relevant portion for you.

I accept your apology, and I appreciate that you were honest enough to quote the rule showing that the USGA makes even more of a distinction than I do between the official USGA RULES and local policies, by calling them merely "guidelines." The rule you quoted says that the players are bound by those additional guidelines, and that was never in question. I didn't say or imply that the LPGA policy is unenforceable, I said that it not been enforced with zero tolerance in the way the official USGA RULES have. If you have evidence to the contrary, I am ready and willing to read it.

[brocks]

Just one point off the top of my head: he accuses a rules official of "grandstanding." Where's his evidence of that? He really has none, and when you boil it down, it's his opinion.

You say that like it's a bad thing, for at least the second time today. Every post here is full of opinions. A few even seem well-informed. Why you would single his post out for the sin of expressing an opinion is beyond me. [quote] I follow the LPGA as well. I even attend more LPGA events than PGA Tour events most years. He has his opinion, I have mine. You like it because you feel it supported your own opinions. [/quote] No, I liked it because it supported my opinions with cogent arguments and evident knowledge. On other boards, where politics and religion are debated, I have sometimes deplored the fact that an obvious nutjob agreed with, say, my choice of candidate, but for completely stupid reasons. On the other hand, I like posts where obvious nutjobs oppose my political or religious views. It's a character flaw I really should correct. As for your own knowledge, I'll take your word for it that you follow the LPGA, but I haven't seen much evidence of it in this thread. You even made some pretty big blunders --- you got the Wie penalties mixed up, and you didn't know that the "few additional seconds" were per shot, rather than per hole, even though that policy was the main point of the thread. I can only go by what I read. [quote]But the funniest post I've seen? [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/t/58207/lpga-blows-it-with-morgan-pressel-slow-play-penalty/180#post_715731]Right here.[/URL] Take care. I'm out. :-) [/quote] I guess if I thought my own posts were the funniest, I'd have no need to interact with people, either.

[Chas]

Where's the evidence that they guy was "grand-standing"?  That is a very strong accusation to make of an official, very strong indeed.  Not something one should say with something solid to back it up imo.  If there's no evidence whatsoever other than that the call was made in a critical situation and/or that he's done it before (totally non-probative), we can draw our own conclusions about objectivity.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by brocks

You say that like it's a bad thing, for at least the second time today. Every post here is full of opinions. A few even seem well-informed. Why you would single his post out for the sin of expressing an opinion is beyond me.

He didn't single it out because it expressed an opinion, he singled it out because it was extremely long, and most of that length was peculiar analogies and not particularly convincing to those who aren't already on board with his point of view.

I can explain why it's not convincing without going into too much detail. Just look at the four points that, if you grant him every bit of his arguments, he proves. He addresses them in backwards order, so I'm presenting them this way:

4) Altered outcome in a marquee event

Whoop-dee-doo. Irrelevant to this discussion. Penalties are enforced to alter outcomes as punishment for various bad behavior. Other rules aren't suspended in "marquee events."

3) Penalized player who is not considered a slow play problem

Let me re-state this one: enforced a rule impartially. Sounds good to me.

2) Grandstanding rules official

Meh. This is not relevant to fairness of the rule.

1) Questionable on the spot interpretation, considering the variables at hand

There may be something to this one, if the claims in his post that there are documented or well-known issues with fair enforcement are actually true.

Overall, there wasn't much new in that post. I agree with Iacas, it's a much better post if you already agree with it. I'm not seeing much in the way of "cogent arguments," and most of the "evident knowledge" is pretty random.

Originally Posted by brocks

I guess if I thought my own posts were the funniest, I'd have no need to interact with people, either.

Says the guy who called me on snark.

[brocks]

Says the guy who called me on snark.

He said he thought his post was the funniest he'd seen, and that he was terminating his participation, and I addressed both of those points without attacking him in any way; I just speculated on what I would do in his situation. The line that I called you on was an ad hominem attack based on nothing I had said, and having nothing to do with the post you were responding to; you were just expressing your dislike of me. If you truly can't see the difference, then there's nothing more to say, except that I don't understand why a total stranger's opinions about an LPGA ruling should inspire such dislike. Life is too short to sweat the small stuff.

[Chas]

brocks, In post 181, para 4 makes no sense - why would you make such an assumption about Pressel's state of mind? More likely she was too distracted to keep track of time - NOT SMART when you're on the clock. At any rate your confident statement is pure speculation - a major stretch, like much of what you're writing in this thread. Also, you repeatedly fail to make the essential distinction between 1) being on the clock, and 2) being on or off the clock. What's up with that? The PGA time stats you quote are completely irrelevant to the present case but I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain why. No wonder Erik is out of here. Oh well at least you're consistent, in a way.

[brocks]

brocks, In post 181, para 4 makes no sense - why would you make such an assumption about Pressel's state of mind?

Because Article XIV, subclause 7, line 2 gives me that right. [quote] More likely she was too distracted to keep track of time - NOT SMART when you're on the clock. [/quote] No way you could know this, but almost every weekday, Final Jeopardy contestants manage to write the solutions to puzzles requiring some concentration, while making sure they do it in under 30 seconds, with tens of thousands of dollars on the line. And they are typically under that pressure, plus the presence of TV cameras and a live audience, for the first time in their lives, rather than doing it for a living. [quote] At any rate your confident statement is pure speculation - a major stretch, like much of what you're writing in this thread. Also, you repeatedly fail to make the essential distinction between 1) being on the clock, and 2) being on or off the clock. What's up with that? [/quote] The audience I'm writing for is capable of using context to know whether or not I'm talking about players on the clock. [quote] The PGA time stats you quote are completely irrelevant to the present case but I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain why.[/quote] Your inability to see a connection does not mean there isn't one. [quote]No wonder Erik is out of here.[/quote] Because I posted some allegedly irrelevant stats? Is there anything similarly easy and innocuous that would persuade you to join him? And now that we've both gotten the snark out of our systems, did you actually want to discuss Pressel's penalty, or just take more shots at me? If the latter, I suggest you start a new thread in the appropriate forum. If the last few posts are any indication, it might get you Kickstarter of the Month.

[x129]

They can do it because answering the question takes 5s. Make that person press a button at exactly 30s and very few of them will be close.  Some people are really good at estimating time gaps. Most of us aren't.  Besides the Jeopardy contests have the music to help them keep track.

Originally Posted by brocks

No way you could know this, but almost every weekday, Final Jeopardy contestants manage to write the solutions to puzzles requiring some concentration, while making sure they do it in under 30 seconds, with tens of thousands of dollars on the line. And they are typically under that pressure, plus the presence of TV cameras and a live audience, for the first time in their lives, rather than doing it for a living.

[RGoosen]

This thread is starting to become a snooze fest.

[Chas]

Indeed it is.  I'm with Erik on this one .... sayonara chaps.

[rustyredcab]

Yep. Thread has digressed.

BTW, based on other threads, the hole was over when Pressel putted out and thus incurred the penalty. Everything Munoz did after that did not matter.

Bottom line: Rule is not good as it stands and officials should step in when they hole is over. And no one in power cares what I think so, the rule will stay as is and since matchplay is rare, officials will not step in until next tee even in matchplay. And then they will reveal their secret findings.

Next time (pun intended), the caddies should/will keep time for their players when they are on the clock so they have some idea where they are and what they need to do.

[Gramma Jo]

I agree.  That ruling seemed way off base and certainly did not win over any fans to the LPGA.

[Zwick]

Ross Fisher got a one-stroke penalty for slow play today at the Wales Open on the European Tour. I bet it won't be long till the PGA does the same.