Finchem says PGA Tour is "studying" Call-in Rules Violations

[mvmac]

Players do not want to win tournaments by "getting away" with a rules infraction.  If they don't know the rules or don't consult the RO, then it's on them if they take the wrong drop, use a training aid during the round, etc.

I'd be willing the bet that during the last 25 years, players have called more penalties on themselves than getting penalized through call ins.  (Actually just thinking about it for a minute, I'm def right )

[mmoan2]

No it wouldn't.

And seriously, there aren't that many call-ins any given year.

I was responsible for the Tiger one at the Masters via an on-site rules official.  A TV crew (the PGA Tour's own) was responsible for the one at the BMW.

Name the others…?

Notice that both cases involve the same golfer. If that doesn;t show that he has suffer an unfair disadvantage because of the current state of affairs, I don;t know what does. Moreover, the infatuation with Tiger makes his every move world news. If he cheats (especially to all the cheap shot artists who say he's a cheater anyway because of his ex-wife), or is suspected of it, it gets press everywhere. If Heath Slocum gets a questionable penalty in a Web.com event, no one will hear of it unless you're a golf insider.

I've posted my long, drawn-out opinion on this in another thread which should probably be re-routed, but I just think fans should be left out of rules decisions. A game should be a discrete entity. Whether it's a little league game or the Masters.

[mmoan2]

Players do not want to win tournaments by "getting away" with a rules infraction.  If they don't know the rules or don't consult the RO, then it's on them if they take the wrong drop, use a training aid during the round, etc.

I'd be willing the bet that during the last 25 years, players have called more penalties on themselves than getting penalized through call ins.  (Actually just thinking about it for a minute, I'm def right )

I think everyone wants to win playing by the rules, and I'm absolutely sure that most professional golfers are very honest and call infractions in when they occur. Far more often than the doomsday scenarios about some random guy spotting a foul that costs a guy like Tiger or Phil a championship. Let's be honest here, though - let's say they turned Augusta National into a desert island with no TV coverage and the score to beat was -10. You are the only player left, and you will play by yourself with no witnesses. You are at -10 on hole 72, lying in the pine straw where Bubba Watson was. You approach the ball, and by some freak accident, some random twig you move with your spike causes the ball to move 1/2 inch. It doesn't give you a better angle to the hole. In fact, it's 1/2 inch worse now. You leave it there. You hit the famous Bubba hook, sink the putt for birdie, and get a $1.1 million check and a Green Jacket. You have never placed better than 25th in a major. Might not ever make it this close to winning ever again. If I asked 100 golfers "Would you admit the infraction under those circumstances?" I don;t think you'd be speaking to 100 honest people if they all said yes.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

Players do not want to win tournaments by "getting away" with a rules infraction.  If they don't know the rules or don't consult the RO, then it's on them if they take the wrong drop, use a training aid during the round, etc.

I'd be willing the bet that during the last 25 years, players have called more penalties on themselves than getting penalized through call ins.  (Actually just thinking about it for a minute, I'm def right )

I think everyone wants to win playing by the rules, and I'm absolutely sure that most professional golfers are very honest and call infractions in when they occur. Far more often than the doomsday scenarios about some random guy spotting a foul that costs a guy like Tiger or Phil a championship. Let's be honest here, though - let's say they turned Augusta National into a desert island with no TV coverage and the score to beat was -10. You are the only player left, and you will play by yourself with no witnesses. You are at -10 on hole 72, lying in the pine straw where Bubba Watson was. You approach the ball, and by some freak accident, some random twig you move with your spike causes the ball to move 1/2 inch. It doesn't give you a better angle to the hole. In fact, it's 1/2 inch worse now. You leave it there. You hit the famous Bubba hook, sink the putt for birdie, and get a $1.1 million check and a Green Jacket. You have never placed better than 25th in a major. Might not ever make it this close to winning ever again. If I asked 100 golfers "Would you admit the infraction under those circumstances?" I don;t think you'd be speaking to 100 honest people if they all said yes.

Well, I have more faith in golfers than you do.  I like to think that he would play as I would, call the penalty, replace the ball for a one stroke penalty, and hole out for par.  Then count on my game in the playoff.

[iacas]

I've posted my long, drawn-out opinion on this in another thread which should probably be re-routed, but I just think fans should be left out of rules decisions. A game should be a discrete entity. Whether it's a little league game or the Masters.

So your argument boils down to "because you don't like it?"

The game of golf does not define a "discrete entity." A fan on-site can point out a rules violation. A fellow player, even one two fairways over. A rules official. ANYBODY.

On the flip side, a fan can point out a rules option that SAVES a player strokes. I was at The Memorial near the fifth green when someone said "drop it on the other side" (of the lateral hazard) and the player did just that and chipped it close to save par when they'd have had a terrible angle otherwise.

My position boils down to the very simple things I've stated a few times now (and am not going to repeat again).

[Golfingdad]

On the flip side, a fan can point out a rules option that SAVES a player strokes. I was at The Memorial near the fifth green when someone said "drop it on the other side" (of the lateral hazard) and the player did just that and chipped it close to save par when they'd have had a terrible angle otherwise.

My opinion is changing now, sort of.  This story got me thinking of a time where me and a friend were watching the then Buick Invitational at Torrey Pines, and we were camped out behind the third green.  Stewart Cink pulled his tee shot into the heavy rough left of the green and then he couldn't find it.  My friend watched where it landed and was able to help redirect Cink to the right spot and he found his ball.  (We were jokingly "bitter" that Cink didn't give us the ball after the hole was finished ;))

I had sort of rhetorically asked in a few previous posts why we can use fans and video to penalize a player but not help them.  I couldn't think of any situations where it went the other way, so it seemed unfair against those guys who were on TV all of the time.  Well, for some reason, none of you guys brought up Rory McIlroy at last year's PGA Championship.  IIRC, he hit a tee shot into a tree (on Sunday, I think) that seemed to never come out, and was only able to find it after the announcers relayed the info to the on course reporter, who then told him to check in the tree.

So if we eliminate the ability to penalize the guys who are on TV more to keep it fair, then we also have to eliminate the ability to help them with TV as well ... otherwise they are now receiving an unfair advantage over the nobody's who aren't on TV.  I don't think anybody would argue that Rory shouldn't have recevied assistance in that situation to help find his ball.

Still not a fan of after-the-fact call-ins, but certainly less worried about video replay, so to speak, after these revelations.

[newtogolf]

My opinion is changing now, sort of.  This story got me thinking of a time where me and a friend were watching the then Buick Invitational at Torrey Pines, and we were camped out behind the third green.  Stewart Cink pulled his tee shot into the heavy rough left of the green and then he couldn't find it.  My friend watched where it landed and was able to help redirect Cink to the right spot and he found his ball.  (We were jokingly "bitter" that Cink didn't give us the ball after the hole was finished ;))

I had sort of rhetorically asked in a few previous posts why we can use fans and video to penalize a player but not help them.  I couldn't think of any situations where it went the other way, so it seemed unfair against those guys who were on TV all of the time.  Well, for some reason, none of you guys brought up Rory McIlroy at last year's PGA Championship.  IIRC, he hit a tee shot into a tree (on Sunday, I think) that seemed to never come out, and was only able to find it after the announcers relayed the info to the on course reporter, who then told him to check in the tree.

So if we eliminate the ability to penalize the guys who are on TV more to keep it fair, then we also have to eliminate the ability to help them with TV as well ... otherwise they are now receiving an unfair advantage over the nobody's who aren't on TV.  I don't think anybody would argue that Rory shouldn't have recevied assistance in that situation to help find his ball.

Still not a fan of after-the-fact call-ins, but certainly less worried about video replay, so to speak, after these revelations.

I'm not against using HD TV to help or rule against golfers, I just want them ALL to have the same advantage / disadvantage.

[mmoan2]

So your argument boils down to "because you don't like it?"

The game of golf does not define a "discrete entity." A fan on-site can point out a rules violation. A fellow player, even one two fairways over. A rules official. ANYBODY.

On the flip side, a fan can point out a rules option that SAVES a player strokes. I was at The Memorial near the fifth green when someone said "drop it on the other side" (of the lateral hazard) and the player did just that and chipped it close to save par when they'd have had a terrible angle otherwise.

My position boils down to the very simple things I've stated a few times now (and am not going to repeat again).

You may like to think otherwise, but almost everyone's argument boils down to "because they don't or do like it." Your eyes read an argument, your brain interprets the message, and you have a sensory impulse that either accepts the argument or rejects it amorphously until you can form thoughts that identify what you like/don't like about it. They then become available to others in the form of a common language that you either provide lucidly, or like a maniac if you embrace your raw emotions. You then provide counter-arguments or supporting facts to agree or disagree with something. It's not like this topic is one, big categorical syllogism with an a priori truth value. Otherwise it would be solved by a logic professor at Yale, not the PGA Tour officials.

I'm a golf neophyte, especially when it comes to rules, and you certainly have pointed out here that the current rules allow anyone can point out a rules violation. That's fine. I just think golf is a game like anything else. Football. Soccer. Badminton. Tennis. And I think it's a bad idea to have the players policing themselves, or the outsiders involved at all in a professional endeavor the magnitude of a professional tour event. Whether it takes strokes, saves strokes, or results in nothing at all. Yeah, a friendly weekend amateur foursome has to police themselves. Just like a pickup basketball game or a half-field baseball game played by teams of four with no umpire. The current rules of golf might say one thing, but the "current" rules of pro football once outlawed the forward pass and allowed players to whack each other in the helmets to cause ear-ringing. I think the current game is better for those changes. Others have made strong enough arguments to get Finchem's attention, which I know you don't either need or want me to try and repeat here. Thank God you have a forum like this to allow newbies like me to express their opinions in an earnest, thoughtful way, even if you think they're moronic. :)

[mmoan2]

Well, I have more faith in golfers than you do.  I like to think that he would play as I would, call the penalty, replace the ball for a one stroke penalty, and hole out for par.  Then count on my game in the playoff.

I'm glad you do. Seriously, not being sarcastic or snarky. I guess if I grew up on golf and not hardscrabble sports like football and wrestling where guys actually bite each other for an advantage, I'd think as you do.

[iacas]

I'm not against using HD TV to help or rule against golfers, I just want them ALL to have the same advantage / disadvantage.

So you're going to regulate how many fans can follow golfers? Because there are advantages and disadvantages to having larger and smaller galleries, too. The point is you can't regulate out fairness, and even if you could, you're doing it at the expense of getting knowingly FARTHER from the truth in many situations.

You may like to think otherwise, but almost everyone's argument boils down to "because they don't or do like it."

That's not true. I've laid out my reasons several times.

I just think golf is a game like anything else. Football. Soccer. Badminton. Tennis.

Golf is not like those other sports for reasons pointed out several times earlier in this thread (from a "rules enforcement" perspective). Heck, even if you take out call-in rules, a player can remember after the round that he broke a rule and DQ himself, or change his score for a hole five holes later. A tennis player can't say "you know, I want to challenge that out call from three sets ago." A football player can't call a hold on himself, and even if he could, he can't do it well after the fact.

I just think golf is a game like anything else. Football. Soccer. Badminton. Tennis. And I think it's a bad idea to have the players policing themselves, or the outsiders involved at all in a professional endeavor the magnitude of a professional tour event. Whether it takes strokes, saves strokes, or results in nothing at all. Yeah, a friendly weekend amateur foursome has to police themselves. Just like a pickup basketball game or a half-field baseball game played by teams of four with no umpire. The current rules of golf might say one thing, but the "current" rules of pro football once outlawed the forward pass and allowed players to whack each other in the helmets to cause ear-ringing. I think the current game is better for those changes.

My argument has little to do with "it is in the current Rules of Golf."

[bplewis24]

I'm not against using HD TV to help or rule against golfers, I just want them ALL to have the same advantage / disadvantage.

Exactly, and I covered this before in response to one of GD's posts already.  TV and cameras can always be used for visual evidence or feedback, that is an entirely separate issue, as is using anybody and everybody as spotters.  It has nothing to do with call-ins.

It's similar to NBA refs being able use video cameras when they can't determine the proper ruling after a conference, or NFL officials using cameras to review replay.  Entirely separate from polling the crowd on a violation or for their opinion on something, or allowing them to call in a rules violation.

There is nothing wrong with spotters, but they aren't necessarily rules officials.

[mvmac]

I just think golf is a game like anything else. Football. Soccer. Badminton. Tennis. And I think it's a bad idea to have the players policing themselves, or the outsiders involved at all in a professional endeavor the magnitude of a professional tour event.

As already stated, golf is not the same.  Players from other sports try to get away with as much as possible because they're not going to call penalties on themselves

Let's be honest here, though - let's say they turned Augusta National into a desert island with no TV coverage and the score to beat was -10. You are the only player left, and you will play by yourself with no witnesses. You are at -10 on hole 72, lying in the pine straw where Bubba Watson was. You approach the ball, and by some freak accident, some random twig you move with your spike causes the ball to move 1/2 inch. It doesn't give you a better angle to the hole. In fact, it's 1/2 inch worse now. You leave it there. You hit the famous Bubba hook, sink the putt for birdie, and get a $1.1 million check and a Green Jacket. You have never placed better than 25th in a major. Might not ever make it this close to winning ever again. If I asked 100 golfers "Would you admit the infraction under those circumstances?" I don;t think you'd be speaking to 100 honest people if they all said yes.

IMO most avid/competitive golfers would admit to the infraction.  It would be torture knowing you won and "got away with it".  The example is a little silly and having to come up with these scenarios doesn't really help your point.  Sorry not trying to be snarky, just giving my take.

I've played in a decent amount of college/amateur tournaments and you don't have cameras out there and probably don't have a gallery.  Players call penalties on themselves, players call penalties on other players, players help out other players avoid rules infractions, etc.  From my own experience, the only level of golf where I've seen players intentionally try to cheat is high school golf.

[iacas]

THE FIRST REAL CASE OF CALL-INS from viewers was Paul Azinger moving some loose impediments with his foot in a water hazard at Doral in 1991. You get the evidence where you can, and it doesn't matter if players who happen to be on TV are exposed to greater scrutiny than players not on TV. The bottom line is that ignoring a violation because it happened on TV would not be a level playing field.

David Eger.

[mmoan2]

As already stated, golf is not the same.  Players from other sports try to get away with as much as possible because they're not going to call penalties on themselves

IMO most avid/competitive golfers would admit to the infraction.  It would be torture knowing you won and "got away with it".  The example is a little silly and having to come up with these scenarios doesn't really help your point.  Sorry not trying to be snarky, just giving my take.

I've played in a decent amount of college/amateur tournaments and you don't have cameras out there and probably don't have a gallery.  Players call penalties on themselves, players call penalties on other players, players help out other players avoid rules infractions, etc.  From my own experience, the only level of golf where I've seen players intentionally try to cheat is high school golf.

I don;t think it's the fact that players won;t call penalties on themselves, though I think that's part of it. I think it's a culture of win-at-all-costs. Shoot, hockey allows organized fighting and intimidation as a regular part of the game. I think that's just nuts. Even if all levels of football players were today allowed to start calling penalties on themselves, even in 100 years they wouldn't be as honest as golfers, in my opinion. That's why I praise golf for its gentility and honestly. If Adam Scott gets jealous that Brandt Snedeker is a better putter, he's not going to try and beat him up on the next green. Besides, Brandt would kick his butt (just kidding...)

As for the ridiculous scenario, I hear you. I was just trying to make a quick example of a time when someone could cheat and not get caught for high stakes. Funny thing is, I can't recall a single time in any sport where someone who won a significant title through cheating just had his or her conscious kill them and they turned in the trophy. I used to respect MLB players, but after watching star after star lie to a grand jury about PED, I lost all respect for many of them. Are golfers, on the whole, morally superior to other athletes? Probably so, because they were raised in a culture where self-policing and honesty was espoused and relied upon. Even with that, though, I still think a player like tiger or Phil is at a disadvantage with the excess TV coverage they receive.

[iacas]

Even with that, though, I still think a player like tiger or Phil is at a disadvantage with the excess TV coverage they receive.

Please do more to justify this - because they're also at an advantage, too, with the added crowds they attract.

If you can somehow demonstrate how this is more disadvantageous than advantageous (or vice versa), then you've got some kind of juju nobody else has, because I don't know which way that leans at all (though I'd imagine it lands on the more advantageous side, since they've basically NEVER lost a golf ball anywhere near fans, have had balls stopped countless times from bounding into worse lies, and fan interest = money in their pockets for endorsements, etc.).

Besides, being at a "disadvantage" when they break the rules because they're on TV more often only applies when they violate the Rules , which almost never happens.

[newtogolf]

So you're going to regulate how many fans can follow golfers? Because there are advantages and disadvantages to having larger and smaller galleries, too. The point is you can't regulate out fairness, and even if you could, you're doing it at the expense of getting knowingly FARTHER from the truth in many situations.

You claim to seek truth yet you knowingly accept that at best your proposed solution provides selective truth.

Golfer ABC who is a member of the Tour but receives no television coverage is free to bend the rules of golf as much as his conscience will allow with minimal fear of penalty while in the same tournament Tiger plays under a constant microscope where multiple cameras track his every move and everything he does is brought into question.

Golfer ABC has no television crews to assist him in finding his lost ball while Tiger has plenty of camera's that he can reference to assist him in identifying where his errant shot went.

I want everyone playing under the same conditions and rules.  If golfers can't benefit or be penalized equally because of television camera coverage they shouldn't factor into the results of a tournament.

[iacas]

You claim to seek truth yet you knowingly accept that at best your proposed solution provides selective truth.

Nope. That's a mischaracterization. I seek the best available truth while remaining feasible. A 1:1 player:official ratio is not feasible, for example.

Golfer ABC who is a member of the Tour but receives no television coverage is free to bend the rules of golf as much as his conscience will allow with minimal fear of penalty while in the same tournament Tiger plays under a constant microscope where multiple cameras track his every move and everything he does is brought into question.

That would be a valid point if you had any proof whatsoever that any player has ever behaved this way. You do not, because cheating is thoroughly despised in golf. People still talk about what Vijay Singh did 30 years ago or whatever in some random event somewhere that wasn't (IIRC) even a major tour. Or what Colin Montgomerie did when playing out of a bunker or near one after a rain delay. Or Gary Player addressing the ball with a fairway wood to press grass down and then switching to an iron.

I want everyone playing under the same conditions and rules.  If golfers can't benefit or be penalized equally because of television camera coverage they shouldn't factor into the results of a tournament.

Flat out impossible. Golfers play at different times of the day, with different crowd sizes, different playing partners, etc.

And of course, they already play under the same rules.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

So you're going to regulate how many fans can follow golfers? Because there are advantages and disadvantages to having larger and smaller galleries, too. The point is you can't regulate out fairness, and even if you could, you're doing it at the expense of getting knowingly FARTHER from the truth in many situations.

You claim to seek truth yet you knowingly accept that at best your proposed solution provides selective truth.

Golfer ABC who is a member of the Tour but receives no television coverage is free to bend the rules of golf as much as his conscience will allow with minimal fear of penalty while in the same tournament Tiger plays under a constant microscope where multiple cameras track his every move and everything he does is brought into question.

Golfer ABC has no television crews to assist him in finding his lost ball while Tiger has plenty of camera's that he can reference to assist him in identifying where his errant shot went.

I want everyone playing under the same conditions and rules.  If golfers can't benefit or be penalized equally because of television camera coverage they shouldn't factor into the results of a tournament.

Show me where Tiger has ever "referenced" a TV camera to show him where his ball went.  First of all, TV cameras record the event, they don't display it.  That happens in a production trailer somewhere well away from the action.  The players don't really learn any more from that than from the fans and volunteers in the area.

As Erik as stated several times, the gate swings both ways for the players who get the coverage and for the players who don't.  There are benefits and deficits on both ends of the spectrum.  The longer this discussion continues, the more I side with just letting it be.