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

[newtogolf]

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.

An earlier poster mentioned Rory getting help from the television cameras to find a ball he lost in the tree.  I'll be happy to change Tiger to Rory if that helps you understand the point I was trying to make about the impact cameras have for some players only.

[Golfingdad]

An earlier poster mentioned Rory getting help from the television cameras to find a ball he lost in the tree.  I'll be happy to change Tiger to Rory if that helps you understand the point I was trying to make about the impact cameras have for some players only.

I was making the point to concede that perhaps the extra exposure helping (finding a lost ball) and hurting (seeing a ball move 1/10") those players who are on TV more sort of cancels itself out.

[newtogolf]

I was making the point to concede that perhaps the extra exposure helping (finding a lost ball) and hurting (seeing a ball move 1/10") those players who are on TV more sort of cancels itself out.

I understood your point, but there's still an inequity of rules enforcement and benefit if only some players get the aide or penalty of having a bunch of television camera's following their every more.

[bplewis24]

I was making the point to concede that perhaps the extra exposure helping (finding a lost ball) and hurting (seeing a ball move 1/10") those players who are on TV more sort of cancels itself out.

I'd disagree with that.

Nevertheless, I'd be fine with it not being allowed at all if it's only benefitting certain players.  Equity trumps EVERYTHING in my opinion.  There is NOTHING worse than uneven application of rules.  Not even cheating.  The most important thing in any competition is a level playing field.

[iacas]

Nevertheless, I'd be fine with it not being allowed at all if it's only benefitting certain players.  Equity trumps EVERYTHING in my opinion.  There is NOTHING worse than uneven application of rules.  Not even cheating.  The most important thing in any competition is a level playing field.

Never gonna happen. Even something as simple as "is this a ball mark?" will be answered differently by different playing partners.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I was making the point to concede that perhaps the extra exposure helping (finding a lost ball) and hurting (seeing a ball move 1/10") those players who are on TV more sort of cancels itself out.

I'd disagree with that.

Nevertheless, I'd be fine with it not being allowed at all if it's only benefitting certain players.  Equity trumps EVERYTHING in my opinion.  There is NOTHING worse than uneven application of rules.  Not even cheating.  The most important thing in any competition is a level playing field.

The only way you will see that sort of utopia is if all player, caddies, etc. are equally trained and conversant with the rules so that even if no assistance is allowed from outside the ropes, they would still have perfect equity.  If one player is more conversant than the next, then you still have a potentially unequal application, since one player will recognize something that another doesn't.  According to your philosophy, that is an untenable situation.

Face it, you are never going to have equal observation, understanding, and input on rules situations.  It doesn't happen in basketball, football, baseball, (seemingly obvious mistakes are made in all officiated sports) so why wouldn't you expect it to happen in golf?  A little bit of additional oversight isn't going to be a game wrecker.

I really don't care that some weak player in the lower third of the leader board makes an insignificant breach that nobody, including him is able to notice just because he is not on a 60" high def TV screen when it happens.  His next tee shot will probably bound off into Never-Never Land because he has no gallery following him to act as a living barrier to disaster.  Karma or entropy or whatever will balance the books in the end.  He's probably going to be sent down to the minors (i.e Web.com) at the end of the season anyway.

[clutchshot]

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.

This is interesting, except I would have to argue that galleries help players find balls all the time, don't know how to change this. Which brings me to my next question: It is against the rules to help someone find a ball? I ask because I always help my playing partners and they always help me....

[bplewis24]

This is interesting, except I would have to argue that galleries help players find balls all the time, don't know how to change this.

I see no reason to change it.  They wanna help find balls, move boulders, whatever, then go for it.

[Fourputt]

This is interesting, except I would have to argue that galleries help players find balls all the time, don't know how to change this.

Which brings me to my next question: It is against the rules to help someone find a ball? I ask because I always help my playing partners and they always help me....

No, certainly not.

[mvmac]

I understood your point, but there's still an inequity of rules enforcement and benefit if only some players get the aide or penalty of having a bunch of television camera's following their every more.

Ok so who attracts the biggest galleries, Tiger, Phil and Daly?  All three probably combine for about 60 years of playing professional golf.  Is there an epidemic of them getting "caught" breaking the rules?  In the end it's more beneficial for them to have larger galleries than the average professional.

I'd disagree with that.

Nevertheless, I'd be fine with it not being allowed at all if it's only benefitting certain players.  Equity trumps EVERYTHING in my opinion.  There is NOTHING worse than uneven application of rules.  Not even cheating.  The most important thing in any competition is a level playing field.

As was mentioned before, if you want to keep it fair, then every group has to have the same number of spectators.  It's not fair that Tiger has a larger gallery and fans willing to move a boulder for him

[bplewis24]

As was mentioned before, if you want to keep it fair, then every group has to have the same number of spectators.  It's not fair that Tiger has a larger gallery and fans willing to move a boulder for him

Of course that point fails because it has nothing to do with calling in or spotting a rules violation.  It's spotting a ball.  But if you guys suddenly care about fairness, by all means make it against the rules for them to spot balls or move boulders.  I'm fine with that.  Again, equity trumps everything.  But you can't use equity for your argument and ignore it through every other point of the argument.

And, again, frequency and volume are irrelevant to principle in discussions such as these.  It's like saying if there is no epidemic of murder, then why should it be outlawed.  Or car theft, or speeding.  Or movement of loose impediments in a hazard.  How frequently it happens shouldn't determine right vs wrong.  It's wrong to allow call-ins.  Not because there is an "epidemic" of call-ins.  That has nothing to do with it.

[mvmac]

Of course that point fails because it has nothing to do with calling in or spotting a rules violation.  It's spotting a ball.  But if you guys suddenly care about fairness, by all means make it against the rules for them to spot balls or move boulders.  I'm fine with that.  Again, equity trumps everything.  But you can't use equity for your argument and ignore it through every other point of the argument.

I think you might have missed the tone of my post, hence the winky face.  All I'm trying to say is that you're concerned with making golf fair and it will never be fair.  The system they have in place works very well.  There isn't a problem that needs to be addressed.

[Fourputt]

Of course that point fails because it has nothing to do with calling in or spotting a rules violation.  It's spotting a ball.  But if you guys suddenly care about fairness, by all means make it against the rules for them to spot balls or move boulders.  I'm fine with that.  Again, equity trumps everything.  But you can't use equity for your argument and ignore it through every other point of the argument.

And, again, frequency and volume are irrelevant to principle in discussions such as these.  It's like saying if there is no epidemic of murder, then why should it be outlawed.  Or car theft, or speeding.  Or movement of loose impediments in a hazard.  How frequently it happens shouldn't determine right vs wrong.  It's wrong to allow call-ins.  Not because there is an "epidemic" of call-ins.  That has nothing to do with it.

You have some confusion in the meaning of "equity", at least as it is used in golf.  All it means is that like situations are treated in the same manner.  It has nothing to do with perceived advantages or disadvantages based on gallery size or camera coverage.

I take it you'd be okay with Tiger playing with a couple of lesser players, and Tiger gets a pass on a ball movement after address which is seen on HD because your wish has been granted and all players are treated the same.  Since 3 cameras follow Tiger's every move, his error is broadcast but not acted on solely because the other players with him don't have a camera focused on them every time they address the ball.  You really are alright with the penalty being ignored?  Sorry but you are so wrong that I can't even begin to grasp why you would support that.  That would be a misapplication of equity in the worst way.

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

As was mentioned before, if you want to keep it fair, then every group has to have the same number of spectators.  It's not fair that Tiger has a larger gallery and fans willing to move a boulder for him

Of course that point fails because it has nothing to do with calling in or spotting a rules violation.  It's spotting a ball.  But if you guys suddenly care about fairness, by all means make it against the rules for them to spot balls or move boulders.  I'm fine with that.  Again, equity trumps everything.  But you can't use equity for your argument and ignore it through every other point of the argument.

And, again, frequency and volume are irrelevant to principle in discussions such as these.  It's like saying if there is no epidemic of murder, then why should it be outlawed.  Or car theft, or speeding.  Or movement of loose impediments in a hazard.  How frequently it happens shouldn't determine right vs wrong.  It's wrong to allow call-ins.  Not because there is an "epidemic" of call-ins.  That has nothing to do with it.

For me, the epidemic or lack thereof is an important consideration when forming an opinion on whether call-ins should be allowed. The advantage of allowing call-ins is that you get the call right more often. The disadvantage is that players with bigger galleries and more cameras on them could potentially be penalized more often.  So when forming an opinion, I take into account how often players with more cameras on them have actually been penalized, the answer to which is "extremely rarely".

Combine that "extremely rarely" with the fact that players with bigger galleries and more cameras on them actually benefit in many ways, then combine that with the fact that no one is EVER penalized if they didn't actually break a rule, and I lean more towards getting the call right, rather than ignoring rules infractions in an attempt to bring 100% equity into a situation where it's impossible.

And I don't think your analogy works. Your examples are things that any sane person would agree are morally and legally wrong. Whether to allow call-ins is much more nuanced, and therefore the pros and cons of enacting such a policy must be considered, which IMO must include quantifying the amount of "wrongness" associated with the potential for penalizing high visibility players by allowing call-ins. And that amount is certainly lessened by the fact that, historically, the incidence of players being penalized by call-ins is extraordinarily low.

[mchepp]

For me the call in is similar to the instant replay in football. I initially did not like the instant reply but I realize it makes sure the call is right. If there is a violation then the purpose of the call in is to get it right.

[bubble]

during a round why not have calls, but after the cards are handed no !

imagin this in a soccer game ! with all the fouls and fakes we would'nt be sure of the winner for the next 10 years;

[Mulligan Jeff]

I agree on the call-ins only to a certain extent - the player in question should be handed the decision prior to the end of their round - therefore no chance of signing an incorrect scorecard and DQ.

[mvmac]

I agree on the call-ins only to a certain extent - the player in question should be handed the decision prior to the end of their round - therefore no chance of signing an incorrect scorecard and DQ.

They revised the rules April '11 to make sure a player isn't DQ'd