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

[iacas]

the current option we use now isn't fair

Short answer: So what?

Longer answer: It's more fair than letting known infractions go unpunished.

[newtogolf]

Short answer: So what?

Longer answer: It's more fair than letting known infractions go unpunished.

It's "So what?" for you and me, ultimately it doesn't affect us.  Tiger, Phil and a few select others might feel they are being unfairly targeted by the media and PGA Tour cameras and want Finchem to speak to their lawyers.

[iacas]

Tiger, Phil and a few select others might feel they are being unfairly targeted by the media and PGA Tour cameras and want Finchem to speak to their lawyers.

That's your argument?

I think that, seeing as how they haven't done that, I'm going to go with "not likely" on that one.

[Mr. Desmond]

I'd say no call-in's.

It is a game of honor, and not a game of trust but verify.

At the same time, the dollars at stake are in the stratosphere, not only prize money but endorsements.

The temptation is high to ignore an almost invisible error.

I think the players would like to police themselves, but heck, many of them don't know the rules.

One solution is to have ghost rules officials - the players don't know who they are, but they are randomly on the course, not enough to follow every group but enough for the players to know they are being watched. These guys might even have small unobtrusive cameras to video the evidence.

That would stop every Tom, Dick, and Harry from calling in violations, and have the players think they can't get away with violations without consequences.

[iacas]

That would stop every Tom, Dick, and Harry from calling in violations, and have the players think they can't get away with violations without consequences.

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…?

[Harmonious]

With more and more TV coverage (Golf Channel broadcast hours and hours of "non-Tiger" golf on weekdays and before the network coverage) we are seeing much more of the field. The argument that Tiger is being unfairly treated does not hold water.  When someone's ball goes into a precarious situation, a TV camera is usually there to show it.

And isn't the bottom line to get the call correct? Regardless of who is affected, making the correct call is what matters. When millions of dollars are at stake, you want to ensure that everything possible is done to ensure the correct outcome.

Isn't that why all major sports are now using instant replay?  To get it right.

[Mr. Desmond]

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…?

I'm saying it would stop the calls if it was advertised that they don't take calls. Eventually, people stop calling when there is no answer.

[iacas]

And isn't the bottom line to get the call correct? Regardless of who is affected, making the correct call is what matters.

To many, apparently not.

[turtleback]

Let's say the PGATour wanted to disallow call-ins.  How do they get around Decision 34-3/9

34-3/9

Resolution of Questions of Fact; Referee and Committee Responsibility

Resolving questions of fact is among the most difficult actions required of a referee, or the Committee as a whole. For example, these situations include a broad array of incidents such as determining whether a player caused a ball to move (Decisions 18/10, 18-2a/30 and 18-2a/30.5), whether a player played from outside the teeing ground (Decision 34-3/4), whether a stroke was made (Decision 14/1.5), the hole at which a wrong ball was played (Decision 15-1/3) and the state of a match (Decision 34-3/5).

In all situations involving questions of fact, resolution of the doubt must be made in light of all the relevant circumstances and evaluation of the weight of the evidence, including the balance of probabilities where applicable (Decision 15-1/3). When the Committee is unable to determine the facts to its satisfaction, it must resolve the matter in the fairest way (Decision 34-3/5).

Testimony of the players involved is important and must be given due consideration. In some situations where the facts are not decisive, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the player (Decisions 15-1/2 and 19-1/4.1); in others, the doubt should be resolved against the player (Decision 13-4/35.5and 21/3). There is no hard-and-fast rule for evaluating the testimony of the players or for assigning the weight to be given to such testimony and each situation must be treated on its own merits. The proper action depends on the circumstances in each case and must be left to the judgment of the referee, or the Committee as a whole.

Testimony of those who are not a part of the competition, including spectators, must be accepted and evaluated (Decision 27/12). It is also appropriate to use television footage and the like to assist in resolving doubt.

It is important that any questions of fact be resolved in a timely manner such that the competition may proceed in an orderly way. Thus, the referee may be limited to evaluating the evidence available to him in a timely manner. Any such ruling is always subject to further review by the referee, or Committee as a whole as additional evidence becomes available.

If a judgment is made by a referee, the player is entitled to proceed on the basis of that ruling whether it is an interpretation of the Rules of Golf (Decision34-3/1.5) or a resolution of a question of fact (Decision 34-3/7). In situations arising in both circumstances, if the ruling is found to be incorrect, the Committee may have the authority to make a correction (Decisions 34-3/1 and34-3/7). However, in all circumstances, including both match play and stroke play, the referee or Committee is limited in its ability to make corrections by the guidance contained in Decisions 34-2/5, 34-2/6, 34-2/7, 34-3/3 and 34-3/3.3. (Revised)

In particular the part I am adding bold to?

Is it unfair to high profile players and most unfair to the most high profile guy?  Sure.  But golf, like life, is sometimes unfair and you just have to suck it up.  And I say that as a well-known Tiger fan.

[Golfingdad]

I think I see your point, I just don't agree with it.  :-)   The difference is, we don't have clear video evidence of Zach doing anything wrong. With Tiger we do, and we're considering ignoring it.

By your argument there are no fair competitions in any sports. The 3 refs in NBA games aren't going to see every violation that every player does.

And I totally respect that and am 100% OK with that. As far as the NBA refs are concerned, you're right, however, I'd counter with the idea that at least they are actually there trying to make all of the correct calls.  By comparison, we're talking about an extra level of scrutiny on some players that actually doesn't exist AT ALL for others.  There is a chance, albeit small, that the NBA refs could catch every single foul.  There is a 0.0000000% chance that the TV cameras will catch infractions on players that are playing when they aren't turned on or following said players.

Drew, what's more "fair": letting known violations go just because the person who noticed didn't happen to be a certain kind of person (caddie, player, official?), or accepting that occasionally a player not on TV (thus unlikely to be near the lead) accidentally got away with something?

Yeah, I'd be lying if I said I had an easy answer for this one.  Can I say, for reasons I've previously explained, "none of the above?" ;)  I really haven't thought this through too much (which means, don't get too worked up over this or make fun of me if you think it's completely absurd ;)) but I guess I would say that I'd go for something in the middle and allow designated rules officials to make a judgment call.  In Tiger's case on Friday, I believe that a rules official could rule that Tiger's interpretation was perfectly reasonable, and further, that his lie was not improved, and let his ruling stand.  On the other hand, if, say, Tiger grabbed that stick and picked it up and didn't watch his ball closely while he carelessly flung it away and didn't notice that the ball rolled 2 or 3 inches, then, well, yeah, something would have to be done.  Of course, I don't know that I've ever seen that blatant of a rules violation go uncalled, so I doubt this type of thing would come up often.

That's a nice ideal, but it's never going to happen. The PGA Tour is't going to spring for another dozen camera per round, nor is it going to get rid of all of the cameras on Tiger.

Basically it boils down to this: In my opinion, it's better not to ignore rules violations, because that's is what they would be forced to do otherwise.

Yeah, I think maybe we stick with Brandon's idea that you simply just eliminate the call-ins.  That isn't "ignoring rules violations" but rather simply "not allowing the public to help us notice rules violations."  Once a violation is known to them, then, yes, I have a hard time suggesting that they ignore that violation, but perhaps, the fairer way to police everything is just to leave the public out of it.

Erik noticed Tiger's screw up at the Masters and was able to get that corrected.  Yet, I noticed the refs screw-up when they ruled that Santonio Holmes had both feet in bounds in Super Bowl 43, but would they take my call?  Noooooooooo. ;)  (Also, that nonsense that they called "officiating" in the Super Bowl against Seattle a few years prior too)  I'm no Seahawk or Cardinal fan, nor am I a Steeler hater, but man, they sure got some fortunate "help" in those two games. ;)

To many, apparently not.

Yeah, well ... I just don't see it as quite that black and white.  To further answer your previous question with a pair of hypotheticals ...

A)  They don't call the penalty on Tiger even with the video evidence and he goes on to win the tournament by one shot.

B)  Zach Johnson actually did the same thing on Friday but it wasn't on camera and he wins.

Which is more correct?  B obviously FEELS better because of what is known, but in my view, the wrong person won in both cases, so there is really very little difference.

[Fourputt]

This is a difficult situation to make a blanket statement and have it cover all of the concerns most of us have.  Do I like the viewer call ins?  Not really.  Can I pass on letting a clear violation go unpenalized just because nobody but the viewing audience saw it?  Nope, can't find any good justification for that either.  I'd rather see better oversight at the event, a crew with no other function than to watch the video feed and make timely calls when there is a question.  The Tour can afford to put a few more bodies on such a job to rotate on fairly short shifts so that boredom doesn't set in.  It's unfortunate that our game seems to have come to this on the professional level, but I think it's time for a bit more proactive involvement by the officiating crews.

I think too that the Tour should counsel its players to call in a ruling any time they have the least hint of a questionable act or issue.  I'm still shocked that Tiger didn't call for a ruling at the BMW, since he knows so well how closely scrutinized his every act is.  He was clearly aware that "something" happened, and to cover his further actions he should have asked for a ruling.  Then at worst he gets charged one stroke, and the outside snitch is eliminated from the incident.

[wils5150]

call ins are bullshit and should not be used. I also don't think a tv replay should be used when looking for a ball in a tree or while figuring out where it crossed a hazard line and such. I wonder how may lower tier guys have lost a ball that a tv replay would have located for them if the got tv coverage.

[iacas]

call ins are bullshit and should not be used. I also don't think a tv replay should be used when looking for a ball in a tree or while figuring out where it crossed a hazard line and such. I wonder how may lower tier guys have lost a ball that a tv replay would have located for them if the got tv coverage.

So you're happy to ignore the truth, got it. I hope you're never a juror on an important case.

---

I'd love for someone to compile a list of all the TV call-ins over the past five years on the PGA Tour.

Why?

Because there aren't that many.

Tiger at the Masters this year? Not a call-in.

Tiger in Dubai this year? Not a call-in.

Tiger at the BMW this year? Not a call-in (it wasn't even shown on the broadcast).

So go ahead, name the call-ins. List them all.

This thread could easily be titled "much ado about nothing".

[wils5150]

its not ignoring the truth. I am ok with it if all players are under the same "tv coverage" and the jury comment was out of line. I for one play by the rules.

[Jeremie Boop]

The problem people have, it seems, is that the rules of golf are 100% black and white. There's no room for "wiggle", no grey area. If a ball moved, it moved, be it 1 mm or 2 yards. Is it "fair" that a ball that settles down in the grass gives you the same penalty that actually moving the ball to a better spot would give you? No, but we can't have someone taking time to judge every ball movement to determine how it has effected the lie and/or next shot. I agree that some people are televised and recorded more than others, but they also reap the benefits of said publicity via sponsorships and endorsements. You can't have it both ways. I agree that the best resolution would be if they were able to record every players round completely, however that will not happen unless some leap in technology allows for blanket recording of the field simultaneously. So, while I don't necessarily agree with it, I accept it in the same spirit as Erik and others have stated. You can't ignore a rules violation, regardless of how it comes to light.

[wils5150]

what about the pro who hits it in a tree and and gets to see a replay to locate what tree or to id his ball? then the lower tier guy does the same but since he has no cameras on him is shit out of luck?

[colin007]

Do you guys even know the phone number to call?

1-800-EFT-IGER

[iacas]

its not ignoring the truth. I am ok with it if all players are under the same "tv coverage" and the jury comment was out of line. I for one play by the rules.

It is ignoring the truth. You know something to be true, and you're discarding it simply because it happened to be recorded by a camera and not reported "live" by one or more of a special group of people.

The jury comment was not out of line. Someone runs over a kid. There's no evidence (or it's all circumstantial) that it's them, except that they're caught on tape because this intersection happened to have an ATM at it recording the scene. By your logic, every intersection doesn't have a video camera, so it's unfair to punish the person just because they happened to get caught on tape.

You may play by the rules, but you're letting others escape playing by the rules simply because of how their infractions are noticed.