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

[Danish]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Team sports that have officials fail as analogous situations because in those sports players are attempting to cheat, or get away with things as much as possible. The sports reward it - if you can consistently hold, for example, but you only get called one out of twenty times, that's probably to your team's net overall benefit.

Admittedly, I've never played baseball. But I'm pretty sure cheating (other than PEDs, and even golf has had that problem) is not a huge problem. However, sometimes the umpires get it wrong... and no-one says that spectators should have a role to play in officiating MLB.

Anyway, I agree with you in as much as the problem is so small that it is mostly a non-issue, except in the eventual case where an arm-chair official decides the outcome of a major. Which is fine if the player is blatantly trying to cheat, but not at all fine if you can only see the infraction when shown in super slow on a 50-inch or greater HD tv, in relative comfort and with time to study.

[iacas]

Admittedly, I've never played baseball. But I'm pretty sure cheating (other than PEDs, and even golf has had that problem) is not a huge problem. However, sometimes the umpires get it wrong... and no-one says that spectators should have a role to play in officiating MLB.

Football players try to get away with as much as possible because they're not going to call penalties on themselves.

Basketball players try to get away with as much as possible because they're not going to call penalties on themselves.

Soccer players try to get away with as much as possible because they're not going to call penalties on themselves.

Baseball players try to get away with as much as possible because they're not going to call penalties on themselves.

And golf has had the PED problem like baseball? Uhm…

Additionally, players in those sports only have to fool the umps or refs on the field. Golfers have the eyes of sometimes millions of people on them, and no thirty-second time limit. It tends to make them think a little bit more about what they're doing.

Anyway, I agree with you in as much as the problem is so small that it is mostly a non-issue, except in the eventual case where an arm-chair official decides the outcome of a major.

I think that if the outcome of a major is determined by an armchair official that is an awesome example of why it should be kept!!!!!!! Could you imagine someone winning a major despite everyone in the world knowing that he violated a rule somewhere?

---

My position remains:

1. It's nowhere near as big of a "problem" as anyone thinks it is.
2. The current method gets us closest to the truth without being infeasible or modifying the Rules of Golf.

I've yet to hear a compelling argument that speaks to those two issues. Most people who don't like call-ins seem to just not like them, and struggle to enunciate why.

The only issue I've heard that people have been able to type out is that it's not "fair" - some players get more coverage. Yeah, and some groups have more spectators to distract them (but also more spectators to stop errant tee shots). Some players get paired with obnoxious playing partners. Some players get lousy weather. The Rules of Golf - and their enforcement - do not concern themselves with quantity of spectators or TV cameras, nor should they.

[Mulligan Jeff]

You should have read more.

Yeah, so…? If they penalize themselves nobody phoning in can penalize them. Your point is what exactly?

Tour players know the rules well enough to know when to call an official, and sometimes they make a mistake. It's incredibly rare. I'll stipulate to both of those things.

My point is spectators should be just that - no need to phone in, text in, twitter, etc. because he or she saw the ball oscillate or whatever. Leave the officiating of the rules to the players and rules officials.

[rehmwa]

If you were in 70th position an incidentally unnoticed breach would have little or no effect on the outcome of the tournament.  For a player in the top ten on the leaderboard, it very well might have a big impact.  For that reason alone I don't care about the relatively uneven application of video evidence.  Once again, nothing in the rules has ever said that anything about the game is supposed to be fair.

so it's a waste of time to gripe about an oscillation/rotation/movement of the ball of some guy that's like, playing in the bottom 5 of 30 players in a tournament..... ; )

[iacas]

My point is spectators should be just that - no need to phone in, text in, twitter, etc. because he or she saw the ball oscillate or whatever. Leave the officiating of the rules to the players and rules officials.

Jeff, you're repeating yourself, and I'm repeating myself, so I'm done now. You're not responding to my posts, or the reasons I've stated, you're just repeating the same old tired lines over and over again.

Basically, you're making a lousy point. Your position boils down to "because I say so." You don't "like" that spectators can call in, and so you roll with that. And that's fine - you feel a certain way, and you get to feel that way all you want.

I just can't imagine how you'd feel if some player you love - or hate, perhaps - clearly violates a rule, wins a major by one, and everybody knows it, yet nobody can do anything because the very few people who were on the scene - the caddies, the other player, the player himself, and the rules official that may or may not be walking with them - didn't see it. It would give golf a huge black eye, everyone in the world would detest the player, there'd be calls (as the trend is going in other sports) for MORE review and observation (etc.) of the rules…

I'm done. I've stated my position clearly, and I've not yet heard any compelling arguments why my position should be changed. You clearly feel the same. So as I'm not a huge fan of wasting my time, or anyone else's, I'm all done.

Cheers.

[Mulligan Jeff]

Jeff, you're repeating yourself, and I'm repeating myself, so I'm done now. You're not responding to my posts, or the reasons I've stated, you're just repeating the same old tired lines over and over again.

Basically, you're making a lousy point. Your position boils down to "because I say so." You don't "like" that spectators can call in, and so you roll with that. And that's fine - you feel a certain way, and you get to feel that way all you want.

I just can't imagine how you'd feel if some player you love - or hate, perhaps - clearly violates a rule, wins a major by one, and everybody knows it, yet nobody can do anything because the very few people who were on the scene - the caddies, the other player, the player himself, and the rules official that may or may not be walking with them - didn't see it. It would give golf a huge black eye, everyone in the world would detest the player, there'd be calls (as the trend is going in other sports) for MORE review and observation (etc.) of the rules…

I'm done. I've stated my position clearly, and I've not yet heard any compelling arguments why my position should be changed. You clearly feel the same. So as I'm not a huge fan of wasting my time, or anyone else's, I'm all done.

Cheers.

Your point is well taken Erik clearly there is no right or wrong answer it is simply an opinion you have , that I have and all previous statements by TST members. We'll see how Tim Finchem addresses it.

[Danish]

I think that if the outcome of a major is determined by an armchair official that is an awesome example of why it should be kept!!!!!!! Could you imagine someone winning a major despite everyone in the world knowing that he violated a rule somewhere?

Really? Imagine walking down the 18th on the final day of a major. You're tied for the lead with - I dunno - Adam Scott. 5 shots down to the nearest pursuers, it's certainly between the two of you. You hit your drive way off the fairway, in fact, you're right between two OOB markers. You call an RO over, who either is careful not to give a conclusive answer, or tells you that he believes that you're fine. Scott hit his drive off the fairway too, so he's nearby and chimes in: he thinks you're on the correct side of OOB markers. You play your second shot, birdie the hole, Scott gets a par, you win.

Until an arm chair official has a look. See, he's sitting in the comfort of his home, he takes the video and looks at it on his computer, drawing a digital line between the markers that shows that you were, in fact, OOB. He tweets about it and phones it in, the officials look at it, there is a media storm and they have no choice but to follow the rules: two stroke penalty, continue under Rule 27-1: you've lost.

You did what you could: you asked an official, who couldn't/wouldn't answer (or did, but incorrectly), and your closest/only competitor said you were fine. Still, the arm chair official with all his gadgetry ruined your moment in the sun even though you had absolutely no intention of cheating.

A correct ruling? Absolutely. Fair? Absolutely not.

The point of self-officiating is that you do it to the best of your ability. That means that you know the rules, or can look them up, and you apply penalties when you can reasonably expect to notice infringements.

Anyway, that's the last from me too - I'd much prefer to watch or play, than meddle.

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I think that if the outcome of a major is determined by an armchair official that is an awesome example of why it should be kept!!!!!!! Could you imagine someone winning a major despite everyone in the world knowing that he violated a rule somewhere?

Really? Imagine walking down the 18th on the final day of a major. You're tied for the lead with - I dunno - Adam Scott. 5 shots down to the nearest pursuers, it's certainly between the two of you. You hit your drive way off the fairway, in fact, you're right between two OOB markers. You call an RO over, who either is careful not to give a conclusive answer, or tells you that he believes that you're fine. Scott hit his drive off the fairway too, so he's nearby and chimes in: he thinks you're on the correct side of OOB markers. You play your second shot, birdie the hole, Scott gets a par, you win.

Until an arm chair official has a look. See, he's sitting in the comfort of his home, he takes the video and looks at it on his computer, drawing a digital line between the markers that shows that you were, in fact, OOB. He tweets about it and phones it in, the officials look at it, there is a media storm and they have no choice but to follow the rules: two stroke penalty, continue under Rule 27-1: you've lost.

You did what you could: you asked an official, who couldn't/wouldn't answer (or did, but incorrectly), and your closest/only competitor said you were fine. Still, the arm chair official with all his gadgetry ruined your moment in the sun even though you had absolutely no intention of cheating.

A correct ruling? Absolutely. Fair? Absolutely not.

The point of self-officiating is that you do it to the best of your ability. That means that you know the rules, or can look them up, and you apply penalties when you can reasonably expect to notice infringements.

Anyway, that's the last from me too - I'd much prefer to watch or play, than meddle.

Rules Officials don't give answers that are not "conclusive." While an RO might say, "Wait a minute, I need to speak with the OIC on the radio," he will never ever leave the situation without making a ruling.

[iacas]

Really? Imagine walking down the 18th on the final day of a major. You're tied for the lead with - I dunno - Adam Scott. 5 shots down to the nearest pursuers, it's certainly between the two of you. You hit your drive way off the fairway, in fact, you're right between two OOB markers. You call an RO over, who either is careful not to give a conclusive answer, or tells you that he believes that you're fine. Scott hit his drive off the fairway too, so he's nearby and chimes in: he thinks you're on the correct side of OOB markers. You play your second shot, birdie the hole, Scott gets a par, you win.

Until an arm chair official has a look. See, he's sitting in the comfort of his home, he takes the video and looks at it on his computer, drawing a digital line between the markers that shows that you were, in fact, OOB. He tweets about it and phones it in, the officials look at it, there is a media storm and they have no choice but to follow the rules: two stroke penalty, continue under Rule 27-1: you've lost.

You do realize that silly examples like that only serve to weaken your point, right?

They'd get the call right, even if they had to do something as sophisticated as "draw a digital line between the markers." And even if they somehow got it all wrong (not gonna happen, but pretending it's possible further illustrates why your scenario doesn't work), and I did get DQed or penalized, and lost… that's the truth. If that was the case, then the truth would be that I did hit a ball OB, and I did NOT make a birdie, and I did NOT win.

[turtleback]

Really? Imagine walking down the 18th on the final day of a major. You're tied for the lead with - I dunno - Adam Scott. 5 shots down to the nearest pursuers, it's certainly between the two of you. You hit your drive way off the fairway, in fact, you're right between two OOB markers. You call an RO over, who either is careful not to give a conclusive answer, or tells you that he believes that you're fine. Scott hit his drive off the fairway too, so he's nearby and chimes in: he thinks you're on the correct side of OOB markers. You play your second shot, birdie the hole, Scott gets a par, you win.

Until an arm chair official has a look. See, he's sitting in the comfort of his home, he takes the video and looks at it on his computer, drawing a digital line between the markers that shows that you were, in fact, OOB. He tweets about it and phones it in, the officials look at it, there is a media storm and they have no choice but to follow the rules: two stroke penalty, continue under Rule 27-1: you've lost.

You did what you could: you asked an official, who couldn't/wouldn't answer (or did, but incorrectly), and your closest/only competitor said you were fine. Still, the arm chair official with all his gadgetry ruined your moment in the sun even though you had absolutely no intention of cheating.

A correct ruling? Absolutely. Fair? Absolutely not.

The point of self-officiating is that you do it to the best of your ability. That means that you know the rules, or can look them up, and you apply penalties when you can reasonably expect to notice infringements.

Anyway, that's the last from me too - I'd much prefer to watch or play, than meddle.

Already addressed in the Decisions:

34-2/2

Referee Authorises Player to Infringe a Rule

Q.In error, a referee authorized a player to infringe a Rule of Golf. Is the player absolved from penalty in such a case?

A.Yes. Under Rule 34-2, a referee's decision is final, whether or not the decision is correct.

THIS is more akin to the situation in other sports where an official blows a call.  But it has little to do with the kinds of situations likely to give rise to a call-in.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I think that if the outcome of a major is determined by an armchair official that is an awesome example of why it should be kept!!!!!!! Could you imagine someone winning a major despite everyone in the world knowing that he violated a rule somewhere?

You play your second shot, birdie the hole, Scott gets a par, you win.

Until an arm chair official has a look. See, he's sitting in the comfort of his home, he takes the video and looks at it on his computer, drawing a digital line between the markers that shows that you were, in fact, OOB. He tweets about it and phones it in, the officials look at it, there is a media storm and they have no choice but to follow the rules: two stroke penalty, continue under Rule 27-1: you've lost.

You did what you could: you asked an official, who couldn't/wouldn't answer (or did, but incorrectly), and your closest/only competitor said you were fine. Still, the arm chair official with all his gadgetry ruined your moment in the sun even though you had absolutely no intention of cheating.

A correct ruling? Absolutely. Fair? Absolutely not.

The point of self-officiating is that you do it to the best of your ability. That means that you know the rules, or can look them up, and you apply penalties when you can reasonably expect to notice infringements.

Anyway, that's the last from me too - I'd much prefer to watch or play, than meddle.

Once the results of the tournament have been announced, the penalty is irrelevant if there was no way that the player could have known at the time that he had incurred said penalty.  In this case the player called in RO, the RO either gave his okay, or called for further assistance, and ultimately the player was instructed to continue, so the ruling will stand regardless of any future revelations.

By the way, most rules officials carry a long string with them when working a competition (I always did) which served the purpose of a device for measuring which player is away (most often in match play), and for stretching between stakes to determine the lie of a ball near out of bounds or near the margin of a water hazard.

[jamo]

Really? Imagine walking down the 18th on the final day of a major. You're tied for the lead with - I dunno - Adam Scott. 5 shots down to the nearest pursuers, it's certainly between the two of you. You hit your drive way off the fairway, in fact, you're right between two OOB markers. You call an RO over, who either is careful not to give a conclusive answer, or tells you that he believes that you're fine. Scott hit his drive off the fairway too, so he's nearby and chimes in: he thinks you're on the correct side of OOB markers. You play your second shot, birdie the hole, Scott gets a par, you win. Until an arm chair official has a look. See, he's sitting in the comfort of his home, he takes the video and looks at it on his computer, drawing a digital line between the markers that shows that you were, in fact, OOB. He tweets about it and phones it in, the officials look at it, there is a media storm and they have no choice but to follow the rules: two stroke penalty, continue under Rule 27-1: you've lost. You did what you could: you asked an official, who couldn't/wouldn't answer (or did, but incorrectly), and your closest/only competitor said you were fine. Still, the arm chair official with all his gadgetry ruined your moment in the sun even though you had absolutely no intention of cheating. A correct ruling? Absolutely. Fair? Absolutely not. The point of self-officiating is that you do it to the best of your ability. That means that you know the rules, or can look them up, and you apply penalties when you can reasonably expect to notice infringements. Anyway, that's the last from me too - I'd much prefer to watch or play, than meddle.

Emphasis mine: "NO CHOICE BUT TO FOLLOW THE RULES." Sounds rough, to have to play golf by the rules. I can't imagine their plight.

[RPMPIRE]

1987, yes, yes, no. So you listed two in the last decade.

I disagree with the bold.

Just to add to the list of call-ins and not sure if this will count since it was part of the LPGA tour, but in 2010, Julie Inkster was DQ'd at the Safeway Classic for using a weight on her club to "stay loose" while waiting to tee off. A viewer e-mailed the officials (not called in but brought up by a viewer nonetheless), and informed Inkster after her round of the rules infraction and the DQ.

At the time, Inkster was 50 years old and I'm still unsure of how many tour players, regardless of how many years of experience they may have, know the rules.

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPMPIRE

Just to add to the list of call-ins and not sure if this will count since it was part of the LPGA tour, but in 2010, Julie Inkster was DQ'd at the Safeway Classic for using a weight on her club to "stay loose" while waiting to tee off. A viewer e-mailed the officials (not called in but brought up by a viewer nonetheless), and informed Inkster after her round of the rules infraction and the DQ.

At the time, Inkster was 50 years old and I'm still unsure of how many tour players, regardless of how many years of experience they may have, know the rules.

Tim Finchem doesn't run the LPGA, so no, it wouldn't count for the list.

Besides, adding another Tour with probably even fewer viewer call-ins would only serve to decrease the frequency, so it helps my position that "this isn't really even a problem."

Quote:

"I had a 30-minute wait and I needed to loosen up," she said. "It had no effect on my game whatsoever, but it is what it is. I'm very disappointed."

As a brief aside, she lost a little respect from me there. More on this one here: http://thesandtrap.com/t/39382/julie-inkster-dq-over-rule-violation/ .

P.S. She broke the rules, and a viewer helped the competition achieve a higher level of truth. All good in my book.

[rkim291968]

Just to add to the list of call-ins and not sure if this will count since it was part of the LPGA tour, but in 2010, Julie Inkster was DQ'd at the Safeway Classic for using a weight on her club to "stay loose" while waiting to tee off. A viewer e-mailed the officials (not called in but brought up by a viewer nonetheless), and informed Inkster after her round of the rules infraction and the DQ.

Slightly off topic but at the time when it happened, I again thought, hey, here's another rule that the punishment does not fit the crime.   DQ for swinging with weight?

[RPMPIRE]

Slightly off topic but at the time when it happened, I again thought, hey, here's another rule that the punishment does not fit the crime.   DQ for swinging with weight?

I agree, but on Inkster's case, the easy remedy is to swing with TWO clubs instead of putting on the doughnut. The rule may sound silly, but there are a bunch of other training aids that can be used mid-round to create an unfair advantage on the course.

Anyway, this is off topic so I'll stop here. I was trying to add to a list of viewer call-ins but it's on a different tour so irrelevant.

[Rulesman]

Slightly off topic but at the time when it happened, I again thought, hey, here's another rule that the punishment does not fit the crime.   DQ for swinging with weight?

Quoted from Richard S Tufts' " The Principles Behind the Rules of Gol f"

Since few violations are of the deliberate sort, it is obvious that the word "penalty"
is not used in the Rules in its sense of being punishment. The word "adjustment" would be more appropriate and it is here
that we arrive at the principle which applies to penalties. The penalty must not be less than the advantage which the player could derive
from the particular Rule violation. In other words, whether the violation be inadvertent or deliberate, or whether it occurs as a result of
play or be due to the accidental or purposeful act of the player, or whether it be brought about by failure to proceed in accordance with the Rules regardless of the circumstances, the penalty must always be of sufficient magnitude to discourage the player from seeking or receiving advantage under the Rules.

The purpose of the Rules is to insure that as far as possible everyone plays the same game. The penalties serve to police the chance that by taking advantage of an inadequately protected Rule players will play a game wholly different from golf. The penalties must be adequate to provide this protection for if they are too light it is conceivable that golf would become a game of negotiation, with the golfer deliberately accepting penalties in order to obtain some advantage. Thus the Rules themselves would provide the golfer with an inexpensive method of avoiding the results of a badly played shot. Under these conditions golf would lose all character and become a travesty.

In order to maintain this principle, it must be admitted that at times the penalties appear to be unduly severe. It is impossible to provide a
completely graduated scale of penalties, though the Rules do permit modifying the penalty of disqualification [Rule 33-7], and the penalty
applied to each particular rule must be specific and adequate at least to match the maximum advantage which the player is likely to receive. The penalties cannot be expected, nor are they intended to exactly offset the advantage gained from the violation.

[bplewis24]

The purpose of the Rules is to insure that as far as possible everyone plays the same game.

Sounds equitable.

Poll update: slight uptick in people who agreed before but disagree now.  Overall, still similar % to the prior poll, just slightly higher that don't like call-ins.