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

[Golfingdad]

It was the PGA Tour's own production company. They filmed it, and after the round were reviewing the footage they shot, and they called Tiger on it. Nobody called in.

TV audiences never saw that footage until after the penalty had been assessed. It was an "inside job" so to speak.

Conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm going to start up a "BMW Truthers" movement to get to the bottom of this.  What a travesty and a mockery!!

[boogielicious]

Villegas at Kapalua a couple of years ago is another. There have been more, but it can't seem to phrase the search correctly.

I think the advent of social media will accelerate the issue, which is why the PGA is really evaluating this..  The second a violation is seen, twitter lights up.  When amateurs start following Woods around with HS video equipment, I'm thinking, "This guy needs a life."

I wanted to call one in on Sergio a couple of years ago at a tournament in the middle-east.  But it turns out I was incorrect on the ruling (I asked TST rules gurus).  The course was all sand off the fairway and deemed waste area.  He walked around the sand looking at his ball stuck in some grass way above his feet.  He took an unplayable and dropped into the sand.  But he was first allowed to fix the sand area.

[iacas]

I'm going to start up a "BMW Truthers" movement to get to the bottom of this.  What a travesty and a mockery!!

So what you're saying is that Tiger was actually born in Thailand?

[colin007]

So what you're saying is that Tiger was actually born in Thailand?

Better get The Donald on this and hunt down that birth certificate....

[Mr. Desmond]

Better get The Donald on this and hunt down that birth certificate....

I want to see The Donald's birth certificate.

That hair makes him some type of alien.

[Golfingdad]

So what you're saying is that Tiger was actually born in Thailand?

Or that the twig he tried to move was rigged with thermite.  Twig #7 was never even touched by Tiger, there is no way it could have moved!!!!  ;)

[bplewis24]

If Tiger can make a reasonable call on himself that his ball didn't move,  (His ball obviously - because of slow motion HD camera - moved, but that doesn't make his opinion unreasonable) and get called for a penalty two hours later, that is fine.  But only if all other players also gets called for the penalty.

This is one of the most important points, for me.

I'm an experienced rules official, may I call it in?

Not if you aren't working that day.  IMO rules officials working the event are devalued (to the extent that they should be the final decision makers on the scene) when this happens.

But the camera still caught it. And the player says "No, it didn't move". How would you rule? Point being, no matter how the evidence was obtained, we know the ball moved. So are you only going to go by what the player says, are you only going to go by what the evidence shows, or are you going to take it on a case-by-case basis, and make a judgement call on whether the player should have been able to see the ball move or not?  (Ball movement is just one example - the same questions apply to any rules infraction.)

Players still have competitors in their group that can assist in calling a rules infraction on a fellow competitor, and this is equitable except in the rare circumstances that a player is the odd-ball out and has no playing partner.

Also, this process wouldn't/shouldn't change much procedurally simply because outside spectators aren't allowed to call in a violation.  Rules officials can still use any TV camera they want to at the event to help assist with a ruling.  Theoretically if the head rules official is alerted to a possible infraction (by a player, playing partner, another official), he can ask to view the camera footage to the extent that it's available.  If it isn't, tough noogies.

Of course not, but in golf the penalty is added strokes. You can add them in at any time you want. You can't just say at the end of a 10-9 baseball game, "well, one of the winning team's homers actually hit the wall, and he probably would have been tagged out at second to end the inning. So the other teams wins 9-6."

The same applies in golf.  You can't determine how the outcome is changed simply by adding strokes post-round.  What if the golfer decides to go for the par 5 18th, or attack that pin, knowing he was assessed a penalty on the spot, rather than 2 hours later?

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.

The 3 refs don't have to see anything.  They still go to the video, and conference.  And, really, if the argument against not allowing call-ins is "we may miss some infractions", then it's pretty clear that golf is no longer a "self-policing" sport, right?  I mean, it either is self-policing (with an assist from fellow competitors), or it isn't.  In that case, I don't want somebody on a couch policing the sport, I want more rules officials on the course.  Put a rules official with every group, or watching every player.  Isn't that more equitable than this entrapment-style* officiating we have now?  Why would we think it's fair to only catch the stuff on camera as opposed to trying to catch every possible infraction there is?  I don't care how much it costs, but if it's about catching all possible infractions, get more rules officials, not more viewers.

*explanation of "entrapment style" officiating:

1) I'm going to watch you and closely study if you ever unintentionally break a rule.

2) I can't talk to you (as the viewer, or as an TV analyst), and you can't talk to me, so I can't alert you that you're about to, or you did, break a rule.  I just watch you do it.

3) 15 minutes, 2 hours, or 8 hours later, I alert somebody that you broke the rule, and eventually a penalty is assessed.

[phan52]

I don't like the call-in violations, primarily because of the inequity. But I also believe that a player should notify a rules official if he is going to do anything that may affect his lie or the ball. Tiger, above all others, because SOMEBODY is going to see it if something happens.

A couple of weeks ago, both Nick Watney (I think?) and Phil Mickelson hit balls in dicey spots on a par 3, and the first thing they did was get rules officials all over it because they were trying to move stuff around their balls

[bplewis24]

Fresh off the presses: http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/9688752/tiger-woods-endorses-limit-viewer-call-ins-possible-rules-violations

Quote:

"I think what the commissioner said yesterday is very appropriate,'' Woods said at East Lake Golf Club, where the season-ending Tour Championship begins Thursday. "There needs to be a time limit, and I think there needs to be a discussion obviously where is that time limit? Where is that line of demarcation? You've got to start with disqualification and then work our way back from there.

"I'm sure there's going to be a lot of discussion over it. What's going to happen over the course of time? Is every player going to be mandated to have a camera follow them around everywhere they go -- all 156 players (in a regular tour event) for every shot? Or is there a certain time limit when we're going to have to do it? Is it going to change in the digital age? These are all questions and answers that need to be resolved in the near future.''

[rustyredcab]

I don't like the call-in violations, primarily because of the inequity. But I also believe that a player should notify a rules official if he is going to do anything that may affect his lie or the ball. Tiger, above all others, because SOMEBODY is going to see it if something happens.

A couple of weeks ago, both Nick Watney (I think?) and Phil Mickelson hit balls in dicey spots on a par 3, and the first thing they did was get rules officials all over it because they were trying to move stuff around their balls

So, if Tiger had called a rules official over and then moved the twig, and they both thought it oscillated, but then video showed they were both wrong, it still would be a two stroke penalty according those who think video proof should be used after the fact. Am I missing their logic? Calling an official over does not change anything if video, presented after the fact, is allowed.

And this is not the same as instant reply in most sports. Instant replay can only reverse certain calls. So, if checking to see if there was a catch, and the video shows obvious holding, the holding can not be called. What is being suggested here is that every infraction can be called after the round if seen on video.

[Rulesman]

So, if Tiger had called a rules official over and then moved the twig, and they both thought it oscillated, but then video showed they were both wrong, it still would be a two stroke penalty according those who think video proof should be used after the fact. Am I missing their logic? Calling an official over does not change anything if video, presented after the fact, is allowed.

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.

See also 34-2/6

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-34/#34-2/6

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

I don't like the call-in violations, primarily because of the inequity. But I also believe that a player should notify a rules official if he is going to do anything that may affect his lie or the ball. Tiger, above all others, because SOMEBODY is going to see it if something happens.

A couple of weeks ago, both Nick Watney (I think?) and Phil Mickelson hit balls in dicey spots on a par 3, and the first thing they did was get rules officials all over it because they were trying to move stuff around their balls

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

So, if Tiger had called a rules official over and then moved the twig, and they both thought it oscillated, but then video showed they were both wrong, it still would be a two stroke penalty according those who think video proof should be used after the fact. Am I missing their logic? Calling an official over does not change anything if video, presented after the fact, is allowed.

And this is not the same as instant reply in most sports. Instant replay can only reverse certain calls. So, if checking to see if there was a catch, and the video shows obvious holding, the holding can not be called. What is being suggested here is that every infraction can be called after the round if seen on video.

You are missing my point. A player should always look for a rules official if he is going to do something that may affect his lie or his ball. That's just common sense. Tiger moreso than others for the obvious reasons. And I believe that part of what the Commisioner is saying is he would prefer to absolve players who don't do anything intentionally wrong. At worst, Tiger may have got the appropriate one stroke penalty (maybe not even that if a rules official deemed it OK), and there would be no questioning of his intent.

[Wansteadimp]

You are missing my point. A player should always look for a rules official if he is going to do something that may affect his lie or his ball. That's just common sense. Tiger moreso than others for the obvious reasons. And I believe that part of what the Commisioner is saying is he would prefer to absolve players who don't do anything intentionally wrong. At worst, Tiger may have got the appropriate one stroke penalty (maybe not even that if a rules official deemed it OK), and there would be no questioning of his intent.

I think you are suggesting Tiger should look for a rules official as he is under more scrutiny than other golfers, surely the more fundamental point is he should be looking for an official because he had already fallen foul of the rules twice already this year when not calling an official (Abu Dhabi - with an assist from Kaymer and the Masters).

Tiger is suppose to be one of the better players on the rules yet he has taken two illegal drops this year - I hate to think what mistakes less well rules-educated players are coming up with.

I think the Tour should splash the cash and have dedicated rules officials for each hole, its not like the Tour is short of money.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

You are missing my point. A player should always look for a rules official if he is going to do something that may affect his lie or his ball. That's just common sense. Tiger moreso than others for the obvious reasons. And I believe that part of what the Commisioner is saying is he would prefer to absolve players who don't do anything intentionally wrong. At worst, Tiger may have got the appropriate one stroke penalty (maybe not even that if a rules official deemed it OK), and there would be no questioning of his intent.

Originally Posted by Wansteadimp

I think you are suggesting Tiger should look for a rules official as he is under more scrutiny than other golfers, surely the more fundamental point is he should be looking for an official because he had already fallen foul of the rules twice already this year when not calling an official (Abu Dhabi - with an assist from Kaymer and the Masters).

Tiger is suppose to be one of the better players on the rules yet he has taken two illegal drops this year - I hate to think what mistakes less well rules-educated players are coming up with.

I think the Tour should splash the cash and have dedicated rules officials for each hole, its not like the Tour is short of money.

No, I am suggesting that ALL players should look for a rules official if they are going to do something that may affect their lie or their ball.

[Wansteadimp]

No, I am suggesting that ALL players should look for a rules official if they are going to do something that may affect their lie or their ball.

So why " Tiger moreso than others for the obvious reasons"?

[bplewis24]

So why "Tiger moreso than others for the obvious reasons"?

Because he is under more scrutiny or at risk of being caught on camera doing something controversial more often than others.

Anyhow, I agree with you that if the true issue here is making sure as many infractions are caught as possible, then hire more rules officials.  I also agree with FourPutt that we've come to a point where a system/structure needs to be put in place to assist officials at the event for reviewing things in a timely manner with spelled-out procedures.

My question to people would be, why do you prefer the layperson at home bear the burden of catching all possible infractions rather than a dedicated, trained official?  The former results in the entrapment style officiating specifically because, as rulesman pointed out, if a rules official authorizes a breach of the rules (even if in error) at the time of  dispute, the player is absolved.  But if an official isn't there, the player is basically faced with two options:

1) Halt play while requesting an official make a ruling; or

2) Either make a judgement call himself or ask his playing partner (who can't absolve him) to assist.

If a player chooses #2, and if their judgement is incorrect, and if it is caught on camera, they will likely be assessed a penalty and possibly (as in Tiger's case) be assessed a penalty more severe than it would have been if it was assessed on the spot (i.e., Tiger could have replaced with 1 penalty stroke vs getting 2 penalty strokes since he didn't replace).

If players can't properly police themselves, or if (as MrD astutely points out) the stakes are too high to trust them, IMO the answer is to add more trained officials who can make the rulings on the spot.  Let's help the player, not wait for them to make a mistake and then pounce on them for it after nothing can be done about it.

[rustyredcab]

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.

See also 34-2/6

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-34/#34-2/6

OK, so if a rules official was watching and also thought the ball oscillated, no penalty. But if the official did not see one way or the other, or if Tiger called the official over after the fact and Tiger said he thought it oscillated, then the same two strokes from video? Or does the official saying, "If you say it oscillated, then carry on my son." also fall under rule 34-2/2 above?

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

No, I am suggesting that ALL players should look for a rules official if they are going to do something that may affect their lie or their ball.

Originally Posted by Wansteadimp

So why "Tiger moreso than others for the obvious reasons"?

If you have to ask that question, you flunked the test.