Chella Choi Cheating. What is the LPGA doing about it?

[Ernest Jones]

Perhaps it could have been a "refused to accept" in the same way somebody reacts when given a gift that is too valuable.  Not defiance, but more like a guilty refusal?

Interesting take. You mean like, "I can't accept the 2 strokes because what I did was really shitty and I deserve to be DQ'd for being a cheater, cheater, pumpkin eater so I will WD in utter shame." IF that was the case, the reporting was crap and her PR team dropped the ball, although maybe they just hoped no one would notice and make a big deal out of it, which seems to be the case as far as the LPGA is concerned. I'm not buying it simply because if that was the case the media would jump all over it because it would make an even better story.

[Golfingdad]

Interesting take. You mean like, "I can't accept the 2 strokes because what I did was really shitty and I deserve to be DQ'd for being a cheater, cheater, pumpkin eater so I will WD in utter shame."

IF that was the case, the reporting was crap and her PR team dropped the ball, although maybe they just hoped no one would notice and make a big deal out of it, which seems to be the case as far as the LPGA is concerned.

I'm not buying it simply because if that was the case the media would jump all over it because it would make an even better story.

Yeah, basically.

And, don't get me wrong ... I don't actually think thats the case.  I still think it is more likely that our first assumption was right - she was pissed at being caught and was defiant because at the time she thought that was the correct response - but I'm just ackowledging that we are jumping to a conclusion, and the other scenario isn't completely out of the realm.

Regardless, that part of the story is neither here nor there.  The fact that she's playing this week is just mind-boggling to me.  (She shot a 68 yesterday and is T13 right now)  Maybe we root for her to win and then she'll have to do an interview and somebody will grill her about last week??

[newtogolf]

"Refused to accept" means to me, she wouldn't sign the scorecard with the assessed penalty and therefore would have signed a knowingly incorrect scorecard which I believe would result in a DQ.  It's speculation, but she withdrew because that was her only option other than a DQ.

[newtogolf]

Yeah, basically.

And, don't get me wrong ... I don't actually think thats the case.  I still think it is more likely that our first assumption was right - she was pissed at being caught and was defiant because at the time she thought that was the correct response - but I'm just ackowledging that we are jumping to a conclusion, and the other scenario isn't completely out of the realm.

Regardless, that part of the story is neither here nor there.  The fact that she's playing this week is just mind-boggling to me.  (She shot a 68 yesterday and is T13 right now)  Maybe we root for her to win and then she'll have to do an interview and somebody will grill her about last week??

The LPGA blew this one much like Goodell blew the Ray Rice suspension.  How can you suspend a guy two games and then a month later decide the next guy that beats his significant other (politically correct) gets 6 games for the 1st offense and banned for the 2nd?  If Ray beats his wife again is he suspended 6 games or banned?  Will the next cheater in the LPGA get suspended for doing the same thing Choi did?

Seems like the rules are made up on the fly to appease the media and no real thought is being put into long term impact of these decisions.

[Golfingdad]

"Refused to accept" means to me, she wouldn't sign the scorecard with the assessed penalty and therefore would have signed a knowingly incorrect scorecard which I believe would result in a DQ.  It's speculation, but she withdrew because that was her only option other than a DQ.

She could have signed the incorrect card.  Intentionally signing the incorrect scorecard would have DEFINITELY been defiant.  But she didn't do that.  She chose not to sign at all and WD.

BTW, she teed off Friday at 12:54, with 48 players teeing off later than she did.  It's possible that she didn't know where the cut line was going to fall when this went down.  That would mean that in her mind, her choices were:

1. Refuse to accept penalty, dont sign, withdraw.
2. Refuse to accept, sign wrong card, get DQ'd.
3. Accept, sign card with 2 added strokes, retain chance at playing the weekend .

Now, I stipulate that this scenario is ONLY predicated on the assumption that she didn't already know where the cut line would fall , but this points even more to the idea that perhaps she was withdrawing out of guilt.  If she wanted to be really defiant, then she should have signed the wrong card as a giant FU to the committee.

It seems crazy that even somebody who was defiant and pissed at the ruling would cut off their hand to spite their face instead of giving themselves a chance to keep playing and make some money.  (PGA tour, where guys are multi-millionaires and could give a damn about a 20k seventieth place check, would be a different story.  So would Michelle Wie or Lexi Thompson)  Wouldn't a sane person who adamantly disagreed with the penalty still accept it knowing that it was their only choice if they wanted to make some money?

[newtogolf]

She could have signed the incorrect card.  Intentionally signing the incorrect scorecard would have DEFINITELY been defiant.  But she didn't do that.  She chose not to sign at all and WD.

BTW, she teed off Friday at 12:54, with 48 players teeing off later than she did.  It's possible that she didn't know where the cut line was going to fall when this went down.  That would mean that in her mind, her choices were:

Refuse to accept penalty, dont sign, withdraw.

Refuse to accept, sign wrong card, get DQ'd.

Accept, sign card with 2 added strokes, retain chance at playing the weekend.

Now, I stipulate that this scenario is ONLY predicated on the assumption that she didn't already know where the cut line would fall, but this points even more to the idea that perhaps she was withdrawing out of guilt.  If she wanted to be really defiant, then she should have signed the wrong card as a giant FU to the committee.

It seems crazy that even somebody who was defiant and pissed at the ruling would cut off their hand to spite their face instead of giving themselves a chance to keep playing and make some money.  (PGA tour, where guys are multi-millionaires and could give a damn about a 20k seventieth place check, would be a different story.  So would Michelle Wie or Lexi Thompson)  Wouldn't a sane person who adamantly disagreed with the penalty still accept it knowing that it was their only choice if they wanted to make some money?

I agree, but if she was that defiant (option 2), the LPGA would have been forced to suspend her.  Handling it in the way she did leaves it open to debate and seems to, at this time, enabled her to away with cheating.

[MrDC]

I notice this was another case of a viewer calling in and letting them know about the infraction.

Not a fan of this practice at all, if the officials don't call it, then the player should not be penalized, no way should a caller be able to point out a penalty.

[Ernest Jones]

She could have signed the incorrect card.  Intentionally signing the incorrect scorecard would have DEFINITELY been defiant.  But she didn't do that.  She chose not to sign at all and WD. BTW, she teed off Friday at 12:54, with 48 players teeing off later than she did.  It's possible that she didn't know where the cut line was going to fall when this went down.  That would mean that in her mind, her choices were: [LIST=1] [*] Refuse to accept penalty, dont sign, withdraw. [*] Refuse to accept, sign wrong card, get DQ'd. [*] Accept, sign card with 2 added strokes, [U] retain chance at playing the weekend [/U]. [/LIST] Now, [COLOR=FF0000]I stipulate that this scenario is ONLY predicated on the assumption that she didn't already know where the cut line would fall[/COLOR], but this points even more to the idea that perhaps she was withdrawing out of guilt.  If she wanted to be really defiant, then she should have signed the wrong card as a giant FU to the committee. It seems crazy that even somebody who was defiant and pissed at the ruling would cut off their hand to spite their face instead of giving themselves a chance to keep playing and make some money.  (PGA tour, where guys are multi-millionaires and could give a damn about a 20k seventieth place check, would be a different story.  So would Michelle Wie or Lexi Thompson)  Wouldn't a sane person who adamantly disagreed with the penalty still accept it knowing that it was their only choice if they wanted to make some money?

Don't know about hands, but in my experience people cut off their nose to spite their face ALL THE TIME. I think it's hilarious and usually laugh out loud when they do. Idiots. :doh:

[Golfingdad]

I agree, but if she was that defiant (option 2), the LPGA would have been forced to suspend her.  Handling it in the way she did leaves it open to debate and seems to, at this time, enabled her to away with cheating.

Why would signing an incorrect scorecard force the LPGA to suspend her?

Blatantly moving her ball on the green didn't force them to suspend her.

If her goal was to move on and make the least deal possible out of this, then she should have just signed with the penalty and move on.  Considering the way the LPGA and Jody Rankin have handled it, I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't have even been a story if she did that.  They wouldnt have had to report as to why she WD'd or got DQ'd and they could have turned their blind eye even  more easily than they are doing.

[Golfingdad]

I notice this was another case of a viewer calling in and letting them know the infraction.

Not a fan of this practice at all, if the officials don't call it, then it should not be penalized, no way should a caller be able to point out an penalty.

I'm not either ... when it's a guy being "caught" for having done something inadvertently and inconsequential.  But when it's somebody INTENTIONALLY CHEATING, then that is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Don't know about hands, but in my experience people cut off their nose to spite their face ALL THE TIME.

LOL ... what an idiot!!!

[inthehole]

I notice this was another case of a viewer calling in and letting them know about the infraction.

Not a fan of this practice at all, if the officials don't call it, then the player should not be penalized, no way should a caller be able to point out a penalty.

This falls into my theory.    Like me, maybe she has a BIG problem with viewers calling in rules infractions.     If it were me, as soon as the rules official started his sentence "John, we just got a call from a viewer that you may have broken the rules, and after subsequent review, we are going to instate a penalty" ... as soon as I heard "we just got a call from a viewer" ... I would have seen red and it would have been off to the races in my head - no telling what I would have done - probably pissed off as hell and reacted just as she did ... BECAUSE of the televised call in bullshit

[Golfingdad]

This falls into my theory.    Like me, maybe she has a BIG problem with viewers calling in rules infractions.     If it were me, as soon as the rules official started his sentence "John, we just got a call from a viewer that you may have broken the rules, and after subsequent review, we are going to instate a penalty" ... as soon as I heard "we just got a call from a viewer" ... I would have seen red and it would have been off to the races in my head - no telling what I would have done - probably pissed off as hell and reacted just as she did ... BECAUSE of the televised call in bullshit

This is all fine and dandy when you're talking about rules infractions.  But that's not really what we're talking about here ... we're talking about f***ing CHEATING.  There is a monumental difference.

It's like the difference between accidentally making a mistake on your tax return versus murdering someone.  One is an innocent, and easily forgivable, mistake that should have a statute of limitations on it, and the other is completely inexcusable forever, and when and how your guilt is discovered should make no difference.

[Jeremie Boop]

This is all fine and dandy when you're talking about rules infractions.  But that's not really what we're talking about here ... we're talking about f***ing CHEATING.  There is a monumental difference.

It's like the difference between accidentally making a mistake on your tax return versus murdering someone.  One is an innocent, and easily forgivable, mistake that should have a statute of limitations on it, and the other is completely inexcusable forever, and when and how your guilt is discovered should make no difference.

I'd say a mistake on the tax return to murdering someone is not quite accurate. More likely a mistake on the tax return compared to purposefully committing tax fraud.

[Shorty]

Like me, maybe she has a BIG problem with viewers calling in rules infractions.     ... I would have seen red and it would have been off to the races in my head - no telling what I would have done - probably pissed off as hell and reacted just as she did ... BECAUSE of the televised call in bullshit

Yeah, too right! This poor girl has been subjected to such cruelty and unsportsmanlike comment.

She is the victim here!!!

Nothing worse than being called a cheat when you didn't realise the cameras were on you. Especially when there's no debate about it. So unfair. You are correct to have a BIG problem with it.

Imagine if you were in the bushes and you couldn't find your ball.

You pulled one out of your pocket and threw it on the ground.

You thought the cameras weren't on you but they were.

Imagine the OUTRAGE at being caught out actually cheating.

It wouldn't be fair.

[Golfingdad]

I'd say a mistake on the tax return to murdering someone is not quite accurate. More likely a mistake on the tax return compared to purposefully committing tax fraud.

The precision of the analogy really isn't the point here, is it?  The point is that she didn't make a small mistake, she cheated.  There is a chasm 10 times the size of the Grand Canyon separating those two things.  She should not be afforded the courtesy that those who accidentally break rules might deserve when it comes to cameras and call-ins.

[Jeremie Boop]

The precision of the analogy really isn't the point here, is it?  The point is that she didn't make a small mistake, she cheated.  There is a chasm 10 times the size of the Grand Canyon separating those two things.  She should not be afforded the courtesy that those who accidentally break rules might deserve when it comes to cameras and call-ins.

It is pretty important. There's a mistake or an intentional act. You can't compare the severity of a mistake on taxes to murder and say it's the same as a mistake in a rule break and intentionally cheating. Your analogy would be like her accidentally placing her ball in the wrong spot compared to her knocking another persons putt away when its about to go in severity wise.

I do agree that there's a difference between getting called on a ball moving seen basically only by HD camera work and what happened here. One thing would be easily missed by someone watching in person and the other would be easily noticed by someone watching in person.

[Lihu]

As I have already stated many times earlier, she should have simply accepted the 2 strokes. Intent or accident, it's 2 strokes.

Yet, I am amazed that so many people are such good mind readers, because I still have no idea what she was thinking (if at all). What is clear is that she pulled the ball from one side of the marker and put it back on the other side of the marker. What she was thinking did not come across in that short excerpt of video.

BTW, she does have nice legs. I think I've watched that thing way too many times.

EDIT:

Another thing. Watch the real time video not the slow motion played immediately afterwards. I can see if you think the slow motion video was real time how one could think she had plenty of time to think about her actions. The real time video gives her something around a second or less with her hand on the ball.

[Golfingdad]

Your analogy would be like her accidentally placing her ball in the wrong spot compared to her knocking another persons putt away when its about to go in severity wise.

Accidentally??  Also, I find it peculiar that you think blatantly cheating out in the open where everybody can see is worse than trying to do it when you think nobody is looking.  I would argue that you have that backwards.

As I have already stated many times earlier, she should have simply accepted the 2 strokes. Intent or accident, it's 2 strokes.

Yet, I am amazed that so many people are such good mind readers, because I still have no idea what she was thinking (if at all). What is clear is that she pulled the ball from one side of the marker and put it back on the other side of the marker. What she was thinking did not come across in that short excerpt of video.

BTW, she does have nice legs. I think I've watched that thing way too many times.

Look, lets say I walk up to you and just, for no reason, kick you in the nuts.  Or, lets say I walk up to @14ledo81 and, unprovoked, punch him in the face.  Now, do you really have to be able to read my mind to know that I did those things intentionally???

Certainly, you would have no idea as to WHY I did it, but you know I did it, you saw (and felt) me do it, and there is no excuse for me.  There is certainly an explanation warranted, but nothing is going to take away from the obvious fact that what I did was intentional.