Anna Nordqvist Grounds Club in Bunker, Loses U.S. Women's Open

[rehmwa]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

That if we hired outside consultants to review the current USGA practices for determining rules violations and notifying golfers of violations they would find there is no better way to optimize the current practices and that the USGA is using existing technology to it's fullest capacity? 

Talking about how long it took from violation to informing:

They improved their process GREATLY compared to DJ's issue.  IMO 9 minutes is VERY fast.

My only issue with the timing is simple:  I see no reason that the commentators in the booth, and me, sitting and watching this in Minnesota, found out that something was going on before the actual players did.  That's the room for improvement.  Or an indication of shoddy reporting if they tell the audience before it's serious enough to tell the players.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Lastpick said:

In other sports, play is stopped while a play is under review.

Because the situation is materially affected.

Either there is a runner on first with no outs, or there's nobody on base and one out. It affects things quite directly.

You can't halt all players on the course when there's a possible rules infraction. Yes, perhaps you could have when there's a playoff with two people, but what if there's a playoff with two groups of five players each? What if the rules infraction turns out to be nothing: then you've just iced players who didn't possibly commit a breach for nothing.

2 hours ago, Lastpick said:

It is also clear that Anna did not gain a competitive advantage as the result of a couple of grains of sand rolling over a very small fraction of an inch.  In my opinion only, I wished that the violation had been ignored.

There would be a hell of a shitstorm if someone chose to ignore an obvious breach of the Rules of Golf.

2 hours ago, Lastpick said:

Also in my opinion only, the USGA screwed up the process once again and gave a competitive advantage to Lang.  I was watching and pulling for Lang based solely on her being a US citizen. I also would have been happy to see Anna win.  A major tournament win can be a career changing event in golf.

Hardly. Lang played four shots not knowing her sole opponent at that point had effectively taken two more strokes than everyone thought.

The Rules also don't really often care about whether an actual advantage is gained or not, because that's highly subjective. What if she had hit the ball over the back of the green "to be safe," gotten a horrible lie, bladed it into the water, and made triple? You don't know that it was providing any advantage whatsoever to tell her. You can only do what they did: inform them as soon as practicable/possible.

And like I said, she'd already played four shots under the wrong impression. Why is nobody talking about that "disadvantage"? Purely because it's hindsight?

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Amen!  This is like when someone argues the rules when they have never opened the book.  If you've never worked at a PGA tournament or refereed even a lower level tournament, you don't have any concept of what a major undertaking that is.  For a breach to go from observation by a cameraman to ruling reported to the competitors in 9 minutes is not only acceptable, it's really remarkable.

Indeed.

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

Why are you so determined to argue against things I haven't said I think this will be my last reply to you in this thread.  I think I have been crystal clear:  I didn't say why WASN'T the principle applied in this case I said why SHOULDN'T it.  Very different things.  I have also NEVER argued that the ruling in this case should have been different.

Dude, really… it's just golf. And it's not even golf, it's talking about golf. I'm not determined to do anything. I'm simply responding to what it seems like you're saying.

It "shouldn't" apply because it "doesn't"apply. 18/4 applies only to 18/4. That's it. There's no deeper meaning. If that's the entire bone of contention or misunderstanding/miscommunication we have, I don't know what you mean… To me, it "shouldn't" apply right now (or two days ago) because it doesn't apply. That's it.

If you're talking about the future, then that's fine, and why you started the other thread. There, in that thread, we agree.

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

I'm saying that when the USGA added 18/4 they did it in a shortsighted manner without regard to THEIR OWN notion that the rules of golf should be informed by a set of consistent principles.  Having discarded the previous position (although you still quote it as above - 18/4 says to ignore available evidence in some cases) they should have thought about how a breach of a principle in one situation should maybe be examined over the breadth of the rules, not limited to one narrow situation.

I agree it was shortsighted to consider that enhanced video evidence (beyond "naked eye" level stuff) would only apply to the ball at rest moved rule.

I disagree that 18/4 established a principle or that the USGA violated an idea of having consistent principles. In short, I disagree with you, I suppose, that the "beyond naked eye" stuff is so big, so foundational, so important as to rise to the level of a principle.

They should have, but didn't. And that's why it think they'll make it far more broad the next time.

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

And YES I  understand that these circumstances are different than those addressed in 18/4 and NO I am NOT arguing, as you so snarkily put it,for hindsight in advance.  I would have liked some FORESIGHT when they put in 18/4 originally.  And I would like some NOWSIGHT in wanting them to revisit the issue and yes, come up with a Decision or even a rule under which HD evidence IS or IS NOT to be used as evidence when it is the only evidence.  I do not care which, I just want consistency. 

If you want to read snark there, all I can tell you is that none was written. That is totally on you. I was asking you to clarify because clearly we weren't understanding each other. Perhaps because there are multiple ways one can read "they should have done such and such" or "this should apply."

So yeah, you would have liked foresight. Which is almost exactly what I asked you… But it's also (having foresight) not something they did, and so I was simply talking about the present tense. I thought you were saying 18/4 should apply to the Anna situation, and replying that it did not. In the future? Maybe it will (likely because 18/4 is supplanted by a more general Decision re: HD, etc.).

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

But again, since you seem to be having a hard time grasping this I am NOT arguing that the issue I raised should have changed the ruling.

Dude, now you're just behaving like a jerk. If you can't understand or at least have some empathy for the fact that you and I were miscommunicating (which is why I asked you to clarify what you were trying to say), then just stop.

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

As to my use of the word principle, I'll bet you $1 that the next time the USGA updates and releases the Tufts book there will be something that is added that bears on the situation of hi resolution video evidence.

Okay. It's a bet.

IMO, this type of thing is not broad enough or foundational enough to rise to the level of "principle." Hell, there are only two… You really willing to risk a dollar that this becomes the third?

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

Because the principle that all evidence should be used was clearly breached in 18/4.

See, you're clearly using the word "principle" differently than I am here. There's no "principle" (my definition) that "all evidence should be used."

That's why I said things like this:

Quote

I don't think it does, or if it is a "principle" (I take it you're not really using it the same way we tend to use the word "principle" when discussing the Tufts book), it's one that hasn't been applied beyond "ball at rest moved." As it currently stands, moving your ball and grounding your club in a hazard aren't like situations. You can't apply a "principle" from one to the other.

I know 18/4 uses the word "principle" (not the Tufts way), which is why I used the word "principle" at the end in quotes. 18/4 doesn't apply to Anna touching sand in a bunker. Present tense. I agree it probably should (in the future).

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

We require a clarified replacement principle.  New circumstances, and this IS a (relatively) new circumstance in the golf world, require new principles.

Again, this is where the confusion came up. I was discussing the present tense, and thought you were arguing that (suggesting that, whatever - arguing is not a "bad" word in my book) it "should" apply in this Anna situation.

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

In the case of ball moving, 18/4 sets forth a reasonable standard:  if the only evidence is only discernible through the use of HD video replay or other technology the penalty is not assessed..  None of that would have applied in Tiger's Master's drop situation since none of the discovery of the breach relied on HD video replay or technology.  His breach was easily discernible to the naked eye because it was a mental error, not a physical breach.

Agreed.

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

So to test my understanding since you both claim more knowledge of how tournaments are run than I possess.  You both are stating;

That if we hired outside consultants to review the current USGA practices for determining rules violations and notifying golfers of violations they would find there is no better way to optimize the current practices and that the USGA is using existing technology to it's fullest capacity? 

It operated quite smoothly, and about as well as I could expect, having been a rules official, having run tournaments, having played in tournaments, having covered tournaments, etc. 7.5 minutes is fast.

I'll stipulate to what's clear: you think they'd determine ways to shave 7.5 minutes down to 5.5 minutes or whatever without any loss of accuracy or weird changes that would somewhat fundamentally alter things (like having a full-time committee sitting in front of a bank of 10-12 TV screens with radio communication to an on-course referee, one of whom is stationed every 300 yards with a cart and a bullhorn). I disagree.

1 hour ago, imsys0042 said:

I don't think anyone would care that it took 7.5, 9 or however long if there wasn't the fact that the winner ended up changing their strategy. I think Oakmont took too long, but here it seems well within reason. The thing that I would change, and the USGA should be dinged for, is that the players weren't even aware this was an issue. They should. And if the players want to stop the clock and deal with it, they should be given the chance.   Just because it's on TV and TV might want to finish by a certain time is secondary to making sure the tournament is as fair as is possible given the logistics and nature of the game.

There are problems with that, too, though. What if there are players behind them. What if even with just two players, one wants to keep playing and the other does not? What if the ruling turns out to be nothing, and you've made players wait for ten minutes for nothing? And the list goes on.

I think the USGA handled it about as well as they could have.

1 hour ago, imsys0042 said:

I think the USGA does more harm by not getting the rulings right, or not responding in a more acceptable manner to situations that create discussions for rule changes. I hope that the uproar over both Open incidents gets some changes that are more positive and equitable for all involved.

We've already seen a big (positive) change in the way they handle these things, IMO.

37 minutes ago, MrDC said:

Anna, with the Open on the line what were you thinking addressing the ball like that? you know the cameras are on your club like a hawk, it was just foolish, she learned a tough lesson.

Others have said she likely has touched the sand previously, as that didn't look like anything but her normal address procedure. Maybe she'll change it up a bit and hover the club higher now.

[Fourputt]

47 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

Talking about how long it took from violation to informing:

They improved their process GREATLY compared to DJ's issue.  IMO 9 minutes is VERY fast.

My only issue with the timing is simple:  I see no reason that the commentators in the booth, and me, sitting and watching this in Minnesota, found out that something was going on before the actual players did.  That's the room for improvement.  Or an indication of shoddy reporting if they tell the audience before it's serious enough to tell the players.

You didn't think that through before posting, did you?  You don't suppose that it was because the breach was caught by a cameraman, one of Fox's employees, do you?  The TV production crew was involved from the onset, so why would they not know what was happening before the players did?  It would be naive to think that they didn't pass on the word to the broadcast crew as fast as they knew what was going on.  

The committee comes into the production trailer and views video that clearly shows a breach, and while they are doing that they are surrounded by crew in the trailer.  That  crew is connected to the broadcast booth.  I think that maybe, just maybe, there is a link there.  Calling to the booth from the trailer, and the commentators reporting it is going to be faster than the time it takes for the committee to huddle, call the referee on the spot, explain the situation to him (he probably knows nothing about it until then) and have him inform the participants.

[rehmwa]

You should think it through to the next level, Fourputt, before being snarky about it to me.  The whole point is about timeliness of communication to the players and outside agencies affecting outcomes.  Your entire post pretty much defines the basic problem......if you choose to think it through anyway.

[Fourputt]

As far a 18/4 is concerned, I can visualize a situation in a bunker where the player grazes the sand on his back swing, improves his swing path, but is unable to observe it because the club is in his line of vision when it happens.  That could clearly give an advantage to a player, and would be quite contrary to the application of Rule 13-2.

As such, Decision 18/4 cannot apply in this case like it does to an invisible movement of the ball, something which cannot possibly give a player an advantage.  The situations are potentially too different from each other.

[imsys0042]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

There are problems with that, too, though. What if there are players behind them. What if even with just two players, one wants to keep playing and the other does not? What if the ruling turns out to be nothing, and you've made players wait for ten minutes for nothing? And the list goes on.

I think the USGA handled it about as well as they could have.

We've already seen a big (positive) change in the way they handle these things, IMO.

 

I think dealing with a 10 minute hold-up is something that can be expected in golf.  Beyond that, yeah.   I tried to think of a lot of different ways to deal with the situation and nothing really works except what they did, or doing a full stop and resolving before another shot is played.   Doing notification asap makes it random over who might benefit, hence it takes someone making a judgment call about it out of the equation.

Remember they can do a quick review or notification to the players that the situation is happening.   In the other thread about HD optics, if you put the threshold where using some type of enhanced optics, I think you eliminate a delay of more than a few minutes.   Because you don't have to go thru various zooms and angles, and then arguing etc...   What I'd hate is for something like this to happen, the player contests it and the outcome of the penalty is not known and then there is arguing over the outcome of the tournament.   That's what almost happened at Oakmont because a lot of people don't think DJ caused the ball to move.   Had that cost him the tournament there would have been chaos in the golf world.

13 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

As far a 18/4 is concerned, I can visualize a situation in a bunker where the player grazes the sand on his back swing, improves his swing path, but is unable to observe it because the club is in his line of vision when it happens.  That could clearly give an advantage to a player, and would be quite contrary to the application of Rule 13-2, and as such, Decision 18/4 cannot apply in this case like it does to an invisible movement of the ball, something which cannot possibly give a player an advantage. 

^{Do you think that anything was improved in this situation?   I think anything that would give an advantage would not need to be zoomed in on.  (I agree that the rules are written were properly applied here, just wondering if something so small should be penalized ongoing).}

[DrvFrShow]

Seriously? Given the mass of the club moving a couple of grains of sand during the backswing will improve a swing path? Especially in the quality of sand they're playing. I can see if it were and observable amount of sand, but then it probably would interfere with the feel of the backswing, the player would notice, and it might even have a negative impact on the shot.

Michelle Wie got burned by grazing a couple of grains of sand on her back swing in a tournament a couple years ago. Again it was caught on HD video. There was no way she could have seen it. I seriously doubt it affected the outcome of the bunker shot. But it is the rule. And like Nordqvist, she didn't protest the ruling.

I think these 9 pages have been about "in our games we wouldn't notice these things." And you're right. We wouldn't. And no strokes would be added. We also lose balls on the course that otherwise get found during major televised tournaments because TV cameras and fans. If there were no TV cameras and all those fans the pros would probably lose those balls and have to play S&D like we do.

[newtogolf]

6 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Seriously? Given the mass of the club moving a couple of grains of sand during the backswing will improve a swing path? Especially in the quality of sand they're playing. I can see if it were and observable amount of sand, but then it probably would interfere with the feel of the backswing, the player would notice, and it might even have a negative impact on the shot.

Michelle Wie got burned by grazing a couple of grains of sand on her back swing in a tournament a couple years ago. Again it was caught on HD video. There was no way she could have seen it. I seriously doubt it affected the outcome of the bunker shot. But it is the rule. And like Nordqvist, she didn't protest the ruling.

I think these 9 pages have been about "in our games we wouldn't notice these things." And you're right. We wouldn't. And no strokes would be added. We also lose balls on the course that otherwise get found during major televised tournaments because TV cameras and fans. If there were no TV cameras and all those fans the pros would probably lose those balls and have to play S&D like we do.

Spoiler

You're right and that's why those who support bifurcation of the Rules of Golf (I don't) claim no matter how hard we try to follow the Rules of Golf we're not playing the same game the professional golfers are.  

 

[Fourputt]

35 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

 

^{Do you think that anything was improved in this situation?   I think anything that would give an advantage would not need to be zoomed in on.  (I agree that the rules are written were properly applied here, just wondering if something so small should be penalized ongoing).}

The magnitude of an individual case is irrelevant.  The rule must be applied in the same way across the board regardless of whether or not some advantage is gained, otherwise it becomes subjective, with equity relying on the judgement of individual referees - in other words, equity goes out the window.  

The penalty is in place to abrogate any potential (not necessarily actual) advantage.  The severity of the penalty is an indicator of the possible extent of an advantage which could be (not always will be) gained by the breach.

[Hardspoon]

16 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

The penalty is in place to abrogate any potential (not necessarily actual) advantage.  The severity of the penalty is an indicator of the possible extent of an advantage which could be (not always will be) gained by the breach.

This is important. It's interesting how many times in these threads that people make arguments based on "advantage gained".

This happens in every sport. The balk in baseball is called regardless of whether that specific balk gains an advantage. Holding or a block in the back, 25 yards away from the ball, is still a penalty in the NFL. 

No sport enforces its rules (with the exception of specific cases, such as declined penalties or specific violations based on "leverage") dependent on advantage gained by a specific violation.

It is irrelevant.

[imsys0042]

33 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

The magnitude of an individual case is irrelevant.  The rule must be applied in the same way across the board regardless of whether or not some advantage is gained, otherwise it becomes subjective, with equity relying on the judgement of individual referees - in other words, equity goes out the window.  

The penalty is in place to abrogate any potential (not necessarily actual) advantage.  The severity of the penalty is an indicator of the possible extent of an advantage which could be (not always will be) gained by the breach.

I guess more to the point, would omitting the zoomed in optics matter to you?   The thought process being that something that can't be seen to the naked eye wouldn't be significant, hence the USGA deems it as not happening (or in 18/4, the ball is not counted as moving).   You're correct that the magnitude upon seeing it is un-important, although would you feel that way if there was a decision like 18/4 applied to the sand rule?

[Fourputt]

12 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

I guess more to the point, would omitting the zoomed in optics matter to you?   The thought process being that something that can't be seen to the naked eye wouldn't be significant, hence the USGA deems it as not happening (or in 18/4, the ball is not counted as moving).   You're correct that the magnitude upon seeing it is un-important, although would you feel that way if there was a decision like 18/4 applied to the sand rule?

So you don't like the cut away replays that show a close up view of the club impact?  That's what you are asking for.  I think that they enhance the viewers experience, and as such I would not want to see them forbidden on the off chance that one of them would show a rules breach.

[imsys0042]

8 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

So you don't like the cut away replays that show the club impact?  That's what you are asking for.  I think that they enhance the viewers experience, and as such I would not want to see them forbidden on the off chance that one of them would show a rules breach.

Certainly not.   But if they on their own don't show anything and have to be zoomed in on to show something I'm not sure i like that.   To me it's a lot like Tiger's oscillating ball which I think was the basis for 18/4.   Yes it moved.  No, it didn't move enough for a penalty is how I read the decision.   My understanding of how they found this was that they had to enhance the existing video (zoom).  I'd have no issue with the naked eye rule as discussed elsewhere, where a simple reply even if you have to squint a bit, shows a rule breach. 

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

As far a 18/4 is concerned, I can visualize a situation in a bunker where the player grazes the sand on his back swing, improves his swing path, but is unable to observe it because the club is in his line of vision when it happens.  That could clearly give an advantage to a player, and would be quite contrary to the application of Rule 13-2.

For a pro event, I have a hard time imagining a bunker where your scenario is likely to happen as at least some swing steepness is required and mounds / lumps are relatively rare. In the sometimes gouged and footprint laden bunkers I play in it would seem more possible but hasn't happened to me yet.

[newtogolf]

39 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

This is important. It's interesting how many times in these threads that people make arguments based on "advantage gained".

This happens in every sport. The balk in baseball is called regardless of whether that specific balk gains an advantage. Holding or a block in the back, 25 yards away from the ball, is still a penalty in the NFL. 

No sport enforces its rules (with the exception of specific cases, such as declined penalties or specific violations based on "leverage") dependent on advantage gained by a specific violation.

It is irrelevant.

That's not true in the NFL, many holds and blocks to the back aren't called if the referees either don't see them or believe they impacted the play.  Referees in all sports have discretion on what penalties they call and don't call.  

Watch an NHL or NBA game, penalty calling varies greatly from referee to referee and game to game.  A huge complaint with the NBA finals was that in the final three games of the series the officiating policy heavily benefited Cleveland.  

[rehmwa]

1 hour ago, Hardspoon said:

No sport enforces its rules (with the exception of specific cases, such as declined penalties or specific violations based on "leverage") dependent on advantage gained by a specific violation.

pass interference.......  ; )

[Lastpick]

I really don't think that the USGA can ignore any breach of the rules.  I do really think that in a playoff, the play should be stopped while the ruling is made.  I still think the USGA screwed up again.  They need to review their process and determine if there is room for improvement

Edited July 12, 2016 by Lastpick

[Golfingdad]

2 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

This is important. It's interesting how many times in these threads that people make arguments based on "advantage gained".

This happens in every sport. The balk in baseball is called regardless of whether that specific balk gains an advantage. Holding or a block in the back, 25 yards away from the ball, is still a penalty in the NFL. 

No sport enforces its rules (with the exception of specific cases, such as declined penalties or specific violations based on "leverage") dependent on advantage gained by a specific violation.

It is irrelevant.

Not entirely true.  In soccer, there is a rule, literally called "advantage", that gives discretion to the referee to not call an obvious foul depending on the circumstances.

I do see your point though. :)