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

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

No they shouldn't have.

You can't hold up play all the time. And they likely had to play the video for all the members of the committee, discuss, and rule.

It'd be ridiculous to hold up play every time you think there may be a situation.

I didn't say all the time, but given it's a Major and they were on the 18th hole they could have held up play in this instance.  

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I didn't say all the time, but given it's a Major and they were on the 18th hole they could have held up play in this instance.  

Could have. Glad they didn't. No need. What was done was done.

They alerted them when they knew. Holding up play may have benefited a player. You don't know.

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Could have. Glad they didn't. No need. What was done was done.

They alerted them when they knew. Holding up play may have benefited a player. You don't know.

We can agree to disagree, you seem to be tightly aligned with the USGA these days so no sense it debating it further.  

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

We can agree to disagree, you seem to be tightly aligned with the USGA these days so no sense it debating it further.  

Bullshit on what you're implying. I'm not "tightly" aligned out of blind faith or anything. I've been very critical of the Rules chairman Newell, in fact.

There was no need to delay. They made the ruling quickly and told them ASAP.

[Piz]

Like Carl Pettersson without the suspense.  Micro-scrutiny is not good for the game.  

[Scotsclaff]

HAHAHAHA The USGA.

Can't get the staff.

[Golfingdad]

44 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I didn't say all the time, but given it's a Major and they were on the 18th hole they could have held up play in this instance.  

Not even just a major ... A playoff!  They're the only two players in the tournament for crying out loud.

Im curious why it took them so long, but I'm sure they have their reasons.  I also don't care that much that they didn't stop play, but in retrospect it seems like it would have made a lot of sense.

Mostly, I just don't understand why they didn't just wait another minute such that each player found out at the same time.  Anna (don't know her, just don't feel like looking up spelling of her last name :P) didn't know that she needed to be aggressive on her third shot so it would have been more fair if Lang wasn't told that she could play so safely on hers.

The USGA is having a heck of a shitty summer.

[turtleback]

What I want to know is why the principles of Decision 18/4, which applies to determining if a ball moved when the movement is only discernible using HD and technology, should not apply here.  In this case it took not only HD replay but magnification and slo-mo to see what happened.  If you cannot use that kind of evidence to conclude the ball moved why should it be considered in determining if the club was grounded?

The situations are different and clearly the Decision does not directly apply to Anna's case but the PRINCIPLE is exactly the same, IMO.  In Anna's case the movement of the sand grains was so slight that I cannot believe that a normal person could watch even the original HD footage and think the club had been grounded.  And if the footage had been SD rather than HD, even less so.  So we have an event that could only been seen with enhanced HD (and really the original images were probably in even higher resolution to look that good when magnified).  Had the issue been whether the ball moved, rather than was the club grounded, this part of Decision 18/4 would have (clearly IMO) applied.

Quote

The ball is deemed not to have moved and therefore there is no penalty under Rule 18-2. The Definition of "Moved" - when a ball "leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place" - <b>does not contemplate movements of the ball that are only discernible through the use of high definition television or any other form of sophisticated technology. </b>  [emph. added]

And

Quote

These principles apply to any review of technological evidence by the Committee, whether before the player makes his next stroke or any time thereafter.

I just do not see why that principle would only apply to the specific situation of ball moving.  I was kind of hoping, while we were waiting on the ruling, that someone in the USGA pow wow on the ruling was making this point and arguing the case - if for no other reason than to highlight the inconsistency caused by applying the principles of 18/4 so narrowly to the issue of hi-tech and rulings.  And maybe get an improved (or new) decision that applies that principle more broadly moving forward.

I would like to see a decision expanding that principle to any situation, other than outright cheating (and I'm not really sure how that could only be discernible to HD), in which some event is only discernible through the use of HD video.  We can all look at the HD magnified, slo-mo images and see that the club touched the sand.  But I doubt anyone can plausibly argue that it was otherwise discernible.  And TPTB really need to poop or get off the pot on this.  If things discernible only with HD/technology are ignored under one rule they need to be ignored for all ruling purposes, IMO.   

Unless that is, someone can come up with a plausible reason why the situations should be treated differently.

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I see it now. I can buy that she didn't notice.

Seriously. Who can spot  a few grains of sand moving when the clubhead is covering them from the player's view, let alone feel them.

3 minutes ago, turtleback said:

What I want to know is why the principles of Decision 18/4, which applies to determining if a ball moved when the movement is only discernible using HD and technology, should not apply here.  In this case it took not only HD replay but magnification and slo-mo to see what happened.  If you cannot use that kind of evidence to conclude the ball moved why should it be considered in determining if the club was grounded?

The situations are different and clearly the Decision does not directly apply to Anna's case but the PRINCIPLE is exactly the same, IMO.  In Anna's case the movement of the sand grains was so slight that I cannot believe that a normal person could watch even the original HD footage and think the club had been grounded.  And if the footage had been SD rather than HD, even less so.  So we have an event that could only been seen with enhanced HD (and really the original images were probably in even higher resolution to look that good when magnified).  Had the issue been whether the ball moved, rather than was the club grounded, this part of Decision 18/4 would have (clearly IMO) applied.

And

I just do not see why that principle would only apply to the specific situation of ball moving.  I was kind of hoping, while we were waiting on the ruling, that someone in the USGA pow wow on the ruling was making this point and arguing the case - if for no other reason than to highlight the inconsistency caused by applying the principles of 18/4 so narrowly to the issue of hi-tech and rulings.  And maybe get an improved (or new) decision that applies that principle more broadly moving forward.

I would like to see a decision expanding that principle to any situation, other than outright cheating (and I'm not really sure how that could only be discernible to HD), in which some event is only discernible through the use of HD video.  We can all look at the HD magnified, slo-mo images and see that the club touched the sand.  But I doubt anyone can plausibly argue that it was otherwise discernible.  And TPTB really need to poop or get off the pot on this.  If things discernible only with HD/technology are ignored under one rule they need to be ignored for all ruling purposes, IMO.   

Unless that is, someone can come up with a plausible reason why the situations should be treated differently.

That's a very interesting perspective. I would agree that the principle seems very applicable to Anna's situation.

[No Mulligans]

Unfortunate, but the USGA did well in this case.  They made the decision and let the players know quickly.

The issue of HD and slow motion is interesting to me too.  Should that rule be expanded to cover situations like this one being discussed?

[mvmac]

Yeah that sucks for Nordquist and I can see how she wouldn't have known. At least this ruling was clear cut and 9 minutes to review and get the players notified isn't perfect but really not that bad. Obviously much improved since the men's U.S. Open  I get why people think they should have stopped play but you can't stop play every time something needs to be reviewed further. Getting to the decision to halt play would have taken the same amount of time to make the decision and inform the players. It's not like the official saw it live, said "hold on, she might have grounded her club, I want to see the footage." Then I think it would be fine to delay play, especially in a playoff.

Here's the sequence of events, I think 9 minutes is reasonable,

Quote

Bodenhamer said he and senior director of rules Thomas Pagel were at the 17th green when they were informed that Fox TV had called to ask if any rules issue was detected with Nordqvist hitting her shot from the bunker at the 17th. They called a USGA staffer monitoring the broadcast. That staffer relayed that he watched the original Fox video three times, but nothing was detectable. Still, Bodenhamer and Pagel drove to the compound a few minutes away to see for themselves. Once there, Bodenhamer said Fox’s close-up video was available, which clearly showed the violation.

My main gripe is with Diane Murphy. That's really fricking bush league to get the champion's name wrong multiple times. Does she even follow the LPGA or watch the coverage of her own tournament? It's not like Lang is a rookie or came out of nowhere to win, she deserves better than that.

[Aflighter]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

Could have. Glad they didn't. No need. What was done was done.

They alerted them when they knew. Holding up play may have benefited a player. You don't know.

Thats just it Iacas.They did benefit Lang by telling her about penalty before she hit 3rd shot like Anna did.They should have waited till after lang hit before telling her.

[boogielicious]

3 hours ago, mvmac said:

Yeah that sucks for Nordquist and I can see how she wouldn't have known. At least this ruling was clear cut and 9 minutes to review and get the players notified isn't perfect but really not that bad. Obviously much improved since the men's U.S. Open  I get why people think they should have stopped play but you can't stop play every time something needs to be reviewed further. Getting to the decision to halt play would have taken the same amount of time to make the decision and inform the players. It's not like the official saw it live, said "hold on, she might have grounded her club, I want to see the footage." Then I think it would be fine to delay play, especially in a playoff.

Here's the sequence of events, I think 9 minutes is reasonable,

My main gripe is with Diane Murphy. That's really fricking bush league to get the champion's name wrong multiple times. Does she even follow the LPGA or watch the coverage of her own tournament? It's not like Lang is a rookie or came out of nowhere to win, she deserves better than that.

The difficulty the USGA has is the booth was talking about it for quite a while before they notified Nordqvist. I was texting @JetFan1983 live during it. At one point, Joe Buck started calling for them to stop play. When they finally did, Nordqvist had already hit. It was the public display of the ruling timing that will cause most of the dissatisfaction, not the actual time itself.  If we had not know about it, most would have been OK with the timing. It was only a few minutes after all.

Debbie, er, Donna, er, Daphne Murphy needs to be replaced. One of you most important jobs as President of an organization is to be a good speaker. She does not speak goodly.

[bkuehn1952]

6 hours ago, turtleback said:

What I want to know is why the principles of Decision 18/4, which applies to determining if a ball moved when the movement is only discernible using HD and technology, should not apply here. ... 

Unless that is, someone can come up with a plausible reason why the situations should be treated differently.

Thank you.  My opinion also, but better presented than I would have.

(shortened the quote since everyone has hopefully already read the full comment)

[iacas]

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Not even just a major ... A playoff!  They're the only two players in the tournament for crying out loud.

So where do you draw that line? What if there are five players, and they've all hit a different number of shots? When do you stop play, and when do you play on? How high of a threshold do you apply to "there may be a problem"? What if someone calls in, but it turns out to be a hoax? Do you wait until all five players play the same number of shots? What if that means one player holes out on the final hole, but another player doesn't even get to tee off? Or does it matter only who the possible penalty may be on?

Going back to even the men's U.S. Open, where nobody had a problem not knowing, would it have been fair to hold up play for 20 minutes while they take DJ off the course on the 12th tee or something to a nearby truck with good video? Would that have been fair to Lowry? What if you hold up only players in DJ's group or behind? Etc.

I get that you think what you're suggesting is "fair" or "common sense" or something, but in practice, it doesn't shake out, because the USGA cannot write rules or procedures that account for every situation unless they use words like "as soon as it is known" or "immediately notify all" or whatever.

They did that. As soon as they determined that it was a penalty, they informed all contestants of the infraction and assessment. Again, what if Anna had birdied 16. They'd have played the same number of shots, so do you still inform them then, or do you wait until "Bethany" had played her third shot on 18? There's no good answer to that one, so you must use words and policies like "immediately" and "all players."

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Im curious why it took them so long, but I'm sure they have their reasons.  I also don't care that much that they didn't stop play, but in retrospect it seems like it would have made a lot of sense.

I feel as though @mvmac answered that. On the telecast they said it was the Fox cameraman who noticed the issue. He was zoomed in with an HD camera, but the footage itself wasn't zoomed in. He was just getting a very very tight shot.

6 hours ago, turtleback said:

What I want to know is why the principles of Decision 18/4, which applies to determining if a ball moved when the movement is only discernible using HD and technology, should not apply here.  In this case it took not only HD replay but magnification and slo-mo to see what happened.

It didn't take "magnification" or slow-mo. That happens to be the only view they gave you, but the video was not magnified, and played back at real speed you can see the sand move. It was straight HD, albeit a very close up view of the ball. The HD video was not "magnified," and yeah, it's pedantic to say that, but still…

The 18/4 point is a reasonable one, and while I'm not on the USGA rules committee, all I can guess at this point (going on five hours of sleep, playing a bit of devil's advocate) is that:

• 18/4 covers a ball moving. The ball didn't move here, and thus, rule 18 does not apply. That's just a literal reading of the rules: "ball at rest moved" does not apply here. There's no 18/4 equivalent in 13-4.
• A player might not be expected to see the sand moving, because the club is in the way. DJ in Whistling Straits could have said "I didn't see my club touch the sand" because, from where his eyes are, the club itself prevents the player from seeing the sand move. This doesn't apply in rule 18 because the ball is never really obscured from the player's eye (I suppose a player could wave the club over the ball in a waggle, barely graze the ball, and it could move imperceptibly…?).
• Ball at rest moved imperceptibly doesn't materially change the lie. Moving sand does.
• Remember years ago when the guy called a penalty on himself for touching the loose impediment - which was just a piece of grass that could have appeared fixed - at Harbour Town in the playoff with Jim Furyk? Sometimes the rules have to make a black and white situation. If that grass had been affixed, no problem. But it was loose when they pulled on it, so the guy lost the playoff. It came down to that: whether the grass or thin stick he hit was attached or loose. Ditto here - players could reasonably say something was "imperceptible" in the bunker because their view of the lie is obscured by the clubhead, and where do you draw the line? The USGA does what they think is reasonable (I'm putting words in their mouth here, speculating a bit really, making my best guess at playing devil's advocate) in saying "you can not touch the ground at all." Never mind not touching it - she touched it enough sand actually moved.

Again, playing a bit of devil's advocate there. I could probably see something like 18/4 being added for touching a hazard. Imagine if there are little waves (ripples) in the water and the player makes a backswing just as a little bigger ripple touches their club during the backswing. I could see something like that being covered by an equivalent of 18/4 in the future.

But that's not how the Rules of Golf work, nor should they work. This isn't the equivalent of 18/4 right now, and you can't base rulings on future Decisions that may or may not be added.

1 hour ago, Aflighter said:

Thats just it Iacas.They did benefit Lang by telling her about penalty before she hit 3rd shot like Anna did.They should have waited till after lang hit before telling her.

You can't get into who benefits or when. See my answer above: what if Anna had birdied 16? When do you inform the players then? After their third strokes on that same hole, or after the same number of total strokes taken in the playoff? You can't create different procedures for every situation.

The Rules of Golf don't really care, when it comes to information, about who it benefits. In each instance, the Rules care only about informing players as soon as possible. That's what was done here. Look it up - each time the Rules talk about information concerning strokes taken, penalties applied, etc. the language is equivalent to "ASAP."

Look at 9-3:

9-3. Stroke Play 

A competitor who has incurred a penalty should inform his marker as soon as practicable.

It doesn't say "as soon as it's fair."

The USGA informed Anna of the penalty ASAP, and then it was her obligation to inform Brittany of the infraction. The USGA, in informing Brittany, did that for her.

53 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Debbie, er, Donna, er, Daphne Murphy needs to be replaced. One of you most important jobs as President of an organization is to be a good speaker. She does not speak goodly.

This isn't the thread for that, but while I was willing to overlook her stumbling speaking at Oakmont due to the delay in hearing her own voice (a possible, though not confirmed, reason)… calling her "Bethany" was a fucking joke.

[RH31]

A competitor who has incurred a penalty should inform his marker as soon as practicable.

 

Well the USGA is not the competitor, Anna was. She could've waited until they both got on the green and told "Bethany" then if she wanted to and be within the rules.

The USGA created an unfair advantage for Lang with the timing information. Lucky for them Anna wasn't up one or two at the time.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Well the USGA is not the competitor, Anna was. She could've waited until they both got on the green and told "Bethany" then if she wanted to and be within the rules.

She would not have been within the rules had she waited to inform Brittany that long.

The USGA informed Brittany "as soon as practicable" which means that Anna could have informed her at the same time.

I just wrote this up above…

[RH31]

35 minutes ago, iacas said:

She would not have been within the rules had she waited to inform Brittany that long.

The USGA informed Brittany "as soon as practicable" which means that Anna could have informed her at the same time.

I just wrote this up above…

Well the rule as you quoted says " should" not shall.  Is there a definition on what "as soon as practicable" is when a player incurs a penalty ? If there isn't, seems as though it's up to the player to determine what is practicable.

What if Anna said I didn't think it practicable to interrupt "Bethany's" pre shot routine, so I informed her when we met at the green.