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

[gregsandiego]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

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

Every time I set foot in a bunker all 3 of my partners remind me of this stupid rule - which I ignore.

But I'm not pro.

[boogielicious]

Anna's interview. Very professional. 

http://www.lpga.com/videos/anna-nordqvist-discusses-playoff-loss--2016-us-womens-open

 

[Groucho Valentine]

12 hours ago, boogielicious said:

And then they got Brittany Lang's name wrong. Bad job on both. 

They look bad in both opens. 

Im convinced that woman is either perpetually drunk or a drooling idiot. Either which seems fitting for a officer of the USGA...

I only watched the playoff, but i didn't notice Norquist grounded her club until the replay showed it later. I doubt anyone did until after the fact.

It should make you question equitable application of the rules. Im sure that type of infraction happens dozens of times during tournament and never gets called because the player didn't notice, or the player didnt have a camera on them at that moment. I think this practice of policing after the fact by hi def television needs to go. Leave it up to the players to initiate investigations or infractions.  

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Im convinced that woman is either perpetually drunk or a drooling idiot. Either which seems fitting for a officer of the USGA...

I only watched the playoff, but i didn't notice Norquist grounded her club until the replay showed it later. I doubt anyone did until after the fact.

It should make you question equitable application of the rules. Im sure that type of infraction happens dozens of times during tournament and never gets called because the player didn't notice, or the player didnt have a camera on them at that moment. I think this practice of policing after the fact by hi def television needs to go. Leave it up to the players to initiate investigations or infractions.  

I agree, Murphy has to go.  

[Aflighter]

42 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Im convinced that woman is either perpetually drunk or a drooling idiot. Either which seems fitting for a officer of the USGA...

I only watched the playoff, but i didn't notice Norquist grounded her club until the replay showed it later. I doubt anyone did until after the fact.

It should make you question equitable application of the rules. Im sure that type of infraction happens dozens of times during tournament and never gets called because the player didn't notice, or the player didnt have a camera on them at that moment. I think this practice of policing after the fact by hi def television needs to go. Leave it up to the players to initiate investigations or infractions.  

Finally somebody gets it.If you put camera and zoom in on all the competitors then theyre would be more infractions.Im pretty sure theres bee tournament winners that have had penalties not called because of camera not being  em in  round.I understand the penalty but my problem is with the way it was discovered by  cameraman zooming in on a bunker shot.You cannot see that grain of sand move without the camera zoom.The game is in trouble if you allow callins and camera men to check for infractions.Bottom line Anna wasnt playing on level playing field.

[cutchemist42]

Only thing I really think is that stuff like what happened to Anna might happen more times than we catch it. We likely only catch it cause every camera is focused on 2 people making shots in a playoff vs these cameras covering a whole field of players. Anyone agree?

[No Mulligans]

1 hour ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Im convinced that woman is either perpetually drunk or a drooling idiot. Either which seems fitting for a officer of the USGA...

 

Unfortunately I can relate a bit.  I've become more and more forgetful, especially short term memory.  Chemo brain or age or both.  I don't drink so that only leaves...?

[Hardspoon]

43 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

Finally somebody gets it.If you put camera and zoom in on all the competitors then theyre would be more infractions.Im pretty sure theres bee tournament winners that have had penalties not called because of camera not being  em in  round.I understand the penalty but my problem is with the way it was discovered by  cameraman zooming in on a bunker shot.You cannot see that grain of sand move without the camera zoom.The game is in trouble if you allow callins and camera men to check for infractions.Bottom line Anna wasnt playing on level playing field.

 

26 minutes ago, cutchemist42 said:

Only thing I really think is that stuff like what happened to Anna might happen more times than we catch it. We likely only catch it cause every camera is focused on 2 people making shots in a playoff vs these cameras covering a whole field of players. Anyone agree?

This makes a lot of sense, and I can understand why people are uncomfortable with infractions caught by cameras that might not be on other players.  The problem, though, is that it's just a very tough thing to actually put in place.

If you don't allow camera evidence, you'll end up in a situation where a clear infraction (like this one) is on camera, and everyone knows that it should have been a penalty, but wasn't...and that player wins because of it.

People would freak out in that situation too (rightly so).

At least now, while it is perhaps "unfair" (there's no direct evidence that it is, of course, but it seems logical), the USGA is making these rulings based on all available evidence.  It certainly creates weird rulings and time delays and problems, but at the very least, they have the best chance of making the objectively correct call on whether things should be penalties.

Also, as a side effect, it hopefully makes players be a lot more careful about potential violations.  It shouldn't be lost in all of this that this is a professional golfer who made a complete bone-headed move in a playoff, doing something that everyone knows is a penalty from the first day they play the game.

EDIT: If you're advocating actually not allowing the TV crews to capture/show "zoomed in" footage...sure, that would solve it, but seems ridiculously impractical.

[Patch]

IDK. I have played a lot of golf in my life. I have accidentally touched the sand with my club, to the point where the mark it left was very miniscule. However, I always knew I touched the sand. I sw it, and I felt it. I took my medicine, and moved on. 

I offer this up. The camera caught the deed being done. There is no doubting what took place. Is it really that possible that Nordqvist didn't know she touched the sand? That perhaps in that playoff situation she tried to get away without being caught? 

I have seen infractions go unnoticed as a spectator at both pga and lpga tournaments. Not all the professionals in these tournaments are saints when  they accidently make mistakes with the rules. When a stroke saved here, or there can mean the difference between making or losing several 1000s of dollars, then cameras are a good thing. The pros play a game noted for it's integrity. They shouldn't mind the camera helping them keep that integrity. 

As for the ROs doing a better, faster, cleaner job enforcing/explaining rules, they need to do a better job too. A camera can help them too. 

[BallStriker]

LOL at the USGA......snake-bitten and incompetent is simply not a good combination

[iacas]

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Anna's interview. Very professional. 

http://www.lpga.com/videos/anna-nordqvist-discusses-playoff-loss--2016-us-womens-open

Someone on another site said "She didn't even ask to see the video evidence. Put up no fight at all. Makes you wonder if she knew but didn't say anything."

You never know. But as I said I can buy that she didn't see the sand move. She was very, very close to the sand, though. Far closer than I'd get. If that's her usual procedure (I would bet that it is), she probably nearly or actually touches the sand a few times per year.

1 hour ago, Aflighter said:

Finally somebody gets it.If you put camera and zoom in on all the competitors then theyre would be more infractions.Im pretty sure theres bee tournament winners that have had penalties not called because of camera not being  em in  round.I understand the penalty but my problem is with the way it was discovered by  cameraman zooming in on a bunker shot.You cannot see that grain of sand move without the camera zoom.The game is in trouble if you allow callins and camera men to check for infractions.Bottom line Anna wasnt playing on level playing field.

As @Hardspoon said, you can't really regulate that. Either you're forcing the committee to ignore obvious evidence or you're forcing something else that's wholly impractical - the non-use of closeups, "equal" camera coverage (never mind camera angles, etc.) for all players, etc.

Just as the extra cameras can hurt you, they can help you too: by location a golf ball lodged in a tree (Rory McIlroy, Kiawah Island PGA Championship). And, ultimately, Anna committed a penalty, so blaming anyone but her for being caught seems dumb. Should we let criminals go when they're caught on tape because other criminals might have committed a similar crime but weren't caught on tape?

50 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Also, as a side effect, it hopefully makes players be a lot more careful about potential violations.  It shouldn't be lost in all of this that this is a professional golfer who made a complete bone-headed move in a playoff, doing something that everyone knows is a penalty from the first day they play the game.

Ultimately, Anna Nordqvist broke a Rule of Golf. She was guilty, caught, and penalized.

17 minutes ago, Patch said:

IDK. I have played a lot of golf in my life. I have accidentally touched the sand with my club, to the point where the mark it left was very miniscule. However, I always knew I touched the sand. I sw it, and I felt it. I took my medicine, and moved on. 

I offer this up. The camera caught the deed being done. There is no doubting what took place. Is it really that possible that Nordqvist didn't know she touched the sand? That perhaps in that playoff situation she tried to get away without being caught?

I believe that she didn't know she'd touched the sand. The poster I quoted above did not.

[ay33660]

48 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

 

This makes a lot of sense, and I can understand why people are uncomfortable with infractions caught by cameras that might not be on other players.  The problem, though, is that it's just a very tough thing to actually put in place.

If you don't allow camera evidence, you'll end up in a situation where a clear infraction (like this one) is on camera, and everyone knows that it should have been a penalty, but wasn't...and that player wins because of it.

People would freak out in that situation too (rightly so).

At least now, while it is perhaps "unfair" (there's no direct evidence that it is, of course, but it seems logical), the USGA is making these rulings based on all available evidence.  It certainly creates weird rulings and time delays and problems, but at the very least, they have the best chance of making the objectively correct call on whether things should be penalties.

Also, as a side effect, it hopefully makes players be a lot more careful about potential violations.  It shouldn't be lost in all of this that this is a professional golfer who made a complete bone-headed move in a playoff, doing something that everyone knows is a penalty from the first day they play the game.

EDIT: If you're advocating actually not allowing the TV crews to capture/show "zoomed in" footage...sure, that would solve it, but seems ridiculously impractical.

Final game EURO 2016 ........ handball penalty awarded to France instead of Portugal:

107 mins: Koscielny earns a yellow card for handball right on the edge of the box, but the ball actucally hit Eder's hand.

 Eder then subsequently scores the winning goal.

Original call stands ........... that's sports.

 

[Golfingdad]

Let's rewind and consider three four hypothetical scenarios here:

1. The USGA makes their decision at the exact same time as they did, but as the guy is driving his cart down the path from the tent to notify the players he recognizes (or is told) that one player has played their third shot and the other player has not.  He decides to wait a minute until the other player plays their third.  What would the "fallout" be this morning?  How many people out there would be "crying foul" because he didn't tell the players as soon as was possible?
2. They make the ruling a little sooner, such that both players were on the 18th tee when they arrived.  Brittany still had the honor and she's already hit her tee shot thinking they were tied. and Anna has teed her ball up, pulled her club, and is starting her routine.  He waits until she tees off (also thinking she's still tied) and then he tells them both.  Same two questions as above.  Fallout?  Number of people up in arms about it?
3. He arrives at the 18th tee at the same time as above, but goes and stops Anna from her routine, informs them both, which then allows her to switch to driver from 3 wood, and go for the green in two.  Same two questions again.
4. Very unlikely, but we're in hypothetical-land anyway so ... after the situation plays out like it did in scenario 3, Anna goes on to reach the green in two and make eagle and then wins the playoff a hole or two later.  Same two questions.

If you think the answers to questions 1 and 2 are something other than "none" and "zero" then I think you are out of your mind.  And if you think the answers to the questions in 3 and 4 are something other than "enormous" and "nearly everybody (except you, perhaps)" then again, out of your mind, I say.

This isn't a rules issue, this is a common sense issue.

[Hardspoon]

2 minutes ago, ay33660 said:

Original call stands ........... that's sports.

 

Sure. And people bitch and moan like crazy about it. That was my point; it is wrong to pretend there is some simple solution ("don't use camera evidence") when that creates problems too.

[ay33660]

1 minute ago, Hardspoon said:

Sure. And people bitch and moan like crazy about it. That was my point; it is wrong to pretend there is some simple solution ("don't use camera evidence") when that creates problems too.

Absolutely there will be bitching and moaning ....... I think this is why sports is so popular.

I don't suggest that there is a simple solution.

I am merely stating that officiating in sports is never PERFECT and that errors made in officiating is part of the game.

So let the players and officials inside the field of play make the call and if it turns out it was wrong well too bad it is part of the game.

Of course people with bitch and moan but there will be bitching and moaning either way.

 

[Golfingdad]

20 minutes ago, ay33660 said:

Final game EURO 2016 ........ handball penalty awarded to France instead of Portugal:

107 mins: Koscielny earns a yellow card for handball right on the edge of the box, but the ball actucally hit Eder's hand.

 Eder then subsequently scores the winning goal.

Original call stands ........... that's sports.

I get your point, but just to clarify ... it wasn't immediately afterwards.  Had that guy scored on the free kick like he darn near did, that would have been a lot harder for everybody to swallow, I think.   

[cutchemist42]

So how many grounded clubs do you think are missed in round 1/2s of tournaments?

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Let's rewind and consider three four hypothetical scenarios here:

1. The USGA makes their decision at the exact same time as they did, but as the guy is driving his cart down the path from the tent to notify the players he recognizes (or is told) that one player has played their third shot and the other player has not.  He decides to wait a minute until the other player plays their third.  What would the "fallout" be this morning?  How many people out there would be "crying foul" because he didn't tell the players as soon as was possible?
2. They make the ruling a little sooner, such that both players were on the 18th tee when they arrived.  Brittany still had the honor and she's already hit her tee shot thinking they were tied. and Anna has teed her ball up, pulled her club, and is starting her routine.  He waits until she tees off (also thinking she's still tied) and then he tells them both.  Same two questions as above.  Fallout?  Number of people up in arms about it?
3. He arrives at the 18th tee at the same time as above, but goes and stops Anna from her routine, informs them both, which then allows her to switch to driver from 3 wood, and go for the green in two.  Same two questions again.
4. Very unlikely, but we're in hypothetical-land anyway so ... after the situation plays out like it did in scenario 3, Anna goes on to reach the green in two and make eagle and then wins the playoff a hole or two later. Same two questions.

If you think the answers to questions 1 and 2 are something other than "none" and "zero" then I think you are out of your mind.  And if you think the answers to the questions in 3 and 4 are something other than "enormous" and "nearly everybody (except you, perhaps)" then again, out of your mind, I say.

This isn't a rules issue, this is a common sense issue.

It's not a common sense issue. You can't just keep saying that as if it adds any validity or weight to your very limited opinion (limited because you're just talking about slight differences to one scenario).

What if this had happened on the 16th hole of regulation, and they found out after players who were possibly in contention had finished playing? Do they get to go back out and re-play the last hole? Where does it stop? What if Anna had birdied 16 and taken 3 to BL’s 2 on the last hole: they’d be at the same “number” of strokes on the aggregate but not on the 18th hole. What if there were three players, all at different total strokes and all at different strokes on 18 - are you going to go around and tell one but wait to tell the others? What if a player with a lot of strokes is next to play? What if that player is the one penalized? What if it’s another player?

So many ramifications and situations. The clearest solution, IMO: tell them as soon as you know.

Which, coincidentally, also happens to be what the rules say: inform as soon as practicable.