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

[Hardspoon]

4 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

Thank you Braivo.You earn pts with me.Hate to bring more issues up but maybe the cameraman wanted an American US Open champion over a swede haa.Id like to ask for what reason was he zooming in on a record ed shot? Are they being told to look gor infractions?

Where would you draw the line? I'm pretty sure nobody on the course noticed Tiger's illegal drop in the Master's. Is that also OK, then? Seems like you'd be encouraging cheating.

Or is it only "zoomed in" footage you'd be worried about?

 

[Phil McGleno]

3 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

Thank you Braivo.You earn pts with me.Hate to bring more issues up but maybe the cameraman wanted an American US Open champion over a swede haa.Id like to ask for what reason was he zooming in on a record ed shot? Are they being told to look gor infractions?

It sure is convenient to ignore the posts and points made against your point of view huh?

What if someone clearly breaks a rule but does not call it on herself or himself? Then wins by one.-Everyone in the world can see it on TV, even SD TV-But the USGA can not penalize because it is on TV.

You can not even use other sports because they are actually ADDING more and more video review.-There are calls that we remove umpires from calling balls and strikes. Video will be used more and more.

[newtogolf]

49 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

I do not care about your other scenarios but you can easily find a problem with this one-What if the official waits until both have played "3" shots but Brittany hits the third in the water.

Does he wait until Anna has played her fourth shot? Except Brittany is still away so she will play her fifth shot before Anna putts her fourth-So what does he do then?

That is no more fair than telling them right away.

As @Golfingdad said, it's common sense to notify both at the same time either before both took their 3rd shot or after both took their 3rd shot.  There's no question Anna deserved the penalty, no one is disputing that, the issue is how once again the USGA botched up the notification.  

[Aflighter]

2 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

It sure is convenient to ignore the posts and points made against your point of view huh?

What if someone clearly breaks a rule but does not call it on herself or himself? Then wins by one.-Everyone in the world can see it on TV, even SD TV-But the USGA can not penalize because it is on TV.

You can not even use other sports because they are actually ADDING more and more video review.-There are calls that we remove umpires from calling balls and strikes. Video will be used more and more.

First off, she was not trying to cheat.She just got her clubhead too close to that sand and there was  lil hump that rose up and it touched a mm part of the sole.No way she could have known.I would not have wanted to win that way because it had no bearing on shot.The two shot penalty is way too penal.That pretty much ended the match.Im saying if your gonna use HD cameras to analyze golf then you need to analyze all of em and not just the last group.

[Hardspoon]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

@Golfingdad said, it's common sense to notify both at the same time either before both took their 3rd shot or after both took their 3rd shot.  There's no question Anna deserved the penalty, no one is disputing that, the issue is how once again the USGA botched up the notification.  

That sounds fine for this specific situation, but doesn't work as a general rule. "Notify after each competitor has made the same number of strokes on a hole" might be pretty unfair in another situation (shot OB that results in a third shot from the tee, for example...do you then wait for the other player's third shot? What if it's a putt?)

"As soon as practical", while it didn't necessarily result in the best outcome here, is still the best general rule

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

That sounds fine for this specific situation, but doesn't work as a general rule. "Notify after each competitor has made the same number of strokes on a hole" might be pretty unfair in another situation (shot OB that results in a third shot from the tee, for example...do you then wait for the other player's third shot? What if it's a putt?)

"As soon as practical", while it didn't necessarily result in the best outcome here, is still the best general rule

Agreed, the circumstances have to be determined on a per case basis.  In this case the USGA blew it.  

If Anna was in 30th place and committed the same foul there might not have been a HD camera zoomed in on her ball and she might not have even been caught.  

[Phil McGleno]

10 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

As @Golfingdad said, it's common sense to notify both at the same time either before both took their 3rd shot or after both took their 3rd shot.

Do you want them notified at the same time or after they have taken the same number of strokes?-What if Brittany had holed out with her fourth?-Or put it in the water and basically skipped her third shot and played her fourth, and then her sixth as a putt because she is still away? Do you hope Anna takes three putts so you can tell them after their sixth?

 

7 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

That sounds fine for this specific situation, but doesn't work as a general rule. "Notify after each competitor has made the same number of strokes on a hole" might be pretty unfair in another situation (shot OB that results in a third shot from the tee, for example...do you then wait for the other player's third shot? What if it's a putt?)

"As soon as practical", while it didn't necessarily result in the best outcome here, is still the best general rule

Yes.

4 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Agreed, the circumstances have to be determined on a per case basis.  In this case the USGA blew it.

So what if Brittany hit it in the water?-When then?

4 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

If Anna was in 30th place and committed the same foul there might not have been a HD camera zoomed in on her ball and she might not have even been caught.  

So what? Did she violate the rules of golf or not?

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

I would not have wanted to win that way because it had no bearing on shot.

What if she pushed down a little bit and gave herself a slightly better lie? You don't get to decide. Another poster is calling "do not touch the ground in a hazard" a "bright line rule." It's a "no means no" rule. You don't get to decide what constitutes an advantage gained, nor does Brittany. She didn't want to win by what? Another player breaking a rule they all know?

13 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

The two shot penalty is way too penal.

Methinks you should read up on a $2 or $3 booklet available from the USGA…

13 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

That pretty much ended the match. Im saying if your gonna use HD cameras to analyze golf then you need to analyze all of em and not just the last group.

Already discussed, and nice of you too to ignore the many responses and counterpoints made to this…

The best may be, what: suppose Anna clearly touched the sand and improved her lie, but nobody called her on it. Everyone in the world could see it on TV, but because it was on TV, the USGA can't issue a penalty. That's good, in your opinion?

And cameras can help, too, as has also been pointed out.

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

Do you want them notified at the same time or after they have taken the same number of strokes?-What if Brittany had holed out with her fourth?-Or put it in the water and basically skipped her third shot and played her fourth, and then her sixth as a putt because she is still away? Do you hope Anna takes three putts so you can tell them after their sixth?

In my perfect golf world I'd want them held up at 18, notified a possible ruling was coming and then both notified before they teed off.  My 2nd choice would be to notify both before they both took their 3rd shot or both after their 3rd shot.  

[Braivo]

29 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

Thank you Braivo.You earn pts with me.Hate to bring more issues up but maybe the cameraman wanted an American US Open champion over a swede haa.Id like to ask for what reason was he zooming in on a record ed shot? Are they being told to look gor infractions?

This thought crossed my mind as well. There is certainly the possibility for bias when it comes to which players get the close-ups and which ones are aired on TV. 

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

This has been discussed and answered already. Golf isn't fair. TV coverage does not change the facts of what happened, it simply acts as evidence.

Should we remove all cameras because not all criminals are caught on camera committing crimes?

The USGA, whether you like it or not (and I like it), simply tries to use all available evidence. Sometimes that involves a video replay. Sometimes it involves spectator testimony. Sometimes it involves the fellow competitor… Or whatever…

You don't think that if there was an obvious penalty caught on camera that they couldn't penalize for because it was on camera… that wouldn't cause a fuss?

I am talking my theories out loud, brainstorming. 

Golf, right now, is the only major sport where the outcome can be determined by someone not involved in the actual event. (i.e. a TV viewer noticing an infraction and calling in).

In all other sports the use of video camera replay is restrained to a certain set of rules. Golf loves rules, why not add some more about use of cameras? 

The camera should not change an event after it has taken place. In football, once the next play starts the last play cannot be reviewed. The same should apply to golf. Once the next shot is hit it's done, move on. If the players or caddies did not notice the infraction in the moment then it is too late.

Either way it's "not fair" but only one way is consistent. 

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

In my perfect golf world I'd want them held up at 18, notified a possible ruling was coming and then both notified before they teed off.  My 2nd choice would be to notify both before they both took their 3rd shot or both after their 3rd shot.  

"As soon as possible" is the only standard that makes any sense to me, across the board, to any scenario one can devise.

People wanted Dustin informed as soon as possible, didn't they? They didn't want people notified when all players got to the 12th tee. Lowry was behind - pretend DJ had been told on the 12th tee that he was being given a penalty; should the USGA have let Lowry play the same number of shots as DJ and then told him then? Or should they have told him as soon as they knew?

[RH31]

20 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

In my perfect golf world I'd want them held up at 18, notified a possible ruling was coming and then both notified before they teed off.  My 2nd choice would be to notify both before they both took their 3rd shot or both after their 3rd shot.  

Makes sense.

[Hardspoon]

11 minutes ago, Braivo said:

The camera should not change an event after it has taken place. In football, once the next play starts the last play cannot be reviewed. The same should apply to golf. Once the next shot is hit it's done, move on. If the players or caddies did not notice the infraction in the moment then it is too late.

FWIW, they review three-pointers in basketball after play has continued, sometimes changing the score minutes later. I see this as similar - better to get it right, rather than worry about whether a team would play differently if the true score was known.

Just throwing an example out there...not saying it's the same thing, but something to consider. Golf isn't entirely unique.

[phan52]

I think they could have considered the circumstances when deciding on the timing of notification. "As soon as possible" is a good standard, particularly when they are playing in the middle of the field. They can't shut down play on the whole course. But they were in a two person playoff. I think it would have been reasonable to stop play as soon as they knew they were going to have a review.

 

[iacas]

Quote

On the timing issue:

1) It was all of 7.5 minutes from the time Fox showed it until they notified the players - I timed it. Frankly, that's pretty damned efficient IMO and certainly a huge difference from Oakmont. 

2) They are/were absolutely right to use the standard of notifying players as soon as possible - regardless of sequence. On the surface, it might seem to make sense to wait until they'd both hit 3rd shots in this case, that would open a massive can of worms for all the different scenarios they might face including ones when there is hardly a clean and orderly sequence of shots. e.g. imagine Lang hits same drive she did on 18 (in right rough, no choice but to lay up), but Norquist hits a better one -- long and in the fairway, where she'd seriously consider going for green in 2. USGA officials arrive right after Lang hits layup (again, knowing about penalty wouldn't really make a difference) and hits same 2nd she hit yesterday (in first cut on the right). Do they not tell Norquist before she hits her 2nd shot to keep it even? So say she lays up (since Lang isn't in great position to get her 3rd shot close), when if she'd known ahead of time she'd clearly go for it. People would be outraged about USGA not telling her. And of course there are hundreds of other distinct scenarios like that. 

The ONLY fair way to go about it is one CONSISTENT standard of telling the participants as soon as they can.

I'm quoting someone on another site (Geoff S's), but basically…

1. Nobody's talking much about this. The USGA seems to have learned - already - from how they handled things at Oakmont, and yet… nobody's giving them any credit for how quickly they decided and informed.
2. Total agreement. Similar to the situations I've put forth.

Tell the players as soon as possible. That's the only standard that makes any sense.

[RH31]

If a player incurs a penalty, say, playing a shot around the green, but doesn't inform his playing partner(marker) until after he holes out, is he in violation the "as soon as possible" protocol?

[Hardspoon]

1 minute ago, RH31 said:

If a player incurs a penalty, say, playing a shot around the green, but doesn't inform his playing partner(marker) until after he holes out, is he in violation the "as soon as possible" protocol?

It is "as soon as practical"...but, yes. 

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, RH31 said:

If a player incurs a penalty, say, playing a shot around the green, but doesn't inform his playing partner(marker) until after he holes out, is he in violation the "as soon as possible" protocol?

Unless the marker is in the port-a-john or something, probably yes. Note that there's only one Decision under 9-3, and it's pretty basic. However, there's another decision under 9-2 (match play):

 

Quote

 

9-2/1 Meaning of "As Soon as Practicable" in Rule 9-2

Rule 9-2b(i) requires a player who has incurred a penalty to inform his opponent "as soon as practicable." This phrase is purposely broad so as to allow for consideration of the circumstances in each situation, especially the proximity of the player to his opponent. Thus, informing the opponent "as soon as practicable" of a penalty incurred does not, in all circumstances mean that the player must do so before the opponent plays his next stroke.

 

 

In the case of the USWO, it was a stroke play event (playoff), and the committee took over in informing Brittany of Anna's penalty, and they clearly did so "as soon as practicable," (relieving Anna of the responsibility to have to do it).

But 9-2/1 gives insight into defining "as soon as practicable" and that same definition would carry weight in stroke play competitions as well.