Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Aflighter

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

Note: This thread is 1165 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

165 posts / 12273 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

The more I think about it, the more I think the problem is really just the constraints of how many cameras/cameramen a broadcaster chooses to bring to a tourney, and how that creates a scenario where different percentage of shots can be scrutinised to the nth degree depending on the situation.I dont know who makes this decision.

Im also even curious now as to how golf tournaments ask cameramen/broadcasters to look for infraction, and maybe on what importance they place on rules-catching. Like, is it the USGA who requests X amount of cameras in the deal with Fox to guarantee they see X amount of shots closeup?

A similar problem might be is when an NFL game in a different stadium cant capture the same video replay  at a similar angle that another stadium might be able to. You have two games under the same ruleset that can receive the same amount of analysis. 

Edited by cutchemist42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

waiting for a top (rich) pro (or a group of pros) to hire a giant crew of cameramen like 3 or 4 per hole and huge staff of independent judges to real time review everything everyone else does (including super tight zooming) and start calling it all in throughout a big tournament - just to make a point

The Open - for example.  Home of golf, the effort to could be called "It used to be a game of honor" or "Big Brother - and his uncles, sisters and cousins - are watching"

live stream it all on Facebook - let the chips fall

(I'm being wry, I really doubt they'd discover much....)

39 minutes ago, iacas said:
  1.  and yet… nobody's giving them any credit for how quickly they decided and informed.

Noticed this - it was faster by far than Dustin's issue was....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 hours ago, No Mulligans said:

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...?

Hmm.. .yes... 

Just remember when you see pigtails on a lady they are not handlebars, buddy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

The only distinction I can think of is that in the case of a ball moving, the only potential advantage is the ball position. In a bunker, the rule is to prevent you from testing the ground. But it's ridiculous to think that any contact which is so minute that it can only be seen on video is enough to "test" anything.

For hazards, I think it's about both testing the conditions in a 'penalty' area and potentially improving your lie. For bunkers, I think the latter is more applicable since you can already test the conditions a bit with your feet - though not right at the ball. Exposing a bit of the back of the ball by even lightly grounding the club can substantially improve your chances of making clean contact, particularly if the ball has settled in a bit.

I agree with you that minute contact like that not detected by the player, RO, fellow competitor, or spectators is inconsequential in terms of why the rule is there in the first place, except perhaps in encouraging a player to employ a wide safety margin.

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

The one thing I'll say is that every player knows the rule, and in my humble opinion, she took too much of a chance by trying to place the club too close to the ball at address.  Basically she took what I see as an unnecessary risk and was bitten for it.  It sucks because of the situation, but it was handled as well as was possible, notification was made as soon as the breach was verified, and putting blame on the USGA for her gaff is just sour grapes.

Not putting the blame on the USGA. I think under the rules she was correctly penalized.

I also agree she was dangerously close to the sand (Paul Runyan screams 'underreach' from his grave). IMO, a much bigger risk than DJ's actions at Oakmont.

However, without some sort of 'naked eye' type line in the sand (;-)), I forsee legions of telephoto lenses  or HD broadcasts monitored by respective opponent camps (like what @rehmwa said) arguing over single grains of sand and which camera angle or device is correct. To me that's an inconsequential sideshow to the essence of the play of the game itself. And technology for these kind of close-ups is only going to continue to improve. 

Edited by natureboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the flaw here is how the rules of golf operate.  I understand the rule here and generally appreciate rules that are black and white, as are the rules of golf.  But because of that black and white nature, combined with the reality of tournament golf and video review, you get these kind of situations.  One wonders if it would be better to have these issues go to the rules committee to decide, based on the available evidence (a) did the player gain an advantage?, or (b) was the infraction intentional?  If either is the case, then the penalty is assessed.  There are judgment calls in every other sport and they all seem to survive with them.  The solution I just outlined is anything but perfect -- you introduce human judgment into the mix, and you exacerbate the problem of delayed rulings.  It would be interesting, at the very least, to experiment with a policy like this.  It could well make things worse but we don't really know without trying things out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 minutes ago, tdiii said:

It would be interesting, at the very least, to experiment with a policy like this.  It could well make things worse but we don't really know without trying things out. 

Would it make sense first to experiment with limiting rule infraction observations just to those at least physically present at the event? TV coverage is always going to be uneven in its 'protection of the field', because of the natural focus on the leaders or big names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Would it make sense first to experiment with limiting rule infraction observations just to those at least physically present at the event? TV coverage is always going to be uneven in its 'protection of the field', because of the natural focus on the leaders or big names.

I said something like this earlier. Golf is the only sport where people not actively involved in the game (participants and officials) can actually impact the outcome. Remove the outstide element and make for consistency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour 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

I'm not talking about changing any policy, and I have ZERO issue with the general rule.  Nothing would need change on the books, but it's not too much to ask the guy going out to notify them that he assess the situation as he does it.

In this particular situation, it seems pretty clear to most that it would have been better if they both found out prior to (or after) their third shots on 18.  Not in between.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

22 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I said something like this earlier. Golf is the only sport where people not actively involved in the game (participants and officials) can actually impact the outcome. Remove the outstide element and make for consistency. 

I always thought the Fan who paid their entry fees, or sat in front of a screen for any sporting event were also actively involved in that sport by showing their support. 

Removing the "outside element" just might create more opportunity for more consistent mistakes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 minute ago, Patch said:

I always thought the Fan who paid their entry fees, or sat in front of a screen for any sporting event were also actively involved in that sport by showing their support. 

Removing the "outside element" just might create more opportunity for more consistent mistakes....

Yeah, but they don't get to call fouls, penalties, balls and strikes, etc. Big difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

31 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I said something like this earlier. Golf is the only sport where people not actively involved in the game (participants and officials) can actually impact the outcome. Remove the outstide element and make for consistency. 

That's my instinct too. Though I would still include spectators as they often help find balls and point out balls colliding or other spectators moving the ball. Plus that's an interesting quirk of golf's unique history IMO.

I think many are afraid of infractions being missed when the USGA is the tournament host, but I wonder how much this HD stuff has happened with The Open Championship?

I see folks mentioning the Tiger drop at Augusta being called in by an offsite RO watching the broadcast. That prevented an incorrect drop under the rules from standing. But why didn't the RO's actually there get it right in the first place - or others on site spot it by watching the telecast? It's a pretty basic procedure, right?

Many consider that scenario a good outcome of the 'all evidence' rule. Is it bad for golf if a number of these were to be not penalized during Majors and that fact gets magnified by the media cycle and some broadcasters' desire to create a 'buzz'?

Are the rules so complex requiring an on-site RO to keep track of so many factors that to prevent basic errors like Tiger's an appeal needs to be made to the entire TV audience? If so, is that the best way to deal with the core problem?

Edited by natureboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, tdiii said:

I think the flaw here is how the rules of golf operate.  I understand the rule here and generally appreciate rules that are black and white, as are the rules of golf.  But because of that black and white nature, combined with the reality of tournament golf and video review, you get these kind of situations.  One wonders if it would be better to have these issues go to the rules committee to decide, based on the available evidence (a) did the player gain an advantage?, or (b) was the infraction intentional?  If either is the case, then the penalty is assessed.  There are judgment calls in every other sport and they all seem to survive with them.  The solution I just outlined is anything but perfect -- you introduce human judgment into the mix, and you exacerbate the problem of delayed rulings.  It would be interesting, at the very least, to experiment with a policy like this.  It could well make things worse but we don't really know without trying things out. 

The purpose of the rule is to prevent players from testing the hazard surface before play. It was pretty clear that isn't what happened. I think when somebody grounds their club in a hazard, 99% of the time its an accident. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, natureboy said:

That's my instinct too. Though I would still include spectators as they often help find balls and point out balls colliding or other spectators moving the ball. Plus that's an interesting quirk of golf's unique history IMO.

I think many are afraid of infractions being missed when the USGA is the tournament host, but I wonder how much this HD stuff has happened with The Open Championship?

I see folks mentioning the Tiger drop at Augusta being called in by an offsite RO watching the broadcast. That prevented an incorrect drop under the rules from standing. But why didn't the RO's actually there get it right in the first place - or others on site spot it by watching the telecast? It's a pretty basic procedure, right?

Many consider that scenario a good outcome of the 'all evidence' rule. Is it bad for golf if a number of these were to be not penalized during Majors and that fact gets magnified by the media cycle and some broadcasters' desire to create a 'buzz'?

Are the rules so complex requiring an on-site RO to keep track of so many factors that to prevent basic errors like Tiger's an appeal needs to be made to the entire TV audience? If so, is that the best way to deal with the core problem?

Right. You can replay any major sporting event and find plenty of poor or missed calls. People may even call in when they seem them, doesn't matter. The outcome of the game / match is decided on the field of play by the players and officials that are present. 

Different levels of scrutiny being applied to different players based on the number of live television shots of theirs are broadcast is inconsistent. Leave it on the course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Waste areas versus bunkers, Hi-Def cameras focusing in on grains of sand or blades of grass around a golf ball or free drops given from a large amount of temporary on-course obstructions - wonder how Bobby Jones or Old Tom Morris would feel about all of the scrutiny or controversy that players these days play under.

At some point in time, something will happen that really goes south with all of this high-tech imagery or some of these local rules in a major and things will get very ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do know that Azinger and Inkster are sharing my sentiments.Their was an injustice on notifying Lang before her shot and after Anna hit therefore allowing Lang to change shots.I dont really think it wouldve mattered but fair is fair but like has been said Fairness doesnt matter.Still nobody has explained why the bunker shot was reviewed  and zoomed in on in first place.Is most bunker shots reviewed like that or were they just bored and playing with the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

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. 

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. 

You cannot compare golf to any other sport for TV coverage.  The playing field is too large and too varied, and there are too many contestants for uniform camera coverage.  That is simply not an option.  Even in football and baseball, the replays are "inconclusive" nearly half the time, and those games are played on a finite field where the action is fairly well contained.

20 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

The purpose of the rule is to prevent players from testing the hazard surface before play. It was pretty clear that isn't what happened. I think when somebody grounds their club in a hazard, 99% of the time its an accident. 

The real intent of the rule in this instance is to prevent the player from improving his lie or area of intended swing.  It would be pretty hard to effectively test the surface when starting one's backswing (any more than you did by just walking into the bunker), but you could easily improve the swing path.  I've watched casual players do so, and with apparent intent - hard to believe that they normally drag the club on the ground for 6 inches before it starts to lift.  :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 minute ago, Fourputt said:

You cannot compare golf to any other sport for TV coverage.  The playing field is too large and too varied, and there are too many contestants for uniform camera coverage.  That is simply not an option.  Even in football and baseball, the replays are "inconclusive" nearly half the time, and those games are played on a finite field where the action is fairly well contained.

The real intent of the rule in this instance is to prevent the player from improving his lie or area of intended swing.  It would be pretty hard to effectively test the surface when starting one's backswing (any more than you did by just walking into the bunker), but you could easily improve the swing path.  I've watched casual players do so, and with apparent intent - hard to believe that they normally drag the club on the ground for 6 inches before it starts to lift.  :whistle:

That would be some gold medal cheating right there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, natureboy said:

That's my instinct too. Though I would still include spectators as they often help find balls and point out balls colliding or other spectators moving the ball. Plus that's an interesting quirk of golf's unique history IMO.

I think many are afraid of infractions being missed when the USGA is the tournament host, but I wonder how much this HD stuff has happened with The Open Championship?

I see folks mentioning the Tiger drop at Augusta being called in by an offsite RO watching the broadcast. That prevented an incorrect drop under the rules from standing. But why didn't the RO's actually there get it right in the first place - or others on site spot it by watching the telecast? It's a pretty basic procedure, right?

Many consider that scenario a good outcome of the 'all evidence' rule. Is it bad for golf if a number of these were to be not penalized during Majors and that fact gets magnified by the media cycle and some broadcasters' desire to create a 'buzz'?

Are the rules so complex requiring an on-site RO to keep track of so many factors that to prevent basic errors like Tiger's an appeal needs to be made to the entire TV audience? If so, is that the best way to deal with the core problem?

Quick, short answer to the Tiger issue is that there wasn't any issue at the time.  The rule is something like you drop "as close as you can" to the previous spot.  There is leeway there (more than there is with some people and shoulder heights :-P) and so nothing was an issue until his interview after the round when he himself said "I moved back a yard or two" or something to that effect.  The evidence there wasn't really the video so much as the admission.

I don't know how they'd do it, but considering the role that HDTV is playing in all of these infractions, I would not be opposed to them brainstorming ideas to improve the rules in that regard.  The NFL has had to alter and expand their rules in a lot of cases to account for the advanced scrutiny provided by HDTV (like, what, exactly is a catch), so maybe golf should consider it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 1165 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2019 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
  • Posts

    • Okay, I know you are getting a whole pile of advice here. I'll throw one more thing at you. Consider doing the "5 minute per day practice challenge" on this forum.  For many people 5 minutes of practice daily can be as effective or possibly more effective than 1-1/2 hour practice sessions once a week.  I tried to do the 5 minutes a day practice challenge a while back, but I kept missing my weekend updates. It may be time for me to try again. 
    • I said 4-6, which is round dependent for sure. If my timing is on I can strike a lot of very solid feeling shots, but the clubs I use could be masking those off center hits with the forgiveness built into them. I can also mishit pretty horribly those same rounds. If I'm having a really bad round I'd probably struggle to hit 1-3, but I don't know that I go a full round without hitting at least one flush shot. Of course, I could be completely delusional too.
    • View this round on GAME GOLF Really my second full individual round(a stroke play event), or 4th if you count scrambles, on the year.  I am actually hitting my driver and irons decently as far as path and face is concerned and for distance as well.  My driver play is going especially well considering the lack of play.  I am definitely struggling a bit with low point but not as much as I thought I would. Had some great shots out of bunkers as well. I can't seem to figure out my wedge distances as is fairly obvious from this round.  My new Glide 2.0 wedges are confusing me a bit on some controlled distance shots.  I kind of miss my Edel wedges for that.  My touch around the greens is just not in form right now as would be expected.  I had some three putts out there but these greens are some of the toughest multi tiered greens I have played on.  We played with a scratch guy out there who shot a 77.  If i catch one thin or toe it a bit the hand also is in a fair amount of pain yet.  I look forward to the continued healing in the hand as far as that goes.   If i can avoid injuring myself this winter I hope to play a lot more next season.  Hopefully I can get out to Erin Hills and Sand Valley.  If anyone would be interested in playing theses courses next year with me, let me know. I am a bit on the fence over if I should work on the swing and try and get rid of the Furyk/Moore like loop or if I should just own it as it seems to be giving me the best face/path relationship I have maybe ever had.  At the end of the day if I can shoot in the low 80's from time to time next season I think it should be a lot of fun to play again.  
    • I’m typically around 4-6 if not even a bit higher. My issues come when I miss I miss big and start bringing big and crooked numbers into play
    • I don't know that that is accurate, and it definitely depends on the state.  In Colorado and California, for example, medical marijuana is exactly the same as the recreational strains available in dispensaries.  The difference is the level of taxation.  I did find one article that stated that 14 states limit THC potency, but after researching state-by-state wasn't able to pin that down.  I don't disagree that it's possible, but will argue the efficacy of doing so.  But to your point - Florida is considering legislation to limit the potency to 10% THC because levels above that "can induce psychosis in some users" (anyone seen Reefer Madness? 😄) A fools errand - the pot our parents smoked was around 7%, with the high-end "sinsemilla" coming in at around 9.5%.  It still gets you high.  Admittedly, the strains produced these days are much stronger, with 18-20% being considered high potency, and 30% being the upper limit for flower.  Extracts from marijuana plants, like hash oil, generally come in between 50 - 80%. To tie it all back together so I'm less off topic - regardless of the THC level, marijuana impairs a person mentally more so today than it did 20 years ago.  Golf is proven to have a significant mental component, aligned closely with the physical aspects of the game.  Thus weed absolutely has a negative impact on ones golf performance - though it might make a shitty round more fun.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. AmirReza
      AmirReza
      (32 years old)
    2. BushwoodCC
      BushwoodCC
      (53 years old)
    3. cozelos
      cozelos
      (34 years old)
    4. RollingStoppie
      RollingStoppie
      (50 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...