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

[iacas]

6 hours 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. 

It's always been that way.

In golf it's important to get things right. A penalty on one player doesn't mean the other side gains 15 yards or a run scores or they get a penalty kick in golf. It just affects the one player (stroke play).

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

I don't think you have any incontrovertible proof that it is "clear" to most. And even if you did… things like this aren't a popularity contest. Most people think you should get relief from a divot hole. Doesn't mean it's "right" or "best."

5 hours ago, Aflighter said:

Their was an injustice on notifying Lang before her shot and after Anna hit therefore allowing Lang to change shots.

To play a little devil's advocate… Why should Lang be further punished? She hit, what, four shots after Anna committed the infraction. Why is allowing her to hit five shots before she knows that her opponent/fellow competitor earned a penalty fair but allowing her to hit four shots unfair?

She hit four shots not knowing the state of her fellow competitor's (and the sole fellow competitor at that point) score.

5 hours ago, Aflighter said:

I dont really think it wouldve mattered but fair is fair but like has been said Fairness doesnt matter.

Fair is telling the players as soon as is practicable. Since Brittany wasn't mid-routine and about to hit, they told Anna, then Brittany.

5 hours ago, Aflighter said:

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.

That has been explained, and was even explained on the TV coverage. The TV camera man who filmed it saw it, or whatever. This is a known thing, and has been basically since it happened.

5 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

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 )

There is not much leeway. That's why Tiger was penalized for dropping back a yard or two.

5 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

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 ) 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.

That's not quite correct, IIRC. David Eger called in and the committee reviewed the TV coverage. He didn't think Tiger dropped in the right place. That happened during the round.

I started the media storm when Tiger made the post-round comments. I immediately began asking people why he wasn't DQed. I was unaware at the time that the committee had already ruled (they'd later reverse the ruling and assess Tiger the penalty).

5 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

Maybe.

But until then, except for 18/4, TV coverage and footage simply falls under the umbrella of "available evidence." It can be used to point out that Tiger's ball moved as he moved the stick in the bushes, or that Anna touched and moved sand, or that the guy at Hilton Head did, in fact, move a loose impediment in his backswing.

5 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I like the word "practicable" in this case.  Because it's not exactly the same as "possible" and I think that is more in line with what they actually did.  The definition of practicable is "able to be done successfully" whereas the definition of possible is just "able to be done."  They definitely notified them as soon as possible, but not, in my view, as soon as practicable, because that was anything but a success. 

I think it was incredibly successful.

You too, as I mentioned above, don't seem to give any weight to the fact that Brittany already played four shots without knowing the actual/correct status of the playoff. How is that "fair" to her? Maybe she'd have played any of those shots differently.

What's the point in making her wait even one MORE shot? A fifth, after the infraction…? The infraction wasn't even on that hole.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

I mean why wasn't the RO on site going through the procedure with Tiger...kind of: "you have these options before you for ball in a water hazard, straight line from the hole through last point of entry (which in this case is where it crossed after it hit the stick), the drop zone, or playing from the original spot. Before you go check out those other lies, I suggest you mark your original spot. That's your fresh divot? Okay."

Because there wasn't an RO with Tiger at the time, IIRC. Tiger dropped himself. It's not a complex rule… Tiger brain farted and conflated "anywhere on the line back" or something.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

Yes Tiger should know the rules himself, but in the midst of competition in a penalty situation, can't the RO's be an informative aid instead of passive observer?

Again, pretty sure there wasn't really an RO around. Not right there, anyway.

3 hours ago, newtogolf said:

I think golf has to seriously consider what role instant replay, fans, etc play in pointing out rules infractions.  In my early learning of golf, I was told it was a gentleman's game where players called penalties on themselves and I liked that.

Unfortunately, Anna didn't call a penalty on herself. Yet she still definitely broke the rules.

So how would you feel if a competitor clearly broke a rule. It's plain as day on TV, and everyone in the world can see it. But because the competitor didn't call it on himself, and his fellow competitor didn't… what then? You don't get to penalize the player for the penalty they clearly committed?

3 hours ago, newtogolf said:

Today we have a game where anyone watching HD broadcasts, including the commentators, can question a golfers action and have it result in a penalty.

Not true at all.

If the player commits a breach, they can be appropriately penalized. They aren't penalized because someone questions their actions. The truth is discerned and the rules of the game are applied. It's that simple.

3 hours ago, newtogolf said:

If this is the direction the USGA and R&A want golf to head then the rules need to be reviewed and rules officials should be equipped with tablets so they can review questionable actions and make rulings immediately.  

They basically did make the ruling immediately. The committee still had to meet. They had to play it a time or two. They had to say "I agree, yes, that's a penalty. Let's go tell the player(s)."

2 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

In my opinion the player receiving the penalty should be informed of such before the competitor.

Anna was informed before Brittany.

[newtogolf]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

So how would you feel if a competitor clearly broke a rule. It's plain as day on TV, and everyone in the world can see it. But because the competitor didn't call it on himself, and his fellow competitor didn't… what then? You don't get to penalize the player for the penalty they clearly committed?

Not true at all.

If the player commits a breach, they can be appropriately penalized. They aren't penalized because someone questions their actions. The truth is discerned and the rules of the game are applied. It's that simple.

They basically did make the ruling immediately. The committee still had to meet. They had to play it a time or two. They had to say "I agree, yes, that's a penalty. Let's go tell the player(s)."

Anna was informed before Brittany.

We all agree the amount of sand that Lang touched was minimal and she was probably not aware of it, nor did it provide her with any competitive advantage.

It's very true, my understanding is Fox is the one that brought this to the attention of the USGA, we've had people call in and report rules violations in other tournaments.  Everyone on the course, the broadcasters and anyone with a HD television is at liberty to call in a potential rules infraction how can you dispute that?  

It took them 9 minutes to review 10 seconds of video, c'mon, I know the USGA are a bunch of dinosaurs but 9 minutes is ridiculously long when the ruling was obvious, her club at address caused sand to move.  What did they do for the other 8 minutes?  

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

We all agree the amount of sand that Lang touched was minimal and she was probably not aware of it, nor did it provide her with any competitive advantage.

So what? Look, it's a complete non-started to go down the road of "did she gain an advantage? how much?"

That's beside the point. She violated a rule, and earned a penalty.

I'm not faulting her for not calling herself on it, but the two strokes were earned.

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

It's very true, my understanding is Fox is the one that brought this to the attention of the USGA, we've had people call in and report rules violations in other tournaments.  Everyone on the course, the broadcasters and anyone with a HD television is at liberty to call in a potential rules infraction how can you dispute that?

I didn't. I disputed that players are penalized when their actions are questioned. Players are penalized when they're found to have broken a rule of golf.

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

It took them 9 minutes to review 10 seconds of video, c'mon, I know the USGA are a bunch of dinosaurs but 9 minutes is ridiculously long when the ruling was obvious, her club at address caused sand to move.  What did they do for the other 8 minutes?  

That was nearly immediate. The camera man had to see it. Then he had to share it with the FOX people. Then they had to tell the USGA people. Then the USGA people had to leave the course to view the video. Then they had to discuss. Then they had to rule and go back out to the players to share the info.

IMO they couldn't have done it much faster, and they did it way faster than at Oakmont. Read the accounts of how it all went down. I'm not doing that work for you. The accounts and timelines are out there.

[newtogolf]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

That was nearly immediate. The camera man had to see it. Then he had to share it with the FOX people. Then they had to tell the USGA people. Then the USGA people had to leave the course to view the video. Then they had to discuss. Then they had to rule and go back out to the players to share the info.

IMO they couldn't have done it much faster, and they did it way faster than at Oakmont. Read the accounts of how it all went down. I'm not doing that work for you. The accounts and timelines are out there.

My understanding (and it could be wrong) is that the 9 minutes was after the camera man and FOX had presented the video to the USGA and the USGA communicated back to FOX that they needed to make a ruling.  

[iacas]

28 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

My understanding (and it could be wrong) is that the 9 minutes was after the camera man and FOX had presented the video to the USGA and the USGA communicated back to FOX that they needed to make a ruling.  

• Did they get the ruling right?
• Did they alert players faster than at Oakmont?
• Did they alert the players as soon as practicable (or possible)?

Yes, yes, yes.

Nine minutes is not a long time. There's travel, there's being certain, etc. This isn't a decision they made in ten seconds and teleported to and from the area where they could view the video and/or out to the players.

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

• Did they get the ruling right?
• Did they alert players faster than at Oakmont?
• Did they alert the players as soon as practicable (or possible)?

Yes, yes, yes.

Nine minutes is not a long time. There's travel, there's being certain, etc. This isn't a decision they made in ten seconds and teleported to and from the area where they could view the video and/or out to the players.

I guess by your statement my understanding was accurate that it took 9 minutes from the time they acknowledged they needed to make a ruling to the time they made it.  Sorry but to me 9 minutes to review an obvious violation is way too long.  Who cares about Oakmont, we're not discussing Oakmont.  

And this is why they need to change the way they officiate tournaments.  Other sports handle instant replay in much less time, Golf should be able to do the same or better.  Why are we settling for mediocre results when with a little effort and better use of technology they could make it better for golfers and fans?  

[mvmac]

Guys...come on, there isn't any conspiracy, or injustice that occurred. The USGA did the best they could and alerted the players as soon as possible, that's the fairest thing they could have done. It's not up to the USGA to decide whether the timing of the ruling is favorable or unfavorable to a player. 

Was it a bad break for Nordquist? Maybe but you get good breaks and bad breaks in golf. On the same day you can have players teeing off when it's blowing 30mph in the afternoon and have to compete with guys who played with no wind in the morning. Should the officials stop play so everyone can play under the same weather conditions? Of course not, it's part of the game. 

 

I've seen some headlines that basically blame the USGA for another "muddied" finish to a U.S. Open and I think it's unfair. The Fox broadcast brought the issue to light, the officials had to take some time to review it and informed the players within 9 minutes (7.5 according to Geoff Shackelford). Also, the USGA/rules didn't "screw" Nordquist, she did that herself, she broke a rule, whether she touched one grain of sand or completely submerged her club. 

[iacas]

7 hours ago, newtogolf said:

I guess by your statement my understanding was accurate that it took 9 minutes from the time they acknowledged they needed to make a ruling to the time they made it.  Sorry but to me 9 minutes to review an obvious violation is way too long.  Who cares about Oakmont, we're not discussing Oakmont.

Because Oakmont is relevant, and this is tremendous progress or a change in less than one month. And no, I'm not saying your understanding of the timing is correct; I'm saying they went from "she hit the shot" to "they made a ruling and informed the players" in less than one hole played, basically, and that's fast. Really fast, when you consider that it's not like they knew about it right away, and that it wasn't obvious to anyone watching like she took practice swings and touched the sand in the bunker or something.

7 hours ago, newtogolf said:

And this is why they need to change the way they officiate tournaments.  Other sports handle instant replay in much less time, Golf should be able to do the same or better.  Why are we settling for mediocre results when with a little effort and better use of technology they could make it better for golfers and fans?  

Other sports have a clock, and/or things are affected by instant replay.

I've seen MLB umpires deliberate. In the NFL, they take a three-minute commercial break sometimes and come back to see what the ruling is. I've seen it take minutes to review whether a goal went in or whether someone was offsides in the NHL.

And in those sports, unlike in golf, the decision needs to be made before any other play can continue because ALL (i.e. both) sides are affected by the outcome, and it affects the status: is that a goal? Does one team get a touchdown? Is the runner safe at first or out?

Plus, those officials are maybe 50 yards at most from the replay booth, often closer, and in golf they might be a mile away and not even together (the members of the committee).

They're incredibly different situations, and in that context, when it can take three minutes in other sports but took them only 7.5 minutes in golf, that's tremendously fast.

---

It's okay, @newtogolf. "You seem to be tightly aligned against the USGA these days so no sense it debating it further."

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Because Oakmont is relevant, and this is tremendous progress or a change in less than one month. And no, I'm not saying your understanding of the timing is correct; I'm saying they went from "she hit the shot" to "they made a ruling and informed the players" in less than one hole played, basically, and that's fast. Really fast, when you consider that it's not like they knew about it right away, and that it wasn't obvious to anyone watching like she took practice swings and touched the sand in the bunker or something.

Other sports have a clock, and/or things are affected by instant replay.

I've seen MLB umpires deliberate. In the NFL, they take a three-minute commercial break sometimes and come back to see what the ruling is. I've seen it take minutes to review whether a goal went in or whether someone was offsides in the NHL.

And in those sports, unlike in golf, the decision needs to be made before any other play can continue because ALL (i.e. both) sides are affected by the outcome, and it affects the status: is that a goal? Does one team get a touchdown? Is the runner safe at first or out?

Plus, those officials are maybe 50 yards at most from the replay booth, often closer, and in golf they might be a mile away and not even together (the members of the committee).

They're incredibly different situations, and in that context, when it can take three minutes in other sports but took them only 7.5 minutes in golf, that's tremendously fast.

---

It's okay, @newtogolf. "You seem to be tightly aligned against the USGA these days so no sense it debating it further."

I've read many of the posts you've written here, you're the guy that always pushes for better use of technology and more elegant solutions. When it comes to the USGA, you seem to be content to accept mediocrity and give them a pass.  

It's 2016, we have 4K tablets and laptops, wireless headsets, cell phones, etc and you want us to believe this is the best the USGA can do?  How about a rules official is located at every hole or worse case every other hole with a laptop, wireless headset and cellphone.  They can maintain a Skype connection the entire time if necessary to discuss a certain ruling.  

I'm tightly aligned against organizations that promotes the status quo and makes excuse for poor handling of rules decisions when it has more money in the bank than it knows what to do with it.  

Last question, Do you honestly believe the USGA is doing everything they can and using the technology resources available to them to improve officiating and rules enforcement during tournaments?  

[iacas]

Just now, newtogolf said:

I've read many of the posts you've written here, you're the guy that always pushes for better use of technology and more elegant solutions. When it comes to the USGA, you seem to be content to accept mediocrity and give them a pass.

I simply disagree it's even in the same neighborhood as mediocre.

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

It's 2016, we have 4K tablets and laptops, wireless headsets, cell phones, etc and you want us to believe this is the best the USGA can do?  How about a rules official is located at every hole or worse case every other hole with a laptop, wireless headset and cellphone.  They can maintain a Skype connection the entire time if necessary to discuss a certain ruling.

Cool. Do that. Those RO's are still not the committee, and they're still going to be hundreds or thousands of yards apart, with people, lakes, trees, etc. between them.

3 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I'm tightly aligned against organizations that promotes the status quo and makes excuse for poor handling of rules decisions when it has more money in the bank than it knows what to do with it.

They changed dramatically in how quickly they handled this since weeks ago. That's not "status quo."

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Last question, Do you honestly believe the USGA is doing everything they can and using the technology resources available to them to improve officiating and rules enforcement during tournaments?  

Not the topic, so without getting into how badly you seem to misjudge the responsibilities and tasks and a host of other things, yes. And they're improving at a good pace as tech improves.

Your comparisons to other sports shows how little you seemingly know about administrating a golf tournament. 7.5 minutes is impressive.

[Lastpick]

In other sports, play is stopped while a play is under review.  I don't find it cumbersome to stop play in a playoff with only a limited number of golfers on the course.  It would be cumbersome to stop play with 156 players on the course.  

I do understand that one may not ground their club in a hazard and Anna clearly did on HD replay.  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.  

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.

[Fourputt]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

I simply disagree it's even in the same neighborhood as mediocre.

Cool. Do that. Those RO's are still not the committee, and they're still going to be hundreds or thousands of yards apart, with people, lakes, trees, etc. between them.

They changed dramatically in how quickly they handled this since weeks ago. That's not "status quo."

Not the topic, so without getting into how badly you seem to misjudge the responsibilities and tasks and a host of other things, yes. And they're improving at a good pace as tech improves.

Your comparisons to other sports shows how little you seemingly know about administrating a golf tournament. 7.5 minutes is impressive.

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.

[turtleback]

20 hours ago, iacas said:

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.

Like I said later on, I could see a new Decision applying in a similar manner to 18/4, but it doesn't exist now, so you can't use 1-4 and 18/4 to waive the penalty on Anna.

. . . 

So you're arguing what, Rich? For better hindsight in advance? That 18/4 should have been added under Decisions to 1-4 and covered any instance in which an infraction is imperceptible to the naked eye, and not just limited to a ball moving?

. . . 

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…

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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.  Because the principle that all evidence should be used was clearly breached in 18/4.  We require a clarified replacement principle.  New circumstances, and this IS a (relatively) new circumstance in the golf world, require new principles.

 

19 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

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?

 

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.

 

 

16 hours ago, natureboy said:

I mean why wasn't the RO on site going through the procedure with Tiger...kind of: "you have these options before you for ball in a water hazard, straight line from the hole through last point of entry (which in this case is where it crossed after it hit the stick), the drop zone, or playing from the original spot. Before you go check out those other lies, I suggest you mark your original spot. That's your fresh divot? Okay."

Yes Tiger should know the rules himself, but in the midst of competition in a penalty situation, can't the RO's be an informative aid instead of passive observer?

 

Rules officials do not intrude themselves into the action.  A RO certainly could have done the things you describe but only if Tiger first calls them over and asks them to.

13 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

In my opinion the player receiving the penalty should be informed of such before the competitor.

They were.  They told Anna and THEN they told Brittany.

[70sSanO]

Because it was a playoff, 9 minutes does seem a bit long since all eyes were on just those 2 competitors.  When compared to nearly 6 hours of play for 75/80 actual strokes, maybe not.  If the playoff had been stopped for review, which may not have been a bad idea, I'm not sure if there would be any change in the outcome.

As far as momentum, in every sport, video reviews always has a winner and loser in terms of momentum regardless of the actual ruling.  In many sports, savvy coaches/players will challenge a call of request a review, just to stop the momentum of the other team/player.  Prior to video review John McEnroe would essentially disrupt the flow of the game with his verbal outbursts.  There will never be a perfect scenario in these instances.

John

[rehmwa]

I'm not liking the verbage saying "Anna Cheated" it implies something intentional.

She was unaware of the violation, immediately when informed she accepted the strokes (without even seeing the video), and I'm sure she turned in a correct score card at the end.  Hopefully, before signing off, she insisted on seeing the video footage.

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Not the topic, so without getting into how badly you seem to misjudge the responsibilities and tasks and a host of other things, yes. And they're improving at a good pace as tech improves.

Your comparisons to other sports shows how little you seemingly know about administrating a golf tournament. 7.5 minutes is impressive.

 

59 minutes 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.

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? 

[imsys0042]

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.

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.

 

[MrDC]

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.

It was very refreshing to see an adult woman in Brittany Lang win the Open, so tired of the teenagers dominating the women's game, it makes the tour kind of joke IMO, we need more women like Lang winning tournaments.