Peter Kostis on Rewriting the Rule Book

[boogielicious]

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/peter-kostis-why-its-time-rewrite-golf-rulebook

My issue with articles like this is he presents no alternatives or does not offer anything that would be better. It just comes across as an old guy whining to me.

Quote

By Peter Kostis

As I write this, it’s been a month since Dustin Johnson's U.S. Open win was nearly overshadowed by the USGA's rules debacle at Oakmont, and I'm still shaking my head about it. The decision to penalize Johnson for supposedly making his ball move on the fifth green was just plain wrong—as was making him wait until after the round to apply the penalty. Golf is supposed to be a gentleman's game, the only game in which competitors police themselves. Yet at Oakmont, we saw that even when you do the right thing—as Dustin did by discussing the incident with a rules official the moment the potential infraction occurred—the USGA sees you as guilty until proven innocent. That doesn't sit well with me. (I'm just glad D.J. won comfortably, so that the penalty stroke didn't keep him from raising the trophy that Sunday.)

In addition to updating the "Ball at Rest Moved By Player, Partner, Caddie or Equipment" rule (18-2), which went into effect at the start of this year, the USGA also decreed that you may no longer post scores for handicap purposes if you play by yourself. It's another example of the governing bodies looking over our shoulders, like Big Brother. Apparently, they don't consider golfers to be trustworthy. So we have an issue: Golf is either the pristine, righteous game they proclaim it to be, or it's not—in which case the USGA and R&A look like ambulance chasers, eager to find fault with you at every turn. The latter mentality mocks everything the game is supposed to stand for.

I certainly understand the need to protect the integrity of competition by calling rules infractions accordingly. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that a ball moving one millimeter on a putting green gives a player an unfair advantage. And let's abolish the use of high-definition replays for rules infractions. If an issue can't be resolved with the naked eye at the time it (allegedly) happens, then the so-called penalty obviously didn't affect the integrity of the competition.

Let's remember why we have the Rules of Golf in the first place: They're meant to help us. In their next revision to the game's bylaws (which unfortunately won't happen until 2020), the USGA and R&A should think hard about making convoluted rules like 18-2 more simplistic and straightforward. If a given rules situation doesn't adversely affect the competition—if it doesn't give someone an advantage or disadvantage—then I say, "Play on!"

 

[newtogolf]

I'm usually not a fan of Kostis but I agree with the spirit of what he's saying.  He does offer alternative, he calls for the elimination of ball movement penalties when no advantage is given, eliminate high definition replay for rules infractions and allow single players to post scores.  

The topic has been debated to death here but there are some that want the smallest and most insignificant rules infractions enforced and others that just want the game to be played as it was initially designed, a gentleman's game where players police themselves.  

I also agree that you can't consider golf a pristine, righteous game that is played by gentleman and then say we are not trustworthy enough to post scores as singles and pro's require HD video scrutiny by rules officials, networks and fans at home to ensure they aren't cheating.  

I'm not trying to debate these topics, just supporting why I agree with Kostis's point of view here.  

[boogielicious]

8 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I'm usually not a fan of Kostis but I agree with the spirit of what he's saying.  He does offer alternative, he calls for the elimination of ball movement penalties when no advantage is given, eliminate high definition replay for rules infractions and allow single players to post scores.  

The topic has been debated to death here but there are some that want the smallest and most insignificant rules infractions enforced and others that just want the game to be played as it was initially designed, a gentleman's game where players police themselves.  

I also agree that you can't consider golf a pristine, righteous game that is played by gentleman and then say we are not trustworthy enough to post scores as singles and pro's require HD video scrutiny by rules officials, networks and fans at home to ensure they aren't cheating.  

I'm not trying to debate these topics, just supporting why I agree with Kostis's point of view here.  

And who gets to determine if no advantage is given? Also, there is still going to be High Def regardless. It will be a disaster if we see the ball move on TV and they do nothing about it. He needs to be far more clear on how the rule would be written.

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

And who gets to determine if no advantage is given? Also, there is still going to be High Def regardless. It will be a disaster if we see the ball move on TV and they do nothing about it. He needs to be far more clear on how the rule would be written.

Ideally the golfer but that likely doesn't work for most so the rules officials can make the determination that ball movement such as in DJ's case was incidental and not subject to penalty.  

I see your point with Kostis and the article but I think the goal of the article (as is with most editorial type articles) is to get people to discuss the topic and brainstorm potential solutions.  

[Hardspoon]

My major problem with it is that some of his statements are based on misinformation.

The reason you can't post solo scores has nothing to do with "not trusting" golfers or cheating. The reason what DJ did was a rules violation has nothing to do with gaining an advantage. Many of the "call-in" rules violations have nothing to do with "Hi-Def" TV (largely since that's not an easily definable term).

I'm fine with a re-examination of the rules, but you can't base it on stupid statements like these.

[imsys0042]

I think Kostis makes good points, and I agree with him on all points.   I agree that HD evidence that would show an infraction but it was not assessed is a disaster.  However it was a disaster at both the men's and women's US Opens for varying reasons.   And when more enhanced resolutions and camera angles get even better it's going to cause more argument and concern.

Unfortunately these issues come up because there are too many people who abuse the rules and it affects other competitors who are honest.  There are people at every club who won't play in many tournaments because of rampant cheating.  I played with someone who stated that on Monday.  In response rules are made that punish the innocent (singles).

 

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Ideally the golfer but that likely doesn't work for most so the rules officials can make the determination that ball movement such as in DJ's case was incidental and not subject to penalty.  

I see your point with Kostis and the article but I think the goal of the article (as is with most editorial type articles) is to get people to discuss the topic and brainstorm potential solutions.  

So you think that there would be no discussion without Kostis whining about it?  In actuality, there have been books worth of discussion and nobody has yet come up with a reasonable, workable suggestion for changing the rule he is crying about.  Why, if it 's so easy to do, has nobody done anything concrete about it?  It must be because it's not that easy after all.

What is a small or insignificant movement?  How far does the ball have to move before it's no longer insignificant?  This cannot be defined, because it all depends on the location and the specific lie.  Movement that might be an advantage for a Tour player might make no difference at all for a shot to be played by a weekend amateur.  The reverse could also be true.  How do you define that in a workable rule?

To make the rule work, it has to be all inclusive.  That filters down to the point that, to ensure equity, any movement at all must be a breach.  It's as simple as that.  

[Whiner]

1 hour ago, imsys0042 said:

I think Kostis makes good points, and I agree with him on all points.   I agree that HD evidence that would show an infraction but it was not assessed is a disaster.  However it was a disaster at both the men's and women's US Opens for varying reasons.   And when more enhanced resolutions and camera angles get even better it's going to cause more argument and concern.

Unfortunately these issues come up because there are too many people who abuse the rules and it affects other competitors who are honest.  There are people at every club who won't play in many tournaments because of rampant cheating.  I played with someone who stated that on Monday.  In response rules are made that punish the innocent (singles).

 

The playing alone problem is the first move toward a universal (world wide) hcp.  Try posting a none attested score in Australia (or for that matter a score not played in a competition).   

Do you think video replay of an NBA player with his foot 1 mm on the 3 point line should be allowed?  Do you know that the "shot spot" in tennis is only accurate to say 3 mm (or whatever the margin of error is--some out were in and vice versa)  These are all accepted as part of the game.

[Valleygolfer]

3 hours ago, boogielicious said:

the USGA sees you as guilty until proven innocent.

pretty much true in most aspects of life now...

I think the rules official should be able to decide whether or not an advantage is gained. In an amateur round, the peers that are present, which is how we often decide on drop location. Secondly, as long as the ball is not "rolled" by a competitor, and the ball is replaced at the original location, there should be no penalty.

 

[Fourputt]

33 minutes ago, Valleygolfer said:

pretty much true in most aspects of life now...

I think the rules official should be able to decide whether or not an advantage is gained. In an amateur round, the peers that are present, which is how we often decide on drop location. Secondly, as long as the ball is not "rolled" by a competitor, and the ball is replaced at the original location, there should be no penalty.

 

All that does is result in uneven application of the rule.  It brings individual judgement and prejudice into a ruling where none should or needs to exist.  It also takes something away from the expectation that the player will use the utmost care to ensure that his actions do nothing to cause a breach.  Just a bad idea all around.

[Golfingdad]

3 hours ago, boogielicious said:

It will be a disaster if we see the ball move on TV and they do nothing about it.

I disagree with that.  The two major examples we saw this year (DJ and Anna Norqvist) we only saw the supposed infractions on TV and they both turned out to be disasters to a majority of people because the DID DO something about it.  Had they not, both championships, in the eyes of many (most?) people would have turned out better.

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, Valleygolfer said:

pretty much true in most aspects of life now...

I think the rules official should be able to decide whether or not an advantage is gained. In an amateur round, the peers that are present, which is how we often decide on drop location. Secondly, as long as the ball is not "rolled" by a competitor, and the ball is replaced at the original location, there should be no penalty.

 

Just for clarification, Kostis said that not me.

7 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I disagree with that.  The two major examples we saw this year (DJ and Anna Norqvist) we only saw the supposed infractions on TV and they both turned out to be disasters to a majority of people because the DID DO something about it.  Had they not, both championships, in the eyes of many (most?) people would have turned out better.

But what if they change the rule to what Kostis wants? DJ's ball moved but we didn't see it live. They did not give him a penalty because of the new Kostis rule and 'cuz DJ said there was no advantage. Then later, someone shows a HD replay that shows the ball moved away from a pitch mark in it's line, just a little bit, but enough in their eye. You don't think viewers would question the advantage judgement?

Better yet, what if it was Tiger? I think they would scream holy hell that he cheated and gained an advantage. Then @natureboy and Neil deGrasse Tyson would do a vector analysis using NASA software developed at JPL showing that if the ball was in it's original position, the pitchmark crater would have deflected the ball 0.012 degrees resulting in the putt lipping out and costing him the US Open.

Or no one would care except Rich Purnell, the steely-eyed missile-man!  

[Valleygolfer]

40 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

All that does is result in uneven application of the rule.  It brings individual judgement and prejudice into a ruling where none should or needs to exist.  It also takes something away from the expectation that the player will use the utmost care to ensure that his actions do nothing to cause a breach.  Just a bad idea all around.

I just don't think this will incur any sloppy play during professional rounds and some amateurs are not that precise already when it comes to placement in casual rounds. Individual judgement exists all the time in golf. We would not be talking about this if it wasn't an issue. Professional decisions would be made immediately with a rules official in professional tournaments and peers in amateur which is the norm with other situations.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Valleygolfer said:

I just don't think this will incur any sloppy play during professional rounds and some amateurs are not that precise already when it comes to placement in casual rounds. Individual judgement exists all the time in golf. We would not be talking about this if it wasn't an issue. Professional decisions would be made immediately with a rules official in professional tournaments and peers in amateur which is the norm with other situations.

What do you mean?  We've already seen it.  I think that both the LPGA bunker incident and the the US Open putting incident this year were a result of pros taking excessive and unnecessary risks in the way that they set up or prepared for a stroke.  I don't know if either of them has changed the way they do it because of the penalties, but they are certainly aware that the risk is there and that the possibility of a penalty exists if they continue to play the same way.  

If you put individual judgement into the equation, then just because this time moving the ball was not a called penalty, you don't really know if the next referee will see it a bit different and call it on you.  It makes for the possibility of similar situations being judged differently, and that is one thing that the rules abhor.  They strive for equity, and the only way to achieve that is to make the ruling black and white.    

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

I think that both the LPGA bunker incident and the the US Open putting incident this year were a result of pros taking excessive and unnecessary risks in the way that they set up or prepared for a stroke.

I disagree in part. DJ and Wattel both just set up to address the ball as they normally do a couple thousand times each year.

Edited September 7, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I disagree in part. DJ and Wattel both just set up to address the ball as they normally do a couple thousand times each year.

Maybe what he's saying is that they are taking unnecessary risks each time. Maybe Anna broke the rule 200 of those 2000 times.

[natureboy]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Maybe what he's saying is that they are taking unnecessary risks each time. Maybe Anna broke the rule 200 of those 2000 times.

In the case of Wattel and DJ, I would expect they'd have a lot of these penalties racked up by now then. In Anna's case not being in contention for a Major left all those other potentially risky cases primarily to the judgement of the naked eye.

Could be what @Fourputt is saying, but IMO, given normal expectations I think DJ and Wattel were not taking risks, but Anna was.

[iacas]

Move beyond Wattel already.

He didn't even mention it.