Modernized Rules Discussion: Player Behavior

[rpsetser]

Had the following happen in a tournament:

A guy in my group hit his tee shot under a tree, and it had come to rest next to one of the roots of at the base of the tree.  Rule says play it where it lies.  He said that he needed to pick up his ball to identify it, and then when he set it back down, he placed it about 3 inches back from where it was originally.  I told him that the ball had to be replaced in the exact position, or he would have to take an "unplayable lie" penalty.  

 

Under this new rule, this guy could have walked over, picked up his ball under the guise of identifying it, and then moved it back away from the root, drastically improving his lie.  I can see this kind of thing happening a lot when this rule is brought in.  VERY DISAPPOINTING.  

[Aflighter]

13 minutes ago, rpsetser said:

Had the following happen in a tournament:

A guy in my group hit his tee shot under a tree, and it had come to rest next to one of the roots of at the base of the tree.  Rule says play it where it lies.  He said that he needed to pick up his ball to identify it, and then when he set it back down, he placed it about 3 inches back from where it was originally.  I told him that the ball had to be replaced in the exact position, or he would have to take an "unplayable lie" penalty.  

 

Under this new rule, this guy could have walked over, picked up his ball under the guise of identifying it, and then moved it back away from the root, drastically improving his lie.  I can see this kind of thing happening a lot when this rule is brought in.  VERY DISAPPOINTING.  

Well id like to think the rule would not let someone move a ball away from clearly a bad spot compared to the Lexi situation.

[iacas]

6 hours ago, rpsetser said:

Under this new rule, this guy could have walked over, picked up his ball under the guise of identifying it, and then moved it back away from the root, drastically improving his lie.  I can see this kind of thing happening a lot when this rule is brought in.  VERY DISAPPOINTING.  

I hope you've shared your thoughts with the USGA/R&A.

5 hours ago, Aflighter said:

Well id like to think the rule would not let someone move a ball away from clearly a bad spot compared to the Lexi situation.

They wouldn't, but since players will be off by themselves and the proposed rule lets them pick up their ball without announcing, you won't be able to counter it unless you shadow them.

[nevets88]

Something coming down the pipe tomorrow?

Quote

SOUTHPORT, England – Nick Faldo is calling for a level playing field for future rules transgressions, and for players and caddies to take more responsibility for knowing the rules.

Faldo made the statement ahead of an important announcement on Tuesday from the R&A and USGA on the Lexi Thompson ruling during this year’s ANA Inspiration. Thompson lost in a playoff to South Korea’s So Yeon Ryu after being retroactively assessed four penalty shots in the final round for incorrectly marking her ball in Round 3.

http://golfweek.com/2017/04/24/nick-faldo-rules-golf-lexi-thompson/

[Elmer]

"in the spirit of the game by acting with integrity, showing consideration to others and taking good care of the course."

All too subjective to me.
Some people on the course ask you not to "take the lords name in vain" 

Some people are atheist and curse up a storm.

Takes too may new rules and directives to define intent of integrity & consideration. 

[iacas]

8 hours ago, nevets88 said:

and for players and caddies to take more responsibility for knowing the rules.

That is the only good thing I've heard about this so far.

Currently, I'm dreading what is coming in a few hours…

[roamin]

On 3/1/2017 at 9:35 AM, iacas said:

The fourth, honestly, I don't even feel is really a change. Players always had to use their best judgment. So what am I missing? What's really different? Something subtle?

I'm late to the party, but this thread was at the top of the forum and caught my eye...

How does this particular change not stop Lexi from being penalized at all? I don't believe what she did was "reasonable", but, it was only caught after video review, which they specifically mentioned will no longer trump "a player's best judgement" and will limit "second guessing".

Also, "The player gets no penalty for any small inaccuracies, irrespective of any advantage gained."

What is "small"? And advantage gained makes no difference, at all?

(Again, sorry if this is old news or I'm completely off-base. )

[iacas]

5 hours ago, roamin said:

I'm late to the party, but this thread was at the top of the forum and caught my eye...

How does this particular change not stop Lexi from being penalized at all? I don't believe what she did was "reasonable", but, it was only caught after video review, which they specifically mentioned will no longer trump "a player's best judgement" and will limit "second guessing".

Also, "The player gets no penalty for any small inaccuracies, irrespective of any advantage gained."

What is "small"? And advantage gained makes no difference, at all?

(Again, sorry if this is old news or I'm completely off-base. )

What she did was not reasonable and is visible to the naked eye. She still would be penalized.

[roamin]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

What she did was not reasonable and is visible to the naked eye. She still would be penalized.

It was visible to the naked eye, but wasn't spotted at the time it happened. (Well, maybe it was, I don't think we know that timeline...but...after it was reported, they had to do a "video review" to confirm whether it happened).

I think they'd want to be very clear about the definitions of words and phrases like, "enhanced technology", "small inaccuracies", and "video review". I took the wording to mean they would only call a penalty if you didn't need video to know whether it happened (full speed or otherwise, since it didn't specify)...i.e. if we have to "go to the tape" (for any reason) then it's not a penalty.

I can see where I'm getting too picky about the wording (I tend to do that ), but with the twitter-storm that erupted among pros after the Lexi call, I don't think I'll be the only one.

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, roamin said:

It was visible to the naked eye, but wasn't spotted at the time it happened. (Well, maybe it was, I don't think we know that timeline...but...after it was reported, they had to do a "video review" to confirm whether it happened).

I think they'd want to be very clear about the definitions of words and phrases like, "enhanced technology", "small inaccuracies", and "video review". I took the wording to mean they would only call a penalty if you didn't need video to know whether it happened (full speed or otherwise, since it didn't specify)...i.e. if we have to "go to the tape" (for any reason) then it's not a penalty.

I can see where I'm getting too picky about the wording (I tend to do that ), but with the twitter-storm that erupted among pros after the Lexi call, I don't think I'll be the only one.

 I think it's pretty clear.

Her actions were visible to the naked eye. The amount the ball was misplaced was visible to her or someone standing near her.

I think the wording is pretty clear. You can still go to the tape to see if an infraction occurred. Whether the infraction would have been visible to the naked eye is what the question is.

[roamin]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Whether the infraction would have been visible to the naked eye is what the question is.

Simple and makes sense... I like that. I get too fussy about wording and was caught up on the "video review" phrase. Thanks for the clarification!  

[DaveP043]

11 hours ago, roamin said:

Simple and makes sense... I like that. I get too fussy about wording and was caught up on the "video review" phrase. Thanks for the clarification!  

As I remember the announcement, they're still evaluating the idea of video reviews, whether done in-house or spurred by viewers calls or emails.  That issue is still up in the air, as far as I know.

[Fourputt]

There is certainly no doubt that the PGA Tour could afford to institute some sort of video review system, but the difficulty would be in delineating just how to implement it.  It doesn't seem reasonable to try and use such a system for the entire field on the whole course for all 4 days, yet it would be impossible to pick and choose who gets reviewed and who doesn't, especially to try and pick the contenders out of the field on the first day's play for closer scrutiny.  You could apply to only those within "X" strokes of the lead after the cut, but then you may find out later that one of the the guys who made the cut screwed up on Thursday's round and shouldn't be there on the weekend.  Now you have a dilemma - how did his situation change the makeup of the weekend field?  Maybe just the top 10 players in the field at any given time?  Seems impossible to watch as many as 140 players over an 18 hole course for all 4 rounds.  I don't know.  There is room for complaint or abuse or just plain inequity if all players aren't treated equally. 

As it is now, all players may not be treated equally (the guy tied for 80th is not as likely to be on camera as the one tied for 3rd), but the possibility exists that any shot or action may or may not be caught on camera at any given time.  There will always be a much heavier emphasis on the leaders, so in that respect all players in a similar situation have the same opportunity to have their actions reviewed.  I don't see any good way to modify what is reviewed which is any better than what is currently done on a more or less random basis.  If you are playing well enough to be on camera regularly then you had better be prepared to have your actions watched closely by millions of viewers

Edited May 20, 2017 by Fourputt

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

There is certainly no doubt that the PGA Tour could afford to institute some sort of video review system, but the difficulty would be in delineating just how to implement it.  It doesn't seem reasonable to try and use such a system for the entire field on the whole course for all 4 days, yet it would be impossible to pick and choose who gets reviewed and who doesn't, especially to try and pick the contenders out of the field on the first day's play for closer scrutiny.  You could apply to only those within "X" strokes of the lead after the cut, but then you may find out later that one of the the guys who made the cut screwed up on Thursday's round and shouldn't be there on the weekend.  Now you have a dilemma - how did his situation change the makeup of the weekend field?  Maybe just the top 10 players in the field at any given time?  Seems impossible to watch as many as 140 players over an 18 hole course for all 4 rounds.  I don't know.  There is room for complaint or abuse or just plain inequity if all players aren't treated equally. 

As it is now, all players may not be treated equally (the guy tied for 80th is not as likely to be on camera as the one tied for 3rd), but the possibility exists that any shot or action may or may not be caught on camera at any given time.  There will always be a much heavier emphasis on the leaders, so in that respect all players in a similar situation have the same opportunity to have their actions reviewed.  I don't see any good way to modify what is reviewed which is any better than what is currently done on a more or less random basis.  If you are playing well enough to be on camera regularly then you had better be prepared to have your actions watched closely by millions of viewers

And honestly, is it really that hard to just follow the rules?