Lexi Thompson's 4 Stroke Penalty at the ANA

[cutchemist42]

11 hours ago, Shorty said:

Let's just say that half an inch to the left of where it was is way too much  and can't be done accidentally.

So whats the actual limit? Because you cant say no ball is replaced perfectly? 

1 hour ago, jamo said:

I always have this thought when the argument about golf balls oscillating comes up.

 Could you explain more? Im not sure I know what you mean. 

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, tlazzol said:

Are these still available? Trying to figure out to pay if they are available.

I suggest that you post in that thread, tagging @iacas.  Or buy a copy of Lowest Score Wins, that's where I got one.  I was given another at the 2015 Newport Cup, but I know that's not an option for most of us.

[cutchemist42]

27 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

After watching the video I honestly can't believe how far she moved the ball away from the marker. She didn't even stand back up. My only guess was because she wasn't behind the marker, relative to the ball, as most people are every time they mark the ball. 

As for people calling it in. I'm not sure I like people doing that. I kinda feel they shouldn't be able to. If someone on the course saw it, that is fine with me. My only concern is that they don't show everyone playing golf equally. The players playing better are then under more scrutiny than those not playing well. I get it, don't break the rules. In the end, when a player gets called out more often than another, just because they are on TV more, is not right in my opinion.

This is REALLY what I hate the most. Before I started playing and watching golf 2 summers ago, I didnt know tournament play had such a unbalanced officiating environment. Some players dont get HD bunker shots, while others have zoomed-in HD.

I dont have a fix either, just saying I was surprised to learn.

I also just hate the concept of phone-in reffing.

[Jack Watson]

Look saying she signed an incorrect card is beyond ridiculous but if she did that it should be disqualification.  The rules were better before!

There is no way around the fact that a retroactive penalty is a double penalty due to this score card problem.

Its effectively exactly as I said.  The rules are nonsensical.

The change that has to happen is no retroactive penalties.

 

 

[Lihu]

3 minutes ago, Braivo said:

First of all, I don't really care about Lexi, this is not motivated by any sort of affinity. I rarely watch LPGA and have no emotional investment in the outcome. 

Secondly, you have already conceded that she did not intentionally break the rules, meaning she did not KNOW at the time of the infraction that she had broken the rule. This is not an issue of knowing the rules, it was an issue of an error which SHE DID NOT KNOW she had committed (which you, again, concede). 

Third, my opinion is simple (KISS): A player should not be penalized TWICE for an unintentional infraction simply because it was discovered AFTER the card is signed. 

Fourth, it is a poor look when you begin to belittle a forum member's argument and assume his motives simply because his opinion disagrees with yours. 

She broke 2 separate rules. Just because one infraction was dependent upon another rule infraction doesn't mean she didn't break both of them.

She broke one rule by replacing her ball incorrectly, then broke another one by signing the scorecard. Unfortunately, the rules are the rules.

[Braivo]

Just now, Lihu said:

She broke 2 separate rules. Just because one infraction was dependent upon another rule infraction doesn't mean she didn't break both of them.

She broke one rule by replacing her ball incorrectly, then broke another one by signing the scorecard. Unfortunately, the rules are the rules.

For the twentieth time, I am NOT arguing that she didn't break the rule! It is my opinion that the rule should be CHANGED!

[krupa]

5 minutes ago, Braivo said:

you have already conceded that she did not intentionally break the rules, meaning she did not KNOW at the time of the infraction that she had broken the rule.

The second part doesn't follow from the first.  You can unintentionally break a rule and immediately know what you just did.  

 For example, I was playing pool once and when it was my turn, I thought my opponent had committed a foul and so I picked up the cue ball.  I immediately realized that my opponent had not fouled and that I was an idiot whose head was not in the game.

[Braivo]

Just now, krupa said:

The second part doesn't follow from the first.  You can unintentionally break a rule and immediately know what you just did.  

 For example, I was playing pool once and when it was my turn, I thought my opponent had committed a foul and so I picked up the cue ball.  I immediately realized that my opponent had not fouled and that I was an idiot whose head was not in the game.

We are making the assumption that she did not realize, at any point, that she had broken the rule. That has been conceded by Erik. Only when informed on Sunday did she know she had broken a rule. 

[Lihu]

Just now, Braivo said:

For the twentieth time, I am NOT arguing that she didn't break the rule! It is my opinion that the rule should be CHANGED!

For the 12th time, signing an incorrect scorecard can be simply because the golfer made a miscount or that a penalty was not correctly taken and found out only afterwards that it was incorrect. Doesn't matter how or why.

It insures that the players ask or answer all the questions before signing and turning in the card.

It's not a bad rule, and I don't see why it needs to be changed?

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, tlazzol said:

Are these still available? Trying to figure out to pay if they are available.

Just post in that thread. I have a hundred or so left, yes.

7 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Secondly, you have already conceded that she did not intentionally break the rules, meaning she did not KNOW at the time of the infraction that she had broken the rule. This is not an issue of knowing the rules, it was an issue of an error which SHE DID NOT KNOW she had committed (which you, again, concede).

It's not a case of not knowing the rules, it's a case of not FOLLOWING the rules. She didn't. Twice.

7 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Third, my opinion is simple (KISS): A player should not be penalized TWICE for an unintentional infraction simply because it was discovered AFTER the card is signed. 

And the simple answer to that is that Lexi was not penalized twice for the same infraction.

1 minute ago, Braivo said:

We are making the assumption that she did not realize, at any point, that she had broken the rule. That has been conceded by Erik. Only when informed on Sunday did she know she had broken a rule. 

Players are responsible for KNOWING and FOLLOWING the rules of golf. Even if she didn't know she'd broken a rule (which I think is clear), she didn't FOLLOW the rules.

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I suggest that you post in that thread, tagging @iacas.  Or buy a copy of Lowest Score Wins, that's where I got one.  I was given another at the 2015 Newport Cup, but I know that's not an option for most of us.

No need to buy the book just for the markers. I'll honor the prices in the other thread.

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

Look saying she signed an incorrect card is beyond ridiculous but if she did that it should be disqualification.  The rules were better before!

:sigh:

Jack, not everything that disagrees with you is simply "ridiculous."

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

There is no way around the fact that a retroactive penalty is a double penalty due to this score card problem.

She broke two rules, not one. Very simple.

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

Its effectively exactly as I said.  The rules are nonsensical.

They are not. In this case, it's very, very ****ing simple.

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

The change that has to happen is no retroactive penalties.

Highly unlikely to happen. They already have a cut-off point, and they haven't changed it in decades and decades…

Just now, Lihu said:

For the 12th time, signing an incorrect scorecard can be simply because the golfer made a miscount or that a penalty was not correctly taken and found out only afterwards that it was incorrect. Doesn't matter how or why.

It insures that the players ask or answer all the questions before signing and turning in the card.

It's not a bad rule, and I don't see why it needs to be changed?

That's the most sense @Lihu has made today.

If you remove the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard, there's no downside to just not reporting anything that they think others didn't see, at least every once in awhile (if they did this frequently they'd likely develop a reputation). If the worst that could happen is that the original penalty applied, what's the harm in possibly getting away with it?

Players are responsible for knowing the rules, following the rules, and attesting by their signature that the scores written down are what they shot given the previous part of this sentence.

[saevel25]

10 minutes ago, Braivo said:

First of all, I don't really care about Lexi, this is not motivated by any sort of affinity. I rarely watch LPGA and have no emotional investment in the outcome. 

Secondly, you have already conceded that she did not intentionally break the rules, meaning she did not KNOW at the time of the infraction that she had broken the rule. This is not an issue of knowing the rules, it was an issue of an error which SHE DID NOT KNOW she had committed (which you, again, concede). 

 It doesn't matter is she didn't know or not. Michelle Wie was nailed once for leaning on her club in a hazard. You can't ground your club. It was a lax of judgement, but it is a penalty. 

You don't need intent to infringe on a penalty. A person can not intently hit a pedestrian with a vehicle.. They are still going to get nailed for breaking the law. 

2 minutes ago, Braivo said:

For the twentieth time, I am NOT arguing that she didn't break the rule! It is my opinion that the rule should be CHANGED!

I don't think they should. Should all the rules be made to bring in intent? If so, then prove intent? You can't prove intent. So basically every rule break will be accidental and it will be mayhem. The best rules are simple and apply for everyone regardless of intent. 

You swipe at a players arm when they shoot a basketball it is a foul. It doesn't matter if you were going after the ball and not intently trying to hit their arm. You try to swipe at the football and accidentally grab the facemask in football. It is a penalty. The pitcher accidentally hits a player with a pitch, they get to go to first base. 

You accidentally put the ball back in the wrong spot, you get a penalty. Simple, applies to everyone. No need to change it. 

[iacas]

@saevel25, I think it's more the "wrong scorecard" rule that he wants to see changed.

I - and others - see little reason to (or likelihood of) change that rule.

[Braivo]

Just now, iacas said:

@saevel25, I think it's more the "wrong scorecard" rule that he wants to see changed.

Not necessarily. What I want is an honest discussion about the rules in light of recent events. The USGA has seen it prudent to review some rules changes, and those have spurred further constructive discussions. I believe there is a window here to look at this incident and see if anything should be changed.

Yes, it feels grossly unfair to penalize someone for an infraction they didn't know they committed, and assess such a penalty at a time when they have little time left to adjust their play accordingly. 

However, I will concede, I do not see an easy solution, and perhaps the rule as it stands is the best way. I can live with that, but why not discuss honestly?

On a side note, the way you guys condescendingly talk to / about those that disagree with you doesn't give this forum a good vibe. 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Braivo said:

Not necessarily. What I want is an honest discussion about the rules in light of recent events. The USGA has seen it prudent to review some rules changes, and those have spurred further constructive discussions. I believe there is a window here to look at this incident and see if anything should be changed.

This has been a topic of discussion for decades. The rule has never really changed. It was recently softened to allow a competitor to stay in the competition if they didn't know they breached the rules, but that's been the only movement in decades.

1 minute ago, Braivo said:

Yes, it feels grossly unfair to penalize someone for an infraction they didn't know they committed, and assess such a penalty at a time when they have little time left to adjust their play accordingly. 

I disagree that it's grossly unfair. I think the current rule is quite fair. It's perhaps more fair than a straight out DQ, but I could make the argument that a DQ is fair, too: the player is responsible for knowing and following the rules. Players knowing and following the rules is fundamental to the game.

Again, Lexi is the perpetrator here. I have no sympathy that she had "little time left to adjust [her] play accordingly." I have sympathy for Ryu, who is being overlooked as winning with an asterisk, and for the other competitors like Suzann who may have played a little differently.

Lexi committed the breach. I'm not ascribing any bad feelings toward her as a "cheat" or anything like that. I think it was an absent-minded brain fart. But I'm not going to go out of my way to make her feel as if she got screwed or did the right thing or anything like that. She screwed up. She gave golf a bad name (temporarily… this will be forgotten in a few days).

1 minute ago, Braivo said:

However, I will concede, I do not see an easy solution, and perhaps the rule as it stands is the best way. I can live with that, but why not discuss honestly?

That's what we're doing.

1 minute ago, Braivo said:

On a side note, the way you guys condescendingly talk to / about those that disagree with you doesn't give this forum a good vibe. 

You're reading something into the posts that is not there.

[DaveP043]

8 minutes ago, Braivo said:

On a side note, the way you guys condescendingly talk to / about those that disagree with you doesn't give this forum a good vibe. 

This is off topic a bit, but I can see the back and forth escalate at times.  When its good, its because each side of the discussion continues to bring up variations or new factors while staying pretty close to the original topic, and that can be extremely interesting.  Other times, however, one or two individuals continue the argument by stating and restating the same opinion, with the same justifications, over and over.  Their responses can be paraphrased as "I don't care what your reasons are, I'm right because I'm right".  I can see (or interpret) the exasperation or frustration in the posts of those who try to provide clear reasoning in response, and I'm guessing that "exasperation" is what you're interpreting as "condescension".  I just don't see it quite the same way.

[saevel25]

19 minutes ago, Braivo said:

On a side note, the way you guys condescendingly talk to / about those that disagree with you doesn't give this forum a good vibe. 

I wholeheartedly disagree. 

3 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Their responses can be paraphrased as "I don't care what your reasons are, I'm right because I'm right".  I can see (or interpret) the exasperation or frustration in the posts of those who try to provide clear reasoning in response, and I'm guessing that "exasperation" is what you're interpreting as "condescension".  I just don't see it quite the same way.

 

Spoiler

Off-Topic This^^, and some people tend to not respond well to having a constructive discussion especially when they start realizing their point doesn't hold up well. I think people on the losing end of a discussion can be looked at as a victim when they are not. 

 

[406pat]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

I have sympathy for Ryu, who is being overlooked as winning with an asterisk, and for the other competitors like Suzann who may have played a little differently.

This is the biggest issue I have with these situations. Frankly, I see it as a more important issue than the impact on the person who committed the infraction. Intended or not, Lexi was the only person in control of the infractions. There were a lot of ladies who probably would have altered their strategy for the last round if the penalties had been assessed at the time of the infractions who had no control. I don't know what the answer is, but I think it's more important to discuss the "fairness" to the field for these delayed penalties than to the individual that was assessed. I think she should have been penalized, but what makes it tough on me is that her penalties changed the dynamic of the top of the leaderboard after most players had completed most of their holes. I think the right action was taken, but we should recognize that these delayed decisions impact the whole field, not just the one player. 

To be clear, I'm not arguing that failing to assess a penalty on the leader would benefit the field in all cases. I'm just saying that there is an undeniable impact to the field when delayed penalties are assessed and I don't see that discussed as much as it should.

[Braivo]

6 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

This is off topic a bit, but I can see the back and forth escalate at times.  When its good, its because each side of the discussion continues to bring up variations or new factors while staying pretty close to the original topic, and that can be extremely interesting.  Other times, however, one or two individuals continue the argument by stating and restating the same opinion, with the same justifications, over and over.  Their responses can be paraphrased as "I don't care what your reasons are, I'm right because I'm right".  I can see (or interpret) the exasperation or frustration in the posts of those who try to provide clear reasoning in response, and I'm guessing that "exasperation" is what you're interpreting as "condescension".  I just don't see it quite the same way.

What I want to discuss is, should the rule for signing an incorrect scorecard be changed in light of HD video replay and other intangible technology changes that may warrant another look? Yet, every response I get is "She broke the rules!" Dude, I know. I am stating an opinion, I never claimed to be right. 

2 minutes ago, 406pat said:

This is the biggest issue I have with these situations. Frankly, I see it as a more important issue than the impact on the person who committed the infraction. Intended or not, Lexi was the only person in control of the infractions. There were a lot of ladies who probably would have altered their strategy for the last round if the penalties had been assessed at the time of the infractions who had no control. I don't know what the answer is, but I think it's more important to discuss the "fairness" to the field for these delayed penalties than to the individual that was assessed. I think she should have been penalized, but what makes it tough on me is that her penalties changed the dynamic of the top of the leaderboard after most players had completed most of their holes. I think the right action was taken, but we should recognize that these delayed decisions impact the whole field, not just the one player. 

To be clear, I'm not arguing that failing to assess a penalty on the leader would benefit the field in all cases. I'm just saying that there is an undeniable impact to the field when delayed penalties are assessed and I don't see that discussed as much as it should.

I agree. I think a discussion of delayed penalties is warranted. How long is too long? How many other things are impacted by the change? Would strategy have changed, etc?