Lexi Thompson's 4 Stroke Penalty at the ANA

[woodzie264]

Great post above  @Missouri Swede - I think people don't know what they don't know. 

To argue and argue a point when you're not knowledge about it is laughable. I mean, regarding the point @iacas has made several times that ignorance of the violation is no excuse for signing an incorrect scorecard is fairly easy to grasp....not sure what argument is about. 

She failed to mark the ball properly. When I asked my 8 year old son if she put the ball down where it was (without offering my bias), my 8 year old said she clearly did not. There is no confusion there. So she violated the rule. Regardless of whether she was aware that a penalty had incurred, it did occur and she signed an incorrect card. End of story.

I agree with what others have said in that the committee should leave out the discovering source (fan calling in) of the infraction...honestly it's irrelevant and only generates frustration (this thread for example).

[Lihu]

Well, there's no escaping this thread, even on a golf course. I was playing with the usual crowd of players and we heard two parties discussing why Lexi should have gotten away with less penalty if any at all. They were both 2 holes away but so loud it was kind of ridiculous. All I could think is Wow!

My partners didn't even know what they were talking about. If a rule was broken it's on the player. So, I was extra careful marking my balls

[Shooting29]

Phil - "I don't do my duty as a marker and protect the field when I see someone playing from a wrong place. I don't protect the field because I don't agree with the rule. With that said, now you probably think I take liberty with my own replacement after marking."

[70sSanO]

1 hour ago, JonMA1 said:

Good post John.

I don't hold the people involved with professional sports to any higher standard than any other industry or business. I simply enjoy watching the best players in the world do things I can't even come close to doing. Beyond that, I care little about who wins or loses a tournament, who has cheated or who has been wronged by officials.

If what Phil claims is true, then the sport is corrupt at some level, and I suppose if anything will turn a lot of viewers away, it might be that. If warning the players will help, great.

Assessing a penalty on a popular player won't keep me from watching.

I agree with you, but I find it tough to totally detach myself from the leader board and not root for anyone.  Although I do flip-flop at times.  I think it would be tough to watch the best players compete and then wait until Monday to know the results.

As for some things being overlooked, I don't doubt it.  It happens in every sport, even if initially it was not done intentionally.  I can accept that more than some sports that have a 20 minute review that stops play and the review is inconclusive so the call stands.

I do agree with the position that any penalty or adjustment to a score needs to be done prior to the next round, AND the player is entitled to see the evidence for the penalty against him/her prior to the next round.

John

Edited April 5, 2017 by 70sSanO

[Dave Saari]

I guess we just can't stop talking about this.

The evidence clearly shows that the ball was not replaced on the same spot -- it was off by somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4 of an inch. Some of you folks can't believe it was an accident and are convinced there was a spike mark or depression on the green even though you can't see any such thing in the video. What those folks are apparently not willing to consider is that Lexi did not have the low-angle video view from the opposite side of the ball that clearly shows the misplacement relative to the ball marker. She was standing behind the ball but off to the side and she clearly rotated the ball for some reason -- probably to align a mark on the ball or move the logo out of her view. While her marking technique was not the best, I believe her when she says she did not realize she was placing it incorrectly. If you try to imagine what SHE was looking at rather than the view you see in the video, I think it's completely reasonable.

As I've stated above, the ruling was entirely correct according to the current rules, but would not have been made after January 2019 under the new rules. In my opinion, the new rules will be better. Many of you may not think so. We're all entitled to our opinions.

After the penalty was assessed, Lexi battled back and got into the playoff. She has not to my knowledge protested the penalty. I don't understand why anyone would say she has handled this badly.

[zero]

6 hours ago, Lastpick said:

It is not possible to determine that she move her ball 0.7" from that video.  It is speculation.  Did they review every player, every time.  If not then the rules are being administered unfairly.  I am tired of television replays putting the game in jeopardy.  

yep

[DrvFrShow]

54 minutes ago, Dave Saari said:

 

After the penalty was assessed, Lexi battled back and got into the playoff. She has not to my knowledge protested the penalty. I don't understand why anyone would say she has handled this badly.

Because protesting the penalty never works. There is nothing about "intent" in the rules. 

And with a two dimensional representation of three dimensional objects, found this interesting. I tried to recreate the condition that occurred on the course with the marker and the ball. You can recreate that same condition by being 1/4" off in your replacing of the ball. Remember, on television you're looking at a two dimensional representation of three dimensions. And when you zoom in, it distorts and is not correct. But the call was made and it's over. That's another reason I considered the call bogus. A quarter inch is about the diameter of a mic plug - not very large.

 

[bucheron]

She was stitched.

 

Rule 20-1. Marker immediately behind - there is no definition of behind. You can stick your marker wherever you want.

 

Rule 20-3 "other than on the spot". There is no definition of spot nor is there a tolerance specified relative to the exact position from which the ball was moved. You cannot replace the ball exactly where it was. The Shylock defence - a pound of flesh, not more nor less. He couldn't be exact so he couldn't act. So to with the rules of golf - every player who has ever lifted and replaced a ball is guilty of the same error.

 

Rule 20-7aii "moved ball to be replaced". There is no definition of replaced, no accuracy specified.

 

The spirit of the rule is "don't place it in a different position to gain an advantage". Watching the video it appears to me that the ball is no further from the coin nor closer to the hole it is simply a little further anticlockwise around the coin when viewed from the top. No sensible person raised an issue because there wasn't one.

 

A few of the contributors have mentioned having to move the marker out of the way of another player's line using the putter head as the measure. The error inherent in an action like this most surely would attract a four-stroke penalty more often than not if anyone was able to measure the difference before and after.

 

[boogielicious]

3 hours ago, bucheron said:

She was stitched.

 

Rule 20-1. Marker immediately behind - there is no definition of behind. You can stick your marker wherever you want.

 

Rule 20-3 "other than on the spot". There is no definition of spot nor is there a tolerance specified relative to the exact position from which the ball was moved. You cannot replace the ball exactly where it was. The Shylock defence - a pound of flesh, not more nor less. He couldn't be exact so he couldn't act. So to with the rules of golf - every player who has ever lifted and replaced a ball is guilty of the same error.

 

Rule 20-7aii "moved ball to be replaced". There is no definition of replaced, no accuracy specified.

 

The spirit of the rule is "don't place it in a different position to gain an advantage". Watching the video it appears to me that the ball is no further from the coin nor closer to the hole it is simply a little further anticlockwise around the coin when viewed from the top. No sensible person raised an issue because there wasn't one.

 

A few of the contributors have mentioned having to move the marker out of the way of another player's line using the putter head as the measure. The error inherent in an action like this most surely would attract a four-stroke penalty more often than not if anyone was able to measure the difference before and after.

 

Welcome to The Sand Trap.

While this may be true, the intent of the rule is really to have the player "play the ball as it lies." That is one of the Principles of Golf . Play the course as you find it and play the ball as it lies.

The ball marking rule allows the player to be able to clean the ball, mark their position so as not interfere with another players line etc. What the rule doesn't allow is slight adjustment to your ball position to improve your lie (i.e., the ball is in a depression or old pitch mark) or change your line so as not to have to putt over a defect in the green. So regardless of whether the ball was not closer, by moving it, it could be insinuated that the placement was done to avoid a green defect. Whether that was the case in this instance is unknown.

That being said, the only way to prevent nefarious tweaking of the ball position to avoid green defects is to make a rule that requires the player, to the best of their ability, place the ball as close to the original position as possible after marking. And if not done, to penalize the player for the infraction. That is the only equitable way to prevent players from moving the ball and not playing it as it lies.

The incorrect scorecard issue is being discussed in the rules thread and I won't address that here.

I don't like seeing any player have to go through something like this. But the reality is that Lexi's carelessness caused this. 

[bkuehn1952]

I have only read the "instagrams" put out by Ms. Thompson after the tournament.  The "grams" never indicated that she felt she breached the Rule.  The only references seem to be that any breach was totally inadvertent.

In any communication (e.g. her interview) has she acknowledged that she breached the Rule related to marking and replacing?

Many players, when faced with a ruling that seems unfair but actually is totally in line with the Rules, make an effort to say something like: "I don't like it but I did unintentionally do it and the Rules are clear."    Of course there are a few (Chella Choi) who just refuse to acknowledge that they may have made an error.  It would make me feel better about this whole mess if Lexi Thompson would, if she has not already, state that the ruling was correct.

[GolfLug]

32 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

I have only read the "instagrams" put out by Ms. Thompson after the tournament.  The "grams" never indicated that she felt she breached the Rule.  The only references seem to be that any breach was totally inadvertent.

In any communication (e.g. her interview) has she acknowledged that she breached the Rule related to marking and replacing?

Many players, when faced with a ruling that seems unfair but actually is totally in line with the Rules, make an effort to say something like: "I don't like it but I did unintentionally do it and the Rules are clear."    Of course there are a few (Chella Choi) who just refuse to acknowledge that they may have made an error.  It would make me feel better about this whole mess if Lexi Thompson would, if she has not already, state that the ruling was correct.

In the first IG post I read from her which was her first official statement, she mentions that she would never do it intentionally. Meaning she is not denying it happened. IIRC Chella Choi flat out denied the whole thing and WD'ed in protest. But yes, either way, there is still a distinct flavor of being treated unfairly in the statement IMO. If this thread is any indication, almost the entire population (golfing and non-golfing) is in support.

Phil's statement is interesting to say the least. Seemed like he is saying that these kind of things (replacing the ball 2-3 inches away from original position) happen all the time in the pro circuit and are equivalent to rounding errors .

At least I feel less of a dick as I said that lot of players are not playing fair in the rules thread.       

[Lihu]

 

 

 

 

[JonMA1]

47 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

But yes, either way, there is still a distinct flavor of being treated unfairly in the statement IMO. If this thread is any indication, almost the entire population (golfing and non-golfing) is in support.

Just so I understand, are you saying "almost the entire population" believes she was treated unfairly?

[rpsetser]

Man this is crap.  If the other players don't catch it, and the officials don't catch it, then IT'S OVER!  How do you think the NFL would react if a spectator called and said, "Hey, listen, in last nights game, that dude caught that ball, and it should have been a touchdown."  Do you think they would even give this dude a 2nd thought...NO!  They would keep the result the same and that would be that.

[David in FL]

7 minutes ago, rpsetser said:

Man this is crap.  If the other players don't catch it, and the officials don't catch it, then IT'S OVER!  How do you think the NFL would react if a spectator called and said, "Hey, listen, in last nights game, that dude caught that ball, and it should have been a touchdown."  Do you think they would even give this dude a 2nd thought...NO!  They would keep the result the same and that would be that.

I'm assuming that you haven't read through the previous 535 posts, many of which discuss that particular analogy, and explain in detail why it simply doesn't pertain...

I'm not picking, I know it's a lot of material, but there really is some good info to be had there.   

Edited April 5, 2017 by David in FL

[iacas]

9 hours ago, Dave Saari said:

As I've stated above, the ruling was entirely correct according to the current rules, but would not have been made after January 2019 under the new rules. In my opinion, the new rules will be better. Many of you may not think so. We're all entitled to our opinions.

I disagree, and the people with the USGA I've talked to disagree as well.

That rule covers estimating where the ball crossed the margin of a penalty area, won't penalize someone if they drop at 21" instead of 20", and that sort of stuff.

It's not going to cover replacing the ball 0.7"+ off from where it belongs. You're not "measuring" anything there, nor are you "estimating" - your ball is in a known location.

8 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

And with a two dimensional representation of three dimensional objects, found this interesting. I tried to recreate the condition that occurred on the course with the marker and the ball. You can recreate that same condition by being 1/4" off in your replacing of the ball.

No, you can't.

The ball moved at least 0.7". A 2D look is still showing movement accurately in two dimensions, and adding the third dimension can only really increase that distance.

3D represented in 2D is problematic when you're talking about, say, the position of a football in the air relative to the goal line, or things like that, but a ball on the ground that moves to another location on the ground is not subject to that type of parallax or error.

The ball was misplaced at least 0.7" from where it originally sat.

Look at how much further the shadow gets from the other mark, Julia:

I appreciate the effort, but no… her ball was not replaced within 1/4" of where it sat. Nor even half an inch.

55 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

Phil's statement is interesting to say the least. Seemed like he is saying that these kind of things (replacing the ball 2-3 inches away from original position) happen all the time in the pro circuit and are equivalent to rounding errors .

Dave and I think Phil is full of shit.

5 minutes ago, rpsetser said:

Man this is crap.  If the other players don't catch it, and the officials don't catch it, then IT'S OVER!  How do you think the NFL would react if a spectator called and said, "Hey, listen, in last nights game, that dude caught that ball, and it should have been a touchdown."  Do you think they would even give this dude a 2nd thought...NO!  They would keep the result the same and that would be that.

Comparisons to other sports is a complete non-starter.

[chilepepper]

11 hours ago, Lihu said:

Well, there's no escaping this thread, even on a golf course. I was playing with the usual crowd of players and we heard two parties discussing why Lexi should have gotten away with less penalty if any at all. They were both 2 holes away but so loud it was kind of ridiculous. All I could think is Wow!

My partners didn't even know what they were talking about. If a rule was broken it's on the player. So, I was extra careful marking my balls

We are making jokes about it. Yesterday I pulled out my phone and announced I would be recording all ball markings. We would review the results at the end of the round and dispense penalties where appropriate. 

In the end 

a. She replaced the ball wrong......intentional or not who knows

b. I think the LPGA handled it poorly

im done, but it's been an interesting read

[RH31]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

I disagree, and the people with the USGA I've talked to disagree as well.

That rule covers estimating where the ball crossed the margin of a penalty area, won't penalize someone if they drop at 21" instead of 20", and that sort of stuff.

It's not going to cover replacing the ball 0.7"+ off from where it belongs. You're not "measuring" anything there, nor are you "estimating" - your ball is in a known location.

No, you can't.

The ball moved at least 0.7". A 2D look is still showing movement accurately in two dimensions, and adding the third dimension can only really increase that distance.

3D represented in 2D is problematic when you're talking about, say, the position of a football in the air relative to the goal line, or things like that, but a ball on the ground that moves to another location on the ground is not subject to that type of parallax or error.

The ball was misplaced at least 0.7" from where it originally sat.

Look at how much further the shadow gets from the other mark, Julia:

I appreciate the effort, but no… her ball was not replaced within 1/4" of where it sat. Nor even half an inch.

Dave and I think Phil is full of shit.

Comparisons to other sports is a complete non-starter.

Iacas, is that you saying Phil is full of it or someone else's quote?