Lexi Thompson's 4 Stroke Penalty at the ANA

[BallStriker]

Thanks for posting that Dave -- very good stuff.  Does the current rule require "exact" replacement, or is there room for error?  Based on teh proposed rule, it seems to me like they are trying to address situations where a violation occurs despite efforts to comply.

The proposed rule makes sense, and I am really just curious as to whether it would be a violation under current rules to mis-replace your ball by 1/10th of a milimeter on accident.  

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, BallStriker said:

Thanks for posting that Dave -- very good stuff.  Does the current rule require "exact" replacement, or is there room for error?

There's margin for error. A human amount. They realize it's physically impossible to replace a ball EXACTLY where it lie.

3 minutes ago, BallStriker said:

The proposed rule makes sense, and I am really just curious as to whether it would be a violation under current rules to mis-replace your ball by 1/10th of a milimeter on accident.  

What? 1/10th of a millimeter? No, of course that's not a violation. 1mm is not.

Lexi? That's a violation, and would be under the proposed rules too.

11 minutes ago, Dave Saari said:

Here's what the USGA web site has to say about the new proposed Rule 1.3(a)2:

Dave…

We discuss this there. Very quickly, then, since you posted it here…

14 minutes ago, Dave Saari said:

I highlighted the points that seem to apply to the Lexi improper ball placement situation. To me, this indicates that it would not have been a penalty under the new rules.

I believe it would have been. Her actions were not at all "reasonable."

14 minutes ago, Dave Saari said:

The indications that she was obviously rotating the ball, that her hand partially obscured the marker from her eyes, that she was looking only at the ball and not at the marker or at any other point on the green, all indicate to me that she did it promptly, carelessly, and unintentionally. Others believe otherwise for various reasons. None of us will ever know for sure.

Try to do what she did, and try NOT to notice that you moved the ball nearly an inch.

[BallStriker]

I think Lexi was violation under current and proposed rules........change in rules make a lot of sense, especially when you have subjective determinations as to how far off the original mark you can replace without violating (if 1mm is not an infraction, is 2mm? 3mm)....that is a problem with today's technology

Thanks for the responses and clarifications.....all makes good sense to me and kudos for governing bodies trying to get this reasonably and logically done

[Dave Saari]

So I watched the video a few more times. I don't know what's wrong with me, but I just can't get past this. I finally saw how she did it wrong -- she rotated the ball, replaced it, and then picked up the marker without ever looking at the marker. Her hand obstructed her view. So she just assumed she had put the ball in the right place and never verified it by actually looking at it relative to the marker. So this would still be a penalty under the new rules because she didn't do everything she should have to confirm it was placed correctly.

I still think it was accidental, but I sincerely hope she takes this to heart and pays proper attention in the future. She certainly paid a big price for her error.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Dave Saari said:

So I watched the video a few more times. I don't know what's wrong with me, but I just can't get past this. I finally saw how she did it wrong -- she rotated the ball, replaced it, and then picked up the marker without ever looking at the marker. Her hand obstructed her view. So she just assumed she had put the ball in the right place and never verified it by actually looking at it relative to the marker. So this would still be a penalty under the new rules because she didn't do everything she should have to confirm it was placed correctly.

C'mon, Dave… do what she did and you KNOW immediately that you put the ball down in the wrong place.

I don't even care if you have a marker. Just pick a ball up, twist your hand in such a way that you move it almost an inch while lifting it only an inch or two and replacing the ball a second after you pick it up, and you KNOW you put it in the wrong place.

She's looking down the entire second, too. And I doubt her hand completely obscured her marker.

[Shorty]

8 minutes ago, Dave Saari said:

 I finally saw how she did it wrong -- she rotated the ball, replaced it, and then picked up the marker without ever looking at the marker. Her hand obstructed her view. So she just assumed she had put the ball in the right place and never verified it by actually looking at it relative to the marker.

Seems you didn't see what she did at all. She deliberately moved it to the side and then placed it almost an inch a way. You don't need to be a surveyor to get it right. You could do what you say she did ten thousand times and the ball would always be within 3 millimetres of where it started. It would NEVER be 3/4 of an inch away. Sad day for her. She got busted cheating and fans don't like it.  You are inventing a narrative that suits your predisposition to assume that  Lexi wouldn't cheat. There is nothing that has been shown or written that even comes close to offering an explanation other than that scary C word.

[sac1]

3 hours ago, Dave Saari said:

 Her hand obstructed her view.

I dare say there was some "slight of hand" going on there in the way she tried to obscure "everything" with her hand, making it difficult for anyone standing up close to events  to see any movement of the ball relative to the marker .

Its only the camera pic from the side that allows us to see the before and after shots(before cant see the marker and after replacing the ball when we can see the marker)

[Dave Saari]

You guys are right about one thing -- I just don't want to believe that golfers cheat. If she did, my heart is broken. But somehow I'll carry on anyway. 

[boogielicious]

8 hours ago, Shorty said:

Seems you didn't see what she did at all. She deliberately moved it to the side and then placed it almost an inch a way. You don't need to be a surveyor to get it right. You could do what you say she did ten thousand times and the ball would always be within 3 millimetres of where it started. It would NEVER be 3/4 of an inch away. Sad day for her. She got busted cheating and fans don't like it.  You are inventing a narrative that suits your predisposition to assume that  Lexi wouldn't cheat. There is nothing that has been shown or written that even comes close to offering an explanation other than that scary C word.

It must be wonderful to be omniscient. 

[RH31]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Try to do what she did, and try NOT to notice that you moved the ball nearly an inch.

I tried this but since my living room or the practice green isn't nearly the same as an LPGA major, I found I was comparing apples to oranges....inconclusive.

Now the movement is nearly an inch? Only a view from a straight on or straight down would clearly show just exactly how far it was. All the arrow lines drawn, and shadow theories are just that, theories.

[MRR]

14 hours ago, David in FL said:

I wonder how those that feel so bad, and are so upset that Thompson lost the tournament as a result of this situation, would have felt had she won, and after the fact, the missed breach had come to light.  How would they then feel, knowing that So Yeon Ryu had lost due to a missed violation of the rules?

I'm upset only at the second two-stroke penalty.  Had she been called out when it happened, it would have been two instead of four strokes.  People don't get to call the NFL to point out how much the Patriots defense holds the receiver and get the score changed.  I know that's apples to oranges, I just like to complain about how much better the Pats are at violating the rules and how they never rarely get called on it.  I may hate them, but they deserve some sort of respect for being able to do what all other teams are doing, but doing it at a higher level of skill.

 

I do not think that Lexi did anything that other golfers out there are not doing.  But, being a lawful person, I fully embrace the letter of the law and do not care one way or the other if it was accidental or intentional.  The ball was IMO obviously not in the same place.  In no way do I think that moving the ball that amount, even on every hole, could have improved her score by four or even two strokes for the event.  The penalty exceeded the potential gain; Thems the breaks, deal with it.

 

She deserved a penalty.  I would have liked to see her overcome that penalty (not because I care one way or the other for Lexi, but because I would have liked to have seen that from any golfer).  Having such a strong penalty that actually changed the outcome of the game is important.  This is exactly the sort of thing that causes all other golfers to adhere to the rules, if only for a short period of time.

 

While not exactly part of this topic, I do not give any credence to the "it's not fair to me because I'm the one on TV most often" complaint.  I don't care if number 50 is cheating.  I do care if numbers 1-10 are doing anything incorrectly.  Those are the ones that have the greatest impact due to a minor change in money and ranking.  If you really are a great golfer, you should be welcoming that kind of scrutiny; it's the only thing that guarantees your close opponents are being monitored as well.

[sac1]

22 minutes ago, RH31 said:

 

Now the movement is nearly an inch? Only a view from a straight on or straight down would clearly show just exactly how far it was. All the arrow lines drawn, and shadow theories are just that, theories.

Gravity, Climate change.....just theories too? Wonder how the scientists from over 400 year ago worked out how far away the sun was without a measuring tape?   No given we have several stationary points of reference, the two markers, the toe of Lexi's putter and a STATIONARY camera,  the golf ball and the hole  which we know exactly the size of we, can be very precise about how far it moves.  Yes would take a little bit of math do it properly, but not too hard for anyone that has gone further than middle school geometry.

Edited April 11, 2017 by sac1

[David in FL]

20 minutes ago, RH31 said:

I tried this but since my living room or the practice green isn't nearly the same as an LPGA major, I found I was comparing apples to oranges....inconclusive.

Now the movement is nearly an inch? Only a view from a straight on or straight down would clearly show just exactly how far it was. All the arrow lines drawn, and shadow theories are just that, theories.

One of the great things about this game, is that from a rules perspective, your living room and practice green are exactly like an LPGA major.  More pressure?  Sure.  TV cameras?  Hell yeah, all over the place.  But the requirement to replace the ball where it was remains the same.  As does our ability to do so.

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, RH31 said:

I tried this but since my living room or the practice green isn't nearly the same as an LPGA major, I found I was comparing apples to oranges....inconclusive.

You weren't.

I suggested you simply lift a ball in the manner she did, replace it in the manner she did, and ask yourself if you could possibly think you put it back in the "same" place.

You can do that anywhere. And you'll conclude, as you should, that moving the ball nearly an inch in a second after lifting it an inch or two is quite noticeable.

19 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Now the movement is nearly an inch? Only a view from a straight on or straight down would clearly show just exactly how far it was. All the arrow lines drawn, and shadow theories are just that, theories.

Yes, it's at least 0.7".

That's not a "theory." In fact, it can only be more than the 0.7" - it can't be less.

2 minutes ago, MRR said:

I'm upset only at the second two-stroke penalty.  Had she been called called herself out when it happened, it would have been two instead of four strokes. Had she followed the rules to begin with, it would have been zero.

FTFY.

2 minutes ago, MRR said:

I do not think that Lexi did anything that other golfers out there are not doing.

Got any proof?

2 minutes ago, MRR said:

The penalty exceeded the potential gain; Thems the breaks, deal with it.

It was two penalties.

[David in FL]

24 minutes ago, MRR said:

I don't care if number 50 is cheating.  I do care if numbers 1-10 are doing anything incorrectly.....

I bet number 51 cares...  

[MRR]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

FTFY.

Got any proof?

It was two penalties.

You have taken the stance that it was definitely an intentional act.  I do not agree 100%.  I agree only 90%.  As such, I hedge my statements and present arguments and opinions that remain the same whether it was intent or accident.  If Lexi marks her ball correctly 99.999% of the time, this could STILL be the one time she accidentally did it incorrectly.  I don't care.  I'll give her the benefit of all doubts.  She still deserved the penalty and I will give all my opinions on it based on it being an accident because it doesn't matter to me.

1a) Yes, you did FIFM; assuming intent.  My statement still holds for if it were an accident.

1b) If any golfer is going to call himself on a misplacement penalty like that, then that golfer would not intentionally commit the act in the first place.

1c) This is IMO no different than a player who accidentally grounds his club in a hazard and is told about it later.  The rules officials say they are adding the penalty, the player is forced to accept that ruling and signs the card as directed.

2) No, I do not have proof; as you well know.  What I do have is my original statement that it was In My Opinion.  I was not making accusations on other players or excusing Lexi for her actions, I was continuing along the line that I consider what she did (intentionally or not) did not give much of an improvement and her penalty was strong.  Frankly, I'm pleased that a golfer was called out on it and hopefully she and all others will adhere to the rules.  It is well established that things like this were done in the past.  My father spent most of the week talking about the LPGA in the past where this was done and the player was suspended for a year after many other players complained that the penalties previously set against her were not strong enough.  I've read books where PGA players talked about other players who moved the ball over an inch each hole.

3) Yes, it was two penalties.  Had she been notified at the time of the occurrence (as I have seen on the PGA when someone grounds in a hazard) it would have been a single two-stroke penalty.  Instead, it was Monday Morning Reffing and she was given a second penalty.  I feel as badly for her as I would feel for any golfer, but I still agree with strict adherence to the rules and the penalties associated therewith. 

8 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I bet number 51 cares...  

Then number 51 should be watching number 50 (I assume they are paired).  After all, it isn't JUST the golfer watching himself, there is at least one other golfer and caddie there.

 

Keep in mind, my original argument isn't that number 51 should get screwed and number 50 can cheat.  Instead, number 50 and 51 (just like everyone else) have to adhere to the rules as written as if they are playing any course on any day.  What I am saying is that the ones who are on TV all the time should stop complaining that they are held to a higher standard because there is video evidence.  That's just the price for success.

 

Go ask any golfer if (s)he would rather 1) Be in the 50th spot, or 2) Be in the top ten with all sorts of scrutiny and people calling in to judge every move.  Personally, I'd rather be at the top.

[iacas]

Just now, MRR said:

You have taken the stance that it was definitely an intentional act.

I don't think I've done that anywhere in this topic. I don't think she cheated, but she did breach the rules. Twice.

Just now, MRR said:

3) Yes, it was two penalties.  Had she been notified at the time of the occurrence (as I have seen on the PGA when someone grounds in a hazard) it would have been a single two-stroke penalty.

That's her responsibility. She's not required to be "notified." She's supposed to notify others of her breach and write down the rules.

I'm not going to turn her into a victim. She's the perpetrator.

Just now, MRR said:

Instead, it was Monday Morning Reffing and she was given a second penalty.  I feel as badly for her as I would feel for any golfer, but I still agree with strict adherence to the rules and the penalties associated therewith. 

Why? She's not the victim.

[MRR]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

I don't think I've done that anywhere in this topic. I don't think she cheated, but she did breach the rules. Twice.

That's her responsibility. She's not required to be "notified." She's supposed to notify others of her breach and write down the rules.

I'm not going to turn her into a victim. She's the perpetrator.

Why? She's not the victim.

I really should learn how to split these quotes.

 

1) You stated that Lexi could have called herself out for the breach.  That is absolutely true, but it also absolutely requires knowledge that she committed a breach.  If it was accidental, then she could not have known that she committed the breach.  One cannot call oneself out for doing something that one has no knowledge of.

You corrected my earlier statement withe the phrase "Had she been called called herself out when it happened".  Such a stance requires the opinion that she had knowledge at the time.  While one could knowingly ground a club without intending it (club it the sand, I noticed it, but I cannot undo said grounding), I do not see how one could knowingly misplace a ball the way Lexi did without it being intentional (ball is in the wrong spot, I noticed it, but I chose to not remedy it).  I see no way that she could have called herself out without the original act being intentional.  EDIT, upon reflection, I suppose one could argue that she noticed the ball was in the incorrect position after removing the mark.  I fail to see how one would notice it afterwards but not before.

2) She can only notify others of breaches that she knows about.  If it was accidental and she had no knowledge, then she could not notify other people.

3) Perpetrator implies intent.  I do not label her as someone who intended anything.  Nor do I label her as a victim.  But I do still think that it was a matter of circumstance that she had two separate breaches instead of one.  I do agree that she breached twice and was correctly assessed those penalties.  However, the same actions on her part could have resulted in only one penalty if rules officials or our emailer notified her the day before.

4) It has nothing to do with her being a victim (other than my point opinion about one breach vs. two).  Maybe I'd feel differently if I were 100% certain that she intentionally cheated.  Instead, I'm just fine that she had a two-stroke penalty for a breach and I'm mildly bothered that I've seen other golfers on the PGA tour barely ground clubs in a trap and be notified a couple holes later that there is going to be an assessed penalty.

I agree, it's the golfers' duty to enforce their own rules.  But one cannot use that as a mantra and still think it's fair when one player is notified by a Rules Official of an infraction in time to amend the score card while another player is notified only after signing.  This is an inconsistent application of the rules, and that is my biggest problem.