Lexi Thompson's 4 Stroke Penalty at the ANA

[Rulesman]

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/randall-mell/penalty-continues-hang-over-emotional-lexi

No suggestion she thought she'd got it wrong.

 

[RH31]

20 hours ago, 14ledo81 said:

In those sports, the competitors are actively trying to get away with (break the rules) as much as they can.  In golf, the player bears the responsibility to call their own infractions.  You can't make an equal comparison between those sports and golf.

I know, right?

Imagine if they deducted 4 points for travelling in basketball

or took 4 points away for iilegal procedure in football

or took away goals for being offside in hockey

crazy

[RH31]

6 hours ago, Rulesman said:

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/randall-mell/penalty-continues-hang-over-emotional-lexi

 

 

If they are going to allow viewer input they should reveal the source.

Anonymous source is BS.

[krupa]

15 minutes ago, RH31 said:

If they are going to allow viewer input they should reveal the source.

Anonymous source is BS.

Why?  Why should we have to be willing to accept possible death/rape threats, doxxing, swatting, and other retribution just to notify a rules official when someone breaks a rule in a golf tournament?  It's not as though it was an anonymous, "poison pen" letter accusing her of doping or something.  There was evidence to support the caller and that evidence didn't need HD slow motion replay to see.  What if it was a spectator near the green and they notified a rules official? Should their identity be revealed if they call a rules official?

[iacas]

42 minutes ago, RH31 said:

If they are going to allow viewer input they should reveal the source.

Anonymous source is BS.

Absolutely no reason their identity needs to be known.

The depths and lengths people will go to to defend a rules breaker… Seriously. Does the identity of the person change whether Lexi breached the rules or not? No.

7 hours ago, Rulesman said:

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/randall-mell/penalty-continues-hang-over-emotional-lexi

No suggestion she thought she'd got it wrong.

That's a pathetic response.

She should have simply said "I can see in hindsight now how I was careless. I respect the Rules of Golf and will endeavor to adhere to them from here on out. I made a mistake, the penalty applied was appropriate and just, and I hope to grow and move on."

The people around her are not letting her move on. They just keep talking about it, not letting it go.

[Missouri Swede]

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's a pathetic response.

She should have simply said "I can see in hindsight now how I was careless. I respect the Rules of Golf and will endeavor to adhere to them from here on out. I made a mistake, the penalty applied was appropriate and just, and I hope to grow and move on."

The people around her are not letting her move on. They just keep talking about it, not letting it go.

And maybe that shows us something about the mindset of Lexi et al. that might have led to this in the first place.

Quote

Thompson’s statements were just as revealing, showing how much she and her team have struggled to accept the ruling.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, RH31 said:

I know, right?

Imagine if they deducted 4 points for travelling in basketball

or took 4 points away for iilegal procedure in football

or took away goals for being offside in hockey

crazy

You're making the opposite point you intend to make.

[14ledo81]

1 hour ago, RH31 said:

I know, right?

Imagine if they deducted 4 points for travelling in basketball

or took 4 points away for iilegal procedure in football

or took away goals for being offside in hockey

crazy

Again a non comparison.  

Ill do my best though:

If someone traveled in basketball and then scored, they would "take away" those points, if a team did an illegal procedure in football and scored they would "take away" those points, if someone was offside in hockey (and got the shot off before the whistle), they would "take away" that goal.

[rehmwa]

7 hours ago, Rulesman said:

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/randall-mell/penalty-continues-hang-over-emotional-lexi

No suggestion she thought she'd got it wrong.

 

nonsense -

• she said she saw and understood how it was noted
• she said she didn't do it intentionally (right there is acknowledgement) and that there was no reason to
• she spoke a LOT about respecting the rules of golf her whole life

Just because she didn't spank herself with the exact mia culpas some people want doesn't mean she didn't give a very good response - especially for a youngster, it was a decent move.  It was a shame they kept the interview going when she got emotional.  It was pure exploitation at that point.  I hope the sponsors sold a lot of products

the people around her and the media need to let it go now and move forward

[MrDC]

Many have been using other sports as a comparison, and it makes no sense to me, I guess these people aren't really familiar with golf? it's the only explanation.

Golf doesn't have officials watching every play for every player, they can't, so they must rely on the players to do it themselves, this is a fundamental difference from other sports.

And because of this the scorecard rule is very, very important, because of how easy it would be to cheat, that's why signing an incorrect card carries a very heavy penalty along with the infraction, this rule should never change and it won't.

[MRR]

1 minute ago, MrDC said:

 that's why signing an incorrect card carries a very heavy penalty along with the infraction, this rule should never change and it won't.

I absolutely agree.

My only concern is the following hypothetical that could happen;

Woods and Mickelson are playing a round together.  At the end of 72 holes, Woods has a one-stroke lead.  Right after Woods signs his card, but before Mickelson can, a rules official comes running up with a big smile and points out that Mickelson inexplicably has 15 clubs in his bag and will be assessed a four-stroke penalty.  Hardly matters, since he was going to lose anyway.  The official then points out that Woods also has 15 clubs, assesses a four-stroke penalty and another two-stroke penalty for signing the card. Mickelson wins

Woods and Mickelson committed the same error, but the final penalty is different due solely to the actions of a third-party.  Unlikely?  Sure.  Possible under the rules as written?  Sadly, yes.
 

[krupa]

16 minutes ago, MRR said:

My only concern is the following hypothetical that could happen;

Woods and Mickelson are playing a round together.  At the end of 72 holes, Woods has a one-stroke lead.  Right after Woods signs his card, but before Mickelson can, a rules official comes running up with a big smile and points out that Mickelson inexplicably has 15 clubs in his bag and will be assessed a four-stroke penalty.  Hardly matters, since he was going to lose anyway.  The official then points out that Woods also has 15 clubs, assesses a four-stroke penalty and another two-stroke penalty for signing the card. Mickelson wins

Woods and Mickelson committed the same error, but the final penalty is different due solely to the actions of a third-party.  Unlikely?  Sure.  Possible under the rules as written?  Sadly, yes.

So what should the official do instead, ask each player if they intended to play with 15 clubs?  "Excuse me, but did you intend to break the rules?  No?  Then we won't dock you those points.  Funny how no one ever says yes..."

Edited April 27, 2017 by krupa

[MRR]

1 minute ago, krupa said:

So what should the official do instead, ask each player if they intended to play with 15 clubs?  "Excuse me, but did you intend to break the rules?  No?  Then we won't dock you those points.  Funny how no one ever says yes..."

Intent is not an element.  The four-stroke penalty is valid.

The additional two-stroke penalty for signing is likewise valid.

My issue is that golfers who commit the same infraction could be treated differently simply because of the actions of someone else.

[iacas]

20 minutes ago, MRR said:

Woods and Mickelson committed the same error, but the final penalty is different due solely to the actions of a third-party.  Unlikely?  Sure.  Possible under the rules as written?  Sadly, yes.

No. Woods has not left the scoring area.

6-6c/1 - http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-06,d6-6c-1

Also, I find little value in the highly contrived stuff. What are the odds that's going to happen? C'mon.

[MRR]

Fine, then change my above scenario so that Woods left the area but Mickelson hadn't.  My main concern stands; golfers could potentially be treated differently depending on when a rules official feels like telling them about a discovered infraction.

That's my only concern.  If they both get four or both get six strokes in penalties is fine.  But it being possible for one to get four and one to get six for the same initial action is prima facie unfair.

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

Also, I find little value in the highly contrived stuff. What are the odds that's going to happen? C'mon.

It certainly is contrived and the odds are low.  But leaving the execution of rules up to the benevolence of the enforcer is the hallmark of a bad rule.

[phillyk]

1 minute ago, MRR said:

Fine, then change my above scenario so that Woods left the area but Mickelson hadn't.  My main concern stands; golfers could potentially be treated differently depending on when a rules official feels like telling them about a discovered infraction.

That's my only concern.  If they both get four or both get six strokes in penalties is fine.  But it being possible for one to get four and one to get six for the same initial action is prima facie unfair.

When do you want a rules official to tell them?  Yeah, half way through your round an official says, yeah looks like you made an infraction back there, not sure if its a DQ or penalty or nothing, we'll let you know at the end of the round.  I'd be pissed if they told me and didn't give a ruling.  You just screwed that guys round, he just became a mental case.

Rules officials will give the ruling when they are as sure as possible of what happened and what the repercussions are.  Yeah there have been instances of making premature rulings that were wrong, and that is unfortunate.

3 Options then, 1) do what they do now and wait til the facts are in to make the final ruling; 2) make a premature ruling and let the player know it may change based on when more information is available; or 3) wait until the end of the round to make any rules decisions in order to be consistent for all players.  What they do now is good and it works the way its intended 99% of the time.  No need to change on the basis of that 1%.

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, MRR said:

Fine, then change my above scenario so that Woods left the area but Mickelson hadn't.  My main concern stands; golfers could potentially be treated differently depending on when a rules official feels like telling them about a discovered infraction.

Seriously, again, these contrived never-gonna-happen things serve no purpose.

Rules officials cannot wait until they "feel" like telling a competitor if they see what may be a breach. They're also not ultimately responsible for seeing the breach - that responsibility still falls to the player.

So if the stars aligned in your alternate universe where this would happen, since it's never gonna happen here, then they congratulations Phil.

12 minutes ago, MRR said:

That's my only concern.  If they both get four or both get six strokes in penalties is fine.  But it being possible for one to get four and one to get six for the same initial action is prima facie unfair.

No it isn't.

12 minutes ago, MRR said:

It certainly is contrived and the odds are low.  But leaving the execution of rules up to the benevolence of the enforcer is the hallmark of a bad rule.

The players have the responsibility and obligation to be the "enforcers" of the rules.

[RH31]

2 hours ago, krupa said:

Why?  Why should we have to be willing to accept possible death/rape threats, doxxing, swatting, and other retribution just to notify a rules official when someone breaks a rule in a golf tournament?  It's not as though it was an anonymous, "poison pen" letter accusing her of doping or something.  There was evidence to support the caller and that evidence didn't need HD slow motion replay to see.  What if it was a spectator near the green and they notified a rules official? Should their identity be revealed if they call a rules official?

If you are going to play a roll in affecting the livelihood of people from your sofa, you need to put the big boy pants on and own up to it(the call or email). And yes if It was a spectator near the green, the LPGA should say so, then respond as to why it took until halfway through the next round to do something about it.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Absolutely no reason their identity needs to be known.

The depths and lengths people will go to to defend a rules breaker… Seriously. Does the identity of the person change whether Lexi breached the rules or not? No.

That's a pathetic response.

She should have simply said "I can see in hindsight now how I was careless. I respect the Rules of Golf and will endeavor to adhere to them from here on out. I made a mistake, the penalty applied was appropriate and just, and I hope to grow and move on."

The people around her are not letting her move on. They just keep talking about it, not letting it go.

I'm not defending Lexi or even questioning the penalty, but if we knew who informed then maybe we'd have a reasonable idea why it took so long for them to inform or for the LPGA to act.

Example, if it was someone "close to the tournament" as has widely been speculated, why did they wait so long to inform and/or why did it the LPGA wait so long to react?