Lexi Thompson's 4 Stroke Penalty at the ANA

[14ledo81]

1 hour ago, MRR said:

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.

 

Nope.  They would have been treated the same for the same infraction.  One of them (in your scenario) also committed another infraction (signed a wrong scorecard).

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, RH31 said:

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).

You don't just get to make something up and then say "you need to do this."

You cannot name an actual valid reason why the emailer or caller should be asked to identify himself/herself. It is irrelevant information: the player committed the breach and is penalized by the rules committee. It's irrelevant who saw it first, who reported it, etc.

5 minutes ago, RH31 said:

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.

Who cares why it took so long? The simple facts are that it's Lexi's responsibility to play golf under the rules, to record the proper score, and she failed to do so. She's not a victim; quite the opposite.

Why are you trying to hard to excuse Lexi's breach of the rules?

The facts of the matter are clear:

• Lexi broke the rules.
• Lexi failed to record the proper score.
• Her actions were shown to be in breach of the rules.
• The penalty was applied.

It doesn't matter if the emailer had the TV coverage on 20-minute delay - it still would have been too late to penalize Lexi. For all you know, the person saw it after taking a phone call, and then knowing what would happen, debated in anguish over whether they should do the right thing or let it slide. Finally, their conscience won out and they sent an email.

5 minutes ago, RH31 said:

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.

I don't care how long it took. I'm glad - and I imagine Lexi, if she had the time to think about it - is glad that it came up now and not after she'd won by a few strokes. If it came up later her win would be heavily tainted.

5 minutes ago, RH31 said:

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?

I don't know why you're so fixated on this.

You cannot list a valid reason why the identity of the person should be made public. Or what knowing the identity of the emailer do for you?

Here you go… I've asked around, and unearthed the name of the guy who wrote in. His name is John Doe, and he's a regular guy who is a fan of Lexi Thompson but didn't want to see her win while breaching the rules.

What's that do for you? For her? For the game of golf?

[RH31]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

You don't just get to make something up and then say "you need to do this."

You cannot name an actual valid reason why the emailer or caller should be asked to identify himself/herself.

 

Why are you trying to hard to excuse Lexi's breach of the rules?

 

 

Sure I do, I just did. Just like you get to state your opinion as "the way it should be or is" Free Speech

Here's a reason, if it was an official or someone with ties to the tournament they should've reported  it day it happened if they that's when they knew. The matter should've been cleared up before the start of play the next day.

Why do you keep accusing me of excusing Lexi when I've repeatedly stated she erred?

My comments were about the call in( that was mentioned in the article) and that was it.

Why do you keep pushing this into something more than I'm stating?

Are you trying to get me to say **** You or something??

 

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Sure I do, I just did.

Please indulge stupid old me and tell me again: what is the purpose, or what is to be gained, by having the name of the person who spotted an infraction? What if there are ten people who spot the infraction?

15 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Here's a reason, if it was an official or someone with ties to the tournament they should've reported  it day it happened if they that's when they knew. The matter should've been cleared up before the start of play the next day.

What if they reported it as soon as they saw it?

15 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Why do you keep accusing me of excusing Lexi when I've repeatedly stated she erred?

Then why do you continue to try to find ways in which to make her out to be a victim or something?

15 minutes ago, RH31 said:

My comments were about the call in( that was mentioned in the article) and that was it.

Well, call-ins have nothing to do with this topic or 34-3/10.

[phillyk]

I think what @RH31 and others are saying and would be worried about is someone who sees a penalty one day, but waits until the next day to tell officials in the hopes that the offending golfer would get an extra two-stroke penalty from signing the incorrect scorecard.  Sure, that would suck to have happen. But ultimately the golfer should be following the rules in the first place. 

[Jack Watson]

For people who called her a cheater shame on you.  Look at her.  Time has passed and she's still a mess over this.

Thats not the reaction of a cheat.  A cheat would have a planned response.

 

[Aflighter]

2 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

For people who called her a cheater shame on you.  Look at her.  Time has passed and she's still a mess over this.

Thats not the reaction of a cheat.  A cheat would have a planned response.

 

Shes handled it better than me. I would have flipped em all off and took a couple months off. Can only imagine what John Daly would have done. I imagine he would have popped open a beer and said bull....t.

[David in FL]

56 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

For people who called her a cheater shame on you.  Look at her.  Time has passed and she's still a mess over this.

Thats not the reaction of a cheat.  A cheat would have a planned response.

 

Or, it could be a planned response.  

It really doesn't matter either way though.  Rules were breached.  Appropriate penalties were assessed, and we all move on.

I do hope that Lexi grows up enough at some point to accept responsibility for her actions in the future, whatever they might be.

[RH31]

11 hours ago, phillyk said:

I think what @RH31 and others are saying and would be worried about is someone who sees a penalty one day, but waits until the next day to tell officials in the hopes that the offending golfer would get an extra two-stroke penalty from signing the incorrect scorecard.  Sure, that would suck to have happen. But ultimately the golfer should be following the rules in the first place. 

Yes, of course every player should always follow the rules. Stuff happens though.

An opposing player shouldn't be able to gain an extra 2 shot advantage because they saw something and didn't speak up in a timely manner.

[14ledo81]

10 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Yes, of course every player should always follow the rules. Stuff happens though.

An opposing player shouldn't be able to gain an extra 2 shot advantage because they saw something and didn't speak up in a timely manner.

 

A player should not be able to gain advantage by breaching the rules and not speaking up at all.  Which is what they would do if the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard is eliminated.

[rehmwa]

2 hours ago, RH31 said:

An opposing player shouldn't be able to gain an extra 2 shot advantage because they saw something and didn't speak up in a timely manner.

(Cynicism on - proceed at your own risk)

That's a tough scenario for sure.  So there seems to be one school whole premise of the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard (even if the penalty was not yet identified at the time) is that all players will cheat if they possibly can so they need another punishment hanging over them at all times.

The above comment is an interesting twist.

Player A or someone on his team observes something about Player B and keeps it to themselves (or scans the video that night and finds something new).  then informs the committee after Player B signs off for the day - perhaps anonymously.......

Big advantage for Players with a lot of resources able to hire a team of people to screen the footage each night.  And since we assume they cheat without some sort of social engineering....

(cynicism and sarcasm off - just Devil's Advocate here). 

I think that the 'naked eye' standard should address this actually as Player B should reasonably have been able to catch whatever Joe Cheetoh could see.....and at this point, Player A delaying notification would just be a dick move and it would likely return to haunt him in a career kililng way.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, RH31 said:

An opposing player shouldn't be able to gain an extra 2 shot advantage because they saw something and didn't speak up in a timely manner.

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-33,d33-7-9

They can't.

Can you answer this question finally, @RH31?

15 hours ago, iacas said:

Please indulge stupid old me and tell me again: what is the purpose, or what is to be gained, by having the name of the person who spotted an infraction? What if there are ten people who spot the infraction?

Now you're convinced, seemingly, that it was "an opposing player"?

[RH31]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-33,d33-7-9

They can't.

Can you answer this question finally, @RH31?

Now you're convinced, seemingly, that it was "an opposing player"?

I'm not convinced of anything. I have no idea who it was. I'm only presenting "what ifs" because no one was identified in even a vague way(viewer, official, cousin etc.) and I read on this board it may be someone close to the tournament.

Thanks for posting the rule, that clarifies what a playing partners responsibility is.

What about caddies, rules officials, tournament officials? Are there guidelines that they are supposed to follow in the event they view a possible infraction?

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, RH31 said:

What about caddies, rules officials, tournament officials? Are there guidelines that they are supposed to follow in the event they view a possible infraction?

What's the point in discussing this? There's no evidence to suggest that someone "withheld" or "waited" to insure that Lexi would sign an incorrect scorecard. And even someone who saw it live may have had a hard time getting to Lexi within the 15 minutes that remained before she signed her scorecard.

And again, answer the question, please…

17 hours ago, iacas said:

Please indulge stupid old me and tell me again: what is the purpose, or what is to be gained, by having the name of the person who spotted an infraction? What if there are ten people who spot the infraction?

---

I moved many posts to this topic since none of them were discussing the new Decision.

[Nutsmacker]

13 hours ago, Aflighter said:

Shes handled it better than me. I would have flipped em all off and took a couple months off. Can only imagine what John Daly would have done. I imagine he would have popped open a beer and said bull....t.

I don't think John daly would have cried.  I think he might have taken himself out of the tournament out of respect of not being called a cheat.  The ruling was correct and I cannot understand how anyone would think that it was at the very least a massive mental blunder.  It would be much easier to come to the conclusion that she altered the line on purpose but I won't go there since we do not know 100% for sure what was going through her head.  I can bet you that if I had that putt for money on the line with my buddies and I did what she did, they would be calling me out for it.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of the rulings or what transpired.  The only thing I see wrong with it is the outrage from people defending her and her lack of acknowledging what she did was wrong. 

[iacas]

14 hours ago, Aflighter said:

Shes handled it better than me. I would have flipped em all off and took a couple months off. Can only imagine what John Daly would have done. I imagine he would have popped open a beer and said bull....t.

I think she handled it poorly. "Whatever!" and "is this a joke?" That's a brat, that's not a professional caught breaking the rules in a major championship.

---

Someone else posted this on GCA, and since I installed the new plugin to condense quotes, I won't quote it, but the italic words are all his (Michael Felton):

I don't think it's a great idea to rely solely on fellow competitors to watch out for rules violations. They are off worrying about their own shots, as they should be. The game is slow enough as it is. If both playing partners stand and watch intently the entire time that someone is playing, it'll take four days to play one round.

When a player signs their scorecard, they are putting their name to their score. They are effectively stating "hey everyone, this is what I scored and you can trust that the score on the board is correct". If it subsequently turns out that it wasn't correct, I think it's reasonably to hold them accountable. Other players are making decisions on the basis of the affirmed scores posted. I do think it's unreasonable to penalise someone after they have signed their card if there was no way for them to know that the score was incorrect. It is however the responsibility of every player to know the rules. Given that the rules now state that infractions will only be deemed infractions if they could reasonably be detected by the naked eye, it's hard to imagine a situation where someone could completely innocently sign for an incorrect score.

Jim - the end of the tournament seems like a perfectly reasonable point to draw the line to me. The winner of the tournament is the person who takes the fewest strokes to complete 72 holes. That those 72 holes are broken up into 18 hole subsets is to my mind somewhat arbitrary. It's really only the 72 holes that matter. If player A does something on the 12th hole of round 1 and player B does the exact same thing on the 14th hole of round 4, but both infractions are discovered at the same time in the same tournament, why would you penalise one and not the other?

Lastly, if you follow the rules and don't do anything stupid, then you have nothing to worry about from call-ins. If you mark your ball, put it back where you picked it up from. If Lexi didn't gain any advantage by marking and replacing the ball in a quite clearly different spot, then why on earth did she do it? She clearly decided to mark it for a reason. I don't know what that reason was and I'm not going to say that she cheated because I have no clue what was going through her mind, but it does make me wonder why she did it.

---

That sums up a lot of how I feel about all of this.

[RH31]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

What's the point in discussing this? There's no evidence to suggest that someone "withheld" or "waited" to insure that Lexi would sign an incorrect scorecard. And even someone who saw it live may have had a hard time getting to Lexi within the 15 minutes that remained before she signed her scorecard.

And again, answer the question, please…

---

I moved many posts to this topic since none of them were discussing the new Decision.

>Please indulge stupid old me and tell me again: what is the purpose, or what is to be gained, by >having the name of the person who spotted an infraction? What if there are ten people who spot >the infraction?

A. To determine if there was motive for delay in reporting the incident or

B. To determine if "someone close to the tournament" should've or could've handled the matter faster.

C. To solve my curiosity in the matter

I know, I know, Lexi still would've gotten the 4 shot penalty.....just maybe not mid round

[WestKyGolfer]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I think she handled it poorly. "Whatever!" and "is this a joke?" That's a brat, that's not a professional caught breaking the rules in a major championship.

---

Someone else posted this on GCA, and since I installed the new plugin to condense quotes, I won't quote it, but the italic words are all his (Michael Felton):

I don't think it's a great idea to rely solely on fellow competitors to watch out for rules violations. They are off worrying about their own shots, as they should be. The game is slow enough as it is. If both playing partners stand and watch intently the entire time that someone is playing, it'll take four days to play one round.

When a player signs their scorecard, they are putting their name to their score. They are effectively stating "hey everyone, this is what I scored and you can trust that the score on the board is correct". If it subsequently turns out that it wasn't correct, I think it's reasonably to hold them accountable. Other players are making decisions on the basis of the affirmed scores posted. I do think it's unreasonable to penalise someone after they have signed their card if there was no way for them to know that the score was incorrect. It is however the responsibility of every player to know the rules. Given that the rules now state that infractions will only be deemed infractions if they could reasonably be detected by the naked eye, it's hard to imagine a situation where someone could completely innocently sign for an incorrect score.

Jim - the end of the tournament seems like a perfectly reasonable point to draw the line to me. The winner of the tournament is the person who takes the fewest strokes to complete 72 holes. That those 72 holes are broken up into 18 hole subsets is to my mind somewhat arbitrary. It's really only the 72 holes that matter. If player A does something on the 12th hole of round 1 and player B does the exact same thing on the 14th hole of round 4, but both infractions are discovered at the same time in the same tournament, why would you penalise one and not the other?

Lastly, if you follow the rules and don't do anything stupid, then you have nothing to worry about from call-ins. If you mark your ball, put it back where you picked it up from. If Lexi didn't gain any advantage by marking and replacing the ball in a quite clearly different spot, then why on earth did she do it? She clearly decided to mark it for a reason. I don't know what that reason was and I'm not going to say that she cheated because I have no clue what was going through her mind, but it does make me wonder why she did it.

---

That sums up a lot of how I feel about all of this.

To my mind as well.