Lexi Thompson's 4 Stroke Penalty at the ANA

[Aflighter]

5 hours ago, marcharing said:

Do you know my Ex?

Exactly. Nitpickers. Might have been haa. My ex GF same way.

[Bballref]

Should I call it in, should I, should I? I was watching the golf channel just after they started their coverage of the PGA RBC Heritage. Schneiderjans misses a putt (1st or 2nd hole) that hangs on the back lip of the hole. He casually takes a stab at it as he walks towards it to knock it in but he stubs the putter blade into the turf, effectively stopping it from moving forward and striking the ball. There's a slight pause and then he sweeps the blade towards the ball and knocks it in. A friend of mine who was with me at the time also saw it and commented that Schneiderjans should have been charged with a stroke when he initially stubbed the putter into the turf. Anyone else see that? Seriously, I really wouldn't know who to call anyways. I'm not doing any phoning but still, where does someone find the phone number to register a rules complaint during a telecast?  

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Bballref said:

but still, where does someone find the phone number to register a rules complaint during a telecast?  

That's the thing… I suspect a LOT of the call-ins are actually "insider" people more than people suspect.

And… post a video.

[Shorty]

5 hours ago, Bballref said:

He casually takes a stab at it as he walks towards it to knock it in but he stubs the putter blade into the turf, effectively stopping it from moving forward and striking the ball. There's a slight pause and then he sweeps the blade towards the ball and knocks it in.

Woody Austin did EXACTLY this in 2007

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Shorty

[Bballref]

Was Ausitin penalized? That's exactly what one sees when Schneiderjans goes to tap it in yesterday. The only difference is that for Ollie the ball was on the far lip of the cup and he reached across over top of the ball with the club from the front and tried. His putter sticks without making contact, then he sweeps ball towards himself to hole it, very similar to Woody's actions back then.  

Where's the phone? What's the e-mail address?  If it is a penalty then someone still has all day to call it in, just ask Lexi.

Legally....Is it fraud if you knowingly cheat and get away with it, while aware of how much money is involved?

Edited April 16, 2017 by Bballref

[Shorty]

5 hours ago, Bballref said:

Was Ausitin penalized? 

Nope. Like Lexi, he acted all innocent and tried to brush it off.

[Bballref]

4 hours ago, Shorty said:

Nope. Like Lexi, he acted all innocent and tried to brush it off.

Your point is valid. 'Deliberately' seems to be the only logical default position a ruling body can make. Don't think it can say,  'Oh, sorry about that, you're forgiven"

What ticks me off is that if Schneiderjans did do what i thought he did and gets away with it then it could seriously affect another golfer. If he did cheat then how would that affect a guy like Poulter who needs $144K these next two weeks to keep his card.  

I wish I had taped it and had a video to show. Who the hell pays attention to a 1 inch putt at any level?

[mvmac]

On 4/15/2017 at 6:41 PM, iacas said:

That's the thing… I suspect a LOT of the call-ins are actually "insider" people more than people suspect.

I think there is a lot of truth to that.

[rehmwa]

On 4/15/2017 at 8:41 PM, iacas said:

That's the thing… I suspect a LOT of the call-ins are actually "insider" people more than people suspect.

And… post a video.

Is that better or worse?

If someone 'can' call in, then 'anyone' should be able to (post the number then).  And then deal with the logistics of it.

If not, then they should be able to define 'who' can call in and make it very public.  (Since they are being public about it.)

[iacas]

1 minute ago, rehmwa said:

Is that better or worse?

If someone 'can' call in, then 'anyone' should be able to (post the number then).  And then deal with the logistics of it.

If not, then they should be able to define 'who' can call in and make it very public.  (Since they are being public about it.)

Why?

You post that as if it's pure logic, but it's just what you think based on your feelings.

If an off-duty rules official (for example) knows how to get in touch with the tournament committee, they should post the number or email address for the general public? That doesn't make sense.

[rehmwa]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why?

You post that as if it's pure logic, but it's just what you think based on your feelings.

 

stop being in tune with my feelings

 

So, I guess I 'feel' that - If the goal is the most accuracy, why throttle the rest of the public from bringing forth observations (of course the answer is the logistical nightmare)

 

So I put forward this " If not, then they should be able to define 'who' can call in and make it very public.  (Since they are being public about it.) "  fine - then make that policy - rules officials can call in, not the rest of the public.  no problem

 

I would also contend, that you are never off-duty from what we observe here ....

Edited April 17, 2017 by rehmwa

[MRR]

For me, that's part of the issue.

"an off-duty rules official" calling in makes perfect sense to me.  I'm pretty much all for that.

"Another golfer or said golfer's entourage" likewise makes sense.

"Someone sitting at home who just feels like calling in"?  No.  I think that both sets a bad precedence and would lead to people calling in all the time.  If that person has a cousin who is a rules official and can convince that cousin to take time out of a busy day to make the call, so be it.  But what I have seen makes it look like the story being presented is that someone from the general public emailed this in while most of the rest of the general public doesn't know how to perform such a feat.

 

If it were an off-duty rules official, I'd prefer they just state that fact.  Then the casual watcher can stop wondering what number to call for any perceived violation.

Edited April 17, 2017 by MRR
spelling

[rehmwa]

5 minutes ago, MRR said:

If it were an off-duty rules official, I'd prefer they just state that fact.  Then the casual watcher can stop wondering what number to call for any perceived violation.

At that point, not even note it was a call in, or 'off-duty'.  Just "we were informed of a possible violation by a rules official - we're investigating."

simple, good for the viewing public, gets the proper review

[iacas]

I don't agree at all with limiting who can call in.

Despite 30 years plus of this happening no steps have ever been taken to limit who can call in or email in.

As it should be.

[MRR]

At least brouhahas like this seem to be rare.

I wasn't much of a golf watcher until about five years ago.  Have you noticed a difference in rules violations and/or calls in due to golf being broadcast 24/7* in HD instead of six hours on the weekend in standard definition?

 

*Actually, much more than 24, since tournaments can be broadcast online as well as on a station.

[Bballref]

As an off-duty rules official, would I be more remiss to not report something I see on TV? That is the question. Obviously by my username you can tell I'm a basketball referee (an avocation). Can't recall ever being overruled by a fellow official who was off duty. What we do is discuss rule judgments with all  officials so that everyone knows what to look for and then interpret the same way when we are working a game. So to answer my question, I would not appreciate an off duty official calling in to report a violation but i would expect the observed violation to be discussed amongst other officials so that they recognize it, as well as rule on it in a consistent fashion. This can only improve vigilance and judgment.

[David in FL]

35 minutes ago, Bballref said:

As an off-duty rules official, would I be more remiss to not report something I see on TV? That is the question. Obviously by my username you can tell I'm a basketball referee (an avocation). Can't recall ever being overruled by a fellow official who was off duty. What we do is discuss rule judgments with all  officials so that everyone knows what to look for and then interpret the same way when we are working a game. So to answer my question, I would not appreciate an off duty official calling in to report a violation but i would expect the observed violation to be discussed amongst other officials so that they recognize it, as well as rule on it in a consistent fashion. This can only improve vigilance and judgment.

There's a major difference between golf and basketball, football, soccer, etc...

In other sports, the referees, umpires, etc... are charged with watching the action, and using their judgement to identify and charge infractions.  It's their responsibility to do so, not the players.  In golf, the rules officials are NOT charged with identifying every breach that occurs.  That responsibility lies with the individual competitor.  The rules officials are only there to assist and provide guidance when asked to do so, or if something is otherwise brought to their attention.

 

[Bballref]

52 minutes ago, David in FL said:

There's a major difference between golf and basketball, football, soccer, etc...

In other sports, the referees, umpires, etc... are charged with watching the action, and using their judgement to identify and charge infractions.  It's their responsibility to do so, not the players.  In golf, the rules officials are NOT charged with identifying every breach that occurs.  That responsibility lies with the individual competitor.  The rules officials are only there to assist and provide guidance when asked to do so, or if something is otherwise brought to their attention.

 

If that's the case then who lowered the boom on Lexi? Rules officials on the GC are similar to assistant coaches, provide aid to head coach and players. In golf, someone(body) has the ultimate power to make a rules decision and invoke penalties, Lexi was not punished by her fellow competitors. I think rules officials need to be redefined.