Lexi Thompson's 4 Stroke Penalty at the ANA

[RH31]

27 minutes ago, Hat said:

So now we'd all be happy seeing replays of the rules violation which won Lexi a tournament, because no one could report it?

Who cares? She accidently moved her ball a fraction of an inch.

Why do you think all the players are so dead set against people sending in videos? I'll venture a guess. Players make mistakes all the time and don't get caught. Players have always made mistakes all throughout the history of the game and no players knew or cared enough to make a stink about it. You know why? Because the "cheaters" weren't gaining any advantage from it. If they were, they would've been called out.

Another question I have and sorry if it's been asked.

How does the LPGA know that video wasn't hacked? I'm not saying it was, just that I doubt they employ video experts that could tell.

[Wadess]

41 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Would it have been better if she won the tournament, then this person posted on a public forum that she "cheated" to win?

I think this is where lot of the difference of opinion regarding the rules is found.  The ball was played from a different spot.  That's a matter of fact.  You have the diehard rules guys that follow the rules to the letter and think they're perfect.  On the other hand, you have varying degrees of disagreement with the rules\ruling (no call ins, penalty doesn't fit the infraction, unfair scrutiny of high profile players).  It's essentially a letter of the law vs. a spirit of the law argument.  After all, it's blatantly obvious the current rules were written by lawyers.

I would never say she "cheated" to win even knowing she played from a different spot.  Cheating is doing something for an advantage and I don't believe she intended to or gained any advantage by playing from the different spot.

[14ledo81]

16 minutes ago, Hategolf said:

So..it seems that there are 2 main arguments here. 

1) Lexi made a mistake, she was penalized accordingly and that is golf. There is no argument here , move a long. 

and 

2) They really need to remove outside elements such as spectators from having an influence on the outcome of the Tournament. This being a revision of the rules in the future. Weather you agree with it or not, this is some people's opinion.  

I subscribe to number 2, I think it make sense. 

 

What if the rules official had Golf Channel on in the morning of the last day and saw a replay?  When he gets "back to work" he decides to look at footage again?  Would you be ok with that?  What if he gets home and his wife says "you know, on hole x it looked like xxx did xxx".  Again the official decides to look at footage later.  What if the official overhears someone talking in the gas station and decides to review footage?  

Are you ok with any of these scenarios?

[Missouri Swede]

5 minutes ago, RH31 said:

How does the LPGA know that video wasn't hacked? I'm not saying it was, just that I doubt they employ video experts that could tell.

Are you suggesting that The Golf Channel altered their video broadcast and the recording?

[iacas]

28 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

My scenario was the same as his - to everybody else, the violations looked the same, and the cheaters actions were noticed before the scorecard was signed.  She gets the two strokes for the violation but nothing more.  Nobody knows she cheated except her.  I thought I was fairly clear in what I was getting at.

Then they're penalized the same. It doesn't matter what the intent is if the infraction is discovered prior to signing the scorecard.

Things change for the intentional cheater not only after the scorecard is signed but after the competition closes, too: you can be stripped of titles (or earnings, etc.) after the close of the competition if it's discovered that you knowingly cheated.

27 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

I get the spirit of the game stuff but also agree that viewers shouldn't have that much impact.

The viewer did nothing but point out a fact - the fact that Lexi breached the rules.

Lexi is the one who had the impact. You're blaming the reporter, not the perpetrator.

27 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

The do-gooder armchair RO calling in a penalty and the dork that screams FREEBIRD! at concerts are samey to me, both are interjectors.

Lots of people like to disparage whoever it was that sent the email, and yet they have no idea what the motivations were.

26 minutes ago, 808hacker said:

OK how about "telephoto" or how about video replay, do you not understand what I am saying?

A telephoto lens was not necessary, and the rules allow a small area in which you can replace your ball, but this was well outside that small area.

23 minutes ago, Hategolf said:

2) They really need to remove outside elements such as spectators from having an influence on the outcome of the Tournament. This being a revision of the rules in the future. Weather you agree with it or not, this is some people's opinion.

Of course it's someone's opinion.

But define "spectators," first, and then ask yourself if you'd be comfortable with someone winning a tournament despite a rules infraction that just happened to be seen by millions watching TV, but not live and in person by the two or three people who might have been able to see it in person and live? (1. the player, 2. the cameraman, 3. the caddie or maybe a walking reporter).

Even the announcers are watching it on a TV screen.

The truth was shown and Lexi, having failed in her responsibility to know and follow the Rules of Golf, was penalized.

16 minutes ago, Lihu said:

If she had been found out later to have violated the rules, then everyone would be questioning her. I think the fan that called this in did her a favor. She can always win more majors, and now she's won the hearts of her fans.

Yep.

In watching the last round, this commentary stood out…

9 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Who cares? She accidently moved her ball a fraction of an inch.

It's a breach of the rules.

9 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Why do you think all the players are so dead set against people sending in videos? I'll venture a guess. Players make mistakes all the time and don't get caught.

I don't know about "all the time," but yeah, they don't want to get caught. The easy way to not get caught: know and follow the Rules.

9 minutes ago, RH31 said:

How does the LPGA know that video wasn't hacked? I'm not saying it was, just that I doubt they employ video experts that could tell.

It wasn't hacked. Jeepers… let's please stop short of going full-on-crazy.

7 minutes ago, Wadess said:

You have the diehard rules guys that follow the rules to the letter and think they're perfect.

No die-hard rules guy thinks they're perfect. None I've ever met. You should hear some of the arguments over various rules things among the die-hards.

Just now, Missouri Swede said:

Are you suggesting that The Golf Channel altered their video broadcast and the recording?

Again let's please all stop short of even addressing the full-on-crazy, please.

[Jack Watson]

There is a huge problem here.  The tour can change the score on a card they already officially accepted for any round at any time during play.

There needs to be a point of official acceptance at the signing of the  card when the player finishes the round period.

When the tour has officially accepted the players card that's it!

no do overs!

[boogielicious]

10 minutes ago, krupa said:

*ahem*  I was eating Bugles, thank you very much.

Do you put them on the end of your fingers to make your hands look like claws like I do?

[iacas]

Just now, Jack Watson said:

There is a huge problem here.  The tour can change the score on a card they already officially accepted for any round at any time during play.

There needs to be a point of official acceptance at the signing of the  card when the player finishes the round period.

Do you read anything people say in response to you, or just post the same thing over and over again?

Yes, they can. That line you want to draw already exists… it's at the close of competition for nearly all types of infractions.

[Lihu]

Just now, Wadess said:

I think this is where lot of the difference of opinion regarding the rules is found.  The ball was played from a different spot.  That's a matter of fact.  You have the diehard rules guys that follow the rules to the letter and think they're perfect.

I don't think the rules guys think they're "perfect" per se. Possibly the opposite, some of them are trying to remember the ones for the current situation. Nobody gets everything exactly correct all the time, even robots. They're programmed by humans.

 

Just now, Wadess said:

 On the other hand, you have varying degrees of disagreement with the rules\ruling (no call ins, penalty doesn't fit the infraction, unfair scrutiny of high profile players).  It's essentially a letter of the law vs. a spirit of the law argument.  After all, it's blatantly obvious the current rules were written by lawyers.

The spirit of golf and the exact letter of the RoG are not all that different to me. I might be wrong, but golf is fun to me because it has all these rules. Otherwise, I'd just be at the range all day and hit balls.

 

Just now, Wadess said:

I would never say she "cheated" to win even knowing she played from a different spot.  Cheating is doing something for an advantage and I don't believe she intended to or gained any advantage by playing from the different spot.

Cheat versus rules violations are different, I suppose. One implies malice and intent while the other would be just a stupid thing. However, in this case, many people have concluded that she knew that she was moving the ball? Regardless, we all pretty much agree that the outcome of the hole would not have been any different in the original position versus the new one, but the RoG must be followed.

[krupa]

1 minute ago, boogielicious said:

Do you put them on the end of your fingers to make your hands look like claws like I do?

Only until I nibble the pointy end off and try to play it like a... horn of some kind.

[Golfingdad]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Then they're penalized the same. It doesn't matter what the intent is if the infraction is discovered prior to signing the scorecard.

Things change for the intentional cheater not only after the scorecard is signed but after the competition closes, too: you can be stripped of titles (or earnings, etc.) after the close of the competition if it's discovered that you knowingly cheated.

You obviously missed the entire point of my post.  It was solely a counter-point to the previous posts argument.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Read it in context and it makes perfect sense.

[Jack Watson]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

Do you read anything people say in response to you, or just post the same thing over and over again?

Yes, they can. That line you want to draw already exists… it's at the close of competition for nearly all types of infractions.

I am repeating it because if this was made the rule situations like this could never happen.

The point of the tournament is to identify the best golfer for that tournament.

As we can see the LPGA was not able to do that this time.  

My proposal makes sense.  

It's obvious those in charge of rule enforcement and creation are incompetent.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Jack Watson

[TN94z]

In my opinion, the viewer that called in can't be blamed if the infraction actually happened. The rules are the rules and every player must follow them.  And the problem with it being a "fraction of an inch" is then you open a can of worms on determining how much is too much and that gets into messing with the integrity, in my opinion.

Edited April 3, 2017 by TN94z

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

You obviously missed the entire point of my post.  It was solely a counter-point to the previous posts argument.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Read it in context and it makes perfect sense.

I read it. I get the reply.

Without any editing:

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

I get your point, but that isn't where the cutoff is now.  It's not about self-assessing versus having somebody else assess it, it's about having it come after the round ended and the card is signed.

Take three hypothetical golfers that committed the same penalty, one assessed her own penalty, one didn't notice the violation and was assessed after the round, and one cheated on purpose but her violation was noticed before her 18 hole round was over.  A & C get two strokes, and B gets 4.

Does that still seem reasonable?

Yes, that seems reasonable. Player B violated two rules. Players A and C only violated one.

You seem to be putting too much importance on "knowing" yet the Rules say the player is responsible for playing the game under the rules. All the players didn't, but B unfortunately broke two rules. A was fortunate in having it brought to her attention, and C was likewise fortunate because she'd have faced being DQed had it been discovered later.

[b101]

Took me a little while to weigh this up in my head, but I'm happy with the penalty. I can see the arguments for the case that the 2 strokes for the incorrect scorecard are harsh, but given that it could have been a DQ, I think it's probably about right. Maybe golf doesn't look great and it's not the headline we'd want, but it is cheating by the wording (and the spirit) of the rules. 

The chances are that other players do similar things, to be honest, you probably need one of these every once in a while to ensure that they don't. 

[TN94z]

2 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

I am repeating it because if this was made the rule situations like this could never happen.

The point of the tournament is to identify the best golfer for that tournament.

As we can see the LPGA was not able to do that this time.  

My proposal makes sense.  

But should the best golfer of the tournament be allowed to obtain that title having obviously broken a RoG?

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

I am repeating it because if this was made the rule situations like this could never happen.

The point of the tournament is to identify the best golfer for that tournament.

As we can see the LPGA was not able to do that this time.  

My proposal makes sense.  

I disagree, and I've spoken to why a few times now.

Just now, TN94z said:

In my opinion, the viewer that called in can't be blamed if the infraction actually happened.

C'mon, you don't want to insinuate that the person who called in was a low-life sitting on their couch, being fat and lazy and jealous and probably bald and eating chips and slobbering on themselves? You want to blame the person who actually breached the rules? Insanity!

Just now, TN94z said:

The only problem I can see is the fact that she signed that card that she "believed" to be correct.  It's a gray area where she was penalized for signing an incorrect card when the card was determined to be incorrect a day later.

It's not really a grey area.

She breached the rules and incurred a penalty. Ignorance of the rules (or your actions that violate them) is not a valid excuse.

[TN94z]

Just now, iacas said:

It's not really a grey area.

She breached the rules and incurred a penalty. Ignorance of the rules (or your actions that violate them) is not a valid excuse.

I agree with that and after re-thinking my statement, I had removed it from my comment. You caught it before I removed it.