Lexi Thompson's 4 Stroke Penalty at the ANA

[RH31]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

I can see the movement of the ball from one place to another in real-time speed without magnification.

 

So another way of looking at this is… you're against the truth.

Because seriously, imagine that Lexi wins by two, or one, or anything under 5… imagine the shit show that would ensue when the video surfaced and people realize she should have been penalized two to four strokes. She'd have a tainted victory.

Here's one I'd never said before: Imagine if the PGA rules officials didn't notice that Dustin Johnson was in a bunker but the video surfaced after he'd won a playoff for the PGA Championship? How would that look? On Dustin? On the PGA? On golf in general?

.

Of course you can see it, it was pointed out to you before hand, you were looking for it. Would a cursory review of it  during the telecast have uncovered the infraction? I ask because it seems as though there was only one informant amongst millions of viewers.

I'm not against the truth, I'm against The TV public having any kind of control over the out come of a tournament. The problem is the truth can't be fairly determined and the consequences fairly presented under the current rules.

If the truth is so important and getting it right is all that matters then why is there a time limit on when video evidence can be brought forward? Why is a rule infraction in round 1 subject to more scrutiny than an infraction on the 18th hole in round 4? Shouldn't we all have time review play of all 4 rounds equally? I mean, a rule infraction in round 1 is just as bad as an infraction in round 4, right?

I know your answer, golf isn't fair.

As for the DJ incident, I'd hope the PGA would learn maybe they shouldn't let spectators tromp through bunkers that they expect players to play out of.

 

[cutchemist42]

I hope some of you dont tune in to playoff hockey OT and start wondering what happened to the rulebook haha...

Been a good thread to read though.

Edited April 4, 2017 by cutchemist42

[406pat]

3 minutes ago, RH31 said:

I'm not against the truth, I'm against The TV public having any kind of control over the out come of a tournament. The problem is the truth can't be fairly determined and the consequences fairly presented under the current rules.

Just playing devil's advocate on this, but the argument could be made that the TV public has no control over the out come of a tournament. If a player doesn't commit an infraction of the rules, then there is no infraction to be called in. Ultimately the players are responsible and in control. The rules are written very specifically and generally omit intent. I think that's a good thing as having to prove intent for every infraction would open a Pandora's box that I don't believe anyone would like. It's only the players actions that can cause an infraction, not the public. If the public notices an infraction and they are correct that it is an infraction, then it's only fair to the field that the penalty be assessed. 

3 minutes ago, RH31 said:

If the truth is so important and getting it right is all that matters then why is there a time limit on when video evidence can be brought forward? Why is a rule infraction in round 1 subject to more scrutiny than an infraction on the 18th hole in round 4? Shouldn't we all have time review play of all 4 rounds equally? I mean, a rule infraction in round 1 is just as bad as an infraction in round 4, right?

I think that this is a point that is worthy of more discussion too. Right now, it's a fact that the rules effectively allow greater review time for some rounds than others. Is this a good thing for golf?

[hillis11]

So lets say you was driving 42 mph in a 40 zone. I have my radar gun and clock you speeding and then told the cops. Then you get a ticket in the mail few days later. Would you be okay if this happen even though you knew the law and broke them. Plus you knew a cop didn't catch you but someone watching from the streets did.  

[DaveP043]

16 minutes ago, Braivo said:

What I want to discuss is, should the rule for signing an incorrect scorecard be changed in light of HD video replay and other intangible technology changes that may warrant another look? Yet, every response I get is "She broke the rules!" Dude, I know. I am stating an opinion, I never claimed to be right. 

I agree. I think a discussion of delayed penalties is warranted. How long is too long? How many other things are impacted by the change? Would strategy have changed, etc? 

I think this would be a reasonable discussion to have, beyond any one specific incident.  Perhaps you'd like to open a new thread in the rules section?

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, Braivo said:

What I want to discuss is, should the rule for signing an incorrect scorecard be changed in light of HD video replay and other intangible technology changes that may warrant another look? Yet, every response I get is "She broke the rules!" Dude, I know. I am stating an opinion, I never claimed to be right. 

That's not accurate at all, @Braivo. I've responded many times to discuss why players can't just sign after 72 holes, to discuss why players can't adjust scorecards later, and the other facets of what you want to discuss. I've done it today and I did it yesterday…

23 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I agree. I think a discussion of delayed penalties is warranted. How long is too long? How many other things are impacted by the change? Would strategy have changed, etc? 

I suggest, since you don't feel you're having that discussion here, that you start another topic on that specific piece of the rules: players signing an incorrect scorecard because they failed to play by the rules.

18 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Of course you can see it, it was pointed out to you before hand, you were looking for it.

Maybe. But I honestly think if I'd been watching in real time I would have seen it, too.

She played from a wrong place, though, and not just by the little amount allowed for when replacing your ball at the marker.

18 minutes ago, RH31 said:

I'm not against the truth, I'm against The TV public having any kind of control over the out come of a tournament. The problem is the truth can't be fairly determined and the consequences fairly presented under the current rules.

How do you feel that the last sentence is at all accurate? The committee took evidence into account and ruled - correctly - that she played from a wrong place. That was closer to the truth than "she did nothing wrong and did not breach the rules."

18 minutes ago, RH31 said:

If the truth is so important and getting it right is all that matters then why is there a time limit on when video evidence can be brought forward?

Because you have to balance practicality and the desire to conduct a good and accurate competition.

18 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Why is a rule infraction in round 1 subject to more scrutiny than an infraction on the 18th hole in round 4?

Y'see… there's this little concept called time…  Again, we have to balance what's reasonable with what's possible, practical, etc.

18 minutes ago, RH31 said:

As for the DJ incident, I'd hope the PGA would learn maybe they shouldn't let spectators tromp through bunkers that they expect players to play out of.

Had that been the rule then the course would have been almost void of spectators. DJ hit his ball WAY offline. Spectators trample in the rough and it often benefits players. This time he had to deal with it in a bunker.

6 minutes ago, 406pat said:

Just playing devil's advocate on this, but the argument could be made that the TV public has no control over the out come of a tournament. If a player doesn't commit an infraction of the rules, then there is no infraction to be called in. Ultimately the players are responsible and in control.

Nobody wants to admit to that - that Lexi brought this all on herself, and on golf, by playing from a wrong place and signing an incorrect scorecard. A bunch of people are looking to change the rules because this doesn't "feel right" (or something).

6 minutes ago, 406pat said:

If the public notices an infraction and they are correct that it is an infraction, then it's only fair to the field that the penalty be assessed.

Pretty much what I'm saying with the "truth" stuff, yes.

11 minutes ago, cutchemist42 said:

I hope some of you dont tune in to playoff hockey OT and start wondering what happened to the rulebook haha...

Comparisons to other sports are a non-starter.

4 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I think this would be a reasonable discussion to have, beyond any one specific incident.  Perhaps you'd like to open a new thread in the rules section?

That's what I've encouraged him to do, too.

[406pat]

5 minutes ago, hillis11 said:

So lets say you was driving 42 mph in a 40 zone. I have my radar gun and clock you speeding and then told the cops. Then you get a ticket in the mail few days later. Would you be okay if this happen even though you knew the law and broke them. Plus you knew a cop didn't catch you but someone watching from the streets did.  

If the rules of golf applied on the road, I'd be obliged to issue a ticket to myself!

[boogielicious]

3 hours ago, gregsandiego said:

Where did the "cheetos" come from?

Some of the pros on the golf channel were wondering how this cheeto guy even had an email since even they had no idea what that email would be.

Also let's assume Lexi is guilty as charged. So I'm a pro paid by LPGA to officiate, but I take/need advice from the public? Maybe I'm not the most qualified for the job.

Justin Thomas tweeted it. I posted the tweet earlier in this thread.

[Jack Watson]

Were the rules applied correctly as they are written?

yes

Did it ruin the tournament?

yes

 

[Hardspoon]

20 minutes ago, Braivo said:

What I want to discuss is, should the rule for signing an incorrect scorecard be changed in light of HD video replay and other intangible technology changes that may warrant another look?

I completely understand where you're coming from with this.  I think the "extra" 2-stroke penalty leaves a bad taste.

Personally, however, I feel like this is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.  If you eliminate the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard, there is no incentive for players to seek out Rules Officials during or after the round to ask questions.  In the case of a ball that might have oscillated, the player would just play on, hoping nobody noticed.

The scorecard rule as currently written has some consequences that seem really crappy or "unfair" to some folks, when it leads to this type of "she didn't know!" situation.  Eliminating it, though, would create the potential for some even worse ones, and it would remove any incentive for players to make darn sure their scorecard was right at the end of each round.

For those who feel like it's "unfair", think of it this way: if you mark your ball while putting in the wrong place, but realize it later and correct it, that's two strokes.  If you mark your ball in the wrong place but are so careless that you don't notice (like Lexi did), maybe you deserve the four strokes...that extra penalty is one for ignorance of the rules.  If you get lucky, and some viewer notices during the same round so you can correct it, you only get the two, and you got off easy!

[DaveP043]

6 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Justin Thomas tweeted it. I posted the tweet earlier in this thread.

Wasn't Justin Thomas one of the pros who said there should be separate rules for the pros?  Maybe he'd care to try to write something up to cover this situation fairly but comprehensively.

[jamo]

1 hour ago, cutchemist42 said:

So whats the actual limit? Because you cant say no ball is replaced perfectly? 

 Could you explain more? Im not sure I know what you mean. 

It's the same as the first line in your post. It's impossible to say that an oscillating ball comes to rest in the same spot, just as it's impossible to say that you replaced the ball in the same spot. That means there's a certain limit that we've all accepted as fine. As far as I know, the Rules don't define such a limit.

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

I completely understand where you're coming from with this.  I think the "extra" 2-stroke penalty leaves a bad taste.

Personally, however, I feel like this is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.  If you eliminate the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard, there is no incentive for players to seek out Rules Officials during or after the round to ask questions.  In the case of a ball that might have oscillated, the player would just play on, hoping nobody noticed.

That is criteria where I am trying to figure out if there is an alternative. I am not sure if saying, "Scores are final once you tee off for the next round." Then does it allow players to weight the risk versus reward on trying to get a lower score signed and not getting caught? 

 

[David in FL]

11 minutes ago, hillis11 said:

So lets say you was driving 42 mph in a 40 zone. I have my radar gun and clock you speeding and then told the cops. Then you get a ticket in the mail few days later. Would you be okay if this happen even though you knew the law and broke them. Plus you knew a cop didn't catch you but someone watching from the streets did.  

It happens every day.  Someone sees a crime committed, they report it, and the perpetrator is subsequently arrested, sometimes days or weeks after the fact. 

I'm OK with that.

The only difference in your strawman is the relative seriousness of the infraction?Real life time, money, and asset availability provide constraints on the level of infractions/crimes that can/should be investigated and confirmed.  Remember, Lexi wasn't assessed any penalties simply because someone reported the breach.  The breach was subsequently investigated and deemed to have occurred.  

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That is criteria where I am trying to figure out if there is an alternative. I am not sure if saying, "Scores are final once you tee off for the next round." Then does it allow players to weight the risk versus reward on trying to get a lower score signed and not getting caught?

I suspect people will still say that's "unfair" - Michelle Wie had over 24 hours between her first and second rounds, while other players finished their first round and immediately went out for their second round.

That's not "fair" either, some would say (I think).

@Braivo, seriously, start the other specific thread. I would for you, but my first post would be pretty bland…

[1badbadger]

1 hour ago, David in FL said:

Of course.  But the rules are neither punitive nor beneficial in and of themselves.  The often provide options to a player.  The player can then choose which option he prefers.  The rule may help, it may not.  Again, all it does is inform us how to proceed so that everyone is treated in the same way, under the same circumstance.

Well put

[cutchemist42]

15 minutes ago, jamo said:

It's the same as the first line in your post. It's impossible to say that an oscillating ball comes to rest in the same spot, just as it's impossible to say that you replaced the ball in the same spot. That means there's a certain limit that we've all accepted as fine. As far as I know, the Rules don't define such a limit.

Yeah I really wonder about this. Would you guys who know golf officials say they have different standards on whats consider too much movement or too-wrong of a replaced ball?

I know its bringing up another sport   but like two different home plate umps with different strike zones, how much difference could a ruling on replaced/moving ball have between professional golf umps?

(Before anyone jumps on me, yes I know 100% of officials would say Lexi's was wrong)

[Braivo]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

I suspect people will still say that's "unfair" - Michelle Wie had over 24 hours between her first and second rounds, while other players finished their first round and immediately went out for their second round.

That's not "fair" either, some would say (I think).

@Braivo, seriously, start the other specific thread. I would for you, but my first post would be pretty bland…