Lexi Thompson's 4 Stroke Penalty at the ANA

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, cutchemist42 said:

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'm no rules official, but in my opinion its "too much" when its clear that the ball is in a different position.  1/8"  is almost certainly not enough to be clear.  1" is very clearly different.  I'd say somewhere between 1/4" and 1/2" is where I'd draw the line.  That's between about 6 and 12 mm for our metric friends.  Again, that's my opinion, feel free to disagree.  It really goes to being certain that its not in its original position.

[tlazzol]

I would like to see the players be held accountable for protecting the field as they are supposed to do.  If her fellow competitor was watching as she should, this could have been prevented.  By accountable I mean warnings, fines then suspension for missing other players penalties.  If golf is about integrity then own up to it.  

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, tlazzol said:

I would like to see the players be held accountable for protecting the field as they are supposed to do.  If her fellow competitor was watching as she should, this could have been prevented.  By accountable I mean warnings, fines then suspension for missing other players penalties.  If golf is about integrity then own up to it.  

That's just shifting the blame from the player who is ultimately responsible (Lexi) to the gal with whom she was playing.

It's often impractical to watch EVERYTHING the other player is doing. You're into your own routine. You may be 50 yards away on the other side of the fairway, or cleaning your spikes, or getting a snack, or whatever.

The Rules say that it's the player's responsibility to play within the rules, not to police everyone else.

[Yukari]

It just baffles me how some people defend Lexi who were outraged when it occurred here:

Some like @Shorty have been consistent in their view and I commend them for that.  But others have basically called for harsher penalty for Chella Choi but have sympathy for Lexi.  You guys, and you know who you are, should really look deeply into your racial bias.

If a rule is broken, it should equally apply to all.  Why some people are defending this rule violation is beyond me.  You can express your opinion that the rule itself is bad, but to defend Lexi just doesn't make sense IMHO.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Yukari

[David in FL]

Alright, clearly I have a little too much time on my hands...

The question came up, how accurate should we reasonably expect to be when marking, and subsequently replacing our ball.  So I conducted a very simple test.  Just one time I know, but it's easy enough that anyone else might want to try it too, just for shits and giggles.  Here's what I did.

1)  Placed sheet of paper on the floor, aligning the bottom edge with a seam to ensure subsequent consistent orientation.

2)  Marked a golfball with a Sharpy and placed it, marked side down on the paper, pressing lightly to ensure a mark transferred to the paper.

3)  Walked away, then returned and used a quarter to mark the ball, exactly as I would during the round, i.e. accurately, but somewhat casually, not really trying to be perfectly precise.

4)  Lifted the ball, and then traced a circle exactly around the quarter.

5)  I then took another sheet of paper, aligned it exactly with the first, and holding the two up to a window, traced the quarter onto the second piece of paper.  I did that so when I replaced the ball, I would not be able to see the previous Sharpy mark to help in replacing the ball.

6)  Placed the second sheet of paper on the floor, again aligning the bottom edge with the floor seam, and replaced the quarter in it's exactly marked spot.

7)  Walked away and waited several minutes. 

8)  Reapplied Sharpy to the ball, and walked up and replaced the ball in the same, somewhat casual manner that I would on the course, pressing lightly again to leave another mark.

9)  I took the 2d sheet, placed it on top of the first sheet, and using a needle, poked a hole through the ball mark on the top sheet so as to transfer that exact location to the bottom sheet.

Here are the results...

The left pic is the original sheet/mark.  You can see the Sharpy mark as well as the hole from the needle representing the exact location of the ball when it was replaced.  Even I was a bit surprised.  Again, I didn't try to be overly precise, I just tried to follow my own normal procedure.  I don't have a micrometer here, but there's no way the difference is more than 1/32", probably less.  The quarter itself is 15/16" in diameter.

Kind of puts a 3/4 inch "miss" into perspective....

Edited April 4, 2017 by David in FL

[14ledo81]

2 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Alright, clearly I have a little too much time on my hands...

The question came up, how accurate should we reasonably expect to be when marking, and subsequently replacing our ball.  So I conducted a very simple test.  Just one time I know, but it's easy enough that anyone else might want to try it too, just for shits and giggles.  Here's what I did.

1)  Placed sheet of paper on the floor, aligning the bottom edge with a seam to ensure subsequent consistent orientation.

2)  Marked a golfball with a Sharpy and placed it, marked side down on the paper, pressing lightly to ensure a mark transferred to the paper.

3)  Walked away, then returned and used a quarter to mark the ball, exactly as I would during the round, i.e. accurately, but somewhat casually, not really trying to be perfectly precise.

4)  Lifted the ball, and then traced a circle exactly around the quarter.

5)  I then took another sheet of paper, aligned it exactly with the first, and holding the two up to a window, traced the quarter onto the second piece of paper.  I did that so when I replaced the ball, I would be able to see the previous Sharpy mark to help in replacing the ball.

6)  Placed the second sheet of paper on the floor, again aligning the bottom edge with the floor seam, and replaced the quarter in it's exactly marked spot.

7)  Walked away and waited several minutes. 

8)  Reapplied Sharpy to the ball, and walked up and replaced the ball in the same, somewhat casual manner that I would on the course, pressing lightly again to leave another mark.

9)  I took the 2d sheet, placed it on top of the first sheet, and using a needle, poked a hole through the ball mark on the top sheet so as to transfer that exact location to the bottom sheet.

Here are the results...

The left pic is the original sheet/mark.  You can see the Sharpy mark as well as the hole from the needle representing the exact location of the ball when it was replaced.  Even I was a bit surprised.  Again, I didn't try to be overly precise, I just tried to follow my own normal procedure.  I don't have a micrometer here, but there's no way the difference is more than 1/32", probably less.  The quarter itself is 15/16" in diameter.

Kind of puts a 3/4 inch "miss" into perspective....

Especially when she did not walk away from it, but moved it in the same motion.

[boogielicious]

6 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Alright, clearly I have a little too much time on my hands...

The question came up, how accurate should we reasonably expect to be when marking, and subsequently replacing our ball.  So I conducted a very simple test.  Just one time I know, but it's easy enough that anyone else might want to try it too, just for shits and giggles.  Here's what I did.

1)  Placed sheet of paper on the floor, aligning the bottom edge with a seam to ensure subsequent consistent orientation.

2)  Marked a golfball with a Sharpy and placed it, marked side down on the paper, pressing lightly to ensure a mark transferred to the paper.

3)  Walked away, then returned and used a quarter to mark the ball, exactly as I would during the round, i.e. accurately, but somewhat casually, not really trying to be perfectly precise.

4)  Lifted the ball, and then traced a circle exactly around the quarter.

5)  I then took another sheet of paper, aligned it exactly with the first, and holding the two up to a window, traced the quarter onto the second piece of paper.  I did that so when I replaced the ball, I would be able to see the previous Sharpy mark to help in replacing the ball.

6)  Placed the second sheet of paper on the floor, again aligning the bottom edge with the floor seam, and replaced the quarter in it's exactly marked spot.

7)  Walked away and waited several minutes. 

8)  Reapplied Sharpy to the ball, and walked up and replaced the ball in the same, somewhat casual manner that I would on the course, pressing lightly again to leave another mark.

9)  I took the 2d sheet, placed it on top of the first sheet, and using a needle, poked a hole through the ball mark on the top sheet so as to transfer that exact location to the bottom sheet.

Here are the results...

The left pic is the original sheet/mark.  You can see the Sharpy mark as well as the hole from the needle representing the exact location of the ball when it was replaced.  Even I was a bit surprised.  Again, I didn't try to be overly precise, I just tried to follow my own normal procedure.  I don't have a micrometer here, but there's no way the difference is more than 1/32", probably less.  The quarter itself is 15/16" in diameter.

Kind of puts a 3/4 inch "miss" into perspective....

Thanks for testing. Although it was an interesting test, it would need to be run blind for you to really determine the accuracy of placement. You knew what you were testing for. If you ran it with people unfamiliar with the issue, it would be better. Also, she approached from the side for some reason and that may have contributed to the inaccuracy. Or it could have helped her realign for nefarious reasons. We really don't know.

[hcopenhagenh]

It is mathematically improbable to put the ball down in the same exact spot every time you mark then place your ball.  If you go in at a slight different angle than where you placed it the first time it can easily be off by an inch.  With the ruling that was made at this event, every one that has ever marked a ball has cheated on the course.  The idea of this is ridiculous.

Lexi did not cheat and deserved Zero Penalty strokes.  Had she stepped away from the ball for several seconds and then stepped back to place her ball this would have never even been an issue because it wouldn't have been able to be seen by TV.

This entire scenario brings up another issue.  Moving your ball mark that is in anthers line out of common courtesy.  It is not a rule that you have to move the ball.  I would tell my opponent "NO."  It is absolutely impossible to move your mark, move it back, and then have the ball in the same exact spot.  The only way you will do it is by sheer luck.

Video replay to assess a penalty in golf needs to go away and in a hurry.  If you can not see the penalty in real time with the naked eye then no penalty occurred.  The only way to assess a penalty through video is that every player, has every swing, every putt, every drop, every mark video taped and played on TV for the audience.  This will never happen and it needs to be removed from consideration.  The only time video should be used in golf is to help assess a penalty that is being questioned by the real time view of the official, player, or players.

[David in FL]

2 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Thanks for testing. Although it was an interesting test, it would need to be run blind for you to really determine the accuracy of placement. You knew what you were testing for. If you ran it with people unfamiliar with the issue, it would be better. Also, she approached from the side for some reason and that may have contributed to the inaccuracy. Or it could have helped her realign for nefarious reasons. We really don't know.

Absolutely true.  It's worth noting though, when we mark and replace a ball, we also know that we're doing so with the express purpose of replacing it as nearly as possible to the original spot.

Regardless, it certainly provides some insight to the potential level of precision that we might expect, but again only one quick test.

[krupa]

2 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

It is mathematically improbable to put the ball down in the same exact spot every time you mark then place your ball.  If you go in at a slight different angle than where you placed it the first time it can easily be off by an inch.  With the ruling that was made at this event, every one that has ever marked a ball has cheated on the course.  The idea of this is ridiculous.

The idea is ridiculous because your premise makes it so.  No one expects a player to replace the ball absolutely perfectly back on the same exact spot.  But putting it close enough so you can't tell that it's in a different place?  That's doable.  If you can be off by going in at an angle, then don't go in at an angle.  From the video, I think she could have gone in directly behind the ball without disturbing the line of the other player.  If you like going in at an angle, use a marker like the TST marker (linked a page or two ago) or something with a line/arrow that indicates where the ball was when the marker was placed.

[boogielicious]

2 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Absolutely true.  It's worth noting though, when we mark and replace a ball, we also know that we're doing so with the express purpose of replacing it as nearly as possible to the original spot.

Regardless, it certainly provides some insight to the potential level of precision that we might expect, but again only one quick test.

Agree. I can't see how anyone who was paying attention would misplace the ball as poorly as she did. Especially when it is that important. Stupid mistake on her part.

[Golfingdad]

13 minutes ago, Yukari said:

It just baffles me how some people defend Lexi who were outraged when it occurred here:

Some like @Shorty have been consistent in their view and I commend them for that.  But others have basically called for harsher penalty for Chella Choi but have sympathy for Lexi.  You guys, and you know who you are, should really look deeply into your racial bias.

If a rule is broken, it should equally apply to all.  Why some people are defending this rule violation is beyond me.  You can express your opinion that the rule itself is bad, but to defend Lexi just doesn't make sense IMHO.

I do not take offense to being one of the ones being called out here - except I'd prefer that you didn't put the word "racial" in there.  There is obviously bias, but it's not at all racial.  It's to do with popularity.  If you replaced Chella Choi with some random white girl, and replaced Lexi with Inbee Park or Lydia Ko, my bias would still lean towards the stars.  (Or move it over to the men's side and replace Chella with some white guy from Web.com I've never heard of and replace Lexi with Hideki Matsuyama - I'm gonna be defending Hideki more)  I'm not right, and it's not fair, but I think it's the truth.

Now, that said, there is an important distinction to be made:  My "defense" of Lexi is solely my wanting to believe she didn't do it on purpose.  It doesn't carry over to my views of the rule or rules (first one is fine, don't like the signature one) or how they were applied (completely agree with the application of the existing rules).  So you're last paragraph does not apply to me.

Further, and correct me if I'm wrong here, I haven't actually given a strong opinion that I believe that Lexi didn't cheat.  I do admit wanting to lean that way though, and it is a contrast to my posts in the Choi thread.

Now, a couples of reasons why I might be leaning the way I'm leaning for each event besides the admitted bias.

1. Their reactions when given the news.  Lexi was on tv, and we saw how devastated and saddened she was - it seemed genuine.  Chella was not (not her fault), but all we heard was that she defiantly WD'd from the tournament rather than accept the penalty.
2. It's not as clear with Lexi how far she moved the ball and how she moved it in relation to the coin.  But with Chella, she basically played checkers with the ball and coin.  She came in to the ball from behind, marked to the side of the ball, and then jumped the ball over to the other side of the coin.  It clearly looked intentional to me, whereas with Lexi, I'm not sure.

[rehmwa]

29 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Thanks for testing. Although it was an interesting test, it would need to be run blind for you to really determine the accuracy of placement. You knew what you were testing for. If you ran it with people unfamiliar with the issue, it would be better. Also, she approached from the side for some reason and that may have contributed to the inaccuracy. Or it could have helped her realign for nefarious reasons. We really don't know.

and I'd suggest he also run it as follows:

1 - walk up directly behind the ball and place the mark and, then stay lined up directly on the same heading and replace the ball - do this 1,000,000 times.

2 - then, walk up sideways to the ball, mark it, and then shift to inline and replace it.  no reps just on the first try.  While your pants are on fire, and you are nervous and out of breath, with thousands of people watching and yelling BABABOOEY

 

Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone catches anything, there's not a lot of video to review in the first place amongst the commercials, more commercials, some additional commercials, commentary, and host chatter....

Edited April 4, 2017 by rehmwa

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, tlazzol said:

I would like to see the players be held accountable for protecting the field as they are supposed to do.  If her fellow competitor was watching as she should, this could have been prevented.  By accountable I mean warnings, fines then suspension for missing other players penalties.  If golf is about integrity then own up to it.  

Now THAT would help pace of play....

..."Hold on Jim, you can't address, or even approach your ball until I get there in case you inadvertently incur a penalty that I might otherwise miss.  Then we'll both wander on over to my ball..."

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

It is mathematically improbable to put the ball down in the same exact spot every time you mark then place your ball.  If you go in at a slight different angle than where you placed it the first time it can easily be off by an inch.

The bold is not even remotely true.

21 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

This entire scenario brings up another issue.  Moving your ball mark that is in anthers line out of common courtesy.  It is not a rule that you have to move the ball.  I would tell my opponent "NO."

You're not allowed to say no. The ball marker is a stand-in for the ball, and if your ball interferes with the play of another, he may have it lifted, he may have the marker moved, etc.

OT for this discussion, though.

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I do not take offense to being one of the ones being called out here - except I'd prefer that you didn't put the word "racial" in there.  There is obviously bias, but it's not at all racial.  It's to do with popularity.  If you replaced Chella Choi with some random white girl, and replaced Lexi with Inbee Park or Lydia Ko, my bias would still lean towards the stars.  (Or move it over to the men's side and replace Chella with some white guy from Web.com I've never heard of and replace Lexi with Hideki Matsuyama - I'm gonna be defending Hideki more)  I'm not right, and it's not fair, but I think it's the truth.

Now, that said, there is an important distinction to be made:  My "defense" of Lexi is solely my wanting to believe she didn't do it on purpose.  It doesn't carry over to my views of the rule or rules (first one is fine, don't like the signature one) or how they were applied (completely agree with the application of the existing rules).  So you're last paragraph does not apply to me.

Further, and correct me if I'm wrong here, I haven't actually given a strong opinion that I believe that Lexi didn't cheat.  I do admit wanting to lean that way though, and it is a contrast to my posts in the Choi thread.

Now, a couples of reasons why I might be leaning the way I'm leaning for each event besides the admitted bias.

1. Their reactions when given the news.  Lexi was on tv, and we saw how devastated and saddened she was - it seemed genuine.  Chella was not (not her fault), but all we heard was that she defiantly WD'd from the tournament rather than accept the penalty.
2. It's not as clear with Lexi how far she moved the ball and how she moved it in relation to the coin.  But with Chella, she basically played checkers with the ball and coin.  She came in to the ball from behind, marked to the side of the ball, and then jumped the ball over to the other side of the coin.  It clearly looked intentional to me, whereas with Lexi, I'm not sure.

I agree that race isn't the issue here, but rather popularity in America. Even non golfers know who is Lexi, but only a few in this country know Chella.

 

44 minutes ago, Yukari said:

It just baffles me how some people defend Lexi who were outraged when it occurred here:

Some like @Shorty have been consistent in their view and I commend them for that.  But others have basically called for harsher penalty for Chella Choi but have sympathy for Lexi.  You guys, and you know who you are, should really look deeply into your racial bias.

If a rule is broken, it should equally apply to all.  Why some people are defending this rule violation is beyond me.  You can express your opinion that the rule itself is bad, but to defend Lexi just doesn't make sense IMHO.

In both cases, I didn't and don't see how it could possibly affect the outcome, but at this point I just play by the rules and expect everyone else to do so especially the pros. I'm not going to enforce the rules on other people, but I will on myself.

I have to say that I defended Chella, up until I realized that the rules are the rules. If I look at posts from when I was a 28 or whatever handicap, I find myself defending the fact that the 15" putt could not have been missed and that the rule is unfair. Now that my game is a lot better, more minute things affect my score when I'm playing well.

The rules are there for a reason, and it's very simple. Just follow them. I still have no idea why Chella and Lexi moved their markers, but I do know that's a rules infraction. It's that simple.

[zero]

My final thought is that @iacas has made strong case for the rules and officiating staying as-is and it makes sense to me now. My only suggestion is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case. 4 strokes is too severe for a 1/4" ball move on a putt. I would advocate that there be a few levels of severity depending on the specifics of the circumstances.
Also, I think the game in general would have better public perception if they just say "we became aware and reviewed tape" and leave out how they became aware. It doesn't matter how and it just makes them look bad if it comes from a fan.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, zero said:

My final thought is that @iacas has made strong case for the rules and officiating staying as-is and it makes sense to me now. My only suggestion is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case. 4 strokes is too severe for a 1/4" ball move on a putt. I would advocate that there be a few levels of severity depending on the specifics of the circumstances.

The modernized rules seek to streamline and simplify the rules. Levels of severity would have the opposite effect.

And the ball moved at least 0.7". It wasn't just 1/4".

10 minutes ago, zero said:

Also, I think the game in general would have better public perception if they just say "we became aware and reviewed tape" and leave out how they became aware. It doesn't matter how and it just makes them look bad if it comes from a fan.

Yeah, I agree. Which shows what I'll call a "flaw" (for lack of a better word at this moment) in the thinking of some people: if they said that, many people would be less upset… when really the main facts wouldn't have changed at all. They object to how the infraction was discovered to the point of almost feeling sorry for the guilty party: the person who breached the rules.