Lexi Thompson's 4 Stroke Penalty at the ANA

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, MRR said:

I really should learn how to split these quotes.

I agree.

10 minutes ago, MRR said:

1) You stated that Lexi could have called herself out for the breach.  That is absolutely true, but it also absolutely requires knowledge that she committed a breach.  If it was accidental, then she could not have known that she committed the breach.  One cannot call oneself out for doing something that one has no knowledge of.=

Yeah, I know.

She could have noticed it, initially thought that it was nothing, putted out, and then said, "You know, maybe that wasn't quite right. Can we look at the tape before I sign my card?"

10 minutes ago, MRR said:

2) She can only notify others of breaches that she knows about.  If it was accidental and she had no knowledge, then she could not notify other people.

Obviously.

10 minutes ago, MRR said:

3) Perpetrator implies intent.

Not at all. She breached the rules. She failed to notice. She failed to record the proper score.

She's not a victim. Not even a little.

10 minutes ago, MRR said:

However, the same actions on her part could have resulted in only one penalty if rules officials or our emailer notified her the day before.

It's unlikely the emailer could have reached her early enough - she tapped in on 17.

10 minutes ago, MRR said:

I agree, it's the golfers' duty to enforce their own rules.  But one cannot use that as a mantra and still think it's fair when one player is notified by a Rules Official of an infraction in time to amend the score card while another player is notified only after signing.  This is an inconsistent application of the rules, and that is my biggest problem.  

I don't agree that it's unfair.

[MRR]

Oh come on, you really deleted my post?

I agree 100% that she created the issue and the result was completely within the rules.

I'm not necessarily saying what happened was unfair, but I still consider it an inconsistent application of the rules; like when the prosecutor reduces speeding tickets only for people from his golf club.

Edited April 11, 2017 by MRR

[RH31]

1 hour ago, David in FL said:

One of the great things about this game, is that from a rules perspective, your living room and practice green are exactly like an LPGA major.  More pressure?  Sure.  TV cameras?  Hell yeah, all over the place.  But the requirement to replace the ball where it was remains the same.  As does our ability to do so.

My point exactly. No one knows what their ability to function is, even perform the simplest tasks, under that kind of pressure until you experience it.

Edited April 11, 2017 by RH31

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, MRR said:

Oh come on, you really deleted my post?

You quoted a part of my post that I'd edited.

26 minutes ago, MRR said:

I'm not necessarily saying what happened was unfair, but I still consider it an inconsistent application of the rules; like when the prosecutor reduces speeding tickets only for people from his golf club.

It's not an inconsistent application of the rules.

Just now, RH31 said:

My point exactly. You have no idea what your ability to function is, even perform the simplest task, under that kind of pressure until you experience it.

It's a wonder doctors ever get out of a surgery without cracking under the pressure!  People have performed under pressure for centuries.

[RH31]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

You quoted a part of my post that I'd edited.

It's not an inconsistent application of the rules.

It's a wonder doctors ever get out of a surgery without cracking under the pressure!  People have performed under pressure for centuries.

Sure. Some have choked too. I remember seeing a hall of famer whiff on a tap in putt once. But I'm sure the pressure and frustration of being in a major had nothing to do with it.

[iacas]

Just now, RH31 said:

Sure. Some have choked too. I remember seeing a hall of famer whiff on a tap in putt once. But I'm sure the pressure and frustration of being in a major had nothing to do with it.

Just conduct the test. You'll notice that you put the ball back in a very wrong spot.

Everything else is just searching for excuses.

I mean, how in the heck did she ever hit a golf ball if she couldn't even lift one up and put it back where it came from a second later?

[MrDC]

Right, those that think the scorecard penalty is unfair are forgetting about the spirit of the game, its only on her to police her round, nobody else, so unless we're changing that fundamental way we play this game the ruling has to stand.

And I think the reason players do this little move is because they assume the ball always falls into a little depression, and they want a clean lie to roll from.

 

[Shorty]

7 hours ago, boogielicious said:

It must be wonderful to be omniscient. 

Almost as good as having two eyes that are in working order and a bias towards accepting the obvious.

[zero]

At some point we've got to concede these rulings are bad for the game. The layperson viewer doesn't understand or agree with the ruling, particularly the day-after signed an incorrect scorecard 2-stroke penalty. (Everyone can see she moved the ball and deserved 2-strokes for that).

Whether or not it makes sense to golf gurus is immaterial to the harm it does to the broader game and viewership.

[nevets88]

http://www.golf.com/tour-news/2017/04/11/if-you-see-something-say-something-why-tv-viewers-policing-game-afar-actually-good-thing

[DaveP043]

11 hours ago, zero said:

At some point we've got to concede these rulings are bad for the game. The layperson viewer doesn't understand or agree with the ruling, particularly the day-after signed an incorrect scorecard 2-stroke penalty. (Everyone can see she moved the ball and deserved 2-strokes for that).

Whether or not it makes sense to golf gurus is immaterial to the harm it does to the broader game and viewership.

I don't concede that getting the call right, within the rules, can be bad for the game.  Its actually good, in my opinion.  It shows that the game cares more about getting it right than it does about any individual popular player (NBA and NHL officials could take note), more about getting it right than about pleasing TV viewers.  I believe that golf's reliance on integrity, and its insistence on getting it right, are good for the game.

22 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

http://www.golf.com/tour-news/2017/04/11/if-you-see-something-say-something-why-tv-viewers-policing-game-afar-actually-good-thing

This is an oddly logical article, how did it get published by a major publication?  I particularly liked this bit:

Quote

Right after Thompson got her four-shot penalty, Woods tweeted that viewers should not be officials “wearing stripes.”  But that view does not show a keen understanding of the intent of the rules. A player should want the scrutiny that comes with playing on TV because the player is not trying to get away with anything. The player should want to turn in the most accurate scorecard he or she can, with help from anybody who's watching.

 

[iacas]

12 hours ago, zero said:

At some point we've got to concede these rulings are bad for the game.

Completely disagree.

I think call-in rulings are good and preserve the integrity of the game and the competition.

12 hours ago, zero said:

The layperson viewer doesn't understand or agree with the ruling, particularly the day-after signed an incorrect scorecard 2-stroke penalty.

The layperson doesn't understand the offsides rule in hockey or soccer until it's explained to them, either.

12 hours ago, zero said:

Whether or not it makes sense to golf gurus is immaterial to the harm it does to the broader game and viewership.

I disagree.

58 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

http://www.golf.com/tour-news/2017/04/11/if-you-see-something-say-something-why-tv-viewers-policing-game-afar-actually-good-thing

Bamberger…  He has, shall we say, personal experience here.

But I agree with Dave: good article, overall:

Quote

Some players and golf observers take the view that the extra scrutiny that comes with playing golf on TV makes this whole call-in system unfair to the more prominent players. Right after Thompson got her four-shot penalty, Woods tweeted that viewers should not be officials “wearing stripes.”

But that view does not show a keen understanding of the intent of the rules. A player should want the scrutiny that comes with playing on TV because the player is not trying to get away with anything. The player should want to turn in the most accurate scorecard he or she can, with help from anybody who's watching.

[boogielicious]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Completely disagree.

I think call-in rulings are good and preserve the integrity of the game and the competition.

The layperson doesn't understand the offsides rule in hockey or soccer until it's explained to them, either.

I disagree.

Bamberger…  He has, shall we say, personal experience here.

But I agree with Dave: good article, overall:

As a soccer coach for 11 years, I had to constantly explain offsides to parents. Same with rugby to non-rugby players. I also explain RoG to my wife when we are watching these issues and she plays.

[David in FL]

37 minutes ago, iacas said:

I think call-in rulings are good and preserve the integrity of the game and the competition.

As this discussion goes on, while I've never felt that call ins hurt the game, I'm becoming more and more adamant that they actually do benefit it, in exactly the manner you mention.

It almost went unnoticed, and didn't even get much, if any comment here (unless I missed it), but there was a call in situation regarding Sergio on, I believe 13, on Sunday.  Sergio took his unplayable out of the bushes and dropped in the pine straw.  As he was tidying up, with cameras watching everything in high-def close-up, his ball settled, almost imperceptibly.  He never noticed, and played his shot, saving a great bogey.  Within 10 minutes, we were informed that calls had come in, the situation had been reviewed, and a ruling had been made that no breach had occurred because the movement, though there, could not have been noticed without the HDTV shot.  

Had call-ins not been allowed.  Had the committee not been made aware of the situation by those outside, knowledgeable observers, the tournament could easily been completed before anyone could be made aware of it.  Can you imagine the s**t storm that would have erupted when, not if, that video later came to light?  As it was, the call-ins identified an issue that rightfully needed to be reviewed by the committee.  It was.  The right decision was made.  Viewers were informed, and we moved on, with nary a blink.  As a result, this Masters will be remembered as one of the better of all time, instead of potentially embroiled in a controversy that could follow it forever.  

Thank goodness for those who called in.

[MRR]

4 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Can you imagine the s**t storm that would have erupted when, not if, that video later came to light?

Absolutely.

Even if I felt the ruling were incorrect, I am at least 100% confident that the issue was reviewed and administered by the appropriate individual(s).

[BallStriker]

14 hours ago, zero said:

At some point we've got to concede these rulings are bad for the game.

I took zero's comment here to mean that it negatively impacts the general popularity/following of the PGA/LPGA......from there, you can argue that......less interest in game at highest level=less interest in the game at the individual level=less money in the industry overall=bad for the game

I don't think anyone can argue that call-ins are bad for the integrity of the game......my 2 cents

[mvmac]

1 hour ago, David in FL said:

He never noticed, and played his shot, saving a great bogey.

Great par 

[David in FL]

6 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Great par