Signing An Incorrect Scorecard - Should Rule Be Modernized?

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

It sucks getting old and having your memory go.  Now that my memory has been jogged, I remember that the committee's opinion on the penalty changed only after Tiger (honestly) said that he was trying to get a better yardage, or something similar.  Only for players this good would a yard or two make that much of a difference.   Because the committee had the opportunity to review this before Tiger signed his card, and chose not to do anything about it at that time, the DQ was deemed inappropriate.  I think I questioned that choice at the time, but in hindsight it seems reasonable.

OT, but that's only relevant if you believe the "Committee" met and decided anything.

But let's get back to the topic. @Braivo changed his mind. @Golfingdad, what objections do you continue to have to the current, already significantly softer rule?

[406pat]

3 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Only for players this good would a yard or two make that much of a difference.

Dave, this is a really good point that gets lost in the "gained no advantage" argument. I'm just as likely to duff, hook, or skull from about any yardage so from my (and most other players) perspective, these infractions seem trivial. It pays to remember that on the tour, these guys and gals are good. What's trivial for the weekend golfer has a real impact on the tour level players.

[JetFan1983]

This was slightly off topic when I posted in the Lexi thread, so I'm putting my opinion in the proper one:

I've never understood more what a brilliant rule signing for an incorrect scorecard is until this Lexi situation. That rule is basically in place to enforce that the players read and know the rules of golf. It's there to tell you that you can't blame ignorance over a penalty. It's shocking how many tour pros don't understand that THEY are the referee, and that the rules officials available to them are only there to assist them in making the correct ruling. I hope they never give in to public pressure and change that rule, and frankly, I get now why disqualification was once the norm for this rules breach. 

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, 406pat said:

Dave, this is a really good point that gets lost in the "gained no advantage" argument. I'm just as likely to duff, hook, or skull from about any yardage so from my (and most other players) perspective, these infractions seem trivial. It pays to remember that on the tour, these guys and gals are good. What's trivial for the weekend golfer has a real impact on the tour level players.

Let's stick to the topic, please.

2 minutes ago, JetFan1983 said:

I've never understood more what a brilliant rule signing for an incorrect scorecard is until this Lexi situation. That rule is basically in place to enforce that the players read and know the rules of golf. It's there to tell you that you can't blame ignorance over a penalty. It's shocking how many tour pros don't understand that THEY are the referee, and that the rules officials available to them are only there to assist them in making the correct ruling. I hope they never give in to public pressure and change that rule, and frankly, I get now why disqualification was once the norm for this rules breach. 

Pretty much, yes, this.

[Wadess]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

That won't work, and your premise is completely off.

Why not and how so?

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Wadess said:

Why not and how so?

Go ahead and try. Your rules would be the easiest thing in the world to pick apart.

This isn't the topic for that, though.

[David in FL]

5 hours ago, Wadess said:

Why not and how so?

 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Go ahead and try. Your rules would be the easiest thing in the world to pick apart.

@Wadess, please start a new thread and do exactly as @iacas suggests.

 I think that it would be a great exercise and help demonstrate why the Rules are, and must be, as complex as they appear to be to those who don't fully understand the Principles upon which they're built.

[iacas]

http://www.golfchannel.com/video/proposed-rule-may-have-changed-lexis-ana-outcome/

Starting around 3:00, listen. Thomas Pagel points out that she would have been DQed a few years ago. Unlikely to change, if you listen to what he's saying.

Then John Cook makes a fool of himself, but we'll ignore that…

[DaveP043]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

http://www.golfchannel.com/video/proposed-rule-may-have-changed-lexis-ana-outcome/

Starting around 3:00, listen. Thomas Pagel points out that she would have been DQed a few years ago. Unlikely to change, if you listen to what he's saying.

Then John Cook makes a fool of himself, but we'll ignore that…

Interesting also that Paget says that the "reasonable judgement" change definitely could apply to evaluation of this type of situation.  

[iacas]

32 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Interesting also that Paget says that the "reasonable judgement" change definitely could apply to evaluation of this type of situation.  

And we can comment on that in that topic.

I suspect he'd have not found her judgment reasonable.

[ay33660]

iacas - I think this had been touched on but not addressed specifically (I have read all 4 pages but I may have missed it) and if so I apologize. You stated this in your Post #4.

"I like the one we have now: the close of competition. It has a nice blend of the practical (when we hand the trophy over we don't want to have a Steve Harvey moment) with allowing for the actions of everyone through the full 72 holes to affect the final score, because it is a 72-hole competition, not four separate 18-hole competitions."

So why not have the players sign the "official card" at the end of the 72nd hole. Until that card is signed, if penalty strokes are applied then it is no different than being notified of a penalty before you sign the card at the end of the round under the current rules. They will still need to sign cards at the end of each round but that is to attests the score of their competitors.

I understand that it removes the onus on the players to be vigilant in that in removes the risk of the two stroke penalty for rounds 1 to 3 should an infraction be discover subsequent to the end of the round.

I do not think such a rule would work as the DQ option would also not be in play given that there is essentially no penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard.

 

I am sure this has been discussed and there is no obvious solution but .....

- Brain fart in marking and replacing the ball on 18th hole of day 3 goes unnoticed. Discovered in day 4 and leads to 4 stroke penalty.

- Brain fart in marking and replacing the ball on 18th hole of day 4 goes unnoticed. Discovered one day after the tournament. No penalty. Final score remains unchanged.

- Obviously there is a high likelihood that a different winner would emerge between the two scenarios.

 

Probability an infraction occurring on day and noted on a second day during an event other than a Professional Tour tournament extremely low. I would suggest almost zero given it is unlikely that there would be video evidence for rules committee to refer back to in order to make definitive ruling.

Probability that this will occur in a Professional Tour tournament in the future ........ pretty high.

 

BTW - I think the Lexi case had the correct result. No excuses for making a mistake like that she is a professional and she would gone thru the process of marking a ball millions of times before. If they believe so strongly in having the exact pre shot routine why not for marking and replacing a ball.

Edited April 11, 2017 by ay33660

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, ay33660 said:

So why not have the players sign the "official card" at the end of the 72nd hole.

Players sign the scorecard for many reasons. First, you don't keep the same card with you for all four rounds. Your playing partners change. A stipulated round is 18 holes (while a stipulated competition can be adjusted after a round has begun, a stipulated round cannot be adjusted after the competition has begun). What if a player finishes the second round in the morning… do they have to stick around if they're near the cut line to sign their "36-hole" scorecard?

It's practical the way it is now.

Your solution raises more problems than the one it "solves" - and the one it "solves" is only a "problem" because people are trying to find ways to excuse Lexi.

How about we all remember that as little as two years ago it would have been a DQ. That's how seriously the rules-makers deem this stuff to be.

24 minutes ago, ay33660 said:

I do not think such a rule would work as the DQ option would also not be in play given that there is essentially no penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard.

Yep.

24 minutes ago, ay33660 said:

- Brain fart in marking and replacing the ball on 18th hole of day 3 goes unnoticed. Discovered in day 4 and leads to 4 stroke penalty.

- Brain fart in marking and replacing the ball on 18th hole of day 4 goes unnoticed. Discovered one day after the tournament. No penalty. Final score remains unchanged.

- Obviously there is a high likelihood that a different winner would emerge between the two scenarios.

You've gotta set a limit somewhere. Where it's set now is, IMO, practical.

And you can still be DQed if you knowingly violated a rule. Even decades later. There's no time limit on that.

24 minutes ago, ay33660 said:

Probability an infraction occurring on day and noted on a second day during an event other than a Professional Tour tournament extremely low. I would suggest almost zero given it is unlikely that there would be video evidence for rules committee to refer back to in order to make definitive ruling.

A player could do something, go home, look it up, and realize it was a penalty. Or mention it in a post-round conversation with a buddy, who tells him it was a penalty. Not everything has to be a "video evidence email-in" situation.

The rules are there for every level of play.

[CeciliaJupe]

this is a great discussion. i was shocked at first that the majority opinion here seems to be the opposite of what i've heard talking to friends who don't golf but are sports fans, or non-sports fans in general (most of them would say "why would you penalize her twice for the same infraction?" etc.) at first i agreed with them (and thus my initial shock visiting this thread) but some good points were made here that have me thinking. specifically about penalties being severe enough to offset any potential advantaged gained (i think @iacas said something like that). i have a background in competitive Magic: The Gathering tournaments and i've seen first hand the penalties in that game become more lenient over time to cater towards providing a welcoming environment for casual competitors (gotta sell more cards!) at the increased risk of not punishing adequately those who intentionally violate the rules. 

a few thoughts i've had reading the conversation:

when should the penalty have been assessed? is it as soon as she replaced the ball in the incorrect position (ie. if she realized her mistake and corrected it before putting, is there a penalty)? as soon as she plays her shot from the incorrect position? 

and if there is an additionally penalty for not assessing a penalty on yourself (the incorrect scorecard penalty), why is there no further penalty if it is caught after it should have been assessed but before the end of the round (ie. the replays catch it and its corrected before the player signs the incorrect scorecard)? a nefarious player could have a possible penalty, fail to assess it on themselves, then wait to see by the end of the round if the TV cameras caught it, freerolling the possibility of it going missed completely. (maybe there is a penalty for this i just don't know about it)

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, CeciliaJupe said:

when should the penalty have been assessed? is it as soon as she replaced the ball in the incorrect position (ie. if she realized her mistake and corrected it before putting, is there a penalty)? as soon as she plays her shot from the incorrect position? 

The penalty was for playing from a wrong place. She could have re-marked and put the ball back. It basically would have been the same as when you move your mark to the side for a fellow competitor.

19 minutes ago, CeciliaJupe said:

and if there is an additionally penalty for not assessing a penalty on yourself (the incorrect scorecard penalty), why is there no further penalty if it is caught after it should have been assessed but before the end of the round (ie. the replays catch it and its corrected before the player signs the incorrect scorecard)?

Because the player incurs the penalty when they incur the penalty, but… they don't officially record or report their score until they hand their scorecard in.

19 minutes ago, CeciliaJupe said:

a nefarious player could have a possible penalty, fail to assess it on themselves, then wait to see by the end of the round if the TV cameras caught it, freerolling the possibility of it going missed completely. (maybe there is a penalty for this i just don't know about it)

If you knowingly breach the rules and are caught the penalty is DQ, even if it's discovered decades after the close of the competition.

[Fourputt]

On 4/4/2017 at 0:47 PM, rehmwa said:

that's the best one ever - the rule can't be changed because the rule is the rule......?  (???unless there is a rule that allows one to change a rule......but what if one wants to change the rule that allows one to change a rule,  then what)

I see what he said that "the rules are the rules are the rules" as being a totally accurate assessment.  The rules at the time of the competition are the rules until a change is made by the enforcing entity.  After that, the new rule is the rule.   That is the only way that it can possibly work.

[rehmwa]

48 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I see what he said that "the rules are the rules are the rules" as being a totally accurate assessment.  The rules at the time of the competition are the rules until a change is made by the enforcing entity.  After that, the new rule is the rule.   That is the only way that it can possibly work.

agreed - and in a thread that talks about proposals to change the rules, it's really pointless

(one assumes a change isn't retroactive)

[Rulesman]

http://golfweek.com/2017/04/24/lexi-thompson-inspired-golf-rule-change-set-announced-tuesday-ra-usga/

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, Rulesman said:

http://golfweek.com/2017/04/24/lexi-thompson-inspired-golf-rule-change-set-announced-tuesday-ra-usga/

Knee jerk reaction.

Just wait for the unintended consequences that will follow when a rule is changed as a result of a single, unique circumstance.