Signing An Incorrect Scorecard - Should Rule Be Modernized?

[rehmwa]

On further thought, in light of the whole illusion of 'game of honor' thing, I consider the signing an incorrect score card penalty to not meet the intent of the culture of the game.  it's really the only penal type of penalty out there.  Other penalties are just for mistakes in how to play, or accidently interference with another, etc etc etc - these are corrections to score to reflect the mistake - it's just ensuring accuracy and balance.  But a penal one is policing of a different sort

Simply speaking, if a player makes a mistake and doesn't catch it, if we give them the benefit of the doubt of having an honest bone in their body, then the penalty for that mistake would be eagerly accepted as a clarification required to show the most accurate score possible.

I think any penalty that has an underpinning assuming that players will cheat if not policed is a bit insulting to all players.  Especially pros.

[jkelley9]

2 penalty strokes seems right to me for both infractions (4 total).

As I said in the Lexi Thompson ANA thread, this was not good to happen for the game of golf... especially in a major. I have some serious heartburn for the game on it. But it's correct and fair, in my opinion. It just plains sucks that it happened.

She honestly should have assessed the penalty herself. She knows she can't do that. If it was carelessness (which I do think it was) I just HOPED someone else would have noticed sooner and brought it to her attention. But that's certainly no one's obligation. So she was careless, it cost her, and it was unfortunate that she signed her card incorrectly as a result. I think the 4 strokes is FAIR... but just SUCKS.

[David in FL]

It's worth remembering that this is an actual rule, not a local rule or condition of completion.  As such it applies to all events/competitions.  It needs to address the realities of a single day event, your 2-day member/guest, and a full on 72 hole professional event complete with HDTV coverage and outside markers/scorers.

I'd like to hear a better alternative to what we have now, but I haven't yet, nor can I, for the life of me, think of one.

[rehmwa]

5 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

She honestly should have assessed the penalty herself. She knows she can't do that.

I think it's off topic, but she wasn't approached and told "we saw something, we'd like to discuss how you'd score this, we have suggestions".  Instead, she was told what the penalty was (she could dispute it....

She never got the chance, once informed, to assess either or both penalties herself - which she also should have.

(I know one response is that she had the chance at the time.  I understand that, but this isn't my point - which is, once notified of the oversight, she should be given the opportunity to demonstrate her commitment to address the mistake before it's invoked upon her).

Edited April 4, 2017 by rehmwa

[CarlSpackler]

I don't think you can modernize this rule. A wrong scorecard is, well, wrong. It does seem harsh to pile on 2 more strokes for a penalty incurred "after the fact", but that is life. This makes it twice as important to fully aware of the rules and play by them.

[GolfLug]

I can see where if the infraction occurs on the 72nd hole there is not much time versus 1st. Even worse if the infraction occurs on the 72nd hole by a player in the first group out (still a few hours left before tournament closes) vs. 72nd hole by a player in the last group (few minutes before tourney closes..).

But still all options seem to be even worse. I keep coming back to the same thing as @iacas has been pointing out - know your rules, enforce (penalize..) accordingly IMMEDIATELY before the round ends or face consequences, because no matter how you look at it, AFTER the round, it is already a cluster. While you protect unintentional breaches, you also open the door for intentional breach. There are simply no home run options that will provide time-sensitive parity. Not that it's saying much but I certainly don't see it.

Not knowing rules or not knowing that an infraction (finding out later after the round from a 3rd party etc..) has occurred simply cannot be accommodated for in a practical way.

I cannot even begin to think about accounting for intention.

Lastly, about the self policing - if I understand it correctly it is fully EXPECTED but never ASSUMED that it is occurring and hence rules for discouragement of intentional cheating.  

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by GolfLug

[Jack Watson]

32 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

I don't think you can modernize this rule. A wrong scorecard is, well, wrong. It does seem harsh to pile on 2 more strokes for a penalty incurred "after the fact", but that is life. This makes it twice as important to fully aware of the rules and play by them.

I refuse to accept life is not fair as the reason why the rules are what they are.

To me if it is possible to retroactively penalize someone then that score on the card is under review iow it is not final.

Imo the solution is deciding at what point the score becomes final.

imo the score for a given round must be finalized before the next...cut lines...player pairings...player strategy.

 

[Vinsk]

No rules of play need be changed. No rules regarding scorecard need be changed. So simple, everything stands as is....but viewers should not be allowed fo call in to report infractions. 'It's always been that way" is never an acceptable answer.  Many 'rules' in history that were idiotic and often barbaric held ground for years with that primitive ideology. 

[Golfingdad]

36 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

I can see where if the infraction occurs on the 72nd hole there is not much time versus 1st. Even worse if the infraction occurs on the 72nd hole by a player in the first group out (still a few hours left before tournament closes) vs. 72nd hole by a player in the last group (few minutes before tourney closes..).

But still all options seem to be even worse. I keep coming back to the same thing as @iacas has been pointing out - know your rules, enforce (penalize..) accordingly IMMEDIATELY before the round ends or face consequences, because no matter how you look at it, AFTER the round, it is already a cluster. While you protect unintentional breaches, you also open the door for intentional breach. There are simply no home run options that will provide time-sensitive parity. Not that it's saying much but I certainly don't see it.

Not knowing rules or not knowing that an infraction (finding out later after the round from a 3rd party etc..) has occurred simply cannot be accommodated for in a practical way.

I cannot even begin to think about accounting for intention.

Lastly, about the self policing - if I understand it correctly it is fully EXPECTED but never ASSUMED that it is occurring and hence rules for discouragement of intentional cheating.  

 

Nobody is talking about eliminating penalties for infractions.  We're just talking about the idea of eliminating the extra scorecard signing penalty for infractions unknown until later.

Also, I refuse to believe that people are avoiding attempting to cheat because of that extra 2 strokes.  Certainly the exact same argument could have, and likely was, made when they changed it from DQ to 2-strokes a few years ago, and yet the sky hasn't fallen and everybody still plays fair.

[CarlSpackler]

17 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

I refuse to accept life is not fair as the reason why the rules are what they are.

To me if it is possible to retroactively penalize someone then that score on the card is under review iow it is not final.

Imo the solution is deciding at what point the score becomes final.

imo the score for a given round must be finalized before the next...cut lines...player pairings...player strategy.

I don't understand. If you know the rules beforehand and are assessed a penalty under those rules, how is that not being fair? How would it be fair to the other players if she had not been assessed the penalty? They didn't make up the rules or allowe viewers to call in on the fly, so it stands to reason that you better be extra careful when the cameras are rolling. The only thing that wouldn't be fair is to selectively enforce the rules on certain players because they are popular.

[rehmwa]

12 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

I don't understand. If you know the rules beforehand and are assessed a penalty under those rules, how is that not being fair? How would it be fair to the other players if she had not been assessed the penalty? They didn't make up the rules or allowe viewers to call in on the fly, so it stands to reason that you better be extra careful when the cameras are rolling. The only thing that wouldn't be fair is to selectively enforce the rules on certain players because they are popular.

Wrong thread possibly?

The topic is discussion if a rule change (to a rule that, of course, applies to all,) is indicated - the presumption is it would be applied on a go forward basis.

I doubt anyone is advocating any rule change that would only apply to some players and not others

Edited April 4, 2017 by rehmwa

[GolfLug]

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Nobody is talking about eliminating penalties for infractions.  We're just talking about the idea of eliminating the extra scorecard signing penalty for infractions unknown until later.

Also, I refuse to believe that people are avoiding attempting to cheat because of that extra 2 strokes.  Certainly the exact same argument could have, and likely was, made when they changed it from DQ to 2-strokes a few years ago, and yet the sky hasn't fallen and everybody still plays fair.

Yes, my entire post is about eliminating extra scorecard signing penalty for infractions 'unknown' until later.

'Unknown' is not excuse. "Your honor, I didn't know I was speeding.."  

Also, I am of the opinion that everybody is not playing fair. I happen to believe Lexi's breach was intentional. She moved it out of a depression the ball was sitting in. Nobody needs to agree with me.

Edited April 4, 2017 by GolfLug

[CarlSpackler]

Just now, rehmwa said:

Wrong thread possibly?

The topic is if a rule change (to a rule that, of course, applies to all,) is indicated -

I doubt anyone is advocating any rule change that would only apply to some players and not others

Fine. My original point said nothing about "fairness" being the basis for the rules. I will go back to my original point. If you don't play by the rules, whether it's intentional or not, you deserve what you get. 

[Golfingdad]

1 minute ago, GolfLug said:

Yes, my entire post is about eliminating extra scorecard signing penalty for infractions 'unknown' until later.

'Unknown' is not excuse. "Your honor, I didn't know I was speeding.."  

That's a poor analogy that kinda muddies your point.  Speeding is the actual infraction and the judge is giving you a ticket for speeding, he's not tacking on a random bonus fine for you not having written the ticket yourself.

I wonder how people would feel about the extra strokes if, in regards to this weekend, it came out that the person who saw the infraction and emailed knew the rules and purposely waited a day.  Or worse yet, if that person was a fan or relative of another player in contention.

[jamo]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

That's a poor analogy that kinda muddies your point.  Speeding is the actual infraction and the judge is giving you a ticket for speeding, he's not tacking on a random bonus fine for you not having written the ticket yourself.

You can also get out of a speeding fine for things like having a faulty speedometer or the speed limit not being posted. So I agree, poor analogy. 

[rehmwa]

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

he's not tacking on a random bonus fine for you not having written the ticket yourself.

I chuckled

[GolfLug]

9 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

That's a poor analogy that kinda muddies your point.  Speeding is the actual infraction and the judge is giving you a ticket for speeding, he's not tacking on a random bonus fine for you not having written the ticket yourself.

I wonder how people would feel about the extra strokes if, in regards to this weekend, it came out that the person who saw the infraction and emailed knew the rules and purposely waited a day.  Or worse yet, if that person was a fan or relative of another player in contention.

Nope, the analogy is about 'not knowing' excuse. If the judge had a time sensitive element to worry as far as how quickly the judgment has to be made about then there would be a provision for that as well.

Well, actually there is. There is added penalty in your fine up to loosing your license if you miss your deadline with a non-response.  

7 minutes ago, jamo said:

You can also get out of a speeding fine for things like having a faulty speedometer or the speed limit not being posted. So I agree, poor analogy. 

Isn't there provision for player to present their case as well and adjusted or eliminated if found to be a good one before penalty is finalized?

4 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I chuckled

Glad to provide some comic relief..

Edited April 4, 2017 by GolfLug

[jamo]

4 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

Isn't there provision for player to present their case as well and adjusted or eliminated if found to be a good one before penalty is finalized?

Touche!