Signing An Incorrect Scorecard - Should Rule Be Modernized?

[rehmwa]

11 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

Glad to provide some comic relief..

chuckled not because it's comical

chuckled because you hit the nail dead on - nicely done

[Lihu]

34 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

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.

I kind of was thinking along those lines, but still feel like it wouldn't make all that much difference to the outcome.

[GolfLug]

3 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

chuckled not because it's comical

chuckled because you hit the nail dead on - nicely done

Gotcha.. No worries.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

You aren't weighting it, it's already weighted because of the extra time allowed between the signing of those cards and the end of the tournament, whereas when the tournament is concluded, its over.

This is exactly what I'm saying.  It's practical and simple for it to be considered one whole 72 hole tournament, as opposed to being broken down into 4 separate 18 hole tournaments.

Cool. On that we agree. (I think.)

4 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I'd be in favor of them not tacking on extra strokes for a penalty that was discovered after the round but before the end of a tournament. You still get your penalty for the actual infraction.

This is likely where you and I will always disagree. You signed an incorrect scorecard. You've failed in your obligation to do something required of all golfers: know the rules well enough to follow them and write down the proper score.

It's so fundamental to the game and to the integrity that you attest, with your signature, to the veracity of your score that until very recently it was a straight up DQ. Now you want to make it no penalty at all!!!

The additional penalty for writing down an incorrect score not only discourages outright cheating, but it encourages players to know and follow the rules so that they can turn in a correct score for each hole they play. That's one of the core tenets of the game: that the player report the proper score. Failure to do that is a serious breach that, again, was recently just an automatic DQ.

It's a big deal. And you want to make it not a penalty at all.

Remove the penalty and the outright cheats will take advantage of it. Are there many at the LPGA Tour level? The PGA Tour level? Probably not. But can you say the same at every level of golf? Because this rule applies to every level.

Remove the penalty and you not only remove some disincentive to not outright cheat, but you also remove the small burden to make sure you turn in an accurate scorecard. You remove the added incentive to know and follow the rules of the game. Players, even fairly honest ones, will also find themselves justifying that "I didn't really get an advantage, and worst case, I'll just get the penalty I deserve anyway…"

Remove the penalty and, beyond just the intentional cheats benefitting, ignorance really could pay!

4 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I'd be in favor of them not tacking on extra strokes for a penalty that was discovered after the round but before the end of a tournament. You still get your penalty for the actual infraction.

Here's another approach: why? Either through ignorance or intent, you've written down the wrong score.

4 hours ago, jkelley9 said:

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.

Like someone else said, I think it speaks to the integrity of the rules officials, too, and the LPGA that even though they knew it would be "bad" overall, they did the right thing.

But that's kind of OT for this particular topic.

4 hours ago, jkelley9 said:

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.

I agree.

4 hours ago, David in FL said:

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.

Just ditching the penalty as if it's some kind of "double penalty" is not sufficient, IMO. It rewards those who don't report their penalties and add them to their score, with no downside.

4 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

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

That's one of many, many reasons people have provided. Please read, and please begin quoting.

4 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

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

The signature signifies that the player believes they've written down the right score. It's not "under review." This point has been addressed many times, and you keep posting the same thing.

4 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

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

Again… the close of the competition.

4 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

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

99.9% of the time, it effectively is.

But @Jack Watson, if a player is shown kicking his ball in the rough and a spectator account or a video or whatever doesn't surface until after that player has signed his scorecard… you're essentially arguing for that score to stand, despite the intentional cheating, simply because the player was able to sign his card before the cheating was known to the committee.

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

So simple, everything stands as is....but viewers should not be allowed fo call in to report infractions.

That's not the topic here. And if the above cheating (my reply to @Jack Watson) was seen on national TV by millions, but not seen by the caddie, the fellow competitor, or an official, you'd want that score to stand simply because of who saw it? (To be clear, this is off topic. Reply to me in the other topic if you want.)

3 hours 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.

Because we aren't asked to self-police. Speeding tickets are like other sports - many people try to get away with as much as they think the "referees" will allow.

Golf is not other sports. We have an obligation to play under the rules, and to know when we breach the rules. When we fail to uphold that responsibility and write the wrong score down, there's an additional penalty. Used to be a DQ, now can be a DQ or two strokes. Should not be "nothing."

3 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

Ultimately, the responsibility to know the rules and follow them lies with Lexi Thompson. It wouldn't change my opinion.

Know the rules, write down the proper score, and you can't be penalized (once or twice).

But nice job trying to make an emotional argument…  Just as we don't really consider intent in most of the rules, we shouldn't consider the intent of the rules violation. For all you know, the person who emailed was Lexi's mom. (Probably not, obviously…)

What if it was Ryu's boyfriend, or Suzann Pettersen's new husband? Does that change the fact that Lexi violated the rules and signed an incorrect card, failing to live up to her responsibility? No. What if a big Tiger fan called because he thought he should be DQed, and his reasons were to protect the integrity of the game?

[Jack Watson]

All that needs to be done is keep everything the same except add a line or two into the rules that penalties assessed by the governing body AFTER the player has completed the round do not constitute a player signing the scorecard wrong.

Add the penalty retroactively found in the interest of truth and all that has been said and allow everyone and anyone and God to add their input and return signing the card wrong to dq.

So for Lexi?  Two shot penalty  score on whatever hole it was amended to reflect the penalty.

My soft stance is change nothing but these things.

A score that's not official (before tournament closes) can be amended by the governing body.

works for me very simple

Obviously dq for s writing the wrong number

[Phil McGleno]

3 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

All that needs to be done is keep everything the same except add a line or two into the rules that penalties assessed by the governing body AFTER the player has completed the round do not constitute a player signing the scorecard wrong.

Add the penalty retroactively found in the interest of truth and all that has been said and allow everyone and anyone and God to add their input and return signing the card wrong to dq.

So for Lexi?  Two shot penalty  score on whatever hole it was amended to reflect the penalty.

So what is the incentive for any player to report the proper score when they think they may have incurred a penalty?-What is the incentive for any player to know the rules so they can avoid signing for an incorrect scorecard?

You never address those.-Not only will actual cheaters love your soft rule but players will only ever get the penalty that they would have gotten and no more.-Weak.

And seriously-Type something new for once.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Obviously dq for s writing the wrong number

A player not recognizing that they got a 6 instead of a 5 is the same whether that sixth stroke is a penalty or the forward motion of a club with the intent to strike the ball.

[Jack Watson]

9 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

So what is the incentive for any player to report the proper score when they think they may have incurred a penalty?-What is the incentive for any player to know the rules so they can avoid signing for an incorrect scorecard?

You never address those.-Not only will actual cheaters love your soft rule but players will only ever get the penalty that they would have gotten and no more.-Weak.

And seriously-Type something new for once.

I don't follow you at all there's rules officials available if there's a question at the time

The rules should not punish the innocent.

The penalty should be the penalty regardless of when it was assessed.

The way you look at it everyone is guilty until proven innocent

doesnt work that way

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

A player not recognizing that they got a 6 instead of a 5 is the same whether that sixth stroke is a penalty or the forward motion of a club with the intent to strike the ball.

How can that be in the case of a retroactive penalty?

 

[Phil McGleno]

7 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

1. I don't follow you at all there's rules officials available if there's a question at the time

2. The rules should not punish the innocent.

3. The penalty should be the penalty regardless of when it was assessed.

1. What incentive is there to ask them about a possible penalty if you might get away with it if nobody noticed-And if they did you just get the original penalty anyway? There is only upside in playing dumb.

2. Who is innocent here - the person who broke the rules?-No.

3. It is.-Then the players get an additional penalty for breaking a different rule.

The original penalty is not changed.-It is the same penalty.

7 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

The way you look at it everyone is guilty until proven innocent

That does not make any sense.

7 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

How can that be in the case of a retroactive penalty?

[Jack Watson]

7 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

1. What incentive is there to ask them about a possible penalty if you might get away with it if nobody noticed-And if they did you just get the original penalty anyway? There is only upside in playing dumb.

2. Who is innocent here - the person who broke the rules?-No.

3. It is.-Then the players get an additional penalty for breaking a different rule.

The original penalty is not changed.-It is the same penalty.

That does not make any sense.

Well,  at this point the forums owner has made it clear that my opinion is no longer welcome at least on either of these threads-last post.

I disagree with the rules as written.  I think they are designed in a fashion in which innocence is punished and players are assumed to be cheaters.

Maybe I am old fashioned but I still believe that many people have strong integrity and that includes many pro golfers.

I disagree with what the rules committee was required to do in Lexis case and think it was inherently wrong and detrimental to the game of golf.

I did my best to provide the best solution I could.  That's all I can do.  Don't bother replying except by pm I am done posting publicly on this matter as obviously it was a horrible failure on my part to convince anyone of anything.  Further efforts on my part are not warranted.

I apologize to everyone for my excessive posting.  I got carried away.

 

[Phil McGleno]

9 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

1. I disagree with the rules as written.  I think they are designed in a fashion in which innocence is punished and players are assumed to be cheaters.

2. Maybe I am old fashioned but I still believe that many people have strong integrity and that includes many pro golfers.

3. I disagree with what the rules committee was required to do in Lexis case and think it was inherently wrong and detrimental to the game of golf.

4. I did my best to provide the best solution I could.  That's all I can do.  Don't bother replying except by pm I am done posting publicly on this matter as obviously it was a horrible failure on my part to convince anyone of anything.  Further efforts on my part are not warranted.

5. I apologize to everyone for my excessive posting.  I got carried away.

1. Who is innocent?-The person who broke the rules? If they were a cheater they would get a DQ not a light slap on the wrist for not knowing the rules and signing an incorrect scorecard.

2. This does not have anything to do with anything. It is not a matter of integrity if you breach the rules.-But players are required under the rules to know the rules.

3. You are wrong.-Sorry some times it is that simple. They did the right thing and what they are required to do.

4. That is the Most correct thing you have said here.

5. You posted the same thing over and over-Never seemed to read waht other people wrote. Thank you for bowing out.

[Buckeyebowman]

16 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

 

5. You posted the same thing over and over-Never seemed to read waht other people wrote. Thank you for bowing out.

That's just another way of saying that his arguments converted no one! Which they didn't.

And I'm sure it was covered in some prior posts, though I didn't read them all, poor old Roberto DeVincenzo lost the Masters by signing an incorrect score card. For a score that was one stroke MORE than what he actually shot!

Edited April 5, 2017 by Buckeyebowman

[RandallT]

25 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Well,  at this point the forums owner has made it clear that my opinion is no longer welcome at least on either of these threads-last post.

As a lurker on the thread, I'll debate this paragraph above. My sense is that new thoughts have been and will be welcomed and debated vigorously. 

Welcoming is not the same as agreeing, of course. 

The resistance you are getting is that some of your posts ignored valid counterpoints. I'd speculate that the "unwelcome" vibe you are feeling is likely from that- not from any animosity toward you as a person or anything. 

Take it or leave it, but that's my feedback as a moderator ( who is incredibly highly trained on picking up on these things! Ha). 

In fact:

I know @Braivo had an issue with the tone at one point in the Lexi thread, but he went on to create this spin off thread to discuss a new idea. And it was welcomed!

There's no animosity against him for disagreeing and putting forth his case. So that backs up my opinion above. New ideas = welcomed. But just be prepared to respond to counterpoints. 

 

 

[Braivo]

After a good night of sleep, which amazingly seems to remove emotion from the equation, I think the rule is good as it is. In fact, I wonder if it was a good idea to get rid of the DQ to be honest. 

If you follow the rules you have nothing to worry about. Intent doesn't matter. That is the way of life, and golf. 

[DaveP043]

I think it will be interesting to see what happens in the aftermath of "Lexi-gate".  If I remember right, the reduction of the penalty regarding an incorrect card from DQ to 2 strokes for some circumstances followed pretty closely on the heels of Tiger's problem at the Masters.  To be fair, I'm pretty sure that the announcement also specifically said that this matter had been under consideration for a while, and the change was NOT a response to Tiger's problem, but who really knows. I've already said, I don't believe that the current rule should be changed, but I wonder whether this instance of a popular player being penalized for an incorrect scorecard will prompt a new review.

[Wadess]

21 hours ago, rehmwa said:

We are continually reminded here that this is supposed to be game of honor.  "oversights" of the nature we're talking about here, found out later will result in professional and social isolation, ridicule, etc by the player's peers.  Destruction of a career.0

I'm a bit surprised at the general overtone of complete lack of confidence some posters have about the integrity of anyone other than their individual selves.  If we really don't trust anyone else to actually live by this - then the whole concept is a farce we should stop pretending.  If so, the ONLY natural step is to disregard self policing and require independent referees for each players - those untrustworthy selfish conniving criminals.

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)

  This is my biggest problem with the rules in general.  The game has evolved from a simple set of rules to the large set we have now that try to cover every possible situation.  In my mind, the attempt to create an exhaustive set of rules is an implication that players are not honorable.  Maybe that's the reality of modern times.  I would have a small one page set of rules and a final catch all regarding anything not covered. 

1. Did the player intend to gain an advantage by the action?  (If yes, loss of hole or DQ depending on match\stroke.  If no, go to question 2)
2. Did the player gain an advantage by the action?  (If yes, replay if found immediately, two stroke penalty if not feasible.  If no, no penalty)

 

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

If I remember right, the reduction of the penalty regarding an incorrect card from DQ to 2 strokes for some circumstances followed pretty closely on the heels of Tiger's problem at the Masters.

2013 to 2016. It was the next available revision and may have played a role, but…

Quote

Now, a two-stroke penalty will be applied in such instances. The RA& noted that this wouldn't have applied to Tiger Woods at the Masters a few years ago when he took his drop because in that instance the committee was at fault.

http://www.cbssports.com/golf/news/golfs-2016-rule-changes-include-no-more-dqs-for-incorrect-scorecard/

Quote

Woods took an incorrect drop on the 15th hole of the second round. A former rules official saw it on TV and notified the Masters rules committee, which decided it was not a violation and Woods signed for a 71. Only later, after the committee spoke to Woods, was it a clear violation. He was given a two-shot penalty but not disqualified because the committee felt it was at fault.

Rickman said the new exception to Rule 6-6d would not have applied because a committee error was involved.

http://www.pga.com/news/pga-tour/changes-rules-golf-get-rid-dq-signing-incorrect-card

15 minutes ago, Wadess said:

In my mind, the attempt to create an exhaustive set of rules is an implication that players are not honorable.

No.

Not at all.

Let's assume it was a complete brain fart by Lexi. The rules still have to say "what do you do in this instance?" even while assuming completely the player is honorable.

If a player accidentally kicks his ball, he's not dishonorable - but he has to know what to do.
If a player hits the ball and it hits his caddie, neither are dishonorable - but they have to know how to proceed.
If a player incorrectly substitutes a ball, it may be a complete mistake - but again they have to know how to proceed.

15 minutes ago, Wadess said:

1. Did the player intend to gain an advantage by the action?  (If yes, loss of hole or DQ depending on match\stroke.  If no, go to question 2)
2. Did the player gain an advantage by the action?  (If yes, replay if found immediately, two stroke penalty if not feasible.  If no, no penalty)

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

[DaveP043]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

2013 to 2016. It was the next available revision and may have played a role, but…

http://www.cbssports.com/golf/news/golfs-2016-rule-changes-include-no-more-dqs-for-incorrect-scorecard/

http://www.pga.com/news/pga-tour/changes-rules-golf-get-rid-dq-signing-incorrect-card

 

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.