Reasonable Estimates (Modernized Rules + Lexi Thompson)

[WestKyGolfer]

8 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

What it looks like to me was that she was careless in placing the marker, but careful in placing the ball. Now that would be the only thing that would make sense. That would be perhaps why in her mind she placed the ball in the correct location in line with the ball marker. Now why she would place the ball marker incorrectly? Anyone's guess - stress, brain fart, a mental lapse of some sort, we all have them. I wouldn't go so far as to call her a "cheater!" because there's no proof that it was intentional. 

But I voted unacceptable simply because there's a shit ton of money on the line. In our weekend or weekday games there's nothing on the line except our pride which is usually gone by the time we've taken a breakfast ball on the first tee. And "winter rules" are still in play until mid-June. Courses up here right now are pretty bad.

No one can know what her thought process was. But the totality of the circumstances makes it look deliberate. If she had lifted the ball and put it in her pocket and waited for the others to put out, I don't think anyone would have noticed anything. But she addressed the ball, stopped and marked it behind and to the side and lifted it and immediately moved the ball laterally 3/4" to 1" and placed it on the green. The appearance is that she moved the ball over to avoid something in her line that was bothering her. Maybe she has a habit of doing this in practice rounds an just wasn't thinking. I have seen players pick up a tap-in in tournaments because that is how they play casually. But a professional playing for hundreds of thousands of dollars, should and does know better. I wouldn't call her a cheat but she did mismark and move the ball for some reason and it cost her a major.

[Jack Watson]

It's all about the fact she's a professional playing for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Personally I would not have a problem with it philosophically if they were allowed enough leeway to avoid spike marks.  They can't fix them.  A spike mark is a damaged green.

It just means that the ball was not played as it lies though so obviously can't do things that way playing for high stakes.

 

 

[Pete F]

I think if you pick up the ball, you rarely get it back in exactly the same place. What is the allowable variation in where you place the ball? Can you be off an inch or a sixteenth of an inch? Someone could likely call about most any camera shot that was a close up like that and find some variation in ball placement. Now we will need new rules defining how much is allowable.

You can try for yourself with your iphone and the same thing you use for stop action on swings, I'll guarantee you are rarely perfect. The rule lawyers will insist that everything is exactly correct, so therefore they should assess themselves a 2 shot penalty each time they pick and replace the ball.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Pete F
spelling

[Pete F]

Tell me how many of those camera shots you see this weekend, I would bet the editors will switch to another shot.

[Lihu]

12 minutes ago, Pete F said:

I think if you pick up the ball, you rarely get it back in exactly the same place. What is the allowable variation in where you place the ball? Can you be off an inch or a sixteenth of an inch? Someone could likely call about most any camera shot that was a close up like that and find some variation in ball placement. Now we will need new rules defining how much is allowable.

You can try for yourself with your iphone and the same thing you use for stop action on swings, I'll guarantee you are rarely perfect. The rule lawyers will insist that everything is exactly correct, so therefore they should assess themselves a 2 shot penalty each time they pick and replace the ball.

My partners and I were having some fun seeing if even on the punched greens (about 3 weeks ago) how accurately we could mark and place the ball. The ball could sometimes come to rest in an indentation caused by the aeration, but never off by more than 1/4 inch. We were able to put it back every time within a tick mark on the TST marker which looked to be 1/8". We used a quarter for the actual marker, but the TST marker for "reference".

Actually, I never noticed that when marking and replacing that we could be as much as 1/8" off? That's actually pretty huge, and could easily be reduced to less than half that on clean greens. I assume that the best accuracy is limited to the resolution of the grass blade size and how it interacts with the dimples? Maybe 1/16"?

[DaveP043]

47 minutes ago, Pete F said:

I think if you pick up the ball, you rarely get it back in exactly the same place. What is the allowable variation in where you place the ball? Can you be off an inch or a sixteenth of an inch? Someone could likely call about most any camera shot that was a close up like that and find some variation in ball placement. Now we will need new rules defining how much is allowable.

You can try for yourself with your iphone and the same thing you use for stop action on swings, I'll guarantee you are rarely perfect. The rule lawyers will insist that everything is exactly correct, so therefore they should assess themselves a 2 shot penalty each time they pick and replace the ball.

 

20 minutes ago, Lihu said:

My partners and I were having some fun seeing if even on the punched greens (about 3 weeks ago) how accurately we could mark and place the ball. The ball could sometimes come to rest in an indentation caused by the aeration, but never off by more than 1/4 inch. We were able to put it back every time within a tick mark on the TST marker which looked to be 1/8". We used a quarter for the actual marker, but the TST marker for "reference".

Actually, I never noticed that when marking and replacing that we could be as much as 1/8" off? That's actually pretty huge, and could easily be reduced to less than half that on clean greens. I assume that the best accuracy is limited to the resolution of the grass blade size and how it interacts with the dimples? Maybe 1/16"?

These is really for this particular discussion.  I think that this thread:

is probably a more appropriate spot for discussing the replacement of a lifted ball.

Spoiler

If you've read through the other threads related to Lexi-Gate, you'll see that a number of us have suggested that 1/8" is probably not an issue, 1/2" is too far, but none of us have suggested a specific dividing line.

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by DaveP043

[Lihu]

9 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

 

These is really for this particular discussion.  I think that this thread:

is probably a more appropriate spot for discussing the replacement of a lifted ball.

 

OMG, we actually have a separate thread for placement accuracy? I can't keep up with all these Lexi putting threads!

[Lihu]

12 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

But I voted unacceptable simply because there's a shit ton of money on the line.

 

3 hours ago, WestKyGolfer said:

But a professional playing for hundreds of thousands of dollars, should and does know better.

 

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

It's all about the fact she's a professional playing for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

Try playing for $1 a stroke with older long time golfers, then you'll find out just how many rules violations you really break every single hole.

I'm pretty sure you'll end up learning every single rule in the book. I've partnered with many old golfers who are playing "casually" as compared to their Saturday morning rounds, and they are really really hard on each other during their casual rounds. I have to wonder how much they scrutinize each other when playing seriously?

So, it's not just the money, it's the game.

[Rulesman]

The question is nonsense. The requirement to use 'reasonable judgement' only relates to the player "estimating or measuring a spot, point, line, area or distance"

Replacing a ball on a spot does not involve either action.

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

The question is nonsense. The requirement to use 'reasonable judgement' only relates to the player "estimating or measuring a spot, point, line, area or distance"

Replacing a ball on a spot does not involve either action.

That's what I thought. And even argued myself a few times.

But the USGA listed it on the page for "reasonable judgment": http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-proposed-changes/proposed-change--reasonable-judgment-in-estimating-and-measuring.html

Quote

There are many times when the Rules require a player to estimate or measure a spot, point, line, area or distance, such as when the player:

• Uses a ball-marker to mark a ball’s spot, and then replace the ball, or
• Needs to find a reference point or reference line for taking relief (such as the nearest point of complete relief or the line from the hole through the spot of an unplayable ball), or to determine the extent of a relief area (such as measuring a fixed distance from a reference point or reference line).

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

[DaveP043]

16 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

The question is nonsense. The requirement to use 'reasonable judgement' only relates to the player "estimating or measuring a spot, point, line, area or distance"

Replacing a ball on a spot does not involve either action.

Considering that both the USGA and R&A both mention lifting and replacing a ball as one of the situations to which this new rule would apply.  I'd suggest that the question is far from "nonsense".  Experienced (and inexperienced) golfers discussing their view of "reasonable care" may provide valuable information to be considered in the final version of the rule.  

[Shooting29]

Also it seems as though the USGA is hinting that under the proposed rule Lexi would not have been penalized

Inside the Lexi Thompson Penalty
http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2017/04/inside-the-lexi-thompson-penalty.html

Proposed new Rule 1.3a(2) provides that ”so long as the player does all that can be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make an accurate estimation or measurement, the player’s reasonable judgment will be accepted even if later shown to be wrong by other information (such as video technology).” When the proposed new Rules take effect in 2019, the committee would apply this new standard in determining whether there would be any penalty in this type of situation.

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

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

I take back the "ugh" a little. He said the committee would have to make a determination. Given the current state of this poll, I don't think they'd have reached the conclusion that her actions were reasonable. She'd still have been penalized.

1 minute ago, Shooting29 said:

Also it seems as though the USGA is hinting that under the proposed rule Lexi would not have been penalized

I disagree. I think they'd all still have penalized her. Look at the poll. Listen to Thomas Pagel's words.

I don't think, having lifted the ball 2" or so in 1 second, that she used reasonable judgment to replace it. She moved it at least 0.7".

[DaveP043]

17 minutes ago, Shooting29 said:

Also it seems as though the USGA is hinting that under the proposed rule Lexi would not have been penalized

Inside the Lexi Thompson Penalty
http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2017/04/inside-the-lexi-thompson-penalty.html

The way I read the USGA article, they indicate that the Committee would apply the new standard to situations like this.  I didn't see any indication as to whether this specific act would be acceptable or not under the proposed rules.  That's pretty much what Mr. Pagel said in the GC piece.

[Shooting29]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

I take back the "ugh" a little. He said the committee would have to make a determination. Given the current state of this poll, I don't think they'd have reached the conclusion that her actions were reasonable. She'd still have been penalized.

I disagree. I think they'd all still have penalized her. Look at the poll. Listen to Thomas Pagel's words.

I don't think, having lifted the ball 2" or so in 1 second, that she used reasonable judgment to replace it. She moved it at least 0.7".

I agree with you. I think it is unreasonable. I voted unreasonable. I haven't listened to Thomas Pagel yet but I will.

3 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The way I read the USGA article, they indicate that the Committee would apply the new standard to situations like this.  I didn't see any indication as to whether this specific act would be acceptable or not under the proposed rules.  That's pretty much what Mr. Pagel said in the GC piece.

I could be wrong, it was just my personal impression while reading it without the benefit of listening to the GC piece. 

[Rulesman]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

That's what I thought. And even argued myself a few times.

But the USGA listed it on the page for "reasonable judgment":

Thanks. I missed the words " Uses a ball-marker to mark a ball’s spot, and then replace the ball" 

But I don't see it as measuring or estimating. How do you 'ascertain the size and proportions' of something with only one dimension or 'roughly calculate or judge' the position of marked location? 

However, I like the principle but not necessarily in this case

Edited April 7, 2017 by Rulesman

[Jack Watson]

What advantage is a half inch on the green?  Not much

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

What advantage is a half inch on the green?  Not much

It's all the advantage you need to avoid a spike mark or something. 

 Plus it was closer to three quarters of an inch.