Who Can Call Rule Violations? Should it change? (another Lexi-based topic)

[roamin]

34 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

But the one thing they all do have in common is that the officiating is even amongst all of the competitors.

Exactly. In golf, it's never the same for any two players since golf relies on the players themselves to officiate as well (one might argue, mainly).

[iacas]

38 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Yes.  I wouldn't consider it more integrity when it's applied unevenly.

I would. It maintains more integrity than letting known violations slide simply because not everyone has equal TV time. That's just flat out ridiculous, IMO.

"Oh, we all saw you break this rule, and here's indisputable video evidence of it, but because nobody really cares about watching Beth Allen and so she's on TV less than you… you get away with it." What?

If you're the police, and your crime solving rate is 96% (you're apparently an awesome police station), would you willingly shut out bumping that number to 98 or 99% just by following up on reports from eye witnesses? No violations of any liberties, nothing like that… just listening to what some people who may have seen something have to say.

You put more criminals away. You're better at doing your job. Would you care that not every crime has the same number of eye witnesses? Or would you be happy for the extra criminals you're now able to catch?

38 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Or something just as poor but a little more similar since it also involves athletes competing in games:  What if the NFL announced that they would start employing extra referees to watch for pass interference ... but only when the visiting team was on defense?

Comparing golf to other sports is a non-starter: golf requires the players to referee themselves.

38 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Right, and some ballparks are hitters ballparks or pitchers ballparks, or some tennis players are better on grass than clay, etc, etc.  But the one thing they all do have in common is that the officiating is even amongst all of the competitors.

No they're not. The home team has a rather significant bias on the refereeing. This has been pretty well explored recently - the home team gets more stoppage time in soccer when they're trailing, less when they're leading. They get more strikes called for their pitchers in the later innings. All sorts of stuff. The refereeing in other sports is not "fair" either.

Yet, in golf, the refereeing should be equal, because all players are obligated to know and follow the rules. This is only an issue when a golfer FAILS to honor their obligation, and is caught with evidence breaching the rules.

This is only an issue when the player has failed to act as they are required to act under the rules of the game.

You're so far off from what I think that I literally have no idea how you can see it this way. You're willingly allowing people who breach the rules to get away with it because we can't guarantee to catch ALL infractions equally. I'm in favor of catching MORE infractions, because again, you can't "catch" a player in something if they don't actually do anything wrong.

[Jack Watson]

For those who like video,  should fans be encouraged to use their phones to capture evidence?

[saevel25]

23 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

For those who like video,  should fans be encouraged to use their phones to capture evidence?

I doubt phones would produce better quality than video replay from the TV feed. 

 

[Jack Watson]

29 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I doubt phones would produce better quality than video replay from the TV feed. 

 

I haven't been to a tour even since I went to watch Trevino on senior tour years ago.  Is there a standard policy on using personal electronics?

[Vinsk]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

No. The 72 holes are over, and people have gone home. I think the USGA/R&A chose the best possible "line" with "close of competition."

The 72 holes weren't finished when the person emailed. They would have been had they emailed Monday.

We already have one: the close of competition. It's fine IMO.

I don't agree at all. I think the "solution" is exactly what we have now.

No it isn't. Integrity and fairness don't exist when using viewer call ins. Why? Because it's not an even committe across the field. Would it be fair to have a rules committe ONLY follow leaders and big names? You can't allow a committe to call infractions when said committe is not observing the entire field. Viewer call ins (and you can't limit these to caddies, golfers, rules officials...they can be anyone, biased, mean spirited, racists, ) should have no say during a tournament. Penalties can be assessed when there was obviously no intent (like Nordquist's club touching sand) which would never be caught by someone playing in 28th place. Everyone on tour is expected to play fair and use integrity while playing this game. There are officials, caddies, playing partners to be aware of what goes on. It is not the responsibility of a person sitting at home to be calling the game. 

[Jack Watson]

Another question on fan participation...

If a fan legally or illegally flew a drone over would we include evidence provided by the footage turned in?

[gatsby47]

I haven't participated so far in the on going and endlessly fascinating discussion about the lpga and the assessing of penalties.  My blame goes to the lpga. pga euro tours and on and on.  The discussions have been held and the rule is agreed by enough so that in 2019, it will not be an issue because it will be a reasonable effort to replace the ball that will be the requirement.  Why so long to wait if you know that it is a rule that requires changing.  In the electronic era in which we live and play golf, it doesn't require such a length in time for a change to come into effect.  The penalty assessed in 2017 is harsh and unnecessary.  Obtaining evidence to show such infractions keeps integrity.  Yet today, no tournies but a thousand plus balls were marked, some good some bad but the integrity of the game remains.  Lexi will recover and go forward.  Ryo won the tourney.  And we all have opinions. I think the governing tour bodies better smarten up.  Tournament sponsors are fragile and not eternal.  and they are the power behind the throne.

[Jack Watson]

I was told Michael Breed added another wrinkle to the discussion by saying something to the effect that if you want to call in something your name should be put out there.

According to what I heard he said something like who are you?

You want to be a rules official okay make your name public.

Interesting comment

[boogielicious]

14 hours ago, JetFan1983 said:

I not only approve of emails and call-ins, but would also go further in thinking that the tour needs to make it easier for these emails/call-ins to reach officials on the ground. A 24 hour response time between a fire and a fire truck arriving should probably be unacceptable. Whether that means making access easier for callers to reach officials or it means actually hiring a couple of people to eat sun chips and watch the broadcast, I don't know.

Certainly the players themselves need to have a good conversation with a rules guru explaining to them why they need to take their roles as referees more seriously, but I also think improving the response time between violation and penalty should be looked at as well.

Kind of like voting in Dancing with the Stars!

[David in FL]

7 hours ago, Vinsk said:

No it isn't. Integrity and fairness don't exist when using viewer call ins. Why? Because it's not an even committe across the field. Would it be fair to have a rules committe ONLY follow leaders and big names? You can't allow a committe to call infractions when said committe is not observing the entire field. Viewer call ins (and you can't limit these to caddies, golfers, rules officials...they can be anyone, biased, mean spirited, racists, ) should have no say during a tournament. Penalties can be assessed when there was obviously no intent (like Nordquist's club touching sand) which would never be caught by someone playing in 28th place. Everyone on tour is expected to play fair and use integrity while playing this game. There are officials, caddies, playing partners to be aware of what goes on. It is not the responsibility of a person sitting at home to be calling the game. 

What people are missing, and even the title of this thread is inadvertently misleading, is that at home viewers, or even spectators on the course in real time, cannot "call" a rules violation.  All they can do is bring some sort of information to the committee who then reviews it.  After doing so, the committee, often after consulting with the player, will decide what, if any, violation occurred.  

[David in FL]

7 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

I was told Michael Breed added another wrinkle to the discussion by saying something to the effect that if you want to call in something your name should be put out there.

According to what I heard he said something like who are you?

You want to be a rules official okay make your name public.

Interesting comment

To what end?  Michael Breed says all sorts of weird shit.

[rehmwa]

36 minutes ago, David in FL said:

To what end?  Michael Breed says all sorts of weird shit.

and it's usually loud

[iacas]

11 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

For those who like video,  should fans be encouraged to use their phones to capture evidence?

They're probably not going to catch anything that beaches the rules. So… whatever.

99.999% of the time players don't break the rules. Lexi did. Twice.

10 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Integrity and fairness don't exist when using viewer call ins.

Bullshit. The player breached the rules, and that fact is brought to light. Bringing facts to light preserves the integrity of the game. They are, after all, the facts.

I was at a tournament where there were blind shots to a green. One player's ball was three feet from the cup. Another player's ball came in, hit the first ball on the fly before spinning back to the front of the green, and both balls ended up twenty feet away from the cup.

It preserved the integrity of the game that the crowd directed the first player where to replace his ball. They had no idea. Both players thought their balls were 20 feet from the cup (and about 40 feet from each other).

10 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Because it's not an even committe across the field.

You and a few others are hung up on this, but again… so what?

If you see a crime occur, do you not call it in or offer to be a witness? Do you do this despite the fact that not all crimes have witnesses?

I honestly question those who would willingly choose to ignore a fact just because they are making a value judgment of their own about whether Jane Doe would have been on camera at that instant. Who cares? Something occurred that directly affects the outcome of the competition, a rule was breached, and that's a fact.

Did Tiger deserve the additional penalty he got in 2013? Because that was a result of people calling in. Of course he did!

10 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Would it be fair to have a rules committe ONLY follow leaders and big names?

The Rules Committee doesn't follow any player. They act on any piece of information they get, regardless of the player.

Willingly ignoring a fact or bit of evidence simply because the committee makes a value judgment of its own that "that player is on camera too much" makes no sense at all.

And seriously, what's the alternative: penalize the player every time if they're a lesser-known player who isn't on TV very often, but let the big-time player who is always on TV slide because it's not "fair" that they're on TV more? Or are you just saying let all things slide if the person who reported the information saw it on camera? Because… please.

Because then you're gonna have to take that to include in-person spectator information, too. Lexi Thompson has a bigger gallery than Jane Doe - are you going to have to willingly ignore a group of ten spectators all saying "Lexi cheated by kicking her ball on this one hole, we all saw it" because she has bigger galleries?

Of course not. That'd be ridiculous.

10 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Viewer call ins (and you can't limit these to caddies, golfers, rules officials...they can be anyone, biased, mean spirited, racists)

Who cares what the motivation of the call-in person is? At the end of the day the player is penalized if they broke the rules!!!

I don't care if the person who emailed is Lexi Thompson's biggest hater OR biggest fan - they were right, and Lexi breached the rules, and she was penalized accordingly.

The truth was reached. The integrity of the competition was increased.

10 hours ago, Vinsk said:

should have no say during a tournament.

They don't have a say.

The committee has a say, and that say is based entirely on what the player did, and the evidence to support the latter.

10 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Penalties can be assessed when there was obviously no intent (like Nordquist's club touching sand) which would never be caught by someone playing in 28th place.

a) Did she touch the sand?
b) Did she thus incur a penalty?

You also seem to have forgotten that that wasn't called in. Someone (the camera operator) who was there noticed.

10 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Everyone on tour is expected to play fair and use integrity while playing this game.

Cool. That's not reality. Lexi breached the rules. Then she failed to record the proper score. Some think she actively cheated (a growing number).

Penalizing her bumped up the integrity of the competition. The player who committed a breach of the rules but didn't penalize herself was caught and penalized under the rules.

10 hours ago, Vinsk said:

There are officials, caddies, playing partners to be aware of what goes on. It is not the responsibility of a person sitting at home to be calling the game. 

They didn't "call the game." The committee did.

And why did they have to email in? Because the player failed in her obligation to referee herself.

Again, dude, Lexi breached the rules. Penalizing her increased the integrity of the competition. It got the results if not to exactly match the truth, at least closer to the truth.

9 hours ago, gatsby47 said:

The discussions have been held and the rule is agreed by enough so that in 2019, it will not be an issue because it will be a reasonable effort to replace the ball that will be the requirement.

I disagree. Here's why:

9 hours ago, gatsby47 said:

Why so long to wait if you know that it is a rule that requires changing.

Because they made massive changes to a number of rules, and are seeking to do it right, not fast.

9 hours ago, gatsby47 said:

The penalty assessed in 2017 is harsh and unnecessary.

She'd have been assessed the same penalty in 2019. That was not a reasonable effort. I also disagree that she's really estimating or measuring.

9 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

I was told Michael Breed added another wrinkle to the discussion by saying something to the effect that if you want to call in something your name should be put out there.

They emailed. I'm sure their name was attached. Or someone could have figured it out.

Odds are it was someone higher up who knew how to get ahold of the rules committee.

9 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Interesting comment

I disagree.

[DrvFrShow]

And fans on the course are not supposed to use their phones and cameras to take videos and pictures of the players. Only the network broadcasting the event and photographers from publications cleared by the event are allowed to use cameras. So fans bringing additional video to the table won't happen and if they do, that video would probably not be allowed anyway because they would have violated the TOU of their ticket to the event - illegal evidence.

********

So let's take Lexi out of this....

Suppose there's a player hitting out of a bunker on an elevated green. There's a camera that's able to watch the player from the fairway with a zoom. Now, the player hits a fantastic bunker shot. From the player's viewpoint it looked great. From everyone around the player, it was great. Then mid-way through the final round of the tournament, the player gets notified that a viewer called in and said that on 15 on Friday the player's club grazed a couple of grains of sand on their takeaway. It wasn't at all significant or even noticeable.... by anyone at the time.... even the player. They're being penalized 2 strokes for that and two strokes for signing an incorrect scorecard. Now the from the player's view looking straight down at the ball, there was no way to know that they'd done this, but they're now taking a 4 stroke penalty. This could happen. Was this reasonable? Would it have been noticed anywhere but on a highly zoomed HD video? No. Was it cheating? No.

If you or I were playing in a tournament, this wouldn't even get noticed and we'd go on to the next round. No foul. We didn't notice and no one else did. But HDTV did in the PGA event.

But I think the real travesty was that some ******** waited until Sunday to call it in and cost the player 4 strokes instead of 2. Why not when it happened or shortly afterward if they were recording the tournament so the penalty could get assessed promptly? I know they delay broadcasts in some areas. But people are watching live.

 

[mvmac]

On 4/5/2017 at 3:17 PM, David in FL said:

I want to say "no", it just doesn't seem fair.  But intellectually, I just can't find any reason not to say "yes".  

This is basically how I feel and why I begrudgingly voted viewers can call/email. I don't like the idea of someone outside the ropes having any influence on what happens inside the ropes but if there is a clear violation then something needs to be done.

Also important to understand that someone calling in is only informing, it's up to the officials/committee how they want to proceed.

Jack Nicklaus spoke about this earlier in the week and said in his day they governed themselves. If they saw a player violate the rules then they would inform the director of the tournament and it would be handled internally, nothing was said publicly. Jack also said that while it’s a player’s obligation to report a blatant rules violation, it’s best to bring it up quietly. 

I agree with Jack and I think it would be better for the tours to steer more in this direction. Viewers should have the right to call in but the people receiving the information need to use good judgement (some common sense) in how they go about it and what they tell the public. For example they do not need to say a viewer emailed in, merely that upon review of the tape they became aware of a violation and acted accordingly. 

I disagree with the thinking that viewers shouldn't be able to call in is because it's unfair to the players that get more screen time. If you're on camera more than everyone else that means you're making more money than everyone else so deal with it. And you're a professional golfer, you should have a strong understanding of the rules. Lexi screwed herself by being careless with the rules.

[iacas]

7 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

Suppose there's a player hitting out of a bunker on an elevated green. There's a camera that's able to watch the player from the fairway with a zoom. Now, the player hits a fantastic bunker shot. From the player's viewpoint it looked great. From everyone around the player, it was great. Then mid-way through the final round of the tournament, the player gets notified that a viewer called in and said that on 15 on Friday the player's club grazed a couple of grains of sand on their takeaway. It wasn't at all significant or even noticeable.... by anyone at the time.... even the player. They're being penalized 2 strokes for that and two strokes for signing an incorrect scorecard. Now the from the player's view looking straight down at the ball, there was no way to know that they'd done this, but they're now taking a 4 stroke penalty. This could happen. Was this reasonable? Would it have been noticed anywhere but on a highly zoomed HD video? No. Was it cheating? No.

This is basically what happened to Anna Nordquist. It was the right thing then, and it would be the right thing in the scenario above. It's the player's responsibility to not touch the sand in a hazard in that fashion. Why get your club so close to the sand?

We can't write rules that try to determine whether advantages were gained. And for every scenario you come up with, I can come up with one where you'd vote the opposite. The rules don't judge, they simply set forth the processes.

Suppose there's a player looking to keep his PGA Tour card. He's a 20-year veteran and has earned $100M playing golf, but he'd like to cling to life a little longer. He needs to finish top twenty in some late-season event to earn enough cash. Saturday morning, starting in 40th, he drives it into someone's back yard but not OB. He's alone with his caddie (his brother), and his playing partner is on the other side of the fairway. It's 9am and the crowds don't care about an over-the-hill 44-year-old biding his time until the Champions Tour.

He has a horrible lie. He soles his club behind it. That doesn't help. He pushes down a little. Still nothing. So he bumps the ball forward a few inches onto a nice tuft of grass. Plays his shot to the green. Makes birdie.

The next day the homeowners return and review their motion detected camera footage. They see a pro cheating. They pass the footage on to the tournament committee (they're members at the course, after all, and know the head pro and a few other people who are somewhat connected). The evidence is indisputable.

The pro had crept into a tie for 15th. The four strokes knocks him back to T24 and out of contention keeping his scorecard.

Fair? Yeah, you bet.

What if his caddie had nudged the ball without the player seeing it? Still fair? Yes, again.

The rules don't judge whether advantages are gained, the person's life situation, etc. The scorecard rule under 6-6d only speaks to whether a competitor incurs a penalty they didn't know they incurred. Don't want to brush the sand, Anna? Don't put your club within an inch of it.

7 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

If you or I were playing in a tournament, this wouldn't even get noticed and we'd go on to the next round. No foul. We didn't notice and no one else did. But HDTV did in the PGA event.

Julia, simple question: did she breach the rules or not?

Because that's all that ultimately matters. That's it.

7 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

But I think the real travesty was that some ******** waited until Sunday to call it in and cost the player 4 strokes instead of 2. Why not when it happened or shortly afterward if they were recording the tournament so the penalty could get assessed promptly? I know they delay broadcasts in some areas. But people are watching live.

Again with the disparaging remarks. You don't know who called.

And it was the player herself that cost herself the four strokes. The "email-in" simply set the record straight. The emailer did not cost the player four strokes. Lexi did.

I routinely watch events at least a few minutes behind so I can skip commercials. Lexi was on 17 when she broke the rules. The person had under half an hour to reach Lexi before she signed her incorrect scorecard.

Michael Bamberger wrestled with turning Michelle Wie in for an incorrect drop in 2005. He ultimately decided that it was the right thing to do. She's the one who didn't follow the rules. Just as Lexi didn't this time.

Julia, the problem you have is that you're not going to be capable of getting past two very simple facts:

• The players are responsible for knowing and following the rules.
• Lexi failed to follow the rules. She breached them (twice).

Anything anyone did to correct her errors is setting the record straight(er). That's it.

If your home video camera catches a car hit-and-running someone in front of your house, but you are on vacation and don't get the footage for a week, do you turn it in to the police?

Of course you do. You don't think twice about it. Someone committed a crime, and you have evidence of it. You hand it over to the authorities and let them take it from there.

Christ, it's not like the emailer showed up and kneecapped Lexi. They emailed the tournament committee.

7 hours ago, mvmac said:

This is basically how I feel and why I begrudgingly voted viewers can call/email. I don't like the idea of someone outside the ropes having any influence on what happens inside the ropes but if there is a clear violation then something needs to be done.

I think the way I see it they're not influencing what happens inside the ropes. They're simply helping what has already happened inside the ropes to be accounted for correctly.

7 hours ago, mvmac said:

Also important to understand that someone calling in is only informing, it's up to the officials/committee how they want to proceed.

Right. They're not going out and kneecapping the players themselves. They're not adding the strokes to their score themselves.

7 hours ago, mvmac said:

I agree with Jack and I think it would be better for the tours to steer more in this direction. Viewers should have the right to call in but the people receiving the information need to use good judgement (some common sense) in how they go about it and what they tell the public. For example they do not need to say a viewer emailed in, merely that upon review of the tape they became aware of a violation and acted accordingly.

Right.

Consider, had they lied like that in this case, how different the reaction would be, despite the same exact incident and outcome having occurred/been reached.

People have some irrational (IMO) feelings about an "outsider" doing something. It's just evidence of what the player already did. It's just evidence.

7 hours ago, mvmac said:

I disagree with the thinking that viewers shouldn't be able to call in is because it's unfair to the players that get more screen time. If you're on camera more than everyone else that means you're making more money than everyone else so deal with it. And you're a professional golfer, you should have a strong understanding of the rules. Lexi screwed herself by being careless with the rules.

Agreed. Lexi is not the victim here.

[saevel25]

There is no unfairness in rules that are applied to everyone and don't give an advantage to someone over someone else. The best rules are simple and not ambiguous. The rule Lexi broke is a fair rule. 

Lexi broke the rules. The only victim here would be the rest of the field if she got away with it.