USGA, R&A Introduces Decision 34-3/10 (Lexi/Anna Blowback)

[shanksalot]

55 minutes ago, iacas said:

I disagree, and have shared my thoughts on this far and wide.

That's not how things work, nor IMO how they should. Spectators are asked for information when appropriate. They gather as much info as possible.

Oftentimes this helps players, you realize, right? As the Golf Channel rules expert said, if you take away video review to penalize players, you have to take it away to help players, too: finding lost balls, identifying whether the ball crossed a hazard line, etc.

The call-in did not penalize her - she was penalized under two separate penalties.

If you waive the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard, what's the incentive to keep the proper score and follow the rules, if the worst that can happen is to be penalized appropriately and only then if someone catches you? And what's more, if you combine that with your desire to not allow call-ins… then players will just get away with breaching the rules as long as, what, their playing partner 100 yards away doesn't see something?

The emailer didn't penalize Lexi.

Lexi incurred two penalties, both entirely of her own doing.

At least you're honest about your close mindedness.

My whole point is the only reason this came up is a call in. There would not be any talk about this at all. So you state your opinion and it you are open minded, yet when I state mine it is from a close minded view? I thought this was a forum where you could state an opinion without being called out and ridiculed. I guess I was wrong.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, shanksalot said:

My whole point is the only reason this came up is a call in.

So? (And to be picky, it was supposedly an email, which even further hints at the likelihood that it wasn't just some random schmoe sitting on his couch.)

Disallowing "call-ins" benefits who, exactly? You know who it benefits? The person who breached the rules.

7 minutes ago, shanksalot said:

So you state your opinion and it you are open minded, yet when I state mine it is from a close minded view?

Huh?

You said you would never change your mind. That's close minded.

7 minutes ago, shanksalot said:

I thought this was a forum where you could state an opinion without being called out and ridiculed. I guess I was wrong.

Huh?

You're really over-reacting here. You literally said you'd never change your mind. That's the definition of being close-minded.

That's not ridicule any more than saying "the sky often appears blue." Chill out man… own your close-mindedness, or actually discuss things. You can think - and even say here - that my opinion is stupid, too. Go for it. I'll disagree, and ask you why you think that. That's the point of a discussion forum - to discuss, to share opinions, etc.

It's not the point to just share your opinion and never expect anyone to comment on it. You quoted my post, though you failed somewhat to address the points I made in it, and that's fine, too.

[StevenR84]

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

35 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

Stop with the call ins, it's embarrassing every time it happens.

Embarrassing to whom? To the player, who breached the rules and didn't honor their obligation to know and follow them?

To the entirety of the sport. Obviously you don't see it that way, which is fine, but casual fans and the general public at large see it as such. It is the only sport where armchair rules officials have an impact on an outcome. Want to be a rules official? Show up and be one, otherwise just watch and stop being a troll.

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

The Rules of Golf are not written by popular vote.

And the majority of golfers have trouble understanding them. The rules are overdone and convoluted. That is one of the problems golf has in it's attempt to grow is that you need a phd to understand all the rules.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, StevenR84 said:

Obviously you don't see it that way, which is fine, but casual fans and the general public at large see it as such.

The general public doesn't give two shits about women's golf.

And these rare occurrences are not, IMO, reason to throw out valid information. As others (and myself) have said, it would have likely been WORSE had Lexi Thompson won by two shots only for the video to surface while she was playing the final round, or afterward. That would have been much worse, I think.

3 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

It is the only sport where armchair rules officials have an impact on an outcome.

Other sports have an entirely different mechanism and ethos and structure. In almost every other sport, "if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'". If you want golf to head down that road, sure, let's ignore known, visible rules infractions just because someone didn't catch it live.

3 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

Want to be a rules official?

FWIW, I am one.

3 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

Show up and be one, otherwise just watch and stop being a troll.

People who call in are not "being rules officials."

This fundamental thing is something you (general you, people who don't like call-ins or email-ins) don't seem to understand. They're alerting an actual rules official who "showed up and is one" of a possible breach. The rules committee then enforces the rules, as they are supposed to do.

And as Lexi is supposed to do, but failed.

[StevenR84]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

The general public doesn't give two shits about women's golf.

This isn't limited to women's golf as it has happened on the men's side previously as you posted earlier in the thread. Also, it doesn't matter if they give a shit, this story was everywhere so they heard about it. When are we going to hold the entire field to the same standard? Leader on Saturday gets a lot more time than someone who made the cut and is rounding out their weekend. What if there are other violations not being caught. Do you also care about those?

 

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

This fundamental thing is something you (general you, people who don't like call-ins or email-ins) don't seem to understand. They're alerting an actual rules official who "showed up and is one" of a possible breach. The rules committee then enforces the rules, as they are supposed to do.

That is nitpicking. They think they know the rules and since they have no actual ability to have the impact they call/email it in. I know those people at home are not actual rules officials, they just think they are.

To add, what is the time limit? What if something surfaces after an event has been completed? Do we go back in time and adjust the finish and the scoring? That is a can of worms that no one wants to pry open, but "facts are facts".

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

This isn't limited to women's golf as it has happened on the men's side previously as you posted earlier in the thread.

The fact remains that it still almost never happens, and the alternative I mentioned would likely be WORSE.

The last time a call-in affected the men's game was 2013… when I called in, IIRC.

Very few of those seven things I listed were call-ins, btw. The Anna Nordqvist one was an on-site camera operator.

14 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

Also, it doesn't matter if they give a shit, this story was everywhere so they heard about it.

I don't agree. I think that if you polled random people on the streets, the majority would say "Lexi who?"

Furthermore, what the general (uneducated) public thinks about golf does not matter much at all to me. By "uneducated" I mean about golf, its rules, its traditions, etc. What does their opinion matter? Why should it? It doesn't, and it shouldn't, IMO.

The Rules of Golf are not written by popular vote, nor should they be.

14 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

When are we going to hold the entire field to the same standard? Leader on Saturday gets a lot more time than someone who made the cut and is rounding out their weekend.

More and more I see this as a straw man argument. Golf isn't fair. The leaders get more coverage. But they also get… more spectators, which has plusses and minuses. They play later in the day, which has plusses and minuses.

You can't reasonably legislate that everyone be covered equally. Even if you had a cameraman assigned to follow every player around, they're going to get different angles on different shots compared to other players. It's a total non-starter.

14 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

What if there are other violations not being caught. Do you also care about those?

Yes, and the rules committees will entertain any information they can get about any possible infraction.

But dude, you're arguing for the opposite: to ignore known infractions simply because of who saw 'em.

So yes, I care about ALL possible violations. How does that make my argument look bad?

14 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

That is nitpicking.

No it isn't. Not when you follow it up with this:

14 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

They think they know the rules and since they have no actual ability to have the impact they call/email it in. I know those people at home are not actual rules officials, they just think they are.

Who cares whether they know the rules or not? They can send all the emails they want… if there's no rules infraction, the actual rules officials and rules committee won't penalize the player.

And how the hell do you know who emailed in about the Lexi thing? You're just guessing, and are likely biased because of your pre-conceived notions. For all you know the guy who emailed in about Lexi was an off-duty rules official. You're attributing bad characteristics to someone based completely on your biases and guesswork.

I called in about Tiger Woods at the Masters. I damn well knew the rules and knew that he had just implicated himself in a breach that would have resulted in a DQ if not for the committee ruling following David Eger's call.

14 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

To add, what is the time limit?

Look at the Rules of Golf. Close of competition for most infractions.

14 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

What if something surfaces after an event has been completed? Do we go back in time and adjust the finish and the scoring? That is a can of worms that no one wants to pry open, but "facts are facts".

Again, look at the Rules of Golf.

The close of competition is the end of most things.

But if Jack Nicklaus publishes in his autobiography a day before he dies that he violated the rules in the 1986 Masters and never recorded the penalty stroke on his card, he'd be DQed.

[StevenR84]

But if "facts are facts" why should it matter because competition closed?  Also who emailed in irrelevant to me. There are competitors and rules officials on site to observe and enforce rules. USGA already showed themselves to be incompetent last year with the DJ ruling, after he had already gotten a ruling. Congrats for calling in, I still don't care. I think you are wrong for doing so. If ALLLLLLLL of the rules officials on site can't make that call then it is what it is, such is life. You have no place having an impact on a major sporting event. And you want to talk about rules, yet there's Phil Mickelson, arguably one of the more popular figures in the game, talking about how guys are cavalier with some of the rules, in particular ball marking. Do we hold that against him because he clearly knows about it, but doesn't hold his playing partners accountable? If you are talking about being a stickler for the rules why isn't there more uproar about that?

32 minutes ago, iacas said:

You can't reasonably legislate that everyone be covered equally. Even if you had a cameraman assigned to follow every player around, they're going to get different angles on different shots compared to other players. It's a total non-starter.

Then how can we hold everyone to the same standards? You can't. Enforce the rules for everyone equally or don't allow people to call/email.

40 minutes ago, iacas said:

But dude, you're arguing for the opposite: to ignore known infractions simply because of who saw 'em.

So yes, I care about ALL possible violations. How does that make my argument look bad?

That's part of what I'm arguing. The other part is that there is not an equal distribution of coverage to be able to enforce all violations for all players regardless of stature or standing in an event.

33 minutes ago, iacas said:

Furthermore, what the general (uneducated) public thinks about golf does not matter much at all to me. By "uneducated" I mean about golf, its rules, its traditions, etc. What does their opinion matter? Why should it? It doesn't, and it shouldn't, IMO.

Because you don't need more people getting interested and playing the game right? This is the problem with people who keep that mindset. It's what contributes to the notion of the eliteist perception that surrounds the sport. I'd bet there are a bunch of actual golfers who are uneducated about the rules as well.

[RH31]

2 hours ago, rehmwa said:

Lexi's misplacement appeared visible to someone standing on the green a few feet away.  I think it's reasonable for the 2 shot penalty.

Huh??? I missed that one. Someone standing on the green a few feet away could only be a caddie or player, no?

If they saw it, why wasn't it addressed that day?

[rehmwa]

5 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Huh??? I missed that one. Someone standing on the green a few feet away could only be a caddie or player, no?

If they saw it, why wasn't it addressed that day?

I didn't say someone there didn't catch it and failed to speak up.

Let me rephrase it/spell it out more clearly - from watching the video from the 'normal' view it was visible, therefore it would have been visible to someone standing there (had they been watching).  So it's 'reasonable' that it could have been caught.  (i.e., you didn't need the zoom to see it.  you didn't have to be a couple feet close even like Lexi's eyes were.)  So the penalty call (the first two strokes) was correct.

 

Actually, that might be a good check on the 'reasonableness' criteria.  If you don't have to zoom in and can still see it, then it's worth a review.

Edited April 26, 2017 by rehmwa

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Huh??? I missed that one. Someone standing on the green a few feet away could only be a caddie or player, no?

If they saw it, why wasn't it addressed that day?

You didn't read that properly. He said someone standing there could have seen the infraction with their naked eye.

As I typed it @rehmwa clarified, so I'll leave it at that.

7 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

But if "facts are facts" why should it matter because competition closed?

In the case of willful cheating, a DQ is still warranted.

Dude, please take this the right way… you're arguing about the rules while being relatively unfamiliar with them. I had to point out to you the bit about the close of competition. It's frustrating, not to mention you're bringing up things I've addressed countless times already.

The penalty for DQing a player after the competition is closed is to help curtail people who willfully cheat. It doesn't penalize (DQ) a player who unknowingly breaches a rule, it penalizes (DQs) a player who knowingly cheats.

7 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

Also who emailed in irrelevant to me.

I beg to differ, and offer as proof what you've written about this person and all the bad characteristics you've assigned to them.

7 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

There are competitors and rules officials on site to observe and enforce rules.

The competitors in this case failed to do so. And rules officials on-site are there to assist and offer information, primarily. They're not like NFL referees.

7 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

USGA already showed themselves to be incompetent last year with the DJ ruling, after he had already gotten a ruling.

I disagree. The incompetence there was the first rules official. Mike Davis just said in an interview "I’m very comfortable that DJ should have gotten the one-stroke penalty, the way the rule was written."

13 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

I think you are wrong for doing so.

I disagree. I value an honest, accurate competition played under the Rules of Golf. I would hate to have the results of a tournament tainted by a known, widely publicized and seen breach going unpunished simply because the few people who were there on the scene either didn't know it was a breach or were looking for their own ball or blowing their nose or whatever.

13 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

If ALLLLLLLL of the rules officials on site can't make that call then it is what it is, such is life.

Rules officials aren't there to "make that call." That's not their job. It's not their responsibility.

What IS their responsibility is, once they SAW the breach, to penalize appropriately. They did.

You can't have it both ways. You seem to want omniscient rules officials, but then you want them to ignore any breaches they didn't happen to see themselves.

13 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

You have no place having an impact on a major sporting event.

I didn't have an impact. I simply alerted those in charge of conducting the competition of the actions of one of the participants. What they did from there on out was out of my hands. Tiger's and Lexi's actions created the "impact."

13 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

And you want to talk about rules, yet there's Phil Mickelson, arguably one of the more popular figures in the game, talking about how guys are cavalier with some of the rules, in particular ball marking. Do we hold that against him because he clearly knows about it, but doesn't hold his playing partners accountable?

I do. I think that's poor form of him, and anyone else who's knowingly overlooked things like that. I've posted here about the way players do not honor the marking of a ball in a position to assist another player rule, too.

Sorry… you're gonna have a hell of a time trying to catch me in this sort of thing. I'm pretty damn consistent on this stuff.

13 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

If you are talking about being a stickler for the rules why isn't there more uproar about that?

I'm not talking about "being a stickler for the rules." I'm talking about this particular rule, why I disagree with your opinion on how the rules should ignore information because of who saw it, and that sort of thing.

I've also talked before about Phil's statement, and I'd like to see video or hear names of the people he was talking about. But who knows whether he was even being truthful. Maybe he knows one or two guys and was trying to fire a shot across their bow - not what I'd want but more than most people have done, it seems - to get them to pay more attention to their marking.

13 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

Then how can we hold everyone to the same standards? You can't. Enforce the rules for everyone equally or don't allow people to call/email.

Everyone is held to the same standards. Those standards are called the Rules of Golf, and everyone is required to adhere to them.

Lexi failed to do so, and so we run into a situation where all available evidence and information is used.

Beyond that… you're just setting up a false dichotomy. You're almost saying "well, if everyone can't be under the exact same circumstances, then we should just not have any rules."

So… you want to willfully ignore information because of who initially saw the breach. That's it. That's all your position boils down to, and you're over-reacting because you don't like that Lexi broke the rules. An emailer can't make shit up. They can't cause a player who didn't breach the rules to be penalized.

Golf ain't fair, and players on camera often benefit from having cameras on them, too. Countless times I've seen the walking announcer tell a player where the ball crossed the margin of a hazard, I've seen spectators tell players that their ball was hit by another ball and should be replaced at a specific spot, or that Rory's ball was lodged in a tree, saving him a trip back to the tee for a lost ball.

Players can't be penalized unless they breach the rules. Lexi broke the rules, and was penalized appropriately. She should be glad it's 2017 and not 2015 or she'd have been DQed.

13 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

That's part of what I'm arguing. The other part is that there is not an equal distribution of coverage to be able to enforce all violations for all players regardless of stature or standing in an event.

Whoopty doo.

Someone backs out of their spot at the grocery story and smacks into your car, scratching your paint with their trailer hitch or something. They don't notice because their music is loud. The cameras in the parking lot didn't catch the license plate, but a week later someone who took a selfie of themselves in the parking lot sees the accident in the background of their photo and they take it to the grocery store. The police see the license plate in the photo, follow up with the driver of the other car, and he or she has to pay (or their insurance does) instead of you paying yourself.

Fair? I think so.

13 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

Because you don't need more people getting interested and playing the game right? This is the problem with people who keep that mindset. It's what contributes to the notion of the eliteist perception that surrounds the sport. I'd bet there are a bunch of actual golfers who are uneducated about the rules as well.

Yeah, I don't buy that shit at all. Sorry. Knowing the rules does not make one an "elitist." Being able to say why I think information should be admissible regardless of who saw it first does not make golf "elitist."

[14ledo81]

@StevenR84, I have a question for you.

Do you think it would be ok (for a rules official) to ignore a known rules violation?

Please answer with a simple yes or no.

Edited April 26, 2017 by 14ledo81

[Rulesman]

Well it's not ok for another player to ignore a violation. 

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-33,d33-7-9

 

[StevenR84]

7 hours ago, 14ledo81 said:

@StevenR84, I have a question for you.

Do you think it would be ok (for a rules official) to ignore a known rules violation?

Please answer with a simple yes or no.

I'm not going to answer your very pointed question, but thanks for trying. 

9 hours ago, iacas said:

In the case of willful cheating, a DQ is still warranted.

Dude, please take this the right way… you're arguing about the rules while being relatively unfamiliar with them. I had to point out to you the bit about the close of competition. It's frustrating, not to mention you're bringing up things I've addressed countless times already.

 

Right but facts are facts. Do those facts change because competition closed? You can't have it both ways. If a rule is broken why does it matter when it's pointed out? Because the rule says so? That seems like a cop out. 

saying that you calling in and having a penalty inflicted on someone isn't you having an effect on the tournament is probably the funniest thing I've read today, so thanks.  I don't care if you're a rules official watching from home, you aren't there and have 0 business impacting the event. You called someone else close minded because they wouldn't change their opinion ever, yet you seem to share that. Enjoy your evening. 

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

Right but facts are facts. Do those facts change because competition closed? You can't have it both ways. If a rule is broken why does it matter when it's pointed out? Because the rule says so? That seems like a cop out. 

@StevenR84, you can have it both ways, because that's the way golf competitions have been conducted for decades.

You can impose penalties players didn't know they incurred while the competition is ongoing, but when the competition is over, that's when that closes. You have to draw a line somewhere, and that's the practical place to draw that line.

Why does it matter when it's pointed out? Because if someone wins by three and then gets three penalty strokes, everyone's gone home and you can't have a playoff. So there, that's one very simple, practical reason why the timing matters and why the close of the competition is a good place to draw the line.

Look, it's incredibly frustrating to try to discuss the rules with someone who doesn't know some of the very basic rules they're discussing.

18 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

saying that you calling in and having a penalty inflicted on someone isn't you having an effect on the tournament is probably the funniest thing I've read today, so thanks.

Cool. Glad I could help.

18 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

I don't care if you're a rules official watching from home, you aren't there and have 0 business impacting the event.

I disagree.

18 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

You called someone else close minded because they wouldn't change their opinion ever, yet you seem to share that.

You don't know me very well if you think that. I can be convinced to change my mind by a good argument. You've not made one. Your best effort might be "you have 0 business impacting the event," which is really just you stating your opinion. It's an opinion with which I obviously disagree, and have stated the reasons why.

[Fourputt]

On 4/25/2017 at 1:39 PM, shanksalot said:

This changing the rule still does not cover what I see as the real problem. Only a few players on the weekend are under TV "surveillance" so how is it fair to the field that those come under the scope of call in from people off the golf course and the rest of the players get a free pass?? How can you penalize a player after the round is complete and play has started the next day? To me that is what needs to be changed or at least considered for change.

As I stated in the other thread, those who are most on TV are also those whose possible infractions are most likely to impact the results of the tournament.  For that reason, I have no issue with their play getting more scrutiny than that of the player who is 10 strokes off the lead.  

On 4/26/2017 at 8:53 PM, StevenR84 said:

I'm not going to answer your very pointed question, but thanks for trying. 

Right but facts are facts. Do those facts change because competition closed? You can't have it both ways. If a rule is broken why does it matter when it's pointed out? Because the rule says so? That seems like a cop out. 

saying that you calling in and having a penalty inflicted on someone isn't you having an effect on the tournament is probably the funniest thing I've read today, so thanks.  I don't care if you're a rules official watching from home, you aren't there and have 0 business impacting the event. You called someone else close minded because they wouldn't change their opinion ever, yet you seem to share that. Enjoy your evening. 

The rule is enforced as it is written.  How is that a cop out?  By that reasoning, having to take a penalty stroke for taking relief after losing your ball in a water hazard is also a cop out.  Most games are based on the certain fundamental ideas or principles, and the rules are written to protect those principles.  In that respect, the rules of any game or sport are by their very nature arbitrary, but they are still intended to support and enforce the integrity of the game they are written for.  The Rules of Golf are no different.  

In golf, the rule places the close of competition as the limit on assessing a penalty in all but the most egregious cases.  That is simply how it is.  I see your comments as another case of someone protesting an issue of which he has minimal actual understanding.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Fourputt

[Hardluckster]

On 4/26/2017 at 1:10 PM, StevenR84 said:

Because you don't need more people getting interested and playing the game right? This is the problem with people who keep that mindset. It's what contributes to the notion of the eliteist perception that surrounds the sport. I'd bet there are a bunch of actual golfers who are uneducated about the rules as well.

The first and most important thing that I taught my son when he became interested in playing golf was that it is a game of honor.  Players are responsible for their own scores and penalties - a responsibility that reveals much more than simply who wins the competition.

If someone considers this to be an elitist attitude, then they most likely need to find a different sport - one that promotes the "if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying" attitude.

Character is revealed on the golf course.  For example, when Jordan Spieth backed away from his golf ball on hole number 13 at the Masters and declares that he thinks the ball may have moved, it was a show of integrity.  No other sport encourages (no, requires) that type of behavior from competitors.

Let's hope that the ruling bodies do not take any action that eliminates this aspect from this glorious game.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Hardluckster