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

[iacas]

3 hours ago, 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.

I don't think it needs to be changed at all, and I may be disappointed if they shorten the deadline at all. They've already reduced it from an automatic DQ to two strokes. Less than two years ago.

[JetFan1983]

The angry mob is so stupid, they actually think they won with this change. First, they fundamentally don't understand the rules of the game, and now they don't even understand what was changed today. Hysterical. 

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, JetFan1983 said:

The angry mob is so stupid, they actually think they won with this change. First, they fundamentally don't understand the rules of the game, and now they don't even understand what was changed today. Hysterical. 

Pretty much.

[Jack Watson]

Love the change for the Anna N type situation.  The word reasonable basically means they can say penalize or not based on a judgement call.  I dunno.  Kinda half assed imo.

I say that because for Lexi it would have been a judgement call.  Many people at first look at the video gave Lexi benefit of doubt.  Many of those same people after days of review call Lexi a cheat.  The problem comes up rarely in any event.

A judgement call is what it is...

Edited April 26, 2017 by Jack Watson

[gatsby47]

---

Most of the members here (not all ) have wrote to question Lexi's integrity in her placement of the golf ball.  As far as I know she has yet to comment upon this particular matter. She may get an opportunity on Wednesday at the tourney in Texas to speak.  I cannot imagine she wont be asked.  So, if she says I accept the ruling, I did not believe I did anything wrong. What will you say then? The new rules indicate a lot will be placed on reasonableness they player uses in replacement.  If Lexi says she thought it was okay, will the masses then question her veracity and call her a liar.  Pretty harsh. I love the game but game it is. They have attempted to address issues facing them.  When will it be enough?  Inquiring minds will want to know

Edited April 26, 2017 by gatsby47

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, gatsby47 said:

---

Most of the members here (not all ) have wrote to question Lexi's integrity in her placement of the golf ball.

 I don't think that's at all accurate.

[cutchemist42]

3 hours ago, JetFan1983 said:

The angry mob is so stupid, they actually think they won with this change. First, they fundamentally don't understand the rules of the game, and now they don't even understand what was changed today. Hysterical. 

Doesnt this fix the anal Anna situation???

[NCGolfer]

15 hours ago, iacas said:

In other words… This rule does a lot more to address the Anna Nordquist situation than the Lexi Thompson situation.

This is exactly how I felt when I heard the details.  I'm not sure if others feel this's way but after both events occurred and I watched the video I felt worse for Anna than I did for Lexi.

[WestKyGolfer]

10 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Love the change for the Anna N type situation.  The word reasonable basically means they can say penalize or not based on a judgement call.  I dunno.  Kinda half assed imo.

I say that because for Lexi it would have been a judgement call.  Many people at first look at the video gave Lexi benefit of doubt.  Many of those same people after days of review call Lexi a cheat.  The problem comes up rarely in any event.

A judgement call is what it is...

There was no judgment call in regards to the misplacing of the ball. It was clearly placed in a different spot.

 

As for Miss Thompson's intent, no one can know that but the player herself. I personally don't believe she outright intended to cheat, but whether she did something out of habit or just got lazy doesn't change the fact that the ball was place on a different spot and was correctly penalized. The intent is what becomes a judgment call and the 2 stroke penalty instead of a DQ for cheating was the judgment of the committee.

[RH31]

19 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't think it would have affected Lexi at all.

Her replacement was not reasonable, and it would have been very obvious to the naked eye.

Anna, yes.

Maybe, maybe not. The naked eye doesn't stop, zoom in, and replay something over and over again. I disagree that it was obvious to the naked eye, otherwise there would've been tons of people calling in during the telecast. 

16 hours ago, 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.

I watched the interview with the ruling committee spokesman(name???) and he said they are still reviewing the timeline issue. He mentioned the possibility of closing out scoring at the end of each day as an option.

10 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Love the change for the Anna N type situation.  The word reasonable basically means they can say penalize or not based on a judgement call.  I dunno.  Kinda half assed imo.

I say that because for Lexi it would have been a judgement call.  Many people at first look at the video gave Lexi benefit of doubt.  Many of those same people after days of review call Lexi a cheat.  The problem comes up rarely in any event.

A judgement call is what it is...

Yep. It's now a judgement call. Probably loosened it up so that nobody has to drop a big penalty on a player for a small infraction.

Think about it. If Tiger is playing at the ACME open, gets pissed and does something similar to what Lexi did. Do you think any rules official would want to whack him with a 4 shot penalty?

Do you think ACME as the sponsor would like/want that?

Do you think Tiger would schedule that tournament the following year?

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Maybe, maybe not. The naked eye doesn't stop, zoom in, and replay something over and over again. I disagree that it was obvious to the naked eye, otherwise there would've been tons of people calling in during the telecast. 

You're misunderstanding "to the naked eye."

Someone in Lexi's position would have seen, with their naked eyes, her misplacing the ball. Someone standing 10 feet away would have said "that ball was not put back on the same spot."

That's the naked eye test. The naked eye test is not whether someone watching on even a 60" TV without zooming in (where Lexi is probably reduced to about 2' in height) can see it with THEIR naked eye. It's whether the player could have been expected to see it with HER naked eye.

She could have. Easily. She misplaced it by nearly an inch.

24 minutes ago, RH31 said:

I watched the interview with the ruling committee spokesman(name???) and he said they are still reviewing the timeline issue. He mentioned the possibility of closing out scoring at the end of each day as an option.

Yes, and then he mentioned how problematic that can be, and how facts are facts and whether you want to close yourself to taking facts into consideration is a big issue.

As I've said, I fear the golf world in general is over-reacting to situations:

• that don't happen very often.
• where the player ****ing breaks a rule!

Seriously… people seem to forget that the second thing has to be true for any of these call-ins to matter. I'm glad they expanded the "naked eye" thing to cover more than a "ball at rest moved" (I think that's all it covered before). Really really glad. Good. It would have saved Anna. I understood they had to penalize her last year, and I did say she shouldn't have kept her club that close to the sand (and I still would today because a little more and it would have been visible to the naked eye, and why flirt with that in a playoff for a major championship?), but it still hurt a bit.

It would not have saved Lexi, and Lexi deserved to be punished. She didn't follow the Rules of Golf. Two years ago she'd have been DQed. I hope they don't cave to this stupid pressure to shorten the length of time where penalties can be assessed while the tournament is still ongoing.

Because, ultimately, the player breached the rules. Every time you reduce the penalty for breaching the rules, the incentive to know and follow the rules is weakened.

(@boil3rmak3r, notice: a statement of support for the current rules, and an entire discussion, with reasons given, etc.)

24 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Think about it. If Tiger is playing at the ACME open, gets pissed and does something similar to what Lexi did. Do you think any rules official would want to whack him with a 4 shot penalty?

Would they want to? No. No rules official EVER WANTS to penalize a player.

Would they penalize? In a heartbeat. Lexi broke the rules. Her replacement was not reasonable. Tiger would be penalized as well.

24 minutes ago, RH31 said:

Do you think ACME as the sponsor would like/want that?

Do you think Tiger would schedule that tournament the following year?

Those things are non-factors to a rules official making a ruling. Complete non-issues.

[rehmwa]

1 hour ago, RH31 said:

Maybe, maybe not. The naked eye doesn't stop, zoom in, and replay something over and over again. I disagree that it was obvious to the naked eye, otherwise there would've been tons of people calling in during the telecast.

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.

 

Since golf is, by philosophy,self monitored, I don't think penalties are a 'punishment', just a correction to apply the right amount of strokes for any particular situation.  The term is unfortunate, as it wrongly implies a few things that are moot to the game.  I don't get punished for hitting out of bounds - I just have to take that stroke and count the original, as well as the final one.  It's not a punishment, it's just the correct score.

 

11 hours ago, gatsby47 said:

---

She may get an opportunity on Wednesday at the tourney in Texas to speak.  I cannot imagine she wont be asked.  So, if she says I accept the ruling, I did not believe I did anything wrong.

By now, she's had a chance to view the video and it's very clear even without the zoom, and likely very embarassing for her.  She'll note the error was unintentional, and the penalty was correct (or course, there is no other comment a pro can make on that specific situation) and the 2 strokes were applied correctly.  I hope she doesn't even try to explain how the misplacement occurred as sad, pathetic couch jockeys all over will just pick it apart no matter how she explains it.

She might complain about the additional 2 strokes for signing the card, or not.  She might have a personal opinion about viewer call ins, or not.  Any comment in any way I wouldn't be surprised on those two topics.  But the actual first two penalty strokes, I think she'll be gracious and professional about it.

 

(Or, a good pro would just not comment and move on with life)

Edited April 26, 2017 by rehmwa

[iacas]

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/7-famous-recent-rules-controversies-and-how-the-new-lexi-thompson-rule-would-have-affected-them

1. Lexi Thompson, 2017 ANA Inspiration

I disagree it's murky how it would have been handled. I think she still would have been penalized. I also disagree with calling the signing of an incorrect scorecard a "problem" as Alex Myers does, for reasons I've expounded upon many times.

2. Anna Nordqvist, 2016 U.S. Women's Open

No penalty. I'm good with that, too. Naked eye test is fine for more situations than just ball at rest moved.

3. Tiger Woods, 2013 Masters

He gets the timeline wrong - Eger called in while Tiger was still on the course, which is why the committee supposedly reviewed the footage and deemed his drop to be fine, only after later pressure initiated by me was that later changed to a two-stroke penalty. But anyway…

Anyway, this one's a trickier one because Eger's call prompted the committee to check and "okay" the drop, even though they never talked to Tiger about it. At the time, it was a DQ for an incorrect scorecard, and I still think Tiger should have been DQed. He didn't reasonably estimate the spot, he knowingly went to a different spot. The Eger call and the committee ruling reduce this to a two-stroke penalty, as Myers notes, and yeah, that'd be the same today… except that's only with the weird "committee ruling that they never mentioned to Tiger" piece thrown in there.

4. Tiger Woods, 2013 Players

I think this is still overblown. The blimp was likely not directly overhead. Any angle distorts where the ball appears to fly. Woods' playing partner and fellow competitor agreed very quickly with the drop.

5. Tiger Woods, 2013 BMW Championship

Agreed, no penalty, naked eye test.

6. Dustin Johnson, 2010 PGA Championship

Penalty. Yes.

7. Brian Davis, 2010 RBC Heritage

The article says "not a penalty" but I'm not so sure: I think the movement of that piece of straw or grass could be deemed visible with the naked eye. After all, Brian Davis himself saw it move.

[shanksalot]

15 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't think it needs to be changed at all, and I may be disappointed if they shorten the deadline at all. They've already reduced it from an automatic DQ to two strokes. Less than two years ago.

My real complaint is there should not be a call in during a tournament. If an official sees an infraction during review of tv footage during the tournament fine, but to me anything else is not allowed. I thought Lexi should have been penalized for her error in marking the ball and then replacing it incorrectly. But because of a call in she is penalized twice. I will go to my grave believing there should not be outside interference in televised professional golf tournaments.

Edited April 26, 2017 by shanksalot

[iacas]

59 minutes ago, shanksalot said:

My real complaint is there should not be a call in during a tournament.

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

59 minutes ago, shanksalot said:

If an official sees an infraction during review of tv footage during the tournament fine, but to me anything else is not allowed.

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.

59 minutes ago, shanksalot said:

I thought Lexi should have been penalized for her error in making the ball and then replacing it incorrectly. But because of a call in she is penalized twice.

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.

59 minutes ago, shanksalot said:

I will go to my grave believing there should not be outside interference in televised professional golf tournaments.

At least you're honest about your close mindedness.

[StevenR84]

If playing partners, caddies, rules officials, or even the spectators in attendance can't point out an infraction then to me, it's not so naked eye. Stop with the call ins, it's embarrassing every time it happens. Maybe not to those of you who agree with it, but just about everyone else thinks it's absolutely absurd.

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

If playing partners, caddies, rules officials, or even the spectators in attendance can't point out an infraction then to me, it's not so naked eye.

That's not the definition of "naked eye."

23 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?

23 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

Maybe not to those of you who agree with it, but just about everyone else thinks it's absolutely absurd.

The Rules of Golf are not written by popular vote.

---

Again… Everyone who wants to do away with "call-ins" is willingly trading off knowledge of facts and not penalizing players known to have breached the rules in exchange for… what exactly?

[RandallT]

22 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

If playing partners, caddies, rules officials, or even the spectators in attendance can't point out an infraction then to me, it's not so naked eye. Stop with the call ins, it's embarrassing every time it happens. Maybe not to those of you who agree with it, but just about everyone else thinks it's absolutely absurd.

I've tried to keep an open mind about all this, but as I see some of the arguments coming from the side of "get rid of call-ins," my opinion solidifies more and more that call-ins are not only acceptable, but beneficial.

It boils down to this (and has been mentioned countless times): Rules officials at all levels of golf do NOT make calls at the scene. They are not like umpires watching if a runner is tagged before touching the plate. They are not everywhere.  They are simply resources who use all available information to get to the truth.

The rules apply to all levels of golf, so it's not possible to put into the rules that officials are now responsible for calling plays like in other sports. That is simply a non-starter.

Rules officials get at the truth by talking to people. By looking at available information.  And yes, by informed people who may have seen something (at home or wherever). Those other witnesses are NOT causing penalties, they are simply providing information to officials. 

Not only is the current method of allowing call-ins not embarrassing, I have lost a lot of respect for the argument that claims that it is. Sure there, are valid points to made against the whole scheme. But let's have a healthy debate on it, and bring your best arguments. Going over the top and saying that the current model is embarrassing only serves to discredit your argument.

Also, your definition of "naked eye" seems flawed. See @iacas description of what that means. It is not "naked eye" from TV, spectators, etc.  If you don't see Lexi's issue as being naked eye, I don't know what to tell you.