Rules Aren't Made to be Broken

[iacas]

http://www.golf.com/tour-news/2017/06/01/rules-arent-made-be-broken

Quotes in red are from the article…

No. 1. Video should be used in rules disputes almost never.
No. 2. Magnified video should never be used at all.
No. 3. The rules officials at the PGA Tour/USGA/LPGA should be ashamed of themselves for hijacking these events.
No. 4. Penalties should not be assigned after players sign their scorecards.
No. 5. TV viewers at home (and who are these people anyhow?) should not be permitted to influence the outcome of a golf tournament, as it is unfair to the players who get more TV time, and also because it's weird.

…

 

Here's an easy solution to the various problems outlined here: Play by the rules. Had Thompson marked her ball correctly in the first place, there would never have been an issue.

Really, it's a world-gone-soft that turned Thompson into a victim here. The rule that governs marking a ball on a green could not be more straightforward: Mark, and return the ball to where it was. She didn't do that.

…

Like Woods, I used to think that the use of videotape, and the whole call-in thing, was strange. But 20 years ago, Davis Love III helped me understand, with impeccable logic, why it makes sense: A player should want his or her scorecard to be as accurate as possible, and more scrutiny will only help make a player achieve that goal. Love's worldview shows an elemental understanding of the game that defines his life. In other sports—in football, in basketball, in baseball, in hockey—trying to get away with something is part of the game. Golf is the complete opposite.

Also, what kind of champion would you have if broadcast TV showed a winner hoisting a trophy, and YouTube showed, for example, that same golfer carrying 15 clubs?

---

Indeed, what's so hard about playing by the rules? They're not "unfair" because everyone is subject to the same RULES. No, not everyone is subject to the exact same conditions, but that's never been the case, and attempting to do that is a foolhardy endeavor that will always fail. But everyone can - and should - play under the same RULES of the game.

"My side" of the debate is often characterized as saying "the rules are the rules, period, end of story," but that can be said in two different ways. Did Lexi deserve a penalty? Absolutely, per the rules, she did. The Rules don't leave leeway to say "well, but it probably didn't really help her, maybe, so can't we just this one time not penalize her…?" They're written and applied, and that's the way it must be for the rules as they are.

That statement does not mean that everyone (or that I) support every rule written and back it 100%. There are a few rules with which I have  some quibbles, though understanding where the rules come from and the underlying principles tends to minimize anyone's beef with too many of the Rules.

 

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

They're not "unfair" because everyone is subject to the same RULES.

As long as the rules are not created to give someone an advantage, then I agree with this. Example, redefining how a golfer has to make a putting stroke with regards to anchoring. 

I pretty much agree with what the rest you stated. I don't get the people who try to make those who break the rules out as victim. 

[DeadMan]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 11:38 AM, iacas said:

They're not "unfair" because everyone is subject to the same RULES.

This is important and very true. Especially for golf, in comparison to other sports. There isn't much room for personal judgment/opinion with a breach of the rules of golf. In comparison, in soccer, a foul is only a foul if it is done "in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless, or using excessive force."

In addition, in golf, the rules are guided by principles of how we play the game. It's generally not difficult to figure out what an individual rule is by thinking of the principles of the rules. That's really not true for other sports. You can get the logic behind rules in other sports, but there's not an overarching logic that governs the rules of the game.

Edited August 9, 2017 by DeadMan

[pganapathy]

I agree that rules aren't meant to be broken.  However, it is the HD magnified view that is the problem with TV.  I mean I cannot realistically be expected to place a ball back to within the last MM or see my ball move one MM when addressing it.  That is why I believe the new rule where they talk about "reasonably" is so good.

At the end of the day play the game honestly and you should be within the rules.

[Vinsk]

On 8/5/2017 at 1:38 PM, iacas said:

They're not "unfair" because everyone is subject to the same RULES

This was what I had issues with regarding viewer call ins and video magnification. Everyone is subject to the rules, yes, but not everyone is equally subjected to the enforcement of such rules. It shouldn't matter if you are dead last in a tournament but 'errors' that occur like a ball being an 1" off its position, or touching a grain of sand on your back swing in a bunker are very unlikely to be discovered if it happens to Brian Davis compared to Jordan Spieth. All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others. So I agree with not using magnified HD review.

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

This was what I had issues with regarding viewer call ins and video magnification. Everyone is subject to the rules, yes, but not everyone is equally subjected to the enforcement of such rules.

What about people on the course at the time. Tiger had multitudes of people watching him play golf versus even the next best player in the field. More eyes are on him to begin with. They could easily go up to a rules official and make a claim.

I get the argument, but still, just because you have more eyes on you doesn't give you leeway to break the rules.

I personally think that people watching TV should not be allowed to call in.

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by saevel25

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, pganapathy said:

However, it is the HD magnified view that is the problem with TV.  I mean I cannot realistically be expected to place a ball back to within the last MM or see my ball move one MM when addressing it.  That is why I believe the new rule where they talk about "reasonably" is so good.

Yes, that's been addressed.

But Lexi wouldn't have even been subjected to this stuff - at all - if she'd simply followed the rules to begin with.

11 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

This was what I had issues with regarding viewer call ins and video magnification. Everyone is subject to the rules, yes, but not everyone is equally subjected to the enforcement of such rules.

Because that's impractical.

Just as it's impractical to make sure everyone plays under the same exact conditions (weather). Spectator count. Playing partner. Etc. It's just pointless. You and those who cling to this are drawing a completely impractical line in the sand, and overlooking the very obvious and real "solution" - just follow the damn rules.

That's what the topic and the original article are saying: just follow the damn rules and it won't matter WHO you are, or WHERE you are, or HOW MANY people see what you did.

[DaveP043]

I think its pretty refreshing that someone could write for a well-known national print magazine, and disagree with the "poor  ______ got a penalty based on some idiot at home calling in" sentiments that seem so prevalent.  I love the sentiment that learning and playing by the rules pretty much makes you bullet-proof.  I scrolled way down hoping to see reactions but sadly Golf doesn't allow them.  Just as well, probably, I'm sure most of the comments would have made me wand to 

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

it won't matter WHO you are, or WHERE you are, or HOW MANY people see what you did

But it does Erik. 'see what you did' is not the same as 'see what happened.' Come on man, you can't say that Anna Nordquist cheated. That penalty only occurred because of magnified HD camera usage. Period. How many times has that probably happened to any golfer WITHOUT ANY INTENT WHATSOEVER and not noticed?

I know you just stated they addressed that issue. Why? Why did they decide to not assess infractions by use of magnified cameras? Why did they decide that? If it's just a matter of playing by the rules, why would they feel the need to eliminate magnified cameras to catch these deliberate acts of pure cheating which was a method of enforcement equal among every player in the field?  I mean, EVERY PLAYER is under the watchful eye of magnified cameras right? And every player just needs to play by the  rules...so again...why was it decided to not use cameras to catch these deliberate infractions which are just as important if you're a total nobody in last place or leading a tournament.

[DaveP043]

19 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

But it does Erik. 'see what you did' is not the same as 'see what happened.' Come on man, you can't say that Anna Nordquist cheated. That penalty only occurred because of magnified HD camera usage.

Anna Nordquist did break the rules, albeit unintentionally and microscopically.  If she had not broken the rule, she would not have been penalized.  THAT is the premise of the article, and that premise holds true.  

Spoiler

All the rest of the discussion goes back to other very extensive threads about the (very) few cases in which a rules infraction came to light based on video evidence, and should more appropriately be continued in those threads.

 

[Rulesman]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

But it does Erik. 'see what you did' is not the same as 'see what happened.' Come on man, you can't say that Anna Nordquist cheated. That penalty only occurred because of magnified HD camera usage. Period. How many times has that probably happened to any golfer WITHOUT ANY INTENT WHATSOEVER and not noticed?

I know you just stated they addressed that issue. Why? Why did they decide to not assess infractions by use of magnified cameras? Why did they decide that? If it's just a matter of playing by the rules, why would they feel the need to eliminate magnified cameras to catch these deliberate acts of pure cheating which was a method of enforcement equal among every player in the field?  I mean, EVERY PLAYER is under the watchful eye of magnified cameras right? And every player just needs to play by the  rules...so again...why was it decided to not use cameras to catch these deliberate infractions which are just as important if you're a total nobody in last place or leading a tournament.

The reason why a rule is breached is irrelevant. It is simple, if a rule is breached by accident or design, an appropriate penalty is applied.

it doesn't matter WHO you are, or WHERE you are, or HOW MANY people see what you did

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

That penalty only occurred because of magnified HD camera usage. Period. How many times has that probably happened to any golfer WITHOUT ANY INTENT WHATSOEVER and not noticed?

Do I break the law when I run a red light and there is no cop there? What if they had a red light camera? Should I be upset that I got caught just because a cop wasn't there to see me break the law?

It doesn't matter, we can not justify breaking of the rules just because there are no eyes on them.

[Vinsk]

26 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Do I break the law when I run a red light and there is no cop there? What if they had a red light camera? Should I be upset that I got caught just because a cop wasn't there to see me break the law?

It doesn't matter, we can not justify breaking of the rules just because there are no eyes on them.

That's not at all what I'm saying. You purposefully ran a red light. That's your bad. I'm saying in golf there are such persnickety rules that one can only do their best to abide which is fine. But when you start introducing magnified HD cameras it gets ridiculous. Anna didn't intentionally ground her club. 

Your example is poor. Had you been driving along and the light was green, then right after you entered the intersection a lightning bolt struck and caused the light to turn immediately red and the red light camera zapped you going thru a red...you would be pretty upset if you were told, "well..you broke the law..sorry..here's your ticket." Golf is about millimeters and if you start using magnified camera shots then it becomes silly. I'm talking about the aggravating unintentional shit that happens beyond player's control. Let it be. Any rational person knows this stuff can happen and it truly doesn't make a difference. But when you start putting microscopes on the field it becomes stupid and unreasonable. 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Vinsk said:

But it does Erik. 'see what you did' is not the same as 'see what happened.' Come on man…

Don't "come on man" me after misquoting what I said.

6 hours ago, iacas said:

just follow the damn rules and it won't matter WHO you are, or WHERE you are, or HOW MANY people see what you did.

That's what I said.

Nobody can penalize you if you didn't break a rule.

4 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Come on man, you can't say that Anna Nordquist cheated.

Cheating has a different connotation.

She breached the rules.

4 hours ago, Vinsk said:

That penalty only occurred because of magnified HD camera usage. Period. How many times has that probably happened to any golfer WITHOUT ANY INTENT WHATSOEVER and not noticed?

I don't really care.

4 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I know you just stated they addressed that issue. Why?

I don't know, but that's not what this topic's about, @Vinsk.

4 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Why did they decide to not assess infractions by use of magnified cameras?

Because it's impractical to enforce the rules if you can't see it happening. You've asked this question a few times, IIRC, and it's been answered several times, also IIRC.

4 hours ago, Vinsk said:

If it's just a matter of playing by the rules…

You're missing the point.

If you play by the rules, it doesn't matter if you have EVERY camera and eye on you at all times… you won't be penalized if you don't break any rules.

4 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I mean, EVERY PLAYER is under the watchful eye of magnified cameras right? And every player just needs to play by the  rules...so again...why was it decided to not use cameras to catch these deliberate infractions which are just as important if you're a total nobody in last place or leading a tournament.

Those two things are not conflated like you want them to be.

They're two very different topics.

Follow the rules and you won't be penalized. Whether you like it or not, Lexi broke the rules. Anna, too, broke the rules (at the time). Lexi's error was so bad she would STILL have been deemed to have broken the rules.

If Anna had not touched the sand, she'd not have been penalized at the time.

It's that simple.

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

You purposefully ran a red light.

Not that it's relevant, but he didn't say he "purposefully" ran the red light.

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I'm saying in golf there are such persnickety rules that one can only do their best to abide which is fine. But when you start introducing magnified HD cameras it gets ridiculous. Anna didn't intentionally ground her club.

What does that have to do with anything?

She broke the rules at the time. She was penalized. Had she NOT touched the sand, she'd NOT have been penalized.

Want to avoid being penalized, regardless of who's watching you? Follow the ****ing rules.

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Your example is poor. Had you been driving along and the light was green, then right after you entered the intersection a lightning bolt struck and caused the light to turn immediately red and the red light camera zapped you going thru a red...you would be pretty upset if you were told, "well..you broke the law..sorry..here's your ticket."

That's a much worse example than the one he gave.

Anna could have kept her club farther from the sand. Instead, she thought she could go through a long yellow, but she misjudged it slightly.

But this whole Anna thing is beside the point.

Want to avoid being penalized, regardless of who's watching you? Follow the ****ing rules.

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Golf is about millimeters and if you start using magnified camera shots then it becomes silly.

Stop talking about millimeters, @Vinsk.

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I'm talking about the aggravating unintentional shit that happens beyond player's control. Let it be. Any rational person knows this stuff can happen and it truly doesn't make a difference. But when you start putting microscopes on the field it becomes stupid and unreasonable. 

Anna's action was not "unintentional." She purposefully held the club very very close to the sand and risked breaking the rule.

Want to avoid being penalized, regardless of who's watching you? Follow the ****ing rules.

Enough talk of millimeters and Anna Nordqvist.

[saevel25]

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

That's not at all what I'm saying. You purposefully ran a red light. That's your bad. I'm saying in golf there are such persnickety rules that one can only do their best to abide which is fine. But when you start introducing magnified HD cameras it gets ridiculous. Anna didn't intentionally ground her club. 

Still the rule is the rule right? Golfers are taught early not to ground the club. That isn't teaching them, "don't ground the club, but you may get away with it if it is an accident". That isn't how rules work. 

I can be going down the freeway and not notice I am speeding. It wasn't on purpose. Maybe I got lost in the music on the radio, or caught up with someone else driving fast. I hit a speed camera. I get a ticket. Should I be allowed to say, "But I didn't know I was speeding? It wasn't intentional."

Rules are the rules. It doesn't matter how you are caught. 

Edited August 10, 2017 by saevel25

[iacas]

28 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Rules are the rules. It doesn't matter how you are caught. 

Right, and you can't be "caught" if you don't break the rules.

Which is what the article says.

[Vinsk]

No longer clinging. I was wrong. Play by the rules is in fact the best philosophy. I guess whatever accurately protects the integrity of the game should be looked at as a positive influence rather than negative. The TV viewer call ins seemed odd to me...but it's not like it takes place constantly....and the YouTube analogy @iacas mentioned rings true. Would be damn irritating to see a trophy raised when an infraction was committed and missed....well...unless it happened to beat Poulter. Kidding..well..kinda.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Vinsk

[dennyjones]

8 hours ago, Vinsk said:

unless it happened to beat Poulter. Kidding..well..kinda.

+1