Rules Aren't Made to be Broken

[Fourputt]

On 8/10/2017 at 8:35 AM, 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. 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.

The guys who aren't on camera, also aren't in the mix to win, so any missed infraction on their part is much less likely to have a significant impact on the end result.  

[Vinsk]

18 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

The guys who aren't on camera, also aren't in the mix to win, so any missed infraction on their part is much less likely to have a significant impact on the end result.  

Yeah I've let it go. But FWIW...that's not a valid argument. If any player breaks a rule then the necessary penalty should be assessed regardless of position in the tournament or celebrity status. 

[BaconNEggs]

Just going to throw a few pennies in the mix here.

Quote

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.

Quote

Enough talk of millimeters

The rule states the ball must be replaced in the "exact spot." Depending on how much you want to quibble, depending on what tolerance level is applied to "exact," I bet this rule is broken multiple times a round by the vast majority of golfers. Professional golfers such as Phil Mickelson have pointed this out. So talk of millimeters is actually very relevant here. If I put the ball down, and once I release the ball it moves a fraction of an inch-- enough for a one-dimple length movement-- and pick up my marker, I've broken the rules as written, and should suffer a full penalty. In practice, are the rules ever enforced that way? Probably not, because to the naked eye there's probably negligible difference, but throw that under magnified HD and I don't see why you wouldn't get a penalty. Is that reasonable? Lexi's ball was placed, what, a half inch aside of where it should have been? So what is the tolerance level? A 1/2 inch? 1/4? 10 mm? This isn't tennis, where during part of the action a ball hits a fraction of an inch out of bounds and video confirms it was OOB, we're talking about placing a ball down on finely mowed, sometimes uneven grass carpet that ostensibly has no impact on anything whatsoever if its misplaced by a half inch.

Quote

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.

Yeah, I fail to see the "impeccable logic here." To take his (DL III) personal worldview and then apply it to the sport as a whole, and then denigrate every other sport... is not logical, in fact just the opposite. There's nothing inherent in hockey (or baseball, or soccer) that leads players to do less than admirable things to gain an advantage, and there's nothing inherent in golf that leads players to do the opposite. Honor codes and ethics pledges are a big nothing burger of self-righteousness. It's human nature. Some people will try to game the rules (not technically cheating, but outside of the intent of the rule) to get an advantage, some people will try to outright cheat to get an advantage, and some people will do neither and try to play as honestly as possible. It doesn't matter what sport. Does this guy think no golfers have ever used steroids or PEDs? I mean, apart from those who were caught... :rolleyes:

Quote

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?

Well let's start with the fact that in this thread we've generally been discussing what are effectively negligible and accidental offenses that garnered no benefit to the offender. So right off the bat, he starts with a huge false equivalency. So yeah, it would probably look bad in the extreme example he gave. But assuming a more benign offense, I'm guessing the champion would be viewed the same as literally every other sport where the benefit of hindsight and/or technology can show that a rule was broken and no penalty was applied? In other words, people would get over it-- the rules in virtually any sport that uses humans for judgment can never be enforced 100% correctly, "attempting to do that is a foolhardy endeavor that will always fail." I mean is this guy serious? This happens, routinely, in literally almost every championship in every sport. Missed foul calls. Missed strike call. Missed pass interference. What kind of sport would it be if we allowed people to, days, weeks, or months after an event, spot a penalty and have it enforced retroactively? It's a joke.

Edited August 15, 2017 by iacas
removed a quote at the end with no response?

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, BaconNEggs said:

The rule states the ball must be replaced in the "exact spot." Depending on how much you want to quibble, depending on what tolerance level is applied to "exact," I bet this rule is broken multiple times a round by the vast majority of golfers.

The rule allows for a minimal amount of human accuracy. We aren't measuring to the micron.

2 minutes ago, BaconNEggs said:

Lexi's ball was placed, what, a half inch aside of where it should have been?

It was a minimum of 0.74" off from where it was supposed to be. That's well outside of the realm of human error/accuracy.

2 minutes ago, BaconNEggs said:

So what is the tolerance level?

Somewhere between a millimeter and what Lexi did… but closer to a mm than 0.74".

2 minutes ago, BaconNEggs said:

There's nothing inherent in hockey (or baseball, or soccer) that leads players to do less than admirable things to gain an advantage, and there's nothing inherent in golf that leads players to do the opposite.

I disagree. Players are charged, in golf, with upholding the rules themselves, while in virtually every other sport they're encouraged to try to get away with as much as possible.

That is a different perspective.

2 minutes ago, BaconNEggs said:

Well let's start with the fact that in this thread we've generally been discussing what are effectively negligible and accidental offenses that garnered no benefit to the offender.

You don't know that Lexi's movement of the ball at least 3/4" didn't gain a benefit.

And the Rules of Golf can't often concern themselves with "benefits obtained." If you breach a rule, you're penalized. Black and white. Simple.

2 minutes ago, BaconNEggs said:

But assuming a more benign offense, I'm guessing the champion would be viewed the same as literally every other sport where the benefit of hindsight and/or technology can show that a rule was broken and no penalty was applied?

I don't, because in golf, the players are the referees themselves. They aren't relying on umpires or referees to call the rules.

2 minutes ago, BaconNEggs said:

I mean is this guy serious? This happens, routinely, in literally almost every championship in every sport. Missed foul calls. Missed strike call. Missed pass interference.

It's a non-starter to compare golf to other sports (particularly those with a shared ball, etc.).

[BaconNEggs]

Firstly... my quoting sucks, so thank you for fixing my post.

Somewhere between a millimeter and what Lexi did… but closer to a mm than 0.74".

OK, that's fair, but in a sport that is going to enforce all rules to the letter of the law all the time, I think it's only fair to define "exact" as within a specific tolerance, or rewrite the rule altogether. Somewhere in this vague grey space that will be defined on the spot by the relevant rules officials is too ambiguous.

I disagree. Players are charged, in golf, with upholding the rules themselves, while in virtually every other sport they're encouraged to try to get away with as much as possible.

Maybe we just disagree philosophically here, and that's OK, but I would just like to state my personal opinion that charging players with upholding the rules themselves (self-policing) in no way, shape, or form encourages people to get away with less than if the rules were enforced by a third party. It certainly doesn't work that way in numerous other spheres of life. You seem to be assuming it does and stating it as a fact. In golf, or any activity that doesn't have a life referee or official, you play by the honor code and hope the other person does, too. OK... but that doesn't fundamentally make a person who wants to cheat to win want to cheat any less. If anything, it would encourage them to cheat more-- and the only thing stopping them is... third-party enforcement (whether rules officials, spectators, or TV audience).

And if players are charged with upholding the rules themselves, why are TV spectators allowed to interfere, a day later no less?

I don't, because in golf, the players are the referees themselves. They aren't relying on umpires or referees to call the rules.

Fair enough, but I'm looking at the Lexi Thompson situation, and I don't think the vast majority of people would care that she technically violated the rule by misplacing the ball .75".

It's a non-starter to compare golf to other sports (particularly those with a shared ball, etc.).

Says you, but that's just your opinion. Again, I don't think the vast majority of people would care.

[Piz]

If the line must be drawn somewhere; the next question is "how thick is the line?"  For balls and strikes, or traveling, it would appear to be fairly generous.  For other things (first downs, fair or foul, etc...) the line is more closely defined.  In golf; the line is determined, by the player, in casual rounds.  At the professional level; scrutiny is microscopic.  It's the same game, with the same rules, played under radically different circumstances.  It may seem unfair (the 2012 PGA comes to mind) but what's the alternative?  Unless a rule is altered in its application; it has to be applied as understood.  That's the rub.  We now have the ability to observe, in super hi-def slow-mo, that which may have passed unnoticed before; but that doesn't mean that the golfer doesn't know...or can't tell...or isn't at least thinking about it.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, BaconNEggs said:

Firstly... my quoting sucks, so thank you for fixing my post.

 

 

OK, that's fair, but in a sport that is going to enforce all rules to the letter of the law all the time, I think it's only fair to define "exact" as within a specific tolerance, or rewrite the rule altogether. Somewhere in this vague grey space that will be defined on the spot by the relevant rules officials is too ambiguous.

 

 

Maybe we just disagree philosophically here, and that's OK, but I would just like to state my personal opinion that charging players with upholding the rules themselves (self-policing) in no way, shape, or form encourages people to get away with less than if the rules were enforced by a third party. It certainly doesn't work that way in numerous other spheres of life. You seem to be assuming it does and stating it as a fact. In golf, or any activity that doesn't have a life referee or official, you play by the honor code and hope the other person does, too. OK... but that doesn't fundamentally make a person who wants to cheat to win want to cheat any less. If anything, it would encourage them to cheat more-- and the only thing stopping them is... third-party enforcement (whether rules officials, spectators, or TV audience).

And if players are charged with upholding the rules themselves, why are TV spectators allowed to interfere, a day later no less?

 

 

Fair enough, but I'm looking at the Lexi Thompson situation, and I don't think the vast majority of people would care that she technically violated the rule by misplacing the ball .75".

 

 

Says you, but that's just your opinion. Again, I don't think the vast majority of people would care.

I golf, I can call a foul on another player, so there is a form of oversight that is independent of requiring a cadre of referees to do that job.  If my opponent or fellow competitor makes a error in following a procedure, I can choose to bring it up before he incurs a penalty if possible, or call the penalty if I can't stop him before he has breached the rule.   

And I feel the pressure on myself to follow all of the rules during a round.  Any responsible player who enters a competition understands that self-policing is a requirement of playing tournament golf.  I'm not sure how you can dispute that point.  It's a simple fact that is stated very early in the Rules of Golf.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, BaconNEggs said:

OK, that's fair, but in a sport that is going to enforce all rules to the letter of the law all the time, I think it's only fair to define "exact" as within a specific tolerance, or rewrite the rule altogether.

No need. The rule we have now works just fine.

5 hours ago, BaconNEggs said:

Somewhere in this vague grey space that will be defined on the spot by the relevant rules officials is too ambiguous.

Put the ball back as exactly as humanly possible, and you'll be fine.

5 hours ago, BaconNEggs said:

Maybe we just disagree philosophically here, and that's OK, but I would just like to state my personal opinion that charging players with upholding the rules themselves (self-policing) in no way, shape, or form encourages people to get away with less than if the rules were enforced by a third party.

You're right; we're going to disagree here.

And it's not philosophically. It's empirically. I've yet to see an NFL player call a penalty on himself. I've seen many, many, many golfers do it.

I think you're wrong. I think golf has a completely different mindset, approach, belief system, integrity structure, etc. than the other sports where referees/umpires are tasked with enforcing the rules rather than the players themselves.

5 hours ago, BaconNEggs said:

It certainly doesn't work that way in numerous other spheres of life.

That's my point. So comparing golf to those other spheres - or other sports - is pointless.

5 hours ago, BaconNEggs said:

And if players are charged with upholding the rules themselves, why are TV spectators allowed to interfere, a day later no less?

Read the original article.

Occasionally, a player fails to honor their duty, and a stiffer penalty (the additional two strokes) is warranted, as is the potential hit to their reputation.

5 hours ago, BaconNEggs said:

Fair enough, but I'm looking at the Lexi Thompson situation, and I don't think the vast majority of people would care that she technically violated the rule by misplacing the ball .75".

Then you're talking to some dumb people.

She very clearly violated the Rule. Virtually nobody I talked to thought otherwise. It was obvious, and egregious.

Even those who don't like "call-in penalties" or penalties assessed the next day didn't deny she breached the Rules there.

5 hours ago, BaconNEggs said:

Says you, but that's just your opinion. Again, I don't think the vast majority of people would care.

Experience in having talked about this at length at the time it happened says otherwise.

[Zekez]

On 8/11/2017 at 3:50 PM, Fourputt said:

The guys who aren't on camera, also aren't in the mix to win, so any missed infraction on their part is much less likely to have a significant impact on the end result.  

But it will impact the prize money payout.

[Fourputt]

20 minutes ago, Zekez said:

But it will impact the prize money payout.

Minimally.  And the players who are most impacted will be under the same level of scrutiny.  The top 10 will be on  camera the most, the next 10 less so, and so on down through list.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Fourputt

[Zekez]

4 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Minimally.  And the players who are most impacted will be under the same level of scrutiny.  The top 10 will be on  camera the most, the next 10 less so, and so on down through list.

Even if it is minimally that's more cash to the rule breaker.  Maybe it's only a few bucks, but that's an extra Big mac on the ride to the next tourney!! :)

[DaveP043]

18 hours ago, BaconNEggs said:

Fair enough, but I'm looking at the Lexi Thompson situation, and I don't think the vast majority of people would care that she technically violated the rule by misplacing the ball .75".

Says you, but that's just your opinion. Again, I don't think the vast majority of people would care.

I'd suggest that not many "people" care about what Lexi did, and don't care that golf holds its players to a higher standard of personal integrity than other sports.  However, I think that "GOLFERS" care quite a bit about both.  MY personal opinion, golf stands apart from (and above, in my opinion) other sports for just that reason.  I do care that the rules are followed, I strongly prefer that penalties are enforced when they come to light.

And going back to the original post, I think its encouraging that someone (outside of this website) took a stand to say that the problem is the player who screwed up, not the viewer who called in.  Learn the rules, play by the rules as best you can, and you have nothing to worry about.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Zekez said:

Even if it is minimally that's more cash to the rule breaker.  Maybe it's only a few bucks, but that's an extra Big mac on the ride to the next tourney!! :)

It's just not that big an issue when you are talking about a few hundred here or there,   Plus it isn't a regular occurrence that someone gets caught, even for those who are on camera nearly every week.  The level of publicity is way more than most such incidents call for.  It's more about the media sensationalizing an incident than it is about fairness.  Very few players are truly opposed to the scrutiny, and most just take it in stride.  

They are making good money while doing nothing more than just playing a game, so all this hand-wringing and crying by fans and media is just a lot of useless noise.

[BaconNEggs]

On ‎8‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:58 PM, iacas said:

You're right; we're going to disagree here.

And it's not philosophically. It's empirically. I've yet to see an NFL player call a penalty on himself. I've seen many, many, many golfers do it.

Well, of course you're right by default in terms of calling a penalty on yourself. You can't in football. You don't know how many players would call a penalty on themselves if they could. I certainly see it in rec league hockey that I play in. And I have seen professional tennis players tell their opponent to challenge a referee's call when they knew the ref was wrong, despite the wrong call benefiting them.

 

On ‎8‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:58 PM, iacas said:

I think you're wrong. I think golf has a completely different mindset, approach, belief system, integrity structure, etc. than the other sports where referees/umpires are tasked with enforcing the rules rather than the players themselves.

I've seen lots of golfers cheat, in both casual and competitive play. I don't see how self-policing changes anything; if a golfer wants to cheat, self-policing makes it easier-- unless there is additional scrutiny (i.e. audience, marshals, etc.)

 

On ‎8‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:58 PM, iacas said:

That's my point. So comparing golf to those other spheres - or other sports - is pointless.

I meant comparing golf, a self-policing sport, to other spheres of life that utilize self-policing or self-regulatory systems. There's no evidence that self-policing will lead to more honesty than otherwise; in fact, there's academic literature that shows exactly the opposite. Self-policing leads to MORE cheating, not less-- unless you believe in some inherent virtuosity of golf, which I don't. 

 

On ‎8‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:58 PM, iacas said:

Then you're talking to some dumb people.

She very clearly violated the Rule. Virtually nobody I talked to thought otherwise. It was obvious, and egregious.

Even those who don't like "call-in penalties" or penalties assessed the next day didn't deny she breached the Rules there.

I never said people think she didn't violate the rule. I agree she violated the rule. I said most people wouldn't care that she violated the rule in such a minute way, and most people disagree with the penalty assessed. Just like I wouldn't disagree that going 41 in a 40 is "speeding" but the vast, vast, vast majority of people would disagree with receiving a fine for such a violation.

All I could find was this poll, which received 1400 votes, regarding "Was the LPGA correct in assessing a penalty to Lexi Thompson for not replacing her ball correctly" (http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2017/4/3/poll-and-quick-wrap-lexis-infraction-at-the-ana.html)

By a 17% margin, more people disagreed with the decision than agreed. I assume these aren't random people reading a golf website and voting in the poll, but golfers.

Add to that the numerous professional golfers, sports writers, etc. etc. etc. who opined on the issue, and who by a decent margin seemed to disagree with how the incident was handled. I'll disregard your pithy snipe about talking to dumb people, since you misunderstood what I was saying.

On ‎8‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:58 PM, iacas said:

Experience in having talked about this at length at the time it happened says otherwise.

The reaction from the golfing world was definitely against the decision. I appreciate that you have a more informed opinion than me about golf rules, but that doesn't really matter here. What we're talking about is how the championship would have been perceived if no penalty was called, and after the fact video evidence showed a very minor infraction... a majority of golfers wouldn't care. At the very least, I have a poll of over a thousand people that shows a majority of golfers didn't agree with penalizing her... so how could they possibly think the event was ruined if she wasn't penalized? And between the articles on ESPN, GolfWRX, et al., it's pretty clear to me that most golfers think this was a disaster. Unless you've got some form of evidence otherwise, you're wrong. Referring back to yourself doesn't count.

 

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 10:59 AM, DaveP043 said:

MY personal opinion, golf stands apart from (and above, in my opinion) other sports for just that reason.  I do care that the rules are followed, I strongly prefer that penalties are enforced when they come to light.

Right, and my point is that there are plenty of golfers who will cheat when given the opportunity, regardless of the "integrity of the game." It sounds like you wouldn't. That says more about you (in a good way) than it does about the game.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, BaconNEggs said:

Well, of course you're right by default in terms of calling a penalty on yourself. You can't in football.

I think where we disagree is that in golf, most people are not trying to cheat or "get away with" anything (in actual tournament play, I'm not talking about screwing around drinking beer and whackin' the ball around), while in virtually every other sport, the opposite is true: almost everyone is trying to get away with as much as they can, relying on the refs to call (or fail to call) the penalties.

It happens occasionally in other sports. Seldom. Rarely. It happens far more often in golf.

You will not convince me that this is not true. I've seen far too much in golf.

1 hour ago, BaconNEggs said:

I've seen lots of golfers cheat, in both casual and competitive play.

I haven't.

And the point of the article is that you can't ever be called for a penalty if you don't breach the rules, so know them, and follow them.

How many golfers DO cheat is beside the point and kind of off topic.

1 hour ago, BaconNEggs said:

There's no evidence that self-policing will lead to more honesty than otherwise; in fact, there's academic literature that shows exactly the opposite. Self-policing leads to MORE cheating, not less-- unless you believe in some inherent virtuosity of golf, which I don't.

I don't care what self policing does in other aspects of life. Cheating on your taxes is viewed quite differently than nudging your ball out of a bad lie in golf in a tournament against other players.

And again, that's not really the topic.

1 hour ago, BaconNEggs said:

I never said people think she didn't violate the rule. I agree she violated the rule. I said most people wouldn't care that she violated the rule in such a minute way, and most people disagree with the penalty assessed.

Kinda irrelevant. And possibly nationalistic/racist/etc. given the reaction to Chella Choi.

1 hour ago, BaconNEggs said:

By a 17% margin, more people disagreed with the decision than agreed. I assume these aren't random people reading a golf website and voting in the poll, but golfers.

I don't really care. The Rules of Golf aren't a popularity contest. She breached the rules. That much is clear.

And, once again… per the OP and the cited article… Lexi wouldn't have been penalized at all had she simply followed the Rules of Golf.

1 hour ago, BaconNEggs said:

Add to that the numerous professional golfers, sports writers, etc. etc. etc. who opined on the issue, and who by a decent margin seemed to disagree with how the incident was handled. I'll disregard your pithy snipe about talking to dumb people, since you misunderstood what I was saying.

Don't disregard it… their opinions are dumb. We can't interject subjectivity just because a popular player was caught playing fast and loose with the Rules of Golf. Their opinions are dumb.

1 hour ago, BaconNEggs said:

The reaction from the golfing world was definitely against the decision.

Again, I don't really care. I realize that, and that's what the actual OP and cited article talk about.

The fact is, this wouldn't have been an issue at all - Lexi would not have been "victimized" by her own actions - had she simply followed the Rules of Golf.

It's not asking too much, IMO, for a professional who makes millions from the game to follow the Rules. Heck, it's asked of everyone who plays the game.

1 hour ago, BaconNEggs said:

What we're talking about is how the championship would have been perceived if no penalty was called, and after the fact video evidence showed a very minor infraction... a majority of golfers wouldn't care.

Yeah, you can't say that.

Her victory would have been tainted to the extreme. Her reputation would have taken a bigger hit than it did. She gained sympathy the way it played out (which is silly, IMO), but you can't just flip it and assume that opinions would have remained the same.

1 hour ago, BaconNEggs said:

Unless you've got some form of evidence otherwise, you're wrong. Referring back to yourself doesn't count.

Follow the quote topic back. You said the majority of people wouldn't care. The experience I talked about was that people very clearly cared. Hell, you care enough that you're STILL talking about it. It was a VERY hot topic. People clearly cared.

As to the actual topic, she broke the rules. Had she wanted to avoid the penalty, and the fallout from that, she should have simply followed the Rules.

1 hour ago, BaconNEggs said:

Right, and my point is that there are plenty of golfers who will cheat when given the opportunity, regardless of the "integrity of the game." It sounds like you wouldn't. That says more about you (in a good way) than it does about the game.

There are many more who won't, at least as a percentage compared to other sports. If we disagree on that, so be it.

It's still not really what the topic is about.