Hideki's situation. Hear me out!!!

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Lihu said:

To prove intent he'd have to have known that the ball would likely end up in the same spot again and that he actually knew he was improving the lie. It's difficult to prove either statement.

a) It was pretty obvious the ball could roll back to that area.
b) He intentionally, deliberately stepped on the divot hole.

He should have gotten 2+2. No question in my mind about it, @Lihu.

I saw the video of them talking to him on the range. They were using a translator, as they have to. The intent was there.

2 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I'm not a fan of 'intentions' rules.  Fewer rules would be nice and those based on actions, or results.  None of us are mindreaders, so it's pretty pointless when someone in their armchair points at something and claims that their opinion is fact.  So a rule on the same is also more of a nuisance.

The wording in the 2019 proposed rules is "deliberate," which this was. It removes the word "intent."

[rehmwa]

1 minute ago, Lihu said:

To prove intent .......

I stop there (if it's really a game of honor) - He doesn't have to 'prove' intent.  He has to clarify his intent to the officials.  Intent is purely subjective and no one "KNOWS" his intent except him.  If the rest of the field choose to not believe him (call him a liar) - that 's a big deal - much more than jsut a bunch of internet posters going off on it.

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

a) It was pretty obvious the ball could roll back to that area.
b) He intentionally, deliberately stepped on the divot hole.

He should have gotten 2+2. No question in my mind about it, @Lihu.

I saw the video of them talking to him on the range. They were using a translator, as they have to. The intent was there.

The wording in the 2019 proposed rules is "deliberate," which this was. It removes the word "intent."

 

1 minute ago, rehmwa said:

I stop there (if it's really a game of honor) - He doesn't have to 'prove' intent.  He has to clarify his intent to the officials.  Intent is purely subjective and no one "KNOWS" his intent except him.  If the rest of the field choose to not believe him (call him a liar) - that 's a big deal - much more than jsut a bunch of internet posters going off on it.

I looked for videos of this, but couldn't find any. It's a huge deal if he is guilty of it.

That Lexi thing is kind of bad too.

2 things I learned from this and Lexi's 4 stroke penalty:

1) I'm never picking up and marking my ball if I'm about to putt anyway. In fact, someone will have to ask me to mark from now on.

2) I'm never fixing any divot around the green again unless the ball is on the green and stops rolling and marked if needed. If I happen to remember and have time to fix the divot. . .

[DeadMan]

Here's the video, @Lihu:

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 10:12 AM, DeadMan said:

For those who haven't seen the video:

That is pretty bad. Not a huge fan of his "intent" getting him out of a penalty there. 

 

[Lihu]

3 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Here's the video, @Lihu:

 

Thanks, but I already agreed based upon Erik saying he saw the video. I'm treating this like Lexi's 4 stroke as if he got the penalties.

From now on, it'll take wild horses for me to fix divots and mark my balls.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Lihu

[JetFan1983]

Every single week I feel like someone, somewhere hits a bad chip or pitch that rolls back at their feet. These courses they play are so amazing and so carefully manicured that this isn't some rare situation where we can reasonably expect a professional golfer to not know what to do. 

I give Hideki the benefit of the doubt in terms of intent simply because I think it's possible that someone who has spent his entire life on the driving range could tamp down his lie without thinking at all about what he was doing. And I know the current rule (stupidly) requires intent now. But I think any self-aware and honest golfer would and should eat the penalty in that situation, without argument. First of all, intent or not, it was an attempt to improve his lie. That alone is moral grounds for any decent person to say, "oops" and apply the appropriate strokes. 

I'm glad they're changing this in 2019. Watching these ball-striking savants try to talk their way out of a paper bag is sad in a lot of ways haha. 

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, Lihu said:

From now on, it'll take wild horses for me to fix divots and mark my balls.

That's even more stupid than what Hideki did.

[Lihu]

17 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's even more stupid than what Hideki did.

At least I won't be accused of cheating. . .

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Lihu said:

At least I won't be accused of cheating. . .

No, you'll be accused of not caring for the course, being annoying by leaving your ball and making people ask you to mark it all the time, etc.

Just know and follow the rules AND etiquette.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Is there any video of this occurrence?

I'm pretty sure the rules officials that questioned him were watching his reactions as he answered the translator? Someone (possibly one of the RO) probably witnessed what he actually did as well. We're all possibly reaching a bit to assert his guilt or innocence unless we actually saw it.

To prove intent he'd have to have known that the ball would likely end up in the same spot again and that he actually knew he was improving the lie. It's difficult to prove either statement.

There's certainly not enough to say that "He doesn't speak English, and had to go through a translator which diluted the potential to prove his guilt" AND "He intended to improve the lie because he knew it was likely the ball would end up in the same spot".

You’re reading too much into what OP (or myself) is saying.  Which is, simply, that we could see that there is a possibility that the language barrier played a part in the decision.  That’s all.

[rehmwa]

39 minutes ago, JetFan1983 said:

First of all, intent or not, it was an attempt to improve his lie.

"it was an attempt to improve his lie"  this is a statement of intent and people keep coming back to that.

If you are 'giving him the benefit of the doubt, then the action was simply - it was an action to stomp down the grass.  That's what he did.  Not what he was thinking.

Now.....The question of intent is whether he did it as a habit, to fix the course, as an 'oops' or to actually improve a possible lie that might result if the ball actually rolls close enough to be affected by the 'changed' surface he just created.  No one can say.

The point here is it shouldn't matter if the rules were written better.  He should have accepted a penalty because he 'action' could have resulted in a change of conditions of his next shot.  Intent really should not matter.  This scores points and avoids any appearance of lack of adherence. 

I don't fault a pro for using the rules to his advantage.  I do fault him, though if he gets a long term blemish just for the short term gain.

A crappy rule caused much of this.

Edited December 4, 2017 by rehmwa

[Golfingdad]

37 minutes ago, JetFan1983 said:

Every single week I feel like someone, somewhere hits a bad chip or pitch that rolls back at their feet. These courses they play are so amazing and so carefully manicured that this isn't some rare situation where we can reasonably expect a professional golfer to not know what to do. 

I give Hideki the benefit of the doubt in terms of intent simply because I think it's possible that someone who has spent his entire life on the driving range could tamp down his lie without thinking at all about what he was doing. And I know the current rule (stupidly) requires intent now. But I think any self-aware and honest golfer would and should eat the penalty in that situation, without argument. First of all, intent or not, it was an attempt to improve his lie. That alone is moral grounds for any decent person to say, "oops" and apply the appropriate strokes. 

I'm glad they're changing this in 2019. Watching these ball-striking savants try to talk their way out of a paper bag is sad in a lot of ways haha. 

 

2 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

"it was an attempt to improve his lie"  this is a statement of intent and people keep coming back to that.

If you are 'giving him the benefit of the doubt, then the action was simply - it was an action to stomp down the grass.  That's what he did.  Not what he was thinking.

Now.....The question of intent is whether he did it as a habit, to fix the course, as an 'oops' or to actually improve a possible lie that might result if the ball actually rolls close enough to be affected by the 'changed' surface he just created.  No one can say.

The point here is it shouldn't matter if the rules were written better.  He should have accepted a penalty because he 'action' could have resulted in a change of conditions of his next shot.  Intent really should not matter.  This scores points and avoids any appearance of lack of adherence. 

A crappy rule caused much of this.

Agree with you both that the right thing to do was to just acknowledge that his actions provided a potential advantage and just accept the penalty.

[iacas]

We were taught in my last two Rules workshops that the intent can be inferred - he looked at the ball, and looked at the divot, and stepped there.

That's all the "intent" you need. He didn't hit it, not look up, and step on the spot reflexively. It didn't hit a rock and careen backward unexpectedly (after he'd stepped there), either. The ball was both rolling back to the same area, he saw it, and he stepped there.

As the rule is written, it's not the best, but it's clear according to the workshop people he should have been penalized. (And the 2019 rule wording is "better," I think).

The PGA Tour wussed out here, IMO.

---

It's almost like the Michelle Wie thing from a decade ago where she grounded her club in a hazard and claimed she was preventing herself from falling, or something like that. It was clear she was lying, and they really didn't need to ask her anything, and even when they did and she gave that answer, they ignored it.

[JetFan1983]

30 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

"it was an attempt to improve his lie"  this is a statement of intent and people keep coming back to that.

If you are 'giving him the benefit of the doubt, then the action was simply - it was an action to stomp down the grass.  That's what he did.  Not what he was thinking.

Now.....The question of intent is whether he did it as a habit, to fix the course, as an 'oops' or to actually improve a possible lie that might result if the ball actually rolls close enough to be affected by the 'changed' surface he just created.  No one can say.

The point here is it shouldn't matter if the rules were written better.  He should have accepted a penalty because he 'action' could have resulted in a change of conditions of his next shot.  Intent really should not matter.  This scores points and avoids any appearance of lack of adherence. 

A crappy rule caused much of this.

Ah, yea. I didn't realize intent was as specific as it was, per @iacas explanation. 

Yea, what a goober. I said this on the Hero thread, but why don't these guys realize it's better for them long term to call penalties on themselves? Fans love that. It's an easy way to gain brownie points, and that's gotta be worth more to an elite golfer like Hideki than the exta 30K he made (145K and 115K were the difference between 11-under and 7-under). *

It's laughable they don't consider this stuff. There's incentive to follow the rules even if you don't give a shit about protecting the field or being honest. 

 

* edit: I forgot he gets OWGR points too, but even still....

Edited December 4, 2017 by JetFan1983

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, JetFan1983 said:

Yea, what a goober. I said this on the Hero thread, but why don't these guys realize it's better for them long term to call penalties on themselves? Fans love that. It's an easy way to gain brownie points, and that's gotta be worth more to an elite golfer like Hideki than the exta 30K he made (145K and 115K were the difference between 11-under and 7-under). 

Yep.

I'm now a member of whatever the opposite of the Hideki Fan Club is.

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

You’re reading too much into what OP (or myself) is saying.  Which is, simply, that we could see that there is a possibility that the language barrier played a part in the decision.  That’s all.

As I mentioned in earlier posts, I don't think a translator has anything to do with it.

Most posters simply said that Hideki cheated to gain a scoring advantage. I didn't see it that way. It looked like he was assessing if the ball was going to go back to his divot before he decided to fix it. Technically, breaking the rules, so I feel like he should be assessed a 4 stroke penalty.