New Rules for Video Call-Ins

[jsgolfer]

This guy thinks the change is great.

https://sports.yahoo.com/golf-kills-off-dumbest-rule-sports-tattletale-viewer-145303893.html

 

[Jack Watson]

9 hours ago, David in FL said:

Remind me not to play golf with you.  

I just can't subscribe to the opinion that it's only wrong if I get caught philosophy...

 

That’s not it.  

Each round counts equally to the score.

Yet for some reason the final round is not subject to the same review as the previous 3?  Just because the tournament is over?  

[Jack Watson]

Also,  what about a scenario where a player is two shots back coming into a risk reward hole but gets a text saying that their friend a viewer noticed a penalty for the leader the previous day?

The friend did not call in purposely until the last moments of the leaders final round in order that the leader would not know they need to make up shots.

The whole tournament is ruined by this.  Everyone is going on different leaderboard info.

[David in FL]

15 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Also,  what about a scenario where a player is two shots back coming into a risk reward hole but gets a text saying that their friend a viewer noticed a penalty for the leader the previous day?

The friend did not call in purposely until the last moments of the leaders final round in order that the leader would not know they need to make up shots.

The whole tournament is ruined by this.  Everyone is going on different leaderboard info.

 ...

... and an asteroid could crash into the 17th green too.  As long as we're talking about outlandish "possibilities".

It's pretty simple.  Breach a rule, accept the penalty.  It makes no difference who notices the breach.  No breach = no penalty

[iacas]

34 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Each round counts equally to the score.

Yet for some reason the final round is not subject to the same review as the previous 3?  Just because the tournament is over?

They had to draw the line at some point. Drawing it at the point where people have gone home and the competition is considered "closed" is the best possible point to do that.

As for your second dumb post, @David in FL took care of it while I was typing something up. So I'll just go with his.

[xrayvizhen]

No need for anyone to get their bowels in an uproar. There's going to be a USGA rules official monitoring the broadcast and if he/she sees a violation, a penalty will be called. Fat Jeff in Topeka sitting on his couch who has nothing better to do than to snitch on what he thinks may or may not be a violation can go back to eating Cheetos.

This particular rules change will be fairer to ALL players, not just the ones whose every move is covered by the cameras. Whether the player is in 72nd place and was finished with his round and back in his motel room even before the broadcast started, or is in the final foursome, everyone will be treated the same.

[DeadMan]

I really don't understand the vitriol and insults hurled at people who call in. It seems that they are generally:

1. Golfers
2. Rules officials, and
3. Because of that, care about the integrity of the competition

But yeah, let's call them fat slobs who have to lick the cheetos dust off their hands to dial the phone! It's ad hominem (i.e., not relevant to what's going on). And it throws mud at people who care about the game deeply. Plus, I'd wager that most of the people calling out the call-ins are much worse golfers than the people who call in. It's really bizarre. 

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, xrayvizhen said:

No need for anyone to get their bowels in an uproar. There's going to be a USGA rules official monitoring the broadcast and if he/she sees a violation, a penalty will be called. Fat Jeff in Topeka sitting on his couch who has nothing better to do than to snitch on what he thinks may or may not be a violation can go back to eating Cheetos.

I've called in to "snitch" on someone pretty damn famous. Why? Because I cared about the integrity of the tournament. I called for a player I wanted to win a major to be DQed. I still think he should have been. He knowingly breached the rules.

@DeadMan addresses all of the pejorative language used to address these "call-in" people.

@xrayvizhen, does it change things in your mind if the "caller" in the Lexi situation was an off-duty LPGA rules official?

18 minutes ago, xrayvizhen said:

This particular rules change will be fairer to ALL players, not just the ones whose every move is covered by the cameras. Whether the player is in 72nd place and was finished with his round and back in his motel room even before the broadcast started, or is in the final foursome, everyone will be treated the same.

Huh?

The same players who were on TV before will still be on TV, with a group (or at least one) rules official watching the telecast. So how is that "everyone will be treated the same?" The players who weren't on TV still won't be on TV. The players who were, still will be.

Just now, DeadMan said:

I really don't understand the vitriol and insults hurled at people who call in. It seems that they are generally:

1. Golfers
2. Rules officials, and
3. Because of that, care about the integrity of the competition

Seriously.

Just now, DeadMan said:

But yeah, let's call them fat slobs who have to lick the cheetos dust off their hands to dial the phone! It's ad hominem (i.e., not relevant to what's going on). And it throws mud at people who care about the game deeply. Plus, I'd wager that most of the people calling out the call-ins are much worse golfers than the people who call in. It's really bizarre. 

Yup.

[Vinsk]

7 hours ago, mvmac said:

Next rules update will designate two-foot putts as gimmes 

 

But you know eventually something is going to happen and the official is going to miss it.

Or they do catch it but the player just lies about it, Matsuyama for example. Unfortunate issues in every sport.

35 minutes ago, iacas said:

I've called in to "snitch" on someone pretty damn famous. Why? Because I cared about the integrity of the tournament. I called for a player I wanted to win a major to be DQed. I still think he should have been. He knowingly breached the rules.

This. And it's why I changed my opinion on call in's awhile back. Kinda hard to argue this isn't it? Yes it happens in all sports, but with golf there is a difference being self regulating and more of a sense of integrity. I played college football, MMA, Soccer and the integrity level isn't the same nor the general attitude of 'playing with integrity and fairness'. 

[Hardluckster]

With tongue planted firmly in cheek:  

In the sense of fairness, I think that there should be equity in all aspects of professional golf.  To that end, I would propose that all galleries be made up of an equal number of spectators, sorted by demographics for the sake of fairness.

Spectators should have designated viewing locations at each hole so that all players have an equal chance of having wayward shots reflected back into the fairway with equal probability.  Spectators should be sorted by age, vision, etc. so that each competitor has an even playing field.  Strength should also be considered when assigning spectators to groups so that if any large obstacles need to be moved, every player in the field has an equal opportunity to move "loose impediments".

I'm sure that there are factors that I have omitted, but the ruling bodies could surely iron out the inadequacies as they go along.

I have a question for all of those proposing that there is more scrutiny on the leaders and that therefore they are at a disadvantage.

Do you think, before the start of the round on Sunday (or Saturday, or Friday, for that matter), that the player in the 40th position on the leaderboard would trade scores with any player in the top 5?   According to your logic, by doing so he would be putting himself under much more scrutiny and would therefore be putting himself at a 'disadvantage'.

[iacas]

Point 1: "Players are on TV different amounts of time, so this system is more fair."

Under ideal situations now, the TV referees will be seeing the same telecast. The Tours in the working group are not committing to film everyone equally: people will still be watching the telecast and identifying possible infractions - they'll just be paid rules officials instead of relying on someone in the "audience." So the same players are getting the same extra coverage.

Never mind that, regardless of who spots the error, I can't understand why anyone is okay with a known infraction going un-penalized. Players are often made rich playing a game that asks them to be honest and know and follow the rules. Why should they get away with an infraction? Shouldn't playing by the rules 99% of the time be better than playing by the rules 98% of the time?

If, like Stacy Lewis, you're still thinking that it's unfair how often leaders are on TV versus someone back in the pack, then see the post just above this one. Or consider that "fairness" is impossible. Golfers play under different weather conditions, with different galleries, and different playing partners, and different caddies, and at different times of the day, and all sorts of things. We cannot regulate everything to be fair, but we can strive to make things "more correct."

Point 2: Once a round is over, the scorecard should be "closed" or "final." An additional penalty for a wrong scorecard when the player didn't know it was wrong is dumb.

Ultimately, the players are responsible for putting down the correct score. It makes sense to cap any changes possible to the end of the tournament - players literally leave the tournament site and go home. But the tournament is still ongoing in, let's say, round 3, and an error in round 1 can still be applied with the effect that the outcome is more accurate or more correct. Applying the penalty - even late - causes some issues, sure. A player may be paired incorrectly, etc. But the downside - ignoring a known breach - is orders of magnitude worse.

Point 3: Okay, so add the penalty later, but why add the two additional strokes? I'm glad that's gone now, too!

The two stroke penalty - like the DQ that this was until recently - is incentive for players to know and play by the rules and write down the proper score.

Let's say a player unknowingly commits a breach. His caddie says a few holes later "hey, I think maybe you got two strokes back on #11 for such and such." What's the incentive for the player to include those two strokes in his score, or to investigate whether his caddie is correct? If he includes them (or inquires with the Committee), fine, cool. But if he doesn't include them or inquire, then two (main) things can happen:

1. Nobody points it out, and he gets away with it, saving himself two strokes.
2. Someone points it out, he says "Oh, sorry, I didn't know. I don't know the rules very well" and he's penalized the actual penalty he incurred and nothing else.
3. (Someone points it out, but because it was a spectator with a smart phone video, the evidence isn't considered and he gets away with it.)

What's the downside here? Where's the incentive to ensure his card is accurate, including any penalty strokes he incurred? He incurred the penalty when he did the "act," yet now tremendous upside in playing ignorant. Worst case, he gets the penalty he actually incurred.

Again, this was a DQ very very recently. Then they softened it to two strokes, and I thought "okay, fine, I can see situations in which a DQ was much too harsh." Now, what's the incentive to writing the proper score down? Just assume you never incurred any penalties and write down those scores. Worst case, you get the penalty you deserved. No need to know the rules!

Heck, just assume drops from water hazards are all free, or call ponds and streams "casual water." Just write down a 4 instead of the 5 you got for hitting it into the creek, and if nobody notices… awesome! Go you! No, this wouldn't continue to work on the PGA Tour, but but junior golfers could abuse the crap out of this "oh, I didn't know" loophole.

The dropping of the two-stroke penalty literally rewards ignorance. It provides no incentive to know the Rules; in fact it provides an incentive to NOT know the rules, because at least then you can be honest in saying "Oh, I didn't know that was a penalty" should you be caught.

[David in FL]

11 hours ago, xrayvizhen said:

No need for anyone to get their bowels in an uproar. There's going to be a USGA rules official monitoring the broadcast and if he/she sees a violation, a penalty will be called. Fat Jeff in Topeka sitting on his couch who has nothing better to do than to snitch on what he thinks may or may not be a violation can go back to eating Cheetos

You do understand that when Fat Jeff calls in, he's not assessing any penalty, right?  He's just providing information to The Committee.  If, upon their review, they find that Chubs was right, his information would allow for a correct result and protection for the entire field.  If he's wrong, no harm, no foul.

 In the end, all that is being provided is information for The Committee to consider.  It doesn't matter a hill of beans if it comes from your buddy Cheeto Boy, or the Rules Diector for the USGA.

[Phil McGleno]

5 minutes ago, David in FL said:

In the end, all that is being provided is information for The Committee to consider.  It doesn't matter a hill of beans if it comes from your buddy Cheeto Boy, or the Rules Diector for the USGA.

I know of one case where a fellow player-watching early coverage before his tee time-Was a "caller" in on a rules infraction.

He MCed but thought it was important to point out the infraction.-I think it was on a buddy of his too.

[saevel25]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

Never mind that, regardless of who spots the error, I can't understand why anyone is okay with a known infraction going un-penalized. Players are often made rich playing a game that asks them to be honest and know and follow the rules. Why should they get away with an infraction? Shouldn't playing by the rules 99% of the time be better than playing by the rules 98% of the time?

Pretty much this for me.

Tiger played in front of many more fans than any other player in the modern era. This also means he is under the watchful eyes of all those people. It's both beneficial and non-beneficial. Look at Phil back when he was in a playoff that one year. He hits a ball into the junk, probably lost. He plays a provisional to a perfect spot in the fairway. He actively doesn't search for his ball because he doesn't want to re-hit. A fan goes and finds the ball for him. 

For most golfers I think the good and bad breaks even out over the course of a season. You might get terrible weather one tournament and great weather another. That is golf.

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

Applying the penalty - even late - causes some issues, sure. A player may be paired incorrectly, etc. But the downside - ignoring a known breach - is orders of magnitude worse.

I agree. It's a tournament made up of 4 rounds. The only tricky part would be if the tournament has a cut line. If something was found out on Saturday and they had a Friday cut. Typically a person at the cut line isn't going to win anyways. I can't even name a player who barely made the cut that went on to win a tournament.

It wouldn't bother me if a penalty was found out on Saturday and applied to Thursday's round. In the end, the total score of the tournament is all that matters.

I agree, there has to be some penalty for turning in an incorrect score. If they do not want to DQ someone, then they need a stroke penalty of some sort.

[xrayvizhen]

In response to those who objected to my reference to the unofficial official, "Fat Jeff eating Cheetos" comment, I'll simply say this: I believe if a person is not a participant or an official of a tournament, he or she should not be allowed to impact the results of that tournament. Yes, we have wonderful club pros, instructors, retired or current rules officials who are knowledgeable of the current rules and are at home watching the broadcast on TV. To them I say, sit back, relax and let the participants or those assigned to officiate the tournament do their jobs.

And regarding fairness: Adherence to the rules should be applied equally to every single participant, not just to those whose fame and/or position in the current standings warrant their exposure on TV. 

[Jack Watson]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Never mind that, regardless of who spots the error, I can't understand why anyone is okay with a known infraction going un-penalized

But you are okay with it if it comes to light after the trophy has been handed out?  

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, xrayvizhen said:

I believe if a person is not a participant or an official of a tournament, he or she should not be allowed to impact the results of that tournament.

Here is the issue with your statement.

Golf is a sport of self-policing. It is a requirement for the golfer to adhere to the rules of golf and apply penalties correctly. There is no referee in golf. There are rules officials who help when needed. I do not remember an instance were a rules official has actively policed the golfers.

Also, any action influences the tournament.

1. The person does not call in. His action influences the tournament, helping the golfer who did not call a penalty on himself.
2. The person does call in. His action influences the tournament, not helping the golfer who did not call the penalty.

No matter what happens a person is influencing the tournament. The question isn't if they are influencing the tournament, because they are.

The question is, should golf accept the culture of, if they can get away with it then it's OK?

Since golf is a sport of I need to try to adhere to the rules of golf to the best of my ability. I do not mind people calling out when they see a rules infraction.

2 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

But you are okay with it if it comes to light after the trophy has been handed out?  

A golfer can be disqualified after the tournament has closed under some very specific reasons. If this happened, then I am OK with it myself.

Quote

34-1. Claims and Penalties

b. Stroke Play

In stroke play, a penalty must not be rescinded, modified or imposed after the competition has closed. A competition is closed when the result has been officially announced or, in stroke play qualifying followed by match play, when the player has teed off in his first match.

Exceptions: A penalty of disqualification must be imposed after the competition has closed if a competitor:

(I) was in breach of Rule 1-3 (Agreement to Waive Rules); or

(ii) returned a score card on which he had recorded a handicap that, before the competition closed, he knew was higher than that to which he was entitled, and this affected the number of strokes received (Rule 6-2b); or

(iii) returned a score for any hole lower than actually taken (Rule 6-6d) for any reason other than failure to include one or more penalty strokes that, before the competition closed, he did not know he had incurred; or

(iv) knew, before the competition closed, that he had been in breach of any other Rule for which the penalty is disqualification.

 

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, xrayvizhen said:

In response to those who objected to my reference to the unofficial official, "Fat Jeff eating Cheetos" comment, I'll simply say this: I believe if a person is not a participant or an official of a tournament, he or she should not be allowed to impact the results of that tournament.

Two points were raised in response to that, and you seem to have completely ignored them:

1. For all you know the "caller" WAS a participant or an official. We never know who called in.
2. The "caller" doesn't affect the results of the tournament. No caller has ever assessed a penalty. The tournament staff review the evidence and assess the penalty. Not the caller.

10 minutes ago, xrayvizhen said:

To them I say, sit back, relax and let the participants or those assigned to officiate the tournament do their jobs.

In some cases, those "assigned" to "officiate" (including the players, as golf is a self-officiated game for the most part, even on the PGA Tour) fail to uphold their responsibility.

10 minutes ago, xrayvizhen said:

And regarding fairness: Adherence to the rules should be applied equally to every single participant, not just to those whose fame and/or position in the current standings warrant their exposure on TV. 

Read what's written up above. This has been commented upon several times, and all you've done is re-state the same old tired bull.

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

But you are okay with it if it comes to light after the trophy has been handed out?  

All things considered, that's the most practical deadline.

Note that the deadline in the case where a person knowingly cheats extends to infinity. If on his deathbed Tiger Woods admits to knowingly broken a rule in the 2000 U.S. Open, he'd be DQed. 34-1b (Exceptions).

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

No matter what happens a person is influencing the tournament. The question isn't if they are influencing the tournament, because they are.

The question is, should golf accept the culture of, if they can get away with it then it's OK?

QFT.