New Rules for Video Call-Ins

[Fourputt]

51 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

So basically Lexi is saying she is happy no one else who breaks the rules will get caught? What a crock of . I am really having a hard time with all these millionaires being fired up about the fact they are not going to be held to a higher standard and made to play by the rules.

Or at least they won't be penalized for it as long as they can profess ignorance.  Wonderful message... cheating is okay because there is no downside even if you get caught.

[Ty_Webb]

2 hours ago, NM Golf said:

I don't know if blatant cheating is at the forefront of this.  @iacas hit the nail on the head when he said this has to do with the fact these guys should know the rules but are actually going to benefit from being ignorant. I mean this ruling benefits someone on TOUR when they "unknowingly" break a rule. We are literally asking for a new generation of players to remain uneducated on the rules so they don't have to feign ignorance when they break one.

 

Thing is there will still be an incentive to know the rules. Playing from the wrong place is still going to be a 2 stroke penalty. It is to your benefit to not do that. And if someone like in @iacas's example drops the ball in the right place, but forgets to add the penalty stroke, I think it's going to be very clear that they knew. Maybe they get away with it once, but the next time they're gonna catch the DQ. I guess I'm not overly concerned about this. I doubt if it will make cheating rampant. I'm much more concerned about the possibility of an infraction being known, but not penalized. That and the impact on the rest of the field of not knowing where a player actually stands.

[phillyk]

15 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Thing is there will still be an incentive to know the rules. Playing from the wrong place is still going to be a 2 stroke penalty. It is to your benefit to not do that. And if someone like in @iacas's example drops the ball in the right place, but forgets to add the penalty stroke, I think it's going to be very clear that they knew. Maybe they get away with it once, but the next time they're gonna catch the DQ. I guess I'm not overly concerned about this. I doubt if it will make cheating rampant. I'm much more concerned about the possibility of an infraction being known, but not penalized. That and the impact on the rest of the field of not knowing where a player actually stands.

To go further, if it was publicly known that a few pros were cheating to gain a few spots, I'm sure sponsors would not be very happy with them.  Also, public back lash can be difficult to deal with as Lexi knows now.  It will be hard to shake off thousands of people calling you a cheater.  I don't think many pros want to go through all that.  

[Golfingdad]

3 hours ago, NM Golf said:

Exactly! I have a hard time with the Lexi thing, it sure does look like she moved it over in order to gain something. It's not like she marked, tossed it to her caddy, waited for he fellow competitor to putt, then replaced it forgetting where is was exactly. She barely picked it up.

And this is one good reason why I don't understand the extent of the outrage of the removal of the 2-stroke penalty.  The consensus on Lexi seems to be that it was intentional.  And, like you, I have a hard time disagreeing with that - I don't know how to reconcile the movement when she barely picked up the ball and her eyes presumably never left the ground there.

I keep reading that this penalty creates incentive for players to feign ignorance of the rules.  I have thought (and I believe I am on record with this as well) that those who want to - no need to get cute here - cheat are not deterred by the extra 2 strokes.  And this example is proof of that, is it not?

If anything, most of the arguments I'm seeing here apply better (and assuredly were made) to when they dropped the penalty from DQ to 2 strokes.  That's really when the incentive to try to bend the rules jumped, I believe.

---

But mostly, I think people are exaggerating the possible fallout of this.  The shits not gonna hit the fan more than it did with the DJ, Anna, Lexi, and Hideki rulings per the current rules.  On top of that, things that don't happen aren't as controversial as things that do happen.  A missed call gets talked about for awhile, but dies a lot quicker than made calls that are controversial.  Consider comparing the Lexi and Hideki situation.  I know some will say, well Lexi's was a major and Hideki's was a silly season tournament, and that's true to some extent.  But it's also an LPGA major versus a PGA tournament that had Tiger Woods playing in it - I don't know how to check TV ratings but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot more people were watching Hideki "cheat" than they were watching Lexi "cheat."  And Hideki talked his way out of an obvious penalty and the fallout died almost right away.  Granted, he didn't win the tournament, and it certainly would've lasted longer if he had, but I still say that a siuation like this arising in the future and not getting called because on course officials didn't see it is going to be closer to a non-story like Hideki's situation than a full blown controversy like Lexi's.

---

Somewhat unrelated side note, I just also wanted to point out that some smart people in this thread have argued against me in the past with regards to rules (I don't remember specifically the topic, but I remember that I was on the other side) and they've said basically, "well, the USGA and R&A have researched this a lot more than we have and they have a lot of smart people" ... the "appeal to authority" fallacy, I believe that's called.  Those same people are in here arguing with the call that the USGA and R&A have made.

[Lihu]

7 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Somewhat unrelated side note, I just also wanted to point out that some smart people in this thread have argued against me in the past with regards to rules (I don't remember specifically the topic, but I remember that I was on the other side) and they've said basically, "well, the USGA and R&A have researched this a lot more than we have and they have a lot of smart people" ... the "appeal to authority" fallacy, I believe that's called.  Those same people are in here arguing with the call that the USGA and R&A have made.

I'm certainly not arguing with you on this one, but someone could counter argue that the USGA could have had different people in place when they made that argument.

It's also possible that the "ball too far" theory might have tainted that "authority with smart people" argument as well.

[Golfingdad]

50 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I'm certainly not arguing with you on this one, but someone could counter argue that the USGA could have had different people in place when they made that argument.

It's also possible that the "ball too far" theory might have tainted that "authority with smart people" argument as well.

I don't quite follow what you're getting at with either of these sentences. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Golfingdad

[Lihu]

30 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't quite follow what you're getting at with either of these sentences. 

The first is that other people argued in the past with you using an appeal to authority, but I’m only bringing up that it’s possible that when they used the authority argument it was with people they deemed to be smart and correct. While now with the current organization they might contend with the same authority and feel it no longer represents their viewpoint because the people changed.

The second sentence was just a joke along those lines that many feel USGA has gone stupid saying the ball is a huge problem and needs to be shortened. It’s a numb joke.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

Thing is there will still be an incentive to know the rules. Playing from the wrong place is still going to be a 2 stroke penalty. It is to your benefit to not do that.

Of course. But if you commit a penalty that may or may not be a penalty. Like say you move a leaf with your backswing in a bunker… what's the incentive to find out if that's a penalty or not if you can profess ignorance and just get a stroke or two added that is the original penalty?

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

And if someone like in @iacas's example drops the ball in the right place, but forgets to add the penalty stroke, I think it's going to be very clear that they knew.

You aren't very familiar with junior golf are you? They think lost balls are drop where you think it was and play on.

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

Maybe they get away with it once, but the next time they're gonna catch the DQ.

Only if they're caught by the same tournament director, who also isn't one of these new age "don't do anything to hurt anyone's feelings" people.

Very low odds of that happening in junior golf.

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

I'm much more concerned about the possibility of an infraction being known, but not penalized.

I remain concerned about both. At all levels of the game. Obviously the TV caller stuff is really just at the higher levels, though.

2 hours ago, phillyk said:

To go further, if it was publicly known that a few pros were cheating to gain a few spots, I'm sure sponsors would not be very happy with them.  Also, public back lash can be difficult to deal with as Lexi knows now.  It will be hard to shake off thousands of people calling you a cheater.  I don't think many pros want to go through all that.  

At all levels of the game.

What "backlash" did Lexi really endure? She was almost hailed as a saint. A victim. She was the perpetrator. She came out in the eyes of many as "better" now than before, even though she's the idiot who can't replace a ball after moving it two inches vertically.

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

And this is one good reason why I don't understand the extent of the outrage of the removal of the 2-stroke penalty.  The consensus on Lexi seems to be that it was intentional.

It's got way the heck more to do with golf than just Lexi.

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I keep reading that this penalty creates incentive for players to feign ignorance of the rules. I have thought (and I believe I am on record with this as well) that those who want to - no need to get cute here - cheat are not deterred by the extra 2 strokes.  And this example is proof of that, is it not?

No. Dropping the two strokes actually incentivizes players to NOT know the rules so that they can HONESTLY say that "Nope, I didn't know that." Knowingly breaking the rules and not writing down your penalty on your card is a DQ. Not knowing the rules but committing the same penalty: you just get the original penalty and nothing else. No two strokes, even, for not honoring your responsibility to know the Rules.

It's about way more than Lexi, Drew. Who, seemingly, doesn't know the rules very well.

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

If anything, most of the arguments I'm seeing here apply better (and assuredly were made) to when they dropped the penalty from DQ to 2 strokes.  That's really when the incentive to try to bend the rules jumped, I believe.

If it "jumped" then, it's gone away entirely now (the penalty), so now the incentive jumped again.

With the DQ thing, it didn't matter if you "knew" about the penalty or not. It was a DQ. Wrong score, lower than taken. Simple. Then they made it two strokes if you "didn't know" about the penalty.

Now you just have to say you didn't know and you get nothing additional. And you'll still get idiots on forums talking about how "so and so didn't get an advantage so I don't even think she should be penalized THOSE two strokes."

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I know some will say, well Lexi's was a major and Hideki's was a silly season tournament, and that's true to some extent.

It's true to a big extent. If that happened at Augusta National… well, we'd have the Tiger situation from 2013 again. Which was WAY bigger than the Lexi thing.

I think you completely misjudge how the importance of that stuff mattered, and with a sample size of one on each side…

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Somewhat unrelated side note, I just also wanted to point out that some smart people in this thread have argued against me in the past with regards to rules (I don't remember specifically the topic, but I remember that I was on the other side) and they've said basically, "well, the USGA and R&A have researched this a lot more than we have and they have a lot of smart people" ... the "appeal to authority" fallacy, I believe that's called.  Those same people are in here arguing with the call that the USGA and R&A have made.

It's not about "research" or even "intelligence." I don't know why you'd say that.

IMO, the USGA/R&A have gone too far to cave to the whiners. While other sports are doing more to ensure that they get the right call, with slow-mo and instant replay and challenges (watch an MLB game these days and there are, what, six challenges or so?), golf is going the other way. They're willfully ignoring evidence and information. They're encouraging ignorance.

That's got nothing to do with research or intelligence. It does have to do a little bit with the Principles, though tangentially.

[sjduffers]

My view of the Tiger drop at the Masters was that he "forgot" (and maybe he really did in the heat of the moment) where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard after getting a carom off the flagstick, instead thinking about how the ball crossed the same hazard exactly inline with the flagstick from the initial spot where he hit it.  So, he went back 2 yards on that line (and in his mind could have gone further back still) and dropped there.

FWIW, I have seen that same mistake made several times in low-level tournaments except that in many cases people don't really understand why the flawed drop is not a proper one.   That or applying the "line drop" to the flight of the ball (between the spot where hit and the point of entry) as opposed to the line to the flagstick.  At least those folks can claim that they are not a Tour player, but it does not exonerate them from not knowing the rules...

As for the topic of this thread, I agree with others that the removal of the 2 strokes penalty for signing an incorrect score card is an incentive to not knowing the rules. I do agree however with "de-emphasizing" the call-ins: they don't have to call them that anymore even if they still happen from well-connected folks, but the time concern is welcome one. The situation we had of applying a penalty the next day was clearly not a good thing and such a thing does not happen with the last round, because all scores are final after the tournament is closed.

[Jack Watson]

Ok,  I was accused of trolling this topic but I was not trying to do that.

I will not go over my points but they are here in the thread.  I must say though that   If I place myself in the shoes of one who believes every slight infraction must be penalized at all costs I cannot simultaneously hold the belief that there is a qualifier to that belief  in terms of when the breach occurred.  A breach is a breach.

My personal opinion is that I don’t like seeing major sports events decided by controversial officiating/minor rules infractions.  

In all sport I want to see the players play.  I don’t want to see major penalties for minor infractions.  I am smart enough to know that no sport will ever be officiated perfectly and that doesn’t bother me a bit.

Also on Lexi,  my opinion on watching her reaction to the news is that she did not intentionally cheat.

I know in the sense of the argument here that’s quite irrelevant,  but I also wanted to add that.

Thats all I wanted to say on this.

[billchao]

20 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

My personal opinion is that I don’t like seeing major sports events decided by controversial officiating/minor rules infractions.  

This doesn't make sense to me. Officials missing an infraction that affects the outcome of an event is just as controversial.

The only difference is in other sports, officials are responsible for calling penalties so if they miss them, they miss them. The rules of golf are more absolute in that a penalty is a penalty and needs to be assessed whether someone else witnessed it or not.

I don't agree with your position because what you seem to want is basically golf referees. The officials in golf aren't responsible for calling infractions, they're responsible for making sure the rules of golf are properly observed and applied, assessing penalties as needed. The players themselves are supposed to call out their own infractions.

Think about it: a guy hits a shot in the water, he drops and finishes the hole, adding the appropriate number of strokes to his score. Why? Because he has to per the rules, not because a rules official told him to. 

[Hardluckster]

Jack Watson, would you consider a player moving their ball half an inch one way or another, in order to be able to avoid putting over a spike mark or other imperfection on the green, to be a minor or a major infraction?

My point, of course, is that something that might appear to be a 'minor infraction' could very well be something else altogether. Judging the degree of the breach is something that I think is virtually impossible, at least in almost all instances. 

Let me finish by saying that although this question is based on the Lexi situation, I'm not accusing her of doing what I described above. I don't know what led to her mistake and have never accused her of cheating - only of breaking a rule. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Hardluckster

[Lihu]

12 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Also on Lexi,  my opinion on watching her reaction to the news is that she did not intentionally cheat.I

I agree, her reaction was not of a person guilty of cheating, but was of someone reminded of something very painful.

 

10 hours ago, Hardluckster said:

Let me finish by saying that although this question is based on the Lexi situation, I'm not accusing her of doing what I described above. I don't know what led to her mistake and have never accused her of cheating - only of breaking a rule. 

I agree with the rule breaking, and at this point of the 2 stroke or even a DQ for an incorrect scorecard.

I would like to say that the counterlogic argument is not incorrect either and is based upon the e premise that all other sports do not have this kind of penalty. Teams or people only get penalized for the infraction because they have referees and other officials to let the players know when they are in violation of some rule.

Technology is starting to get to a point where it's possible to do the same for golf. Self reporting of errors is quickly becoming less important because there are so many "eyes" that can be volunteered to the proposed Video Rules Officials (VRO).

What I was not thinking of in making the above arguments is local tournaments. I agree there needs to be integrity where it's not practical have an outside agent officiate. That's why I changed my stance on the scorecard in favor of retaining the penalty or even DQ.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Lihu
Spellcheck changed a word.

[saevel25]

12 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

In all sport I want to see the players play.  I don’t want to see major penalties for minor infractions.  I am smart enough to know that no sport will ever be officiated perfectly and that doesn’t bother me a bit.

There isn't any for golf. There are minor penalties for minor infractions and major penalties for major infractions. Golf has done a pretty good job at matching the level of the infraction to the penalty given.

12 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

My personal opinion is that I don’t like seeing major sports events decided by controversial officiating/minor rules infractions.

Golf is different. Protecting the field is more important than protecting the single golfer who broke the rule.

Golfer A accidently bumps his ball when addressing it. He calls a penalty on himself.
Golfer B accidently bumps his ball when addressing it. He doesn't call a penalty on himself.

Golfer B beats Golfer A by 1 stroke. What is worse, Golfer B being called on the penalty due to someone calling it in, or Golfer B winning because he decided to not do what golfers should be doing? Should the committee just ignore an infraction just because of the source? I don't think so.

11 hours ago, billchao said:

This doesn't make sense to me. Officials missing an infraction that affects the outcome of an event is just as controversial.

Exactly. Officials are trained on how that a bad non-call is better than a bad call. Umpires are much less likely to call a strike on the edge of the plate when the count is 0-2 versus 2-0. They rather see the batter swing and miss rather than make that 50/50 call.

To me golf stands above other sports because the onus is on the golfer not an official.

 

[Nutsmacker]

For those that say that she didn't "cheat", can you please explain what she was in fact doing then?  I see zero explanation besides altering her lie.  Please watch that video and explain what she is doing if not altering her lie. The reason I have a problem with not calling it like it is(cheating) is that now we are dealing with these stupid rule changes...to accommodate cheating because half the people don't want to just call a spade a spade.  The rules worked out fine the way they were and in reality, she should have been dq'd.  

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, Nutsmacker said:

For those that say that she didn't "cheat", can you please explain what she was in fact doing then?  I see zero explanation besides altering her lie.  Please watch that video and explain what she is doing if not altering her lie. The reason I have a problem with not calling it like it is(cheating) is that now we are dealing with these stupid rule changes...to accommodate cheating because half the people don't want to just call a spade a spade.  The rules worked out fine the way they were and in reality, she should have been dq'd.  

Agree with the penalty or DQ, but I really think she had a brain fart like Tiger did with his drop. I also think the same with Cella Choi.

[Nutsmacker]

6 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Agree with the penalty or DQ, but I really think she had a brain fart like Tiger did with his drop. I also think the same with Cella Choi.

I can't use the brain fart as an answer;because its clear she had intentionally moved her ball to a different spot in a matter of a few moments, using the same motion.  I could buy that argument if she picked up the ball and cleaned it, looked at it, whatever...but she didn't.  It literally looks like she picked it up, and then looked for a better spot to put it in.  From the camera angle, by moving the ball to the place she did, she took off probably 2 to 3 inches off the putt length and also removed some of the break.  

Edited December 15, 2017 by Nutsmacker

[Rulesman]

Wasn't this done to death months ago?