New Rules for Video Call-Ins

[NM Golf]

1 hour 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.  

This is off topic, but look a the video below and tell me she didn't do this on purpose. She doesn't even lift the ball more than a few inches off the ground and obviously moves it closer to the hole.

For those of you who say her reaction was not that of a cheater, please remember she is a woman therefor by nature she is a skilled deceiver and master manipulator. 

 

[Nutsmacker]

31 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

Wasn't this done to death months ago?

It was; but the incident is what spurred the rule changes.  It is my opinion that the whole reason it was changed is because no one wants to come out and admit that not only was the original ruling justified and correct...it was actually lenient considering that its quite obvious that her move was intentional.  Now, because the "she got robbed" and "she is a victim" crowd is much louder - we have to absorb new (and dumb) rules that take the game backwards.

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Nutsmacker

[Lihu]

28 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

This is off topic, but look a the video below and tell me she didn't do this on purpose. She doesn't even lift the ball more than a few inches off the ground and obviously moves it closer to the hole.

For those of you who say her reaction was not that of a cheater, please remember she is a woman therefor by nature she is a skilled deceiver and master manipulator. 

 

Still not convinced she did this with the intention of improving her play, but she still should be penalized from not playing the correct position. Both penalties were justified.

 

6 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

It was; but the incident is what spurred the rule changes.  It is my opinion that the whole reason it was changed is because no one wants to come out and admit that not only was the original ruling justified and correct...it was actually lenient considering that its quite obvious that her move was intentional.  Now, because the "she got robbed" and "she is a victim" crowd is much louder - we have to absorb new (and dumb) rules that take the game backwards.

 

I agree, she did make a mistake and possibly didn't even notice it, and I certainly don't think it was with intent to improve her chances of making the putt. Unless she has some magic distance like 1'11" where she will make the putt but from 2' she'd miss every 10th one or something?

Still, the penalties were justified.

[Nutsmacker]

1 minute ago, Lihu said:

I agree, she did make a mistake and possibly didn't even notice it, and I certainly don't think it was with intent to improve her chances of making the putt. Unless she has some magic distance like 1'11" where she will make the putt but from 2' she'd miss every 10th one or something?

Still, the penalties were justified.

I have watched her play a lot and she has missed many of those shorties.  I am almost certain there is some mental things going on with those close putts.  I also think that her move was not singular.  You don't just do that once.  She might not have considered it cheating in her own mind because its just something she does.  But, it doesn't make it not cheating.  

The putt that she altered was most definitely easier than playing it "as it lies."  Would she have made it either way?  Probably...but like I said - this is something she probably just does all the time to give her that small percent advantage.  It is most likely a habit is my point...and its a bad one to have.  

[rehmwa]

in the end, arguments about whether it's intentional, or not intentional, weaken the discussion because it shouldn't matter either way (the penalty is the penalty based on the action itself).  and it turns many off from even considering joining the debate because it appears petty

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by rehmwa

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Now, because the "she got robbed" and "she is a victim" crowd is much louder - we have to absorb new (and dumb) rules that take the game backwards.

Yup.

7 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

in the end, arguments about whether it's intentional, or not intentional, weaken the discussion because it shouldn't matter either way (the penalty is the penalty based on the action itself).  and it turns many off from even considering joining the debate because it appears petty

It's still somewhat relevant, though, because the penalty was two strokes or a DQ, and is now no additional penalty or a DQ, whether she "knew" about it or not.

[arab_joe]

When I first opened this thread, I was of the opinion that it was a good thing to remove call-in referees and the wrong card 2 shot penalties... but I am now not so sure. 

Although I agree that players should know and abide by the rules at all time, I also believe that golf (and, for that matter, all sports) requires a level playing field for all competitors at any given event.  Also, penalties should be equally applied to all breaches of the same rule, i.e. if one player gets 2 shots for a misplaced marker and another player gets a 4 shot penalty for the same action, that does not sit well with me. 

However, I do not see how the old rules were conducive to this and perhaps the ban is a good thing, because (and apologies if these have been adequately addressed elsewhere, it is tricky trying to keep track of a 13 page discussion and work simultaneously...):

• allowing call-in referees/retrospective penalties disproportionately disadvantages certain golfers, over others.  Those that are: (i) on TV the most; or (ii) out before live TV coverage begins (i.e. shown on the TV after they have finished their round and signed their card), are far more likely to be: (i) picked up for a minor/subconscious breach; and (ii) penalised an extra 2 shots because they have already signed their card and unable to "benefit" from the call-in referee communicating the breach to an on-ground official and correcting the scorecard during the round.  I suspect that infractions similar to Lexi Thompson's are actually incredibly common, and indeed that it is almost impossible to pick up and put down a ball in exactly the same place, so when we are necessarily getting into a spectrum of "close enough" to "too far away" then it seems unfair that popular golfers will be more likely to be labelled as cheats. 
• a few years back in a European Tour event (as far as I remember) Jaidee escaped a 2 shot penalty because the official in his group was told (by a commentator, so not exactly a call-in referee but also an outsider) that he was actually entitled to relief via a local rule (from memory I think it was from a floodlight) and, because he had not holed out, he was allowed to go back and play half the hole again - another competitor later in the day was in the same spot but the knowledgeable commentator was on a different part of the course so the player was ultimately penalised for signing an incorrect card.  Although I imagine that many will say that both competitors should have known the rules (with which I agree), I also do not believe that players should get different treatment in the same situation.
• if call-in referees become the norm (which, I admit, is perhaps unlikely but with more coverage and bigger, more accurate HD televisions there is every possibility that smaller infractions may be picked up) then do players start delaying the signing of their cards until they are sure that they have not breached a rule (given that, in some cases at least, breaches are purely accidental or missed by the player)?  Is there a time limit for signing a card after completion of the round?  Do we not run the risk of players sitting for hours in the signing tent while one of their friends watches slow-mo replays to ensure there has been no breach?  Indeed, if the arbitrary time limit for call-in referees is the end of the tournament, might we reach the situation where players only sign one card at the end of their four rounds (as opposed to after each round) to reduce their chances of being picked up breaching a rule?
• also, do we run the risk of more players "seeking a ruling" from an official where they are even in the slightest doubt about the rules.  I recall Poulter taking ages over a ruling at a tournament this season, and getting stick for it, but if there is any uncertainty then players are incentivised to delay.

Again, knowing all of the rules all of the time solves everything and the most reasonable answer may be that, given that these guys are paid a fortune to play golf they should know the rules, but I think in practice the rules have to be equally applied to all of the field and it irks me when I do not perceive that to have taken place (like where Jordan Spieth was sent out to complete his second round of the 2015 Open when other players had been called off in far easier conditions, but don't get me started on that...).

[iacas]

4 hours ago, arab_joe said:

Also, penalties should be equally applied to all breaches of the same rule, i.e. if one player gets 2 shots for a misplaced marker and another player gets a 4 shot penalty for the same action, that does not sit well with me. 

It's not the same action. It's two actions in the case of the four-stroke penalty: playing from a wrong place, and an incorrect scorecard.

4 hours ago, arab_joe said:

I suspect that infractions similar to Lexi Thompson's are actually incredibly common

Why? I've seen a lot of tournament golf. I've rarely seen someone move their ball an inch like Lexi did. I disagree that it's "incredibly common."

4 hours ago, arab_joe said:

Is there a time limit for signing a card after completion of the round?

Practically speaking, yes. Plus, how many of these after-the-fact penalties have been assigned in the last decade? A handful. Not worth waiting on. The USGA and R&A are over-reacting to a few molehills by moving mountains.

And HD isn't that important - if you can't see it with the naked eye, it doesn't matter.

4 hours ago, arab_joe said:

but if there is any uncertainty then players are incentivised to delay.

Once a ruling is given, the player has to play or they're on the hook for being penalized for undue delay.

4 hours ago, arab_joe said:

Again, knowing all of the rules all of the time solves everything and the most reasonable answer may be that, given that these guys are paid a fortune to play golf they should know the rules, but I think in practice the rules have to be equally applied to all of the field and it irks me when I do not perceive that to have taken place…

Those things occur now and they'll occur in the future regardless of these rules changes.

[DaveP043]

I've thought about this a bit over the weekend, and read a lot of posts.  Many people are worried about "fairness", concerned that those players who are either popular or near the lead will get more air time, and hence more scrutiny.  I think the baseline for "fairness" should be the vast majority of players who manage to play each round without breaching the rules, or who penalize themselves appropriately when they do breach a rule.  Every time video review discloses a breach of the rules, and assesses the appropriate penalty, the competition becomes more "fair" for those who followed the rules in the first place.  The system will never be perfect, will never catch every breach, but each time it does is a step towards more fair competition, not away from it.

[rehmwa]

32 minutes ago, iacas said:

It's not the same action. It's two actions in the case of the four-stroke penalty: playing from a wrong place, and an incorrect scorecard.

I know you are being explicit here and this is the correct answer.

But to acknowledge what these guys are saying to facilitate the discussion rather than just dismissing it out of hand.. disagree or not.

1 - Player 1 inadvertantly breaks a rule.  An outside agency points it out and he gets penalized two points because it was brought up and done before the end of the round (prior to signing)

2 - Player 2 inadvertantly break the exact same rule in exactly the same way.  Same exact outside agency points it out that evening.  the next day Player 2 takes 4 strokes.

their 'actions' were the same (1 - they broke the rule, 2 - they didn't realize they broke the rule) everything else was outside of their hands and the only differentiation was in someone else's hands.

no, I don't have a recommendation on where to draw the line

[Hardluckster]

20 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I've thought about this a bit over the weekend, and read a lot of posts.  Many people are worried about "fairness", concerned that those players who are either popular or near the lead will get more air time, and hence more scrutiny.  I think the baseline for "fairness" should be the vast majority of players who manage to play each round without breaching the rules, or who penalize themselves appropriately when they do breach a rule.  Every time video review discloses a breach of the rules, and assesses the appropriate penalty, the competition becomes more "fair" for those who followed the rules in the first place.  The system will never be perfect, will never catch every breach, but each time it does is a step towards more fair competition, not away from it.

This!  You have captured my viewpoint exactly. I wish that I could have stated it as well as you have done. 

BTW, I hope that you don't mind that I took the liberty of posting this to another forum that I frequent (giving you full credit, of course). 

[iacas]

48 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

But to acknowledge what these guys are saying to facilitate the discussion rather than just dismissing it out of hand.. disagree or not.

Sometimes the answer is just the answer.

48 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

1 - Player 1 inadvertantly breaks a rule.  An outside agency points it out and he gets penalized two points because it was brought up and done before the end of the round (prior to signing)

They caught a good break. Good for them. Shame on them for not knowing, but they got lucky.

48 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

2 - Player 2 inadvertantly break the exact same rule in exactly the same way.  Same exact outside agency points it out that evening.  the next day Player 2 takes 4 strokes.

They didn't get the lucky break.

You can't legislate luck like this, just as you can't legislate whether someone commits a breach on the first hole of the day or the 18th, for those who want to say that once you sign your card the round is over - the person who committed the earlier penalty would be in a more "unfair" state than the one who did it and signed her card two minutes later.

48 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

But to acknowledge what thesetheir 'actions' were the same (1 - they broke the rule, 2 - they didn't realize they broke the rule) everything else was outside of their hands and the only differentiation was in someone else's hands.

ALL of their actions were not the same. One did not attest to an incorrect score.

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

I've thought about this a bit over the weekend, and read a lot of posts.  Many people are worried about "fairness", concerned that those players who are either popular or near the lead will get more air time, and hence more scrutiny.  I think the baseline for "fairness" should be the vast majority of players who manage to play each round without breaching the rules, or who penalize themselves appropriately when they do breach a rule.  Every time video review discloses a breach of the rules, and assesses the appropriate penalty, the competition becomes more "fair" for those who followed the rules in the first place.  The system will never be perfect, will never catch every breach, but each time it does is a step towards more fair competition, not away from it.

That's basically what many have said many times: would you rather have a competition that's 98% accurate or 99% accurate? Why would anyone be willing to overlook a known breach just because it wasn't noticed almost immediately? What player would want to win an event having breached the rules but, by a loophole, being let out of it? Professional sports is a zero sum game. When someone gains an advantage, others lose out.

Edited December 19, 2017 by iacas
Fixed a typo (bold)

[rehmwa]

17 minutes ago, iacas said:

You can't legislate luck.

nope - but you can penalize it a couple strokes

Quote

Their actions were not the same. One did not attest to an incorrect score.

The difference only being due to the timing of an outside agency - not due to anything the player did.  You get this.

It would be a real difference if the player realized his own mistake and added the strokes before signing while the other realized the mistake and didn't (DQ would very much be more appropriate there).  But that's not the scenario these posters are highlighting and consider an uneven approach.  So right now, you don't have a line in the sand, you have two.  One for completion of the tourney (Sunday), one for signing the card (end of the day).

Does a player have to sign off a card prior to the very end of a tournament?  Does he have to sign off after each round or can he just wait and sign off at the very end for all 4?

 

 

It seems likely that changing from DQ to 2 strokes must have been a change in purpose - clearly DQ intends to treat intentional cheating.  If they changed from that, then they must have been trying to acknowledge inadvertant mistakes....there goes the whole 'intent' thing again.... 

Edited December 19, 2017 by rehmwa

[iacas]

Just now, rehmwa said:

nope - but you can penalize it a couple strokes

Your story is not an example of that at all. The player was penalized for signing for an incorrect score. The second player got no luck - not bad luck nor good luck.

Even taken literally… the good luck of the first player is in NOT being penalized because they did NOT write down an incorrect score. The opposite of being penalized a couple of strokes.

Just now, rehmwa said:

The difference only being due to the timing of an outside agency - not due to anything the player did.  You get this.

Here's the thing, and I'm not just saying this to be difficult… no, the PLAYER signed the incorrect scorecard. That's absolutely something the player "did."

Just now, rehmwa said:

It would be a real difference if the player realized his own mistake and added the strokes before signing while the other realized the mistake and didn't.

Practically, it wouldn't be a difference at all. The player in the first example did come to realize his mistake. It simply took someone fortuitously telling him.

Just now, rehmwa said:

So right now, you don't have a line in the sand, you have two.  One for completion of the tourney (Sunday), one for signing the card (end of the day).

There are two lines. So?

Just now, rehmwa said:

Does a player have to sign off a card prior to the very end of a tournament?  Does he have to sign off after each round or can he just wait and sign off at the very end?

He has to sign off at the end of each round, for practical reasons as much as anything else.

You know this.

[Ty_Webb]

58 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I've thought about this a bit over the weekend, and read a lot of posts.  Many people are worried about "fairness", concerned that those players who are either popular or near the lead will get more air time, and hence more scrutiny.  I think the baseline for "fairness" should be the vast majority of players who manage to play each round without breaching the rules, or who penalize themselves appropriately when they do breach a rule.  Every time video review discloses a breach of the rules, and assesses the appropriate penalty, the competition becomes more "fair" for those who followed the rules in the first place.  The system will never be perfect, will never catch every breach, but each time it does is a step towards more fair competition, not away from it.

Bingo. I'm amazed how many people think this is good. This place is reasonably level-headed, but I've been having this conversation elsewhere and it's very much weighted towards this being a good thing. I don't get it.

32 minutes ago, iacas said:

Professional sports is not a zero sum game. When someone gains an advantage, others lose out.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread, but that's pretty much exactly what a zero sum game is.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread, but that's pretty much exactly what a zero sum game is.

Typo. I meant it is a zero sum game - someone gaining means someone else loses.

Duh (on me).

[rehmwa]

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

he end of each round, for practical reasons as much as anything else.

You know this.

Actually, i didn't.  I don't compete, nor have any desire to.  Thanks for the discussion, good info.

Edited December 19, 2017 by rehmwa

[Hardluckster]

16 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Bingo. I'm amazed how many people think this is good. This place is reasonably level-headed, but I've been having this conversation elsewhere and it's very much weighted towards this being a good thing. I don't get it.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread, but that's pretty much exactly what a zero sum game is.

Sadly, I think this is a reflection of society in general. We see it in things like "road rage", where there is an attempt to find reasoning to excuse actions rather than to hold individuals accountable. 

I think that these two proposed rule changes by the governing bodies is another step in that direction.