• Announcements

    • iacas

      Visit FlagstickRule.com   03/13/2017

      Visit the site flagstickrule.com to read about and sign a petition for the USGA/R&A regarding the one terrible rule in the proposed "modernized" rules for 2019.


Established Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Off to a Great Start

About MRR

  • Rank
    Established Member

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Western New York

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
  • Handedness

Recent Profile Visitors

227 profile views
  1. Fine, then change my above scenario so that Woods left the area but Mickelson hadn't. My main concern stands; golfers could potentially be treated differently depending on when a rules official feels like telling them about a discovered infraction. That's my only concern. If they both get four or both get six strokes in penalties is fine. But it being possible for one to get four and one to get six for the same initial action is prima facie unfair.
  2. Intent is not an element. The four-stroke penalty is valid. The additional two-stroke penalty for signing is likewise valid. My issue is that golfers who commit the same infraction could be treated differently simply because of the actions of someone else.
  3. I absolutely agree. My only concern is the following hypothetical that could happen; Woods and Mickelson are playing a round together. At the end of 72 holes, Woods has a one-stroke lead. Right after Woods signs his card, but before Mickelson can, a rules official comes running up with a big smile and points out that Mickelson inexplicably has 15 clubs in his bag and will be assessed a four-stroke penalty. Hardly matters, since he was going to lose anyway. The official then points out that Woods also has 15 clubs, assesses a four-stroke penalty and another two-stroke penalty for signing the card. Mickelson wins Woods and Mickelson committed the same error, but the final penalty is different due solely to the actions of a third-party. Unlikely? Sure. Possible under the rules as written? Sadly, yes.
  4. You wouldn't rather see that on Sunday? My desire for a DeChambeau/Johnston final pairing with Poulter in the penultimate group slowly losing it seems unlikely to be fulfilled.
  5. At the very least, you are getting exposure. Might get picked up by someone else looking for a caddie. Nine is a lot; but if the fit's not right, why force it? I just hope the parents aren't pressuring her to get rid of good caddies just because they think their power is being usurped.
  6. That's what I was thinking about. So, just a theory and even longer than I had thought. I bet Ko can get through four more caddies by then.
  7. The caddies won't be able to help line up shots next season, correct? If so, there will be less blame for players to place on them and maybe Ko('s parents) can stick with a single caddie soon.
  8. #6 and #7 seem to say that you are hitting with an open face. The others look square to closed.
  9. At least brouhahas like this seem to be rare. I wasn't much of a golf watcher until about five years ago. Have you noticed a difference in rules violations and/or calls in due to golf being broadcast 24/7* in HD instead of six hours on the weekend in standard definition? *Actually, much more than 24, since tournaments can be broadcast online as well as on a station.
  10. For me, that's part of the issue. "an off-duty rules official" calling in makes perfect sense to me. I'm pretty much all for that. "Another golfer or said golfer's entourage" likewise makes sense. "Someone sitting at home who just feels like calling in"? No. I think that both sets a bad precedence and would lead to people calling in all the time. If that person has a cousin who is a rules official and can convince that cousin to take time out of a busy day to make the call, so be it. But what I have seen makes it look like the story being presented is that someone from the general public emailed this in while most of the rest of the general public doesn't know how to perform such a feat. If it were an off-duty rules official, I'd prefer they just state that fact. Then the casual watcher can stop wondering what number to call for any perceived violation.
  11. Thank you for citing the rule. While that still gives over 70 hours to find an infraction from day one and very little time for day three, at least there is a black line somewhere.
  12. At what point is a tournament over, then? Can an official determine a ball was placed incorrectly, assess the penalty and assess the two-stroke penalty for signing an incorrect card the following Wednesday? How about Monday morning? I continue to agree that "Facts are facts. The player breached the rule or they didn't." I agree that in this specific case, Lexi violated both rules and deserved the penalties. But what if this video didn't come to light until Sunday evening at 9:00 pm? Even if the LPGA chose to enforce the penalties, it would have resulted in a tie at first place, but no golfers around for a playoff. If you feel that anyone at any time should be able to notify the LPGA or PGA about an infraction and have it enforced, then you do not see a problem that needs to be addressed. That's totally fine. I, however, feel that there should be a time where it ends.
  13. I must not be clear on my point. If the LPGA enforces a ruling 24 hours after the infraction and does not cite a reason for taking so damn long, then the rabid supporters of that golfer will cry foul. Even those who are not rabid supports would question why it took so long, especially when taking so long forces the additional two-stroke penalty* You are correct, though; either way, they look dumb. My proposed solution; 1) 12 hour statute of limitations. 2) Challenge that is not made by an official must come from a Player on the tournament. 3) Player must be ahead of, or no more than four stroke behind, the "violator". This is so that certain ramifications (see later) cannot be taken by low-ranked "rules hounds" trying to help (and possibly being paid by) a leader. 4) Upon notice of this challenge, the violator has 60 minutes to accept that a penalty was made and retroactively change the score card without the additional two-stroke penalty 5) If the violator refuses to accept the change, the Rules Committee then looks at the evidence and makes a ruling. 6) If the Rules Committee decides there was a violation, the violator incurs the penalty and the additional two-stroke penalty for signing an incorrect card. 7) If the Rules Committee decides that there was NO violation, the accuser gets a two-stroke penalty. This will prevent people from crying foul all the time and help ensure that only real violations are brought up. I'm sure this also creates other issues, though. *I give a damn about that extra two-stroke penalty only because other golfers have been told of their original infraction in time to amend the score card.
  14. I know I agreed with that statement, but I'm reversing on what I said a bit. For the most part, I agree that the public does not need to know that this was from a phone-in. Not even sure why they allow phone-ins, but I'm not on that board. Think of the bigger mess it would have been if they simply ruled that it was two two-stroke penalties based on actions the day before, but said nothing else (even if questioned). Then the internet would be awash with people thinking that the LPGA was out to get a particular golfer for reasons unknoen. The fact that someone called in at least explains the unusual scrutiny of Lexi's actions. I have ideas on a better process, but all of them involve other things that allow for cheating (or playing fairly but being accused of cheating) in other fashions. That's an inherent problem in any activity.