MRR

Mr. Winter failed to state that "ms. Moon swept back the ball without checking with ms. Shepard first; at that moment the round was over and there was nothing ms. Shepard could have done to concede the putt." Without that concrete statement, I expect that others will still cry foul and claim ms. Shepard was in the wrong.

"Hiding behind a rulebook" involves taking multiple rules together in such a way that the Rules as Written gives a different outcome than "Rules as Intended". I see nothing of that happening here. You and I have very different takes from the story... She made a factual statement that she never said out loud that she conceded the putt. To say otherwise would be lying. She then opined that she would have conceded it. Rather sportsmanlike to me. I have a feeling that, by that point, her coach ran to the rules official to mark it in stone that his player won. Even if that's not the case, the rules are black and white. The actions are not in question; there's no issue on if someone intended to do something or if that "something" happened.

I don't doubt that. But he may have honestly thought he was allowed to hit from someone's yard. You and I know that you cannot, but the friend of a friend who is simply talked into golfing one day may not. Irrespective of that, I still cannot get past the fact that he took a divot out of your yard without apology.

To be fair, he may not have understood that he did anything wrong. You live there. You understand what and where the stakes are. I assume you are a golfer, since you are on this site. He, however, may just be a friend of a golfer who really doesn't know any better. IMO, the best thing you can do is provide better information to these weekend players by putting up stakes (at least on the weekend) so they know they cannot do this.

While I think the non-golfers' hearts are in the right place, I always find it odd that people will "stand up" for someone by taking a stance that the other person does not have.

Nor do I. But as @iacas pointed out, this in not necessarily about what we see on TV or on the course. It is more likely about the Monday pro/am, banquet, or what the Symetra players are doing. Lady's fashion is much more diverse than mens. Most men consider a pair of chinos and a button down to be casual and fashionable. To the left, it is often fashionable for a young woman to wear $200 pre-ripped jeans. Sometimes we must learn that what is fashionable in general might not be fashionable in a specific environment.

I'm not in favor of places, organizations creating new restrictions (no matter how slight that restriction may be). Ridiculous long-standing restrictions, on the other hand, I am inexplicably fine with. But @iacas is correct; these are minor changes and appear to be based on valid complaints and concerns. Hopefully this isn't the start of a trend to keep adding restrictions and requirements.

Two different takes on Sponsorship; As @Vinsk points out, player sponsors may actually want less restrictive codes so that their particular brand can be showcased. They have a product and an image to project. I would think that 50 years ago, Ricky's outfits would have been severely frowned upon. The other side is the tournament sponsor. We are looking at (compared to other professional sports) rather stuffy and historically conservative country clubs. Many clubs' patrons like that fact and want it to continue. The big money national/international sponsors likewise would not want to lose customers or potential customers for appearing to condone unwelcome behavior or attire. They have an image to protect. I'm not exactly a big fan of the dress code restrictions, but I do feel that the venue and the main sponsors have the right to require reasonable regulations. If the LPGA is getting enough requests that the powers that be feel that it should be universally applied, so be it.

Agreed. To be quite specific; I think that Michelle Wie looks like a professional golfer in her attire.

See my post #8. We've also seen coverage over the past year of some blonde model who decided to be a golfer. I don't remember her actually making it into a tournament, though. The difference isn't much, but when the leaders aren't swinging, the cameras seem to be on the attractive players. Again, personal perception.

Lower ranked attractive players seem to me to get more camera time than less attractive players of equal or slightly better scores. Let the women wear what they want, and provide coverage based on score instead of skin.

It'll stop some growth.

It's pretty much the trademark of Shanshan Feng to wear cow pants one day of a tournament. No different than John Daly's allowable unfashionable attire.

My fiancee forbids me from agreeing with that post.

When I started watching the LPGA, I was surprised by the variety of clothing that was allowed and players chose to wear. It's a far cry from the standard PGA collared shirt, long slacks, contrasting belt. I wonder if this started with a complaining wife or a player whose physique would prohibit some of the more provocative clothing. I have noticed the LPGA cameras favoring the more objectively attractive players. I first noticed that Olafia Kristinsdottir was given quite a bit of camera time at a tournament this year that catered to introducing young girls to the sport. Saturday and Sunday coverage would show footage of her from earlier in the week talking with a group of girls even though she failed to make the cut. Last week, I was watching the LPGA on my computer. Because they do no broadcast commercials that way, the commercial breaks would instead be cuts to other cameras without announcers. Until she finished the 18th, those cameras were on Kristindottir, despite the fact that stronger players were still in the field. If this new rule is an attempt to stop any oversexualization of the sport, I suppose it's a good thing. However, I think it will backfire. I enjoy watching the attractive players. I also enjoy watching the attractive players who receive a disproportionate amount of camera time get trounced by their "less attractive" peers. As to Gal's aforementioned short skits; she still has shorts underneath. She's technically wearing more clothing than is required.

Understood. Thank you.

I completely understand that fact, in a vacuum. What I don't get is that those people are fine taking full swings. If they can take a full swing, I would think they would be fine putting. Likewise, if "normal" putting is uncomfortable, then a typical golf swing should feel even worse.

Never understood this argument. Is there really a large group of people who have the the athleticism to make full swings but cannot physically handle putting? Even if there is, cannot a slightly longer putter that allows a more upright stance be the solution instead of a putter that goes up to the chest?

Didn't mean it in a negatively. You were answering the questions asked in an insightful way. Attempting to see all sides is why I ask questions.

I appreciate the attempts to give answers that could compel me to feel differently. I really am trying to get on your side of this issue. However, I still do not see how someone's explanation of how he felt years ago has any bearing on the how the current player(s) feel(s). How that person won may be completely different from the status of the current match. The relevant emotions come from the actual players in after-round interviews. I just cannot see actual benefit from a winning announcer. Not trying to sway your or anyone's opinion, just trying to get an understanding.

I'll even go one further. You, as said "non-winner" would probably be of MORE value to me. You could bridge the gap between a PGA major player's emotions and my personal experiences. Nothing out there will give me the exact understanding of what the 54 hole leader feels like as his lead slowly goes away throughout day four and needs to make a ten-footer to avoid a playoff. I do, however, know how I would feel. You, on the other hand, being a coach and (I can only assume) player/winner of several local tournaments, can give insight into things I haven't experienced but to which I can more closely relate.

But that's my point. You (a "non-winner", as limitedly defined in this topic) told me to look at DJ and Rory. I can. I have. Heard, Understood, Acknowledged. I agree that they are different emotions. I would get absolutely nothing else out of it by some "winner" from ten years ago telling me the same.

Taking this as the actual question, I still say "no". For those of you voting "yes", I have a followup question; The main reason given for "yes" is that the only way anyone can understand what the players are going through is by personal experience at that level. Winning a regular tournament is not enough. Coming close at a Major is not enough. Winning the Superbowl (whether cheating or not) is not enough. Similar situations are not enough. I've never been in a Major, so I have no way to associate his words to this all-important experience. What can a "winning" announcer impart unto me that another "non-winner" cannot? I've had the experience of a jury coming back with either a not-guilty verdict or a 40-year verdict. I don't see how emotions would change just because either the prosecutor or I receive a green jacket after the verdict is read.

I get your point, but I think you're allowing the tail to wag the dog. Why should I not get an opinion about something just because I've never been in a major? Why should a player attempt to discredit attack an announcer just because that announcer doesn't have his resume? (Had to remove "discredit" because a golfer should be discrediting detractors... by actually playing well. But, sure; if you are in the camp where you need a certain credential in order to vocalize opinions, then winning a major is an important thing. I think Rory's response speaks volumes about him. I hope Rory never tries to send food back at a restaurant, since he doesn't have any Michelin Stars.