MRR

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

#6 and #7 seem to say that you are hitting with an open face. The others look square to closed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ah. Yes, I agree with that statement.

So that we know it was reviewed and evaluated. Otherwise, we might think that someone "got away with something" because nobody noticed it. IMO, a ruling with which I disagree is still better than no ruling. When Dustin Johnson withdrew, I really thought the cameras would leave the coarse for 30 minutes so that four idiots in chairs could talk about what they thought Tiger Woods would have said about it.

Absolutely. Even if I felt the ruling were incorrect, I am at least 100% confident that the issue was reviewed and administered by the appropriate individual(s).

Oh come on, you really deleted my post? I agree 100% that she created the issue and the result was completely within the rules. I'm not necessarily saying what happened was unfair, but I still consider it an inconsistent application of the rules; like when the prosecutor reduces speeding tickets only for people from his golf club.

I really should learn how to split these quotes. 1) You stated that Lexi could have called herself out for the breach. That is absolutely true, but it also absolutely requires knowledge that she committed a breach. If it was accidental, then she could not have known that she committed the breach. One cannot call oneself out for doing something that one has no knowledge of. You corrected my earlier statement withe the phrase "Had she been called called herself out when it happened". Such a stance requires the opinion that she had knowledge at the time. While one could knowingly ground a club without intending it (club it the sand, I noticed it, but I cannot undo said grounding), I do not see how one could knowingly misplace a ball the way Lexi did without it being intentional (ball is in the wrong spot, I noticed it, but I chose to not remedy it). I see no way that she could have called herself out without the original act being intentional. EDIT, upon reflection, I suppose one could argue that she noticed the ball was in the incorrect position after removing the mark. I fail to see how one would notice it afterwards but not before. 2) She can only notify others of breaches that she knows about. If it was accidental and she had no knowledge, then she could not notify other people. 3) Perpetrator implies intent. I do not label her as someone who intended anything. Nor do I label her as a victim. But I do still think that it was a matter of circumstance that she had two separate breaches instead of one. I do agree that she breached twice and was correctly assessed those penalties. However, the same actions on her part could have resulted in only one penalty if rules officials or our emailer notified her the day before. 4) It has nothing to do with her being a victim (other than my point opinion about one breach vs. two). Maybe I'd feel differently if I were 100% certain that she intentionally cheated. Instead, I'm just fine that she had a two-stroke penalty for a breach and I'm mildly bothered that I've seen other golfers on the PGA tour barely ground clubs in a trap and be notified a couple holes later that there is going to be an assessed penalty. I agree, it's the golfers' duty to enforce their own rules. But one cannot use that as a mantra and still think it's fair when one player is notified by a Rules Official of an infraction in time to amend the score card while another player is notified only after signing. This is an inconsistent application of the rules, and that is my biggest problem.

You have taken the stance that it was definitely an intentional act. I do not agree 100%. I agree only 90%. As such, I hedge my statements and present arguments and opinions that remain the same whether it was intent or accident. If Lexi marks her ball correctly 99.999% of the time, this could STILL be the one time she accidentally did it incorrectly. I don't care. I'll give her the benefit of all doubts. She still deserved the penalty and I will give all my opinions on it based on it being an accident because it doesn't matter to me. 1a) Yes, you did FIFM; assuming intent. My statement still holds for if it were an accident. 1b) If any golfer is going to call himself on a misplacement penalty like that, then that golfer would not intentionally commit the act in the first place. 1c) This is IMO no different than a player who accidentally grounds his club in a hazard and is told about it later. The rules officials say they are adding the penalty, the player is forced to accept that ruling and signs the card as directed. 2) No, I do not have proof; as you well know. What I do have is my original statement that it was In My Opinion. I was not making accusations on other players or excusing Lexi for her actions, I was continuing along the line that I consider what she did (intentionally or not) did not give much of an improvement and her penalty was strong. Frankly, I'm pleased that a golfer was called out on it and hopefully she and all others will adhere to the rules. It is well established that things like this were done in the past. My father spent most of the week talking about the LPGA in the past where this was done and the player was suspended for a year after many other players complained that the penalties previously set against her were not strong enough. I've read books where PGA players talked about other players who moved the ball over an inch each hole. 3) Yes, it was two penalties. Had she been notified at the time of the occurrence (as I have seen on the PGA when someone grounds in a hazard) it would have been a single two-stroke penalty. Instead, it was Monday Morning Reffing and she was given a second penalty. I feel as badly for her as I would feel for any golfer, but I still agree with strict adherence to the rules and the penalties associated therewith. Then number 51 should be watching number 50 (I assume they are paired). After all, it isn't JUST the golfer watching himself, there is at least one other golfer and caddie there. Keep in mind, my original argument isn't that number 51 should get screwed and number 50 can cheat. Instead, number 50 and 51 (just like everyone else) have to adhere to the rules as written as if they are playing any course on any day. What I am saying is that the ones who are on TV all the time should stop complaining that they are held to a higher standard because there is video evidence. That's just the price for success. Go ask any golfer if (s)he would rather 1) Be in the 50th spot, or 2) Be in the top ten with all sorts of scrutiny and people calling in to judge every move. Personally, I'd rather be at the top.

I'm upset only at the second two-stroke penalty. Had she been called out when it happened, it would have been two instead of four strokes. People don't get to call the NFL to point out how much the Patriots defense holds the receiver and get the score changed. I know that's apples to oranges, I just like to complain about how much better the Pats are at violating the rules and how they never rarely get called on it. I may hate them, but they deserve some sort of respect for being able to do what all other teams are doing, but doing it at a higher level of skill. I do not think that Lexi did anything that other golfers out there are not doing. But, being a lawful person, I fully embrace the letter of the law and do not care one way or the other if it was accidental or intentional. The ball was IMO obviously not in the same place. In no way do I think that moving the ball that amount, even on every hole, could have improved her score by four or even two strokes for the event. The penalty exceeded the potential gain; Thems the breaks, deal with it. She deserved a penalty. I would have liked to see her overcome that penalty (not because I care one way or the other for Lexi, but because I would have liked to have seen that from any golfer). Having such a strong penalty that actually changed the outcome of the game is important. This is exactly the sort of thing that causes all other golfers to adhere to the rules, if only for a short period of time. While not exactly part of this topic, I do not give any credence to the "it's not fair to me because I'm the one on TV most often" complaint. I don't care if number 50 is cheating. I do care if numbers 1-10 are doing anything incorrectly. Those are the ones that have the greatest impact due to a minor change in money and ranking. If you really are a great golfer, you should be welcoming that kind of scrutiny; it's the only thing that guarantees your close opponents are being monitored as well.

Because the only reason for her to [intentionally] do what she did was to cheat. She [conceivably] moved her ball to avoid something. What other conclusion could possibly come to? (well, it could have also been an accident because she marked her ball without being behind it) But, like I've said, the positive thing is that people are now more aware of this tactic and it will happen a lot less now [for a little while]. Fixed it for you. This is why golf rules should be black and white. The action, not the intent, creates the penalty. I did not see any sort of indentation that she tried to get out of, but I was watching on 480i. What I did see was a ball that quite obviously was not placed in the original spot. This happens to be on the course sometimes. For whatever reason, the ball doesn't stay where I think I lifted it, but rolls to the side a couple millimeters. I'm certainly not doing it to cheat; I'd have to be a lot better than I am for cheating to matter at all.

I disagree. In the space of about one second she; misplaced the marker to the side, lifted the ball, and put the ball back down in an obviously different position. I'm not saying she intended to cheat, but I think that's enough evidence to doubt any conclusion. IMO, she deserved the two stroke penalty for improperly replacing the ball. I do not think she deserved the additional two stroke penalty. Had she been notified on the day of the occurrence, she could have corrected the card. It's only due to the lateness of the penalty enforcement that she had the additional penalty. I am unsure if my opinion would change if the rule were still automatic disqualification for such an act. The harshness of the penalty shouldn't change the conclusion, but it still seems harsh. I'm pleased that they changed the rule. Similarly, I'm not sure how I feel about the upcoming change. Whenever rules are changed to make things "fair", people seem to find a new way to cheat.

Even if Acushnet is trying to be a bully, they have not done anything to be a bully yet (like me slamming the accelerator in my Dodge 600; I might have wanted to go 30 over the limit, but it wasn't going to happen for quite some time). Acuschnet absolutely HAS to initiate a lawsuit in order to comply with IP law. Acuschnet might be overly aggressive and might be doing this to prevent a much lower priced ball from driving down what the free market is otherwise willing to pay, but that's just decent and IMO perfectly ethical business practice. Costco, on the other hand, could potentially be a bully. They may knowingly be violating IP rights. But, I personally think that there is no reason for Costco to want to enter murky waters. If they did this, they at least think that they are following the law.