arab_joe

I stand corrected. That makes sense (although it is a bit strange that the exception applies for a putt on the green but not for any other shot). I think the issue is that a certain level of subjectivity already exists - because there is no defined moment when a player is "beginning to take his stance".

As the rules are now drafted, I agree that a penalty was correct. However, I disagree with the words that I have highlighted in bold - my understanding is that you cannot avoid the penalty by backing off the shot and starting again.

Yes we are - when I was a kid putting it was always "this is to win the Ryder Cup for Europe" and can honestly say that I prefer it to any other tournament. Hence why Poults will forever be a legend to me. But hey, life would be boring if we all held the same opinions!

Poulter loses his cool; he isn't the first and won't be the last. Poulter swears; again, hardly unique. Poulter deflects from his own shortcomings by blaming others... and occasionally takes things out on people that don'e deserve it... (and, in fact, the one time I did meet him I thought he was quite weird). But the guy has played his way up from nowhere; has over 500 events under his belt on European and PGA Tours (in those terms, is 15-20 incidents such a big deal?); is one of the best Ryder Cup (which, in my eyes, is the greatest golf competition in the world) golfers of all time; and uses his platform for a lot of good causes. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt (and continue to watch the 2012 Ryder Cup DVD on a monthly basis and get teary every time the Saturday afternoon rolls around).

I enjoyed that, as I enjoy most things Poulter related... But not half as much as I enjoyed "The Postman" delivering yet again at The Ryder Cup. How a golfer that is so average for so much of the golfing year can keep turning it on in The Ryder Cup is baffling (his beating of DJ on Sunday, who was pouring in putts from all over the place, was genuinely impressive) but so, so satisfying. Long may it continue!

My point was more that it is irrelevant whether you or I believe that she was or was not heavily punished. Lexi Thompson appears to be having serious emotional issues at the moment, and I was forwarding one possible explanation for the same - that she feels has been heavily punished (the knock-on effect, if nothing else, was heavy - she lost out on a major championship because she broke a rule/nobody saw her break said rule during her round). I don't think it is unreasonable to hypothesise that that situation could have a really detrimental impact on one's mental health, especially given the cruel timing - waiting until she was on the 12th hole of her final round did seem particularly unfortunate. For what it's worth (and I admit it is worth very little..) I listened to a podcast recently with John Parramor (who clearly knows a lot, lot more than I do about this kind of thing) and he believes it was a mistake, as opposed to a deliberate act. He also confirmed that the punishment was downgraded from DQ because it was deemed to be wholly disproportionate. Either way, I hope Lexi Thompson sorts out whatever is going on in her life (like I would hope for anyone else, really).

Me too. She is, lest we forget, a 23 year old who probably has to deal with more attention, pressure, hype etc. in a day than any of us will in our life. Good luck to her; she is hardly the first person to need a break. Identity and emotional distress could also be due to the fact that she was heavily punished for an act that may, for all we know, have been completely accidental (negligent, yes, but there is at least a possibility that it was not deliberate...). Regardless of the rules, that has to have a serious impact on one's mental state.

I agree wholeheartedly. Lexi Thompson is taking a break, like any else in the world. Why does anyone take a break? Sometimes to recharge, sometimes to explore, sometimes to spend time with friends or family. Some of the conclusions jumped straight to speculated reasons for the break on this thread are a bit weird, in my eyes...

I said I would give him the benefit of the doubt in a direct reply to a post about him swearing at himself/under his breath at Carnoustie... which I stand by. Although there may be many examples of him acting unreasonably, this doesn't seem to be one. Those seeking to bash him will have to keep looking!

Come on... I said that I would give Poulter the benefit of the doubt when it came to swearing to himself/a marshal. Even in the event the marshal was correct in asserting that the profanity was directed at him, it is hardly a grievous crime... and anyone who moans about swearing whilst standing on a golf course in Scotland is going to be in for a shock I'm always going to be impressed by a guy who goes from working in a pro shop in his early 20s to winning on the PGA Tour in his 40s (including recovering from dropping down below 200 in the world in early 2017). I believe he may be the next guest on David Feherty's talk show, so (if you're so inclined) you can judge his character a bit more from that.

If you equate swearing with rape... the issues may well be with you, not Poulter. There are so many rigid, boring sportspeople that never reveal any human side, and their interviews are just dull repeats of the same interview the week before; Poulter at least speaks with a bit of honesty. I read his book and have rooted for him ever since; its great to see someone who had a long, difficult route into professional golf keeping it going for decades (and playing as well now, in his 40s, as he has for years). And, to reiterate, that 2012 Ryder Cup really was special...

I'm not sure about "liking" but any European who watched the Ryder Cup in 2012 will always give Poulter the benefit of the doubt!

I admit that I am far from an expert on the Rules of Golf, but after a quick search I couldn't find any Rule that sets out how a judgment should be made in such a situation. Surely, if there is a RO roaming the course then he should have a defined role and, importantly, defined limits. Why was he making a decision (because, from the reports, he made the final call and approved Kang's drop location) when he had insufficient information to make that call? At what point does he recuse himself and allow Kang/Dahmen to sort this out for themselves? I'm inclined to agree with this. He followed a decision that was made by a RO who was, I assume, acting within the Rules and told Kang that. By way of an analogy, if in a criminal court someone is found not guilty of a crime (because, for example, the prosecution messed up their case) should that person walk out of the court? Or are they obligated to walk back in and declare themselves guilty? And, given that, how could Dahmen NOT go with the decision of the RO...

Calling another professional a cheat is pretty severe... it may well stay with Kang for the entirety of his career. I'm not convinced that is a fair reaction, especially as he followed the decision made by the RO. Dahmen seems to be suggesting that either he knew better than the RO or that the RO should have been ignored, both of which set a really dangerous precedent - if he the RO makes a decision that is not deemed "final" then what is the point in him at all?