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?

The Old Course has no starters on duty on Christmas Day, so I once snuck out for a quick 18 at about 7am (despite the fact it was pitch black for the first two holes...). Played the first 14 holes without seeing a single other group, shot an 82 despite a being +9 after 5 holes, and was still home by 11am when the rest of the family was waking up - all in all a pretty magical experience.

http://www.golf.com/tour-news/2018/05/07/lpga-player-cleared-penalty-then-assessed-stroke-later This fries my head... So the player breached the rules and should have known she did and played from the wrong place (and presumably signed an incorrect scorecard), but was only given a 1 stroke penalty because she raised the fact that she may have breached the rules to a rules official who was nearby but not close, so ultimately could not have seen whether she had breached the rules in any event!? Also, why is it permissible for the on-course rules official to trust the word of the player (which, one assumes, must have happened as the on-course rules official said that there was no penalty (as opposed to saying "I don't know")) but not for the off-course rules official to trust the word of the player?

I agree with this. Although there are few things more frustrating than flushing a drive down the middle to find it in a divot (which can be a common occurrence on courses that are very heavily played, or have narrow landing areas (e.g. the 7th hole of the Old Course, where I vividly recall Monty almost combusting when he found his ball in a divot...)) that's golf. The "good" and the "bad" bounces will even themselves out over the course of a round. That being said, I am all for practices that increase the number of players who repair divots. The number of them, especially towards the end of the summer, is an absolute disgrace...

On a Golf.com podcast about a year ago, he said that the timeframe was as soon as two years out... but I haven't seen much of an update (although admittedly my only reference point is Twitter) so I suspect that that timeframe was a bit ambitious. For what it's worth, I find it really interesting listening to Zac talk about his plans for the club - I haven't heard any other player on the Tour quite so passionate about golf course architecture. I hope it does come to fruition and that (via Twitter, if nothing else) we get a good view of the step-by-step of building a course from scratch.

My view is that, if Lexi intentionally cheated, then 4 strokes would indeed have been a lenient penalty (especially, as noted by others, that Simon Dyson got a ban for a similar infraction on the European Tour). However, on the other hand, if she accidentally misplaced her marker then, in my opinion, even 2 shots is harsh... My real issue with the armchair rules officials is the role they can play in tournaments - whether they call in one day or the next may determine the outcome of a tournament (as it did with Lexi). I prefer the determination of a tournament winner to be down to skill, not luck. Now that's a notion I can fully get behind! Then the armchair rules officials really need to up their game...

Of course I understand that Lexi broke two rules in misplacing (or moving, or however you wish to describe it) one marker on one hole, once and signing her card as if she had not (or perhaps even thinking that she had not). It is clear that under the rules of golf, it is deemed to be two actions. However, my understanding of this thread is that it is for forum users to debate what they believe the rules "should" be. I don't agree with the characterisation as two actions - as I alluded to before I believe that it is an unnecessary second layer of penalty for a single act. I'm clearly not alone in this, or else there would have been no "uproar" when Lexi was penalised like she was...

I disagree that the signing of an incorrect scorecard is a "new action" - it is inextricably linked to the first. I would prefer that if any two players in the tournament commit the same breach then, regardless of which hole it is on/what time of day the shots are hit/the player being someone who is on TV more or less (which is essentially down to pure luck and nothing to do with a difference in skill between the players), the penalty is the same. Who determines what is/is not visible to the naked eye? I'm assuming that, for example for Lexi Thompson, even though nobody on the ground saw it with their naked eye it was deemed a significant enough move that someone should have been able to see it with their naked eye? I'm still on the fence - I think ambiguity in the rules is a poor move, but sympathise with people whose breaches were so slight (or were completely accidental) that the only person who noticed was watching slow-motion replays on a 6 foot TV...

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...).

https://www.randa.org/RulesEquipment/Rules/QuickGuide/Ball-at-Rest-Moved My understanding is that your ball should have been replaced, to the fringe of the green, and you should have putted from there.

I have ignored the fact that there are dress codes "virtually everywhere in life" because I do not see the relevance; the discussion is whether they are good for the game of golf... and yes, I am aware that my view is in the (pretty small) minority but that alone is not going to dissuade me.