Lexi Thompson ANA

[DaveLeeNC]

You don't care about the part of the video that proves you wrong about the difference in the ball's position being reasonably discernible? I wonder why you feel that way?

So are you saying it's reasonably discernible unzoomed at normal playback speed?

 

You could take my 12 year old camcorder (that records SD to regular video cassettes), put it where Lexi's eyeballs were, and record it and show it on my 20 year old (13 inch) television (CRT) using my 20 year old VCR player (that is in my attic) and it would be obvious.

 

dave

[Goldenchang]

You don't care about the part of the video that proves you wrong about the difference in the ball's position being reasonably discernible? I wonder why you feel that way?

So are you saying it's reasonably discernible unzoomed at normal playback speed?

 

Seriously? Presented with that evidence, Lexi admitted that ball wasn't replaced correctly. If she can admit at least that, why can't all her apologists on the marking issue.

 

The point of zooming in is to make the size of everything relative to what someone within reasonable viewing distance would see, i.e. the player themselves (Lexi). It should have been very obvious to her that the ball wasn't in the same position, especially since she picked it up and placed it in less than 2 seconds. She was bent over the ball, not 30 feet away on a tower like that camera.

 

The pros should be playing the game to the highest standard. The only issue left in question is her intention.

[sui generis]

You don't care about the part of the video that proves you wrong about the difference in the ball's position being reasonably discernible? I wonder why you feel that way?

So are you saying it's reasonably discernible unzoomed at normal playback speed?

 

Seriously? Presented with that evidence, Lexi admitted that ball wasn't replaced correctly. If she can admit at least that, why can't all her apologists on the marking issue.

 

The point of zooming in is to make the size of everything relative to what someone within reasonable viewing distance would see, i.e. the player themselves (Lexi). It should have been very obvious to her that the ball wasn't in the same position, especially since she picked it up and placed it in less than 2 seconds. She was bent over the ball, not 30 feet away on a tower like that camera.

 

The pros should be playing the game to the highest standard. The only issue left in question is her intention.

 

And, shouldn't we take her word for it that the action was inadvertent?

[Goldenchang]

You don't care about the part of the video that proves you wrong about the difference in the ball's position being reasonably discernible? I wonder why you feel that way?

So are you saying it's reasonably discernible unzoomed at normal playback speed?

 

Seriously? Presented with that evidence, Lexi admitted that ball wasn't replaced correctly. If she can admit at least that, why can't all her apologists on the marking issue.

 

The point of zooming in is to make the size of everything relative to what someone within reasonable viewing distance would see, i.e. the player themselves (Lexi). It should have been very obvious to her that the ball wasn't in the same position, especially since she picked it up and placed it in less than 2 seconds. She was bent over the ball, not 30 feet away on a tower like that camera.

 

The pros should be playing the game to the highest standard. The only issue left in question is her intention.

 

And, shouldn't we take her word for it that the action was inadvertent?

 

Well, I think people can have their opinion about that. She hasn't been suspended or anything like that for cheating, so the tour is taking her at her word. My personal opinion is that the move was pretty shady. But I'd say that about any of these PGA tour players that Phil is talking about.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

You don't care about the part of the video that proves you wrong about the difference in the ball's position being reasonably discernible? I wonder why you feel that way?

So are you saying it's reasonably discernible unzoomed at normal playback speed?

 

Seriously? Presented with that evidence, Lexi admitted that ball wasn't replaced correctly. If she can admit at least that, why can't all her apologists on the marking issue.

 

The point of zooming in is to make the size of everything relative to what someone within reasonable viewing distance would see, i.e. the player themselves (Lexi). It should have been very obvious to her that the ball wasn't in the same position, especially since she picked it up and placed it in less than 2 seconds. She was bent over the ball, not 30 feet away on a tower like that camera.

 

The pros should be playing the game to the highest standard. The only issue left in question is her intention.

Reasonably discernible is awfully gray. One could argue that when you do something quickly, as she did, you'd be less likely to notice it maybe not reasonably discernable, until closer video analysis. She was off by a half inch to the side, frankly no material impact and is the minutia that the rules fanatics love but adds no value to the game. This past weekend golf was the biggest loser once again due to rules issues.

 

Furthermore, it somehow is acceptable to use methods for moving a mark from ones line that will induce far more error than she may have had. That inconsistency is another fault in the rules.

 

Now with that said, I'm faulting her for a habit that annoys the heck out of me. If she had just putt the damn ball and not played around with marking it, then this wouldn't happen either. I get it, that's the routine on tour for most, but it also wastes time.

[sui generis]

You don't care about the part of the video that proves you wrong about the difference in the ball's position being reasonably discernible? I wonder why you feel that way?

So are you saying it's reasonably discernible unzoomed at normal playback speed?

 

Seriously? Presented with that evidence, Lexi admitted that ball wasn't replaced correctly. If she can admit at least that, why can't all her apologists on the marking issue.

 

The point of zooming in is to make the size of everything relative to what someone within reasonable viewing distance would see, i.e. the player themselves (Lexi). It should have been very obvious to her that the ball wasn't in the same position, especially since she picked it up and placed it in less than 2 seconds. She was bent over the ball, not 30 feet away on a tower like that camera.

 

The pros should be playing the game to the highest standard. The only issue left in question is her intention.

Reasonably discernible is awfully gray. One could argue that when you do something quickly, as she did, you'd be less likely to notice it maybe not reasonably discernable, until closer video analysis. She was off by a half inch to the side, frankly no material impact and is the minutia that the rules fanatics love but adds no value to the game. This past weekend golf was the biggest loser once again due to rules issues.

 

Furthermore, it somehow is acceptable to use methods for moving a mark from ones line that will induce far more error than she may have had. That inconsistency is another fault in the rules.

 

Now with that said, I'm faulting her for a habit that annoys the heck out of me. If she had just putt the damn ball and not played around with marking it, then this wouldn't happen either. I get it, that's the routine on tour for most, but it also wastes time.

 

It's just a TV show. Who cares how these people faff around? (Her golf swing is as ugly as she is pretty, however,)

[BlackDiamondPar5]

You don't care about the part of the video that proves you wrong about the difference in the ball's position being reasonably discernible? I wonder why you feel that way?

So are you saying it's reasonably discernible unzoomed at normal playback speed?

 

Seriously? Presented with that evidence, Lexi admitted that ball wasn't replaced correctly. If she can admit at least that, why can't all her apologists on the marking issue.

 

The point of zooming in is to make the size of everything relative to what someone within reasonable viewing distance would see, i.e. the player themselves (Lexi). It should have been very obvious to her that the ball wasn't in the same position, especially since she picked it up and placed it in less than 2 seconds. She was bent over the ball, not 30 feet away on a tower like that camera.

 

The pros should be playing the game to the highest standard. The only issue left in question is her intention.

Reasonably discernible is awfully gray. One could argue that when you do something quickly, as she did, you'd be less likely to notice it maybe not reasonably discernable, until closer video analysis. She was off by a half inch to the side, frankly no material impact and is the minutia that the rules fanatics love but adds no value to the game. This past weekend golf was the biggest loser once again due to rules issues.

 

Furthermore, it somehow is acceptable to use methods for moving a mark from ones line that will induce far more error than she may have had. That inconsistency is another fault in the rules.

 

Now with that said, I'm faulting her for a habit that annoys the heck out of me. If she had just putt the damn ball and not played around with marking it, then this wouldn't happen either. I get it, that's the routine on tour for most, but it also wastes time.

 

It's just a TV show. Who cares how these people faff around? (Her golf swing is as ugly as she is pretty, however,)

 

Ha...that made me smile. I'm going to bed on that note. I spent too much time here today and I have to stop that.

 

Yes southern tier ipa is great and they brew some great beer. Always been a fan of stone also. So much great beer out there and so little time and caloric budget to consume it :)

[k4f7]

Even without a closeup, one can see that Thompson did not replace her ball on the spot from which she lifted it. She moved it 3/4 of an inch. Most players move it 1/8 of an inch. The most meticulous players move it 1/16 of an inch. And there's the problem. Every player violates Rule 20-3a whenever he or she marks and replaces his or her ball. Since there is a penalty for each time it is done, and since a penalty for an incorrect card applies to each hole that is incorrect, each and every player could actually be penalized 72 strokes on the day following the round in question. Since the deviation from the original spot is most easily seen with a high-definition closeup, the director has the power to reveal this violation of Rule 20-3a by whatever player the director selectively chooses for a closeup of the ball when it is being marked and replaced. In fact, that may be what happened. The director may have wanted Thompson not to win and therefore selectively chose Thompson for the closeup, knowing that some viewer would call attention to the violation of Rule 20-3a. If the director had also done the same thing to Ryu, then she also would have received a four-stroke penalty, because a high-definition closeup would have shown that her ball was not replaced exactly on the same spot from which it had been lifted.

[sui generis]

Even without a closeup, one can see that Thompson did not replace her ball on the spot from which she lifted it. She moved it 3/4 of an inch. Most players move it 1/8 of an inch. The most meticulous players move it 1/16 of an inch. And there's the problem. Every player violates Rule 20-3a whenever he or she marks and replaces his or her ball. Since there is a penalty for each time it is done, and since a penalty for an incorrect card applies to each hole that is incorrect, each and every player could actually be penalized 72 strokes on the day following the round in question. Since the deviation from the original spot is most easily seen with a high-definition closeup, the director has the power to reveal this violation of Rule 20-3a by whatever player the director selectively chooses for a closeup of the ball when it is being marked and replaced. In fact, that may be what happened. The director may have wanted Thompson not to win and therefore selectively chose Thompson for the closeup, knowing that some viewer would call attention to the violation of Rule 20-3a. If the director had also done the same thing to Ryu, then she also would have received a four-stroke penalty, because a high-definition closeup would have shown that her ball was not replaced exactly on the same spot from which it had been lifted.

 

You win the prize for the most uninformed post in this entire thread. Your misunderstanding of the Rules of Golf is stunning!

[HitEmTrue]

 

You don't care about the part of the video that proves you wrong about the difference in the ball's position being reasonably discernible? I wonder why you feel that way?

So are you saying it's reasonably discernible unzoomed at normal playback speed?

 

Yes. Not in a tiny YouTube window. Tv screen or fullscreen on computer, it is very easy to see. In regular speed, not zoomed in, clear as day.

 

 

[k4f7]

Even without a closeup, one can see that Thompson did not replace her ball on the spot from which she lifted it. She moved it 3/4 of an inch. Most players move it 1/8 of an inch. The most meticulous players move it 1/16 of an inch. And there's the problem. Every player violates Rule 20-3a whenever he or she marks and replaces his or her ball. Since there is a penalty for each time it is done, and since a penalty for an incorrect card applies to each hole that is incorrect, each and every player could actually be penalized 72 strokes on the day following the round in question. Since the deviation from the original spot is most easily seen with a high-definition closeup, the director has the power to reveal this violation of Rule 20-3a by whatever player the director selectively chooses for a closeup of the ball when it is being marked and replaced. In fact, that may be what happened. The director may have wanted Thompson not to win and therefore selectively chose Thompson for the closeup, knowing that some viewer would call attention to the violation of Rule 20-3a. If the director had also done the same thing to Ryu, then she also would have received a four-stroke penalty, because a high-definition closeup would have shown that her ball was not replaced exactly on the same spot from which it had been lifted.

 

You win the prize for the most uninformed post in this entire thread. Your misunderstanding of the Rules of Golf is stunning!

 

 

Rule 6-6d. Wrong Score for HOLE. … If a competitor returns a score for ANY HOLE lower than actually taken due to failure to include one or more penalty strokes that … he did not know he had incurred … the competitor incurs THE PENALTY [for the violation on that hole] … AND AN ADDITIONAL penalty of TWO STROKES for EACH HOLE at which the competitor has committed a breach of Rule 6-6d. …

 

Comment:

 

That means that if the breach occurred at one hole, then the penalty on the following day is 4 strokes (1x4=4) for that violation at that one hole (2 strokes for the violation at that one hole and 2 strokes for writing the incorrect score for that one hole).

 

If the breach occurred at 18 holes, then the penalty on the following day is 72 strokes (18x4=72) for the violations at those 18 holes (36 strokes for 18 violations and 36 strokes for writing 18 incorrect scores for 18 holes).

 

Rule 20-3a

 

Rule 20-3. Placing and Replacing.

a. By Whom and Where

. …

The ball must be placed ON THE SPOT from which it was lifted … If a ball to be replaced is placed OTHER THAN ON THE SPOT from which it was lifted … and the error is not

corrected … the player incurs the … penalty … TWO STROKES IN STROKE PLAY … for a breach of the applicable Rule.

 

Comment:

 

If the ball is replaced even 1/16 of inch away from the original spot from which it was lifted, then Rule 20-3a is violated in that instance, and the penalty is 2 strokes.

 

If this occurs on all 18 greens, then that is 18 violations of Rule 20-3a, and the penalty is 36 strokes (18x2=36).

 

If the score card is wrong for all 18 holes because those penalties were not added to the score, then there is an additional 2-stroke penalty for each hole on which this occurred, which is an additional 36 penalty strokes (18x2=36).

 

That would be 36 penalty strokes for 18 violations of Rule 20-3a, and 36 penalty strokes for 18 violations of Rule 6-6d (18 incorrectly scored holes), which would be 72 penalty strokes.

 

All the broadcast director has to do in order for a viewer to notice and report the violation of Rule 20-3a is to tell the camera person to do a closeup of the ball when the player in question is marking and replacing it. If the director does that for that particular player on all 18 holes, and if a viewer reports all 18 violations, then that player will be looking at 72 penalty strokes the next day.

[sui generis]

Even without a closeup, one can see that Thompson did not replace her ball on the spot from which she lifted it. She moved it 3/4 of an inch. Most players move it 1/8 of an inch. The most meticulous players move it 1/16 of an inch. And there's the problem. Every player violates Rule 20-3a whenever he or she marks and replaces his or her ball. Since there is a penalty for each time it is done, and since a penalty for an incorrect card applies to each hole that is incorrect, each and every player could actually be penalized 72 strokes on the day following the round in question. Since the deviation from the original spot is most easily seen with a high-definition closeup, the director has the power to reveal this violation of Rule 20-3a by whatever player the director selectively chooses for a closeup of the ball when it is being marked and replaced. In fact, that may be what happened. The director may have wanted Thompson not to win and therefore selectively chose Thompson for the closeup, knowing that some viewer would call attention to the violation of Rule 20-3a. If the director had also done the same thing to Ryu, then she also would have received a four-stroke penalty, because a high-definition closeup would have shown that her ball was not replaced exactly on the same spot from which it had been lifted.

 

You win the prize for the most uninformed post in this entire thread. Your misunderstanding of the Rules of Golf is stunning!

 

 

Rule 6-6d. Wrong Score for HOLE. … If a competitor returns a score for ANY HOLE lower than actually taken due to failure to include one or more penalty strokes that … he did not know he had incurred … the competitor incurs THE PENALTY [for the violation on that hole] … AND AN ADDITIONAL penalty of TWO STROKES for EACH HOLE at which the competitor has committed a breach of Rule 6-6d. …

 

Comment:

 

That means that if the breach occurred at one hole, then the penalty on the following day is 4 strokes (1x4=4) for that violation at that one hole (2 strokes for the violation at that one hole and 2 strokes for writing the incorrect score for that one hole).

 

If the breach occurred at 18 holes, then the penalty on the following day is 72 strokes (18x4=72) for the violations at those 18 holes (36 strokes for 18 violations and 36 strokes for writing 18 incorrect scores for 18 holes).

 

Rule 20-3a

 

Rule 20-3. Placing and Replacing.

a. By Whom and Where

. …

The ball must be placed ON THE SPOT from which it was lifted … If a ball to be replaced is placed OTHER THAN ON THE SPOT from which it was lifted … and the error is not

corrected … the player incurs the … penalty … TWO STROKES IN STROKE PLAY … for a breach of the applicable Rule.

 

Comment:

 

If the ball is replaced even 1/16 of inch away from the original spot from which it was lifted, then Rule 20-3a is violated in that instance, and the penalty is 2 strokes.

 

If this occurs on all 18 greens, then that is 18 violations of Rule 20-3a, and the penalty is 36 strokes (18x2=36).

 

If the score card is wrong for all 18 holes because those penalties were not added to the score, then there is an additional 2-stroke penalty for each hole on which this occurred, which is an additional 36 penalty strokes (18x2=36).

 

That would be 36 penalty strokes for 18 violations of Rule 20-3a, and 36 penalty strokes for 18 violations of Rule 6-6d (18 incorrectly scored holes), which would be 72 penalty strokes.

 

All the broadcast director has to do in order for a viewer to notice and report the violation of Rule 20-3a is to tell the camera person to do a closeup of the ball when the player in question is marking and replacing it. If the director does that for that particular player on all 18 holes, and if a viewer reports all 18 violations, then that player will be looking at 72 penalty strokes the next day.

You're in the wrong folder, Tour Talk is where your trolling belongs. You'll find dozens of the delusional there to keep you company.

[Mizzylefty]

I haven't read every page of this thread, but has anyone asked themselves, "what was she marking the ball for ?"

I mean, she didn't line up any logo or line, she didn't clean the ball, she was about to tap it in, then stopped and literally put the coin down, moved the ball to the side a little and picked the coin back up. Really, how is it any different to the Chella Choi one a few years ago ?

I could maybe give her a break if she'd even stood up, cleaned the ball and then bent back down and replaced it incorrectly, but seriously, what happened was a joke !

Also, how could anyone think its either ok or not against the rules to move your ball like that ? A 6 year old kid would instinctively replace the ball in the correct spot, how could a touring pro think its ok not to ? If she didn't realise it wasn't in the correct spot, then I guess there's always laser treatment !

 

Now, whether this is commonplace on the Tours and a collective blind eye is thrown to it, I guess that's a different debate.......

[jmkenn0]

I haven't read every page of this thread, but has anyone asked themselves, "what was she marking the ball for ?"

I mean, she didn't line up any logo or line, she didn't clean the ball, she was about to tap it in, then stopped and literally put the coin down, moved the ball to the side a little and picked the coin back up. Really, how is it any different to the Chella Choi one a few years ago ?

I could maybe give her a break if she'd even stood up, cleaned the ball and then bent back down and replaced it incorrectly, but seriously, what happened was a joke !

Also, how could anyone think its either ok or not against the rules to move your ball like that ? A 6 year old kid would instinctively replace the ball in the correct spot, how could a touring pro think its ok not to ? If she didn't realise it wasn't in the correct spot, then I guess there's always laser treatment !

 

Now, whether this is commonplace on the Tours and a collective blind eye is thrown to it, I guess that's a different debate.......

 

Yeah, watched it again, came back to ask the same question. What exactly was she doing?

[Hardluckster]

I find it really disappointing that Phil states that purposefully misplacing the ball is a common practice on tour. If true and there are multiple tour pros who commonly practice this - and others who allow it to happen - it is a disturbing comment on the integrity of the tour, imo.

 

If you purposefully misplace the golf ball after marking, you are a cheat. If you allow it to happen, you are a cheat.

[chris975d]

I find it really disappointing that Phil states that purposefully misplacing the ball is a common practice on tour. If true and there are multiple tour pros who commonly practice this - and others who allow it to happen - it is a disturbing comment on the integrity of the tour, imo.

 

If you purposefully misplace the golf ball after marking, you are a cheat. If you allow it to happen, you are a cheat.

 

Did you see this survey of tour caddies? They mention the exact same thing...moving the ball 2 inches. And how many of them have called the person they've seen do it out?

 

Over half the caddies surveyed have witnessed cheating.

 

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/survey-finds-more-half-pga-tour-caddies-have-witnessed-cheating

[jmkenn0]

I find it really disappointing that Phil states that purposefully misplacing the ball is a common practice on tour. If true and there are multiple tour pros who commonly practice this - and others who allow it to happen - it is a disturbing comment on the integrity of the tour, imo.

 

If you purposefully misplace the golf ball after marking, you are a cheat. If you allow it to happen, you are a cheat.

 

The players are probably lucky this week is the Masters. I'm sure CBS wants to hawk the ball-marking angle and show every single person marking putts every single time (exhilirating TV!) but I doubt the membership would allow it.

[wadesworld]

I'm not anti-USGA so much as pro common sense. Hopefully these issues will be addressed sooner rather than later.

 

Let us know how the tournaments you officiate using "common sense" work out. Players are going to be absolutely tickled when you tell them you didn't feel like player A merited a penalty, but you decided to give them one.

[4Par]

I haven't read every page of this thread, but has anyone asked themselves, "what was she marking the ball for ?"

I mean, she didn't line up any logo or line, she didn't clean the ball, she was about to tap it in, then stopped and literally put the coin down, moved the ball to the side a little and picked the coin back up. Really, how is it any different to the Chella Choi one a few years ago ?

I could maybe give her a break if she'd even stood up, cleaned the ball and then bent back down and replaced it incorrectly, but seriously, what happened was a joke !

Also, how could anyone think its either ok or not against the rules to move your ball like that ? A 6 year old kid would instinctively replace the ball in the correct spot, how could a touring pro think its ok not to ? If she didn't realise it wasn't in the correct spot, then I guess there's always laser treatment !

 

Now, whether this is commonplace on the Tours and a collective blind eye is thrown to it, I guess that's a different debate.......

 

Yeah, watched it again, came back to ask the same question. What exactly was she doing?

 

I mentioned before that I think her initial instinct was to just brush it in the hole.... like she had done thousands of times..... but then she heard voices in her head. She heard coaches telling her to take her time, line it up, go through the "process". She got conflicted between instinct and training. I think she tried to make some concession to at least adjust the ball to see a line or a mark on it and things got awkward.

 

[LeoLeo99]

I find it really disappointing that Phil states that purposefully misplacing the ball is a common practice on tour. If true and there are multiple tour pros who commonly practice this - and others who allow it to happen - it is a disturbing comment on the integrity of the tour, imo.

 

If you purposefully misplace the golf ball after marking, you are a cheat. If you allow it to happen, you are a cheat.

 

The players are probably lucky this week is the Masters. I'm sure CBS wants to hawk the ball-marking angle and show every single person marking putts every single time (exhilirating TV!) but I doubt the membership would allow it.

 

The vast majority of golfers are fast and loose with the rules and don't want to be reminded of it while watching golf on tv.

[HighSpeedScene]

I find it really disappointing that Phil states that purposefully misplacing the ball is a common practice on tour. If true and there are multiple tour pros who commonly practice this - and others who allow it to happen - it is a disturbing comment on the integrity of the tour, imo.

 

If you purposefully misplace the golf ball after marking, you are a cheat. If you allow it to happen, you are a cheat.

 

Did you see this survey of tour caddies? They mention the exact same thing...moving the ball 2 inches. And how many of them have called the person they've seen do it out?

 

Over half the caddies surveyed have witnessed cheating.

 

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/survey-finds-more-half-pga-tour-caddies-have-witnessed-cheating

 

Extremely interesting - if so, they must be pretty adept at it. With Lexi, it was pretty obviously not a good mark, it just looked very odd. But if it we're done on purpose, I'm sure it could be easy to hide it a little.

 

It's not surprising that this would go on however, given the dollars at stake, and I don't think it is a reason to change anything. Wish that the players that are aware of it would address it though...

[Mr. Bean]

How close is close enough for you? Reasonably discernible works for me.

 

 

So if reasonably discernible is ok, then not sure why this

isn't ok, especially when moving a mark from ones line will give more error than 1/3 of a ball.

 

Wow! Even from that picture where there was no superzoom whatsoever I could immediately see that she did NOT replace her ball.

 

Honestly, people, she was either cheating or blatantly careless. In both cases she deserved what she got. I sure hope she learned something.

[Shilgy]

How close is close enough for you? Reasonably discernible works for me.

 

 

So if reasonably discernible is ok, then not sure why this

isn't ok, especially when moving a mark from ones line will give more error than 1/3 of a ball.

 

Wow! Even from that picture where there was no superzoom whatsoever I could immediately see that she did NOT replace her ball.

 

Honestly, people, she was either cheating or blatantly careless. In both cases she deserved what she got. I sure hope she learned something.

I agree except, perhaps, the scorecard penalty. My reasoning is that a player can commit an error that he/she is truly not aware of and get penalized twice for the same gaffe if not revealed until the next day. And then the whole "if it happens on Sunday and caught on Monday it did not happen" issue. In this case the committee determined it was not intentional should be able to just assess the two stroke penalty.

Am I incorrect in stating that if they determined it was intentional it should have been a DQ? So being unintentional it should be a two stroke penalty.

[Mr. Bean]

Am I incorrect in stating that if they determined it was intentional it should have been a DQ? So being unintentional it should be a two stroke penalty.

 

There is no Rule for cheating but I guess that would go under R33-7 and DQ would be the result (and a ban from the Tour...).

[Mr. Bean]

How close is close enough for you? Reasonably discernible works for me.

 

 

So if reasonably discernible is ok, then not sure why this

isn't ok, especially when moving a mark from ones line will give more error than 1/3 of a ball.

 

Wow! Even from that picture where there was no superzoom whatsoever I could immediately see that she did NOT replace her ball.

 

Honestly, people, she was either cheating or blatantly careless. In both cases she deserved what she got. I sure hope she learned something.

 

I agree except, perhaps, the scorecard penalty. My reasoning is that a player can commit an error that he/she is truly not aware of and get penalized twice for the same gaffe if not revealed until the next day. And then the whole "if it happens on Sunday and caught on Monday it did not happen" issue. In this case the committee determined it was not intentional should be able to just assess the two stroke penalty.

 

Why she would not have been punished on Monday should the breach have been noticed only after the competition was closed is that a line has to be drawn somewhere. However, cheating is very much disallowed and that is why there is no time limit for cheating to expire and a player knowingly breaking the Rules may be DQ'd also after the competition is closed.

[nsxguy]

You don't care about the part of the video that proves you wrong about the difference in the ball's position being reasonably discernible? I wonder why you feel that way?

So are you saying it's reasonably discernible unzoomed at normal playback speed?

 

Seriously? Presented with that evidence, Lexi admitted that ball wasn't replaced correctly. If she can admit at least that, why can't all her apologists on the marking issue.

 

Seriously ?

 

Not even the post you quoted said the ball wasn't placed incorrectly.

 

Where are all these Lexi apologists who said the ball WAS marked correctly ? Can you show me just ONE post by them ? AFTER seeing the video tape that is.

 

If they believe she did it on purpose, DQ. But if not, 4 strokes for a 1/2" misplaced ball violation is a golf equivalent of waterboarding.

 

The 2 stroke penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard that results from a Committee decision AFTER the scorecard is, and the competitor could not possibly have known about is a JOKE !!!

 

It's disgraceful and it makes the game, and the people who run it, look idiotic.

[krtgolfing]

There are a lot of sticklers in this threat. Bet you are fun to play with on the weekend. Rules junkie and probably have to putt out everything at the local courses. I move my ball out of divots take drops wherever I want. IDGAF

[QEight]

There are a lot of sticklers in this threat. Bet you are fun to play with on the weekend. Rules junkie and probably have to putt out everything at the local courses. I move my ball out of divots take drops wherever I want. IDGAF

 

And no-one is interested about that. Unless there is something on line. GTFO

[HighSpeedScene]

There are a lot of sticklers in this threat. Bet you are fun to play with on the weekend. Rules junkie and probably have to putt out everything at the local courses. I move my ball out of divots take drops wherever I want. IDGAF

 

Ok, cool story. I also don't GAF what you do.

 

Edit: also don't understand why you GAF if I putt everything out. Such angst..

[Sawgrass]

Am I incorrect in stating that if they determined it was intentional it should have been a DQ? So being unintentional it should be a two stroke penalty.

 

There is no Rule for cheating but I guess that would go under R33-7 and DQ would be the result (and a ban from the Tour...).

 

My answer to this is, "Yes, if it was intentional she would have been DQ." Note the technicalities from R 6-6d below. You are DQ unless the Exception applies, but the Exception only applies if you were unknowing. If the breach was intentional, you knew. So R33-7 is not necessary IMO.

 

Edit: forgot to post the Rule:

 

Wrong Score for Hole

 

The competitor is responsible for the correctness of the score recorded for each hole on his score card. If he returns a score for any hole lower than actually taken, he is disqualified. If he returns a score for any hole higher than actually taken, the score as returned stands.

 

Exception: If a competitor returns a score for any hole lower than actually taken due to failure to include one or more penalty strokes that, before returning his score card, he did not know he had incurred, he is not disqualified. In such circumstances, the competitor incurs the penalty prescribed by the applicable Rule and an additional penalty of two strokes for each hole at which the competitor has committed a breach of Rule 6-6d. This Exception does not apply when the applicable penalty is disqualification from the competition.