Lexi Thompson ANA

[Sawgrass]

Since officials can't stand close enough to players (without inappropriately disturbing them) there is no way on earth that even 100 walking officials could do an adequate job of monitoring all the difficult-to-see issues that might need to be evaluated. They'd need to use telephoto camera lenses. Which are already present for TV. And which already occasionally provide viewers with information they may offer to officials. Which some of you can't bear. And which leaves us in pretty much the same place we already are.

 

Could this be modified? Sure. Would it be a significant improvement? I doubt it. The only helpful thing is that back-of-the-pack players would be subject to more scrutiny. I'm not sure that would make up for having to watch a troop of officials march around.

 

Why can't people just get used to the occasional call-in? I'm shocked that it's seen as such a big deal. Play square, no issue. Don't forget, irrelevant call-ins are ignored.

 

You know, I don't even have THAT big of an issue with call ins, except for the fact that they could be potentially held a day (or more) for those with nefarious intentions to affect someone's score. And even that scenario is probably somewhat far fetched...but maybe not. Who knows.

 

I don't like the additional two strokes for incorrect scorecard. I'm not sure what the solution for that is, but I don't like that someone could be penalized that much for a breach of rule(s) that they honestly didn't know they made up to 3 days after the mistake. A chance to sign an amended scorecard should be offered. Or a cut off for when penalties can be applied to a finished round...or something.

 

How do you then feel about the player who never calls anything on himself, signs his card, and is only later assessed the penalties he should have already called on himself (and none of the penalties which no one else saw)? That's one bad system.

 

I don't know...but I think I prefer a system that errors on the side of under penalizing than over penalizing. People will always game any system. Can't stop that.

 

Cheaters will always cheat, and thieves will always steal. They will just become increasingly more skilled the more you try to stop them with rules. I think I'd rather have a system that may under penalize a few truly deserving offenders than over penalize the ones that might not understand what they did.

 

Protect the pure player. Screw the "truly deserving offenders." (Whatever they are.)

[chris975d]

Since officials can't stand close enough to players (without inappropriately disturbing them) there is no way on earth that even 100 walking officials could do an adequate job of monitoring all the difficult-to-see issues that might need to be evaluated. They'd need to use telephoto camera lenses. Which are already present for TV. And which already occasionally provide viewers with information they may offer to officials. Which some of you can't bear. And which leaves us in pretty much the same place we already are.

 

Could this be modified? Sure. Would it be a significant improvement? I doubt it. The only helpful thing is that back-of-the-pack players would be subject to more scrutiny. I'm not sure that would make up for having to watch a troop of officials march around.

 

Why can't people just get used to the occasional call-in? I'm shocked that it's seen as such a big deal. Play square, no issue. Don't forget, irrelevant call-ins are ignored.

 

You know, I don't even have THAT big of an issue with call ins, except for the fact that they could be potentially held a day (or more) for those with nefarious intentions to affect someone's score. And even that scenario is probably somewhat far fetched...but maybe not. Who knows.

 

I don't like the additional two strokes for incorrect scorecard. I'm not sure what the solution for that is, but I don't like that someone could be penalized that much for a breach of rule(s) that they honestly didn't know they made up to 3 days after the mistake. A chance to sign an amended scorecard should be offered. Or a cut off for when penalties can be applied to a finished round...or something.

 

How do you then feel about the player who never calls anything on himself, signs his card, and is only later assessed the penalties he should have already called on himself (and none of the penalties which no one else saw)? That's one bad system.

 

I don't know...but I think I prefer a system that errors on the side of under penalizing than over penalizing. People will always game any system. Can't stop that.

 

Cheaters will always cheat, and thieves will always steal. They will just become increasingly more skilled the more you try to stop them with rules. I think I'd rather have a system that may under penalize a few truly deserving offenders than over penalize the ones that might not understand what they did.

 

Protect the pure player. Screw the "truly deserving offenders." (Whatever they are.)

 

Lol. You're hilarious.

 

I think it's kind of proven the cheaters are going to cheat anyway. Phil's comments about the known players to move their ball during marking, and the tour caddy survey I linked to where over half the caddies surveyed acknowledged seeing a competitor player cheating (along with verifying Phil's 2-3 inches of movement comment) more or less confirms cheating is going on. The current system doesn't seem to be stopping the serious offenders that are apparently pretty widely known inside the tour circles. So why crush the players who truly make an honest mistake?

[Sawgrass]

 

You know, I don't even have THAT big of an issue with call ins, except for the fact that they could be potentially held a day (or more) for those with nefarious intentions to affect someone's score. And even that scenario is probably somewhat far fetched...but maybe not. Who knows.

 

I don't like the additional two strokes for incorrect scorecard. I'm not sure what the solution for that is, but I don't like that someone could be penalized that much for a breach of rule(s) that they honestly didn't know they made up to 3 days after the mistake. A chance to sign an amended scorecard should be offered. Or a cut off for when penalties can be applied to a finished round...or something.

 

How do you then feel about the player who never calls anything on himself, signs his card, and is only later assessed the penalties he should have already called on himself (and none of the penalties which no one else saw)? That's one bad system.

 

I don't know...but I think I prefer a system that errors on the side of under penalizing than over penalizing. People will always game any system. Can't stop that.

 

Cheaters will always cheat, and thieves will always steal. They will just become increasingly more skilled the more you try to stop them with rules. I think I'd rather have a system that may under penalize a few truly deserving offenders than over penalize the ones that might not understand what they did.

 

Protect the pure player. Screw the "truly deserving offenders." (Whatever they are.)

 

Lol. You're hilarious.

 

I think it's kind of proven the cheaters are going to cheat anyway. Phil's comments about the known players to move their ball during marking, and the tour caddy survey I linked to where over half the caddies surveyed acknowledged seeing a competitor player cheating (along with verifying Phil's 2-3 inches of movement comment) more or less confirms cheating is going on. The current system doesn't seem to be stopping the serious offenders that are apparently pretty widely known inside the tour circles. So why crush the players who truly make an honest mistake?

 

When you can reliably segregate the people who make honest mistakes from the cheaters, we'll talk more. (After almost 400 posts in this thread, I don't think there is a consensus even in this heavily-video-recorded situation.) In the mean time, let people who record an incorrect score get an extra penalty.

[Sean2]

I don't see why.

 

( Scenario 1)

Here's one I threw out yesterday...

 

So if the marker accidentally writes down a par instead of a bogey on a hole, the player doesn't notice the error, and signs the card, it's set in stone? 3rd player in the group sees the scores later and says something about it to the committee, but too-bad-so-sad, the card has been signed and accepted.

 

(Scenario 2)

Player A his ball mark by a putter length, because it is in Player B's way. He forgets to put the ball back in the correct location before putting. That evening, he realizes his mistake.

 

Score card cannot be corrected?

 

(Scenario 3)

Over dinner that night, player B says to player A, "Hey, did you remember to move your ball back on hole #5 today?"

 

"Uh, no, I didn't!"

 

(Scenario 4)

Someone at ESPN notices that ball wasn't moved back. They play the video on Sports Center, and one of the on-course refs for that event sees it while he's eating dinner that night.

 

Too late to fix the scorecard?

 

If the scorecard can be fixed in these scenarios, no penalty for being careless?

 

As to your first scenario. Most people I know go over each hole with the marker before they sign their cards.

 

Second scenario. This one is a good argument. I can see it in this case.

 

ESPN scenario. Between his fellow competitors, officials attached to the group, etc., I am sure at least one person would have noticed if a player didn't move his ball back. But we are talking amateur tournaments.

[chris975d]

 

When you can reliably segregate the people who make honest mistakes from the cheaters, we'll talk more. (After almost 400 posts in this thread, I don't think there is a consensus even in this heavily-video-recorded situation.) In the mean time, let people who record an incorrect score get an extra penalty.

 

It's kind of easy to separate the cheaters...apparently they are the ones that are too smart to actually get caught committing an infraction.

 

Honestly...how many times can we say that we've seen penalty strokes added to someone who was obviously, without question cheating? Foot wedging it, something that anyone with any understanding at all can look at and say...wow, that's cheating?

 

FAR, FAR more often it's someone who is honestly making a mistake or a true misunderstanding. Or just a truly unlucky break. The HD grains of sand, DJ, de Vincenzo, etc.

 

The real cheaters are too good, or apparently by Phil's comments too "in" with the fraternity, to even get caught.

 

[bladehunter]

I don't see why.

 

( Scenario 1)

Here's one I threw out yesterday...

 

So if the marker accidentally writes down a par instead of a bogey on a hole, the player doesn't notice the error, and signs the card, it's set in stone? 3rd player in the group sees the scores later and says something about it to the committee, but too-bad-so-sad, the card has been signed and accepted.

 

(Scenario 2)

Player A his ball mark by a putter length, because it is in Player B's way. He forgets to put the ball back in the correct location before putting. That evening, he realizes his mistake.

 

Score card cannot be corrected?

 

(Scenario 3)

Over dinner that night, player B says to player A, "Hey, did you remember to move your ball back on hole #5 today?"

 

"Uh, no, I didn't!"

 

(Scenario 4)

Someone at ESPN notices that ball wasn't moved back. They play the video on Sports Center, and one of the on-course refs for that event sees it while he's eating dinner that night.

 

Too late to fix the scorecard?

 

If the scorecard can be fixed in these scenarios, no penalty for being careless?

 

 

arent you perfectly illustrating one of the great inequities ive been talking about ? how that a score cannot be changed via your example 1. yet later that same score may be amended by the comittee for any reason they deem fit.... why cant common sense prevail at times and allowfor a change such as in your example #1?

[Golfnuck]

To you and the several others here who hold this point of view, you are missing huge implications. A part of golf (which I cherish) is the obligation players have to uphold the Rules themselves. It's not only impractical to have refs everywhere, but if you change things so that the only infractions which will be penalized are the infractions immediately noticed, you'll inherently change the nature of the game to one where players are rewarded for fooling refs. There are enough games like that around, leave ours be.

 

I'm not missing the point at all. She clearly violated the ball by not replacing it on the same side of the ball marker than where she picked it up from. I don't know if it was intentional or not. Nobody but Lexi knows for sure. But I have a serious problem with viewers watching on tv notifying officials about a rules violation. I have a bigger problem with them enforcing it the next day and 12 into the final round. If it was discovered then it should have been enforced before the round began. Better yet before the round ended and she signed a wrong score card.

 

The point that you are missing is that players are generally counted on to not violate the Rules, and in addition to their integrity, the possibility that anyone might point out a violation helps keep them honest. When the time cut off should be for reporting a possible violation is reasonably debatable. But this sort of thing happens what, two times a year? The system works pretty well as is. (Except for all the typing I have to do every time a TV viewer gets castigated for calling a questionable situation in.)

 

In my opinion (not that it matters) but I think two time a year is too many especially if it happens during a major.

 

I know not the same thing but what if two time a year a goal is reversed in a NHL game and it changes who the winning team is because of a caller noting an infraction or a couple of touch downs are reversed in a year and again it changes who the winning team is because of a call in infraction ....... you get the idea.

 

I guess I just cannot understand the mind set of the senior rules officials ..... not that I do not doubt they are trying to do the best for the game.

 

I really tried to stay away but after someone told me that my earlier questions had been answered I decided to read all 14 pages. I am current on page 4 and decided to reply to this comment.

 

Sorry for the long delay but I guess a couple of days late is better than not noticing at all.

[HitEmTrue]

I don't see why.

 

( Scenario 1)

Here's one I threw out yesterday...

 

So if the marker accidentally writes down a par instead of a bogey on a hole, the player doesn't notice the error, and signs the card, it's set in stone? 3rd player in the group sees the scores later and says something about it to the committee, but too-bad-so-sad, the card has been signed and accepted.

 

(Scenario 2)

Player A his ball mark by a putter length, because it is in Player B's way. He forgets to put the ball back in the correct location before putting. That evening, he realizes his mistake.

 

Score card cannot be corrected?

 

(Scenario 3)

Over dinner that night, player B says to player A, "Hey, did you remember to move your ball back on hole #5 today?"

 

"Uh, no, I didn't!"

 

(Scenario 4)

Someone at ESPN notices that ball wasn't moved back. They play the video on Sports Center, and one of the on-course refs for that event sees it while he's eating dinner that night.

 

Too late to fix the scorecard?

 

If the scorecard can be fixed in these scenarios, no penalty for being careless?

 

As to your first scenario. Most people I know go over each hole with the marker before they sign their cards.

 

Second scenario. This one is a good argument. I can see it in this case.

 

ESPN scenario. Between his fellow competitors, officials attached to the group, etc., I am sure at least one person would have noticed if a player didn't move his ball back. But we are talking amateur tournaments.

 

Your rule needs to provide an answer besides "it shouldn't happen." Is the player DQ'd in each scenario? Or the incorrect score stands because the round is closed?

 

Lexi shouldn't have moved her ball over, but unfortunately she did.

 

[SmiterOfPv1x]

Y'all are missing the larger point IN MY (not so humble) EXPERIENCE.

 

If this is going to continue, F lines. I'll will squash and step right on your line of putt if the possibility of not doing so is going to cost me 200k or so. In fact I might even plug your ball on the green if not doing so is going to make a difference in me losing or not. There is no rule (don't go quoting rule .14.56.72.51.13-11-19 on me) that's says I don't have to not f up your putt.

 

This ruling and result is complete and utter BS. I'm a man. I have an opinion. Some of the golf rules make sense. This does not. From what I saw, Lexi was clearly trying to be respectful of the lines of her playing partners. If me making 200k extra or so comes down to me respecting your line of putt, I guarantee your line will lose. I don't even care if she intentionally moved it due to a mark in the green. She wouldn't have missed it anyways. But if you're telling me that respecting my opponents line is going to be the reason I lose??!? I will stomp your ball into the ground. I'll even say I'm sorry. For all of you holier than thou's... The next time I hear a pencil neck whine about me stepping on their stupid line, I'll point to this. I, as a real man, almost cried with Lexi here. It's complete, 100%, utter horse scat. If you're arguing against my line of thinking I guarantee you are not a real man. I'll stop short of saying "name a time and place" but will say that I feel very strongly about this. I'm a golfer. I respect the rules. I'm also a man. If my being polite, and respecting the stupid as hell rules, puts me in jeopardy of feeding my kids, then I say to hell with it.

 

This is an all time new low by the PGA or LPGA or whomever jacked this up. If I was of her means I'd promptly retire and tell them to KMA.

 

On second thought, I love smashing golf balls, being a man, and all that pertains in such situations. If you have a problem with my post then please. Let me know. I'll be more than happy to explain my point of view in person. Hell, I'll even throw in buying you a beer afterwards. Once we sort out our differences. COULD BE FUN!!!

[SmiterOfPv1x]

Sometimes even I crack myself up. If you're not rolling and laughing after reading that, than we won't ever see eye to eye. Lol! At myself. Always.

[sui generis]

Y'all are missing the larger point IN MY (not so humble) EXPERIENCE.

 

If this is going to continue, F lines. I'll will squash and step right on your line of putt if the possibility of not doing so is going to cost me 200k or so. In fact I might even plug your ball on the green if not doing so is going to make a difference in me losing or not. There is no rule (don't go quoting rule .14.56.72.51.13-11-19 on me) that's says I don't have to not f up your putt.

 

This ruling and result is complete and utter BS. I'm a man. I have an opinion. Some of the golf rules make sense. This does not. From what I saw, Lexi was clearly trying to be respectful of the lines of her playing partners. If me making 200k extra or so comes down to me respecting your line of putt, I guarantee your line will lose. I don't even care if she intentionally moved it due to a mark in the green. She wouldn't have missed it anyways. But if you're telling me that respecting my opponents line is going to be the reason I lose??!? I will stomp your ball into the ground. I'll even say I'm sorry. For all of you holier than thou's... The next time I hear a pencil neck whine about me stepping on their stupid line, I'll point to this. I, as a real man, almost cried with Lexi here. It's complete, 100%, utter horse scat. If you're arguing against my line of thinking I guarantee you are not a real man. I'll stop short of saying "name a time and place" but will say that I feel very strongly about this. I'm a golfer. I respect the rules. I'm also a man. If my being polite, and respecting the stupid as hell rules, puts me in jeopardy of feeding my kids, then I say to hell with it.

 

This is an all time new low by the PGA or LPGA or whomever jacked this up. If I was of her means I'd promptly retire and tell them to KMA.

 

On second thought, I love smashing golf balls, being a man, and all that pertains in such situations. If you have a problem with my post then please. Let me know. I'll be more than happy to explain my point of view in person. Hell, I'll even throw in buying you a beer afterwards. Once we sort out our differences. COULD BE FUN!!!

 

Wrong folder. This one's about the Rules. You should delete here and repost in Tour Talk. They'll love your act there. :swoon:

[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.

 

I have no doubt that I could influence your opinion but it is a fact that Lexi had all the tools in the world to know where to replace her ball. As she failed to do that correctly she got the penalty described in the Rules.

 

Golf is difficult and the Rules are far from black & white when defining what is discernible to naked eye and what is not but this particular case is extremely clear, no doubt about that. Lexi screwed up and got 4 PS. Should have paid attention to what she was doing. I bet she will in the future.

 

With all respect Mr Bean I believe you misunderstood my post. Your influence (in this case) is not needed.

 

"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."

 

By the statement above I would have thought it was clear that *I* understand, and agree, that the ball was NOT marked properly and the 2 strokes were deserved.

 

Besides the call-in issue (and while I hate it I'm kinda sorta OK with it) my problem is with the additional 2 strokes for the incorrect scorecard which she had no way of knowing was incorrect until hearing the Committee's ruling - or at the very least knowing there was the possibility of a penalty added (as with DJ).

 

IMO "they" didn't go far enough in changing the DQ penalty to an additional 2 shots when the Committee alters the score and the played didn't know about it at the time they signed the scorecard. If the Committee is alters the score because of facts previously unknown, fine, but NO additional penalty.

 

And while I understand (somewhat) Ms Ritter's reasoning about why it was given on Sunday but would not have changed anything on Monday, I also agree with others stating that at some point past the end of an individual round the "books" should be closed; excepting clear evidence of out-and-out cheating.

 

And I agree. She will be a lot more careful in the future. In fact, if it was ME, I would take a small measuring tape, or something like a ball repair tool with the 2 prongs and use one of both to mark/align the ball from now on - or at least for the next round - just to make a point.

 

I'm sure Lexi is the bigger person though and won't do that,,,,,,,,, exactly.

 

[nsxguy]

She was totally protected. She made 250k that she wouldn't have, had she been DQ; which she would have been with the same evidence 2 years back. If that's not protection, I don't know what is. She made a blatant penalty and the signed a card that did not account for it. If that evidence was called in in a Sunday 2 years ago, they would have DQd her.

 

A hundred plus years ago she would have left her ball there and stymied the player behind her (OK, I guess she wasn't in the exact same line but).

 

And we could still be reading by candlelight - yeah, them were the daze !!!

 

Civilization (mostly) advances. Wrongs get righted. Advance with it,,,,,,, or get left behind,,,,,,

[SmiterOfPv1x]

Y'all are missing the larger point IN MY (not so humble) EXPERIENCE.

 

If this is going to continue, F lines. I'll will squash and step right on your line of putt if the possibility of not doing so is going to cost me 200k or so. In fact I might even plug your ball on the green if not doing so is going to make a difference in me losing or not. There is no rule (don't go quoting rule .14.56.72.51.13-11-19 on me) that's says I don't have to not f up your putt.

 

This ruling and result is complete and utter BS. I'm a man. I have an opinion. Some of the golf rules make sense. This does not. From what I saw, Lexi was clearly trying to be respectful of the lines of her playing partners. If me making 200k extra or so comes down to me respecting your line of putt, I guarantee your line will lose. I don't even care if she intentionally moved it due to a mark in the green. She wouldn't have missed it anyways. But if you're telling me that respecting my opponents line is going to be the reason I lose??!? I will stomp your ball into the ground. I'll even say I'm sorry. For all of you holier than thou's... The next time I hear a pencil neck whine about me stepping on their stupid line, I'll point to this. I, as a real man, almost cried with Lexi here. It's complete, 100%, utter horse scat. If you're arguing against my line of thinking I guarantee you are not a real man. I'll stop short of saying "name a time and place" but will say that I feel very strongly about this. I'm a golfer. I respect the rules. I'm also a man. If my being polite, and respecting the stupid as hell rules, puts me in jeopardy of feeding my kids, then I say to hell with it.

 

This is an all time new low by the PGA or LPGA or whomever jacked this up. If I was of her means I'd promptly retire and tell them to KMA.

 

On second thought, I love smashing golf balls, being a man, and all that pertains in such situations. If you have a problem with my post then please. Let me know. I'll be more than happy to explain my point of view in person. Hell, I'll even throw in buying you a beer afterwards. Once we sort out our differences. COULD BE FUN!!!

 

Wrong folder. This one's about the Rules. You should delete here and repost in Tour Talk. They'll love your act there. :swoon:

 

10:30pm, Monday, 28th green. I'll be there. Will you????

 

Read my next post if you think I'm serious.....:)

[SmiterOfPv1x]

And I don't have to be in the correct forum to have fun. Everything I ever type, no matter how harsh it sounds, is typed with a great big fat smile on my face. I can tank your chain in any forum I choose. It's my right as an American. If anyone, ever, is offended by something I type, it's on you. Hell, I just offended myself with four commas in that sentence.

 

I'm proposing a new rule. It's going to be 64.16-18;9. "Thou shalt not be offended by mine postings, not shalt thine selve ever taketh mine post too seriously". Penalty is the greater of 2 strokes, DQ, or disembowlment. Your choice. Now what forum would I be loved in? I'm loving myself (don't take that too literally) right here and right now. My smile is huge. Is yours? If not, smack yourself upside the head and read everything I've written here. If that doesn't make you smile, kindly hit the ignore button as I can't help you any further.

[SmiterOfPv1x]

A very simple point just occurred in my very simple mind.... PGA pros, don't sign the dang scorecard! You don't sign, no penalty. Leave the sig line blank. I've never heard of anyone, ever, not even once!!,, being penalized for not signing the damn thing.

 

If only Lexi had me as her lawyer...

[nsxguy]

And I don't have to be in the correct forum to have fun. Everything I ever type, no matter how harsh it sounds, is typed with a great big fat smile on my face. I can tank your chain in any forum I choose. It's my right as an American.

 

It may be your right as an American but as a WRX poster ? Nope. :D

 

 

A very simple point just occurred in my very simple mind.... PGA pros, don't sign the dang scorecard! You don't sign, no penalty. Leave the sig line blank. I've never heard of anyone, ever, not even once!!,, being penalized for not signing the damn thing.

 

If only Lexi had me as her lawyer...

 

DQ (but you already knew that). :D

[Hardluckster]

IMO "they" didn't go far enough in changing the DQ penalty to an additional 2 shots when the Committee alters the score and the played didn't know about it at the time they signed the scorecard. If the Committee is alters the score because of facts previously unknown, fine, but NO additional penalty.

 

 

Nsxguy, I completely understand your point. A player who doesn't realize that they are "due" the penalty strokes actually thinks that they are signing for the correct score, and therefore to penalize them for signing an incorrect card seems unjust.

 

The problem with waiving this rule, though, is that the committee then becomes responsible for reading intent - something that in most cases is going to prove impossible to do. A 'cheat' is never going to acknowledge their true intent, so how do you determine which players 'deserve' the additional 2 strokes and which players don't?

 

I see this as an impossible situation for the committee.

 

Lexi was already afforded the benefit of the doubt in this situation. She was allowed to tack on an additional two strokes to her score and continue to compete: amazingly maintaining her composure and making it to a playoff for the win. Under the old rules, whether she had committed the breach intentionally or not, she would have been DQ'd.

 

Again, I understand your premise and would even like for your solution to be viable. In a perfect world, it would work. In our world, I don't think it is a viable option.

 

Just my $0.02 worth.

[nsxguy]

IMO "they" didn't go far enough in changing the DQ penalty to an additional 2 shots when the Committee alters the score and the played didn't know about it at the time they signed the scorecard. If the Committee is alters the score because of facts previously unknown, fine, but NO additional penalty.

 

 

Nsxguy, I completely understand your point. A player who doesn't realize that they are "due" the penalty strokes actually thinks that they are signing for the correct score, and therefore to penalize them for signing an incorrect card seems unjust.

 

The problem with waiving this rule, though, is that the committee then becomes responsible for reading intent - something that in most cases is going to prove impossible to do. A 'cheat' is never going to acknowledge their true intent, so how do you determine which players 'deserve' the additional 2 strokes and which players don't?

 

I see this as an impossible situation for the committee.

 

Lexi was already afforded the benefit of the doubt in this situation. She was allowed to tack on an additional two strokes to her score and continue to compete: amazingly maintaining her composure and making it to a playoff for the win. Under the old rules, whether she had committed the breach intentionally or not, she would have been DQ'd.

 

Again, I understand your premise and would even like for your solution to be viable. In a perfect world, it would work. In our world, I don't think it is a viable option.

 

Just my $0.02 worth.

 

I'm not suggesting waiving the rule. I'm suggesting it is a STUPID rule and should be done away with.

 

Someone breaks a rule and doesn't realize it and they get hit with a penalty. I don't know about anyone else but that doesn't rise to the level of cheating,,,,,,, to me anyway,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Whatever it takes today to determine a cheat and therefore a DQ (and more) would be the same after rescinding this ridiculous rule. Nothing about a cheater changes. If someone cheats, he/she is DQ'd and certainly more disciplinary action(s) will follow.

[dpb5031]

IMO "they" didn't go far enough in changing the DQ penalty to an additional 2 shots when the Committee alters the score and the played didn't know about it at the time they signed the scorecard. If the Committee is alters the score because of facts previously unknown, fine, but NO additional penalty.

 

 

Nsxguy, I completely understand your point. A player who doesn't realize that they are "due" the penalty strokes actually thinks that they are signing for the correct score, and therefore to penalize them for signing an incorrect card seems unjust.

 

The problem with waiving this rule, though, is that the committee then becomes responsible for reading intent - something that in most cases is going to prove impossible to do. A 'cheat' is never going to acknowledge their true intent, so how do you determine which players 'deserve' the additional 2 strokes and which players don't?

 

I see this as an impossible situation for the committee.

 

Lexi was already afforded the benefit of the doubt in this situation. She was allowed to tack on an additional two strokes to her score and continue to compete: amazingly maintaining her composure and making it to a playoff for the win. Under the old rules, whether she had committed the breach intentionally or not, she would have been DQ'd.

 

Again, I understand your premise and would even like for your solution to be viable. In a perfect world, it would work. In our world, I don't think it is a viable option.

 

Just my $0.02 worth.

 

But...rules officials DID make the determination that it was unintentional. In fact the rules official that approached Lexi on the course said as much directly to Lexi on live TV.

 

It WAS also determined that she was unaware of the rules violation, therefore, the score she signed for on Saturday WAS correct to the best of her knowledge at the time she signed it, and further, this fact was attested by her fellow competitors.

 

So if you can go back and adjust her score in this instance, I think many, including some very prominent people in the game, believe that the player should have the opportunity to amend and re-sign without the 2 additional strokes for signing an incorrect card.

[Hardluckster]

Whatever it takes today to determine a cheat and therefore a DQ (and more) would be the same after rescinding this ridiculous rule. Nothing about a cheater changes. If someone cheats, he/she is DQ'd and certainly more disciplinary action(s) will follow.

 

I would suggest that it is stupid to suggest that anyone other than the offender could know the intention of the act.

 

So how do you determine whether Lexi knew or not if she broke the rule? Do you simply take her word for it? Do you allow the committee to vote?

 

If you leave it to the committee, they must read intent. As evidenced by this thread, there are many who think she probably did it unintentionally and many others who think she must have known that it was in the wrong position, and thus was cheating.

[dpb5031]

Whatever it takes today to determine a cheat and therefore a DQ (and more) would be the same after rescinding this ridiculous rule. Nothing about a cheater changes. If someone cheats, he/she is DQ'd and certainly more disciplinary action(s) will follow.

 

I would suggest that it is stupid to suggest that anyone other than the offender could know the intention of the act.

 

So how do you determine whether Lexi knew or not if she broke the rule? Do you simply take her word for it? Do you allow the committee to vote?

 

If you leave it to the committee, they must read intent. As evidenced by this thread, there are many who think she probably did it unintentionally and many others who think she must have known that it was in the wrong position, and thus was cheating.

 

But they DID make that determination!!!

[sui generis]

IMO "they" didn't go far enough in changing the DQ penalty to an additional 2 shots when the Committee alters the score and the played didn't know about it at the time they signed the scorecard. If the Committee is alters the score because of facts previously unknown, fine, but NO additional penalty.

 

 

Nsxguy, I completely understand your point. A player who doesn't realize that they are "due" the penalty strokes actually thinks that they are signing for the correct score, and therefore to penalize them for signing an incorrect card seems unjust.

 

The problem with waiving this rule, though, is that the committee then becomes responsible for reading intent - something that in most cases is going to prove impossible to do. A 'cheat' is never going to acknowledge their true intent, so how do you determine which players 'deserve' the additional 2 strokes and which players don't?

 

I see this as an impossible situation for the committee.

 

Lexi was already afforded the benefit of the doubt in this situation. She was allowed to tack on an additional two strokes to her score and continue to compete: amazingly maintaining her composure and making it to a playoff for the win. Under the old rules, whether she had committed the breach intentionally or not, she would have been DQ'd.

 

Again, I understand your premise and would even like for your solution to be viable. In a perfect world, it would work. In our world, I don't think it is a viable option.

 

Just my $0.02 worth.

 

I'm not suggesting waiving the rule. I'm suggesting it is a STUPID rule and should be done away with.

 

Someone breaks a rule and doesn't realize it and they get hit with a penalty. I don't know about anyone else but that doesn't rise to the level of cheating,,,,,,, to me anyway,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Whatever it takes today to determine a cheat and therefore a DQ (and more) would be the same after rescinding this ridiculous rule. Nothing about a cheater changes. If someone cheats, he/she is DQ'd and certainly more disciplinary action(s) will follow.

 

Well, that would do away with another pesky (and seemingly unjust) Rule.

 

6-1. Rules - The player and his caddie are responsible for knowing the Rules.

[chris975d]

Whatever it takes today to determine a cheat and therefore a DQ (and more) would be the same after rescinding this ridiculous rule. Nothing about a cheater changes. If someone cheats, he/she is DQ'd and certainly more disciplinary action(s) will follow.

 

I would suggest that it is stupid to suggest that anyone other than the offender could know the intention of the act.

 

So how do you determine whether Lexi knew or not if she broke the rule? Do you simply take her word for it? Do you allow the committee to vote?

 

If you leave it to the committee, they must read intent. As evidenced by this thread, there are many who think she probably did it unintentionally and many others who think she must have known that it was in the wrong position, and thus was cheating.

 

But they DID make that determination!!!

 

I think this is a point missed by those that ARE defending the need for the extra 2 stroke penalty. The committee DID determine, by whatever manner they use, that Lexi wasn't purposely trying to cheat. Whether that's accurate or not, no one but Lexi knows, but the committee DID come to the conclusion that she wasn't trying to cheat in their eyes. So they do hold that ability (or at least think they do) to determine intent. If they think they can determine intent, then they should also allow signing of an amended card.

[Hardluckster]

But...rules officials DID make the determination that it was unintentional. In fact the rules official that approached Lexi on the course said as much directly to Lexi on live TV.

 

It WAS also determined that she was unaware of the rules violation, therefore, the score she signed for on Saturday WAS correct to the best of her knowledge at the time she signed it, and further, this fact was attested by her fellow competitors.

 

So if you can go back and adjust her score in this instance, I think many, including some very prominent people in the game, believe that the player should have the opportunity to amend and re-sign without the 2 additional strokes for signing an incorrect card.

 

Yes, that is true. Actually they told her that they were not saying that she did it intentionally (which is not the same as saying that she did it unintentionally). They did accept the fact that it was most likely unintentional.

 

I would submit that it was much easier to make that judgment knowing that she was looking at an additional two stroke penalty for the scorecard infraction. In the absence of the additional scorecard penalty, the committee would have had to look much more diligently at the intent aspect, imo.

 

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe they wouldn't have.

 

As evidenced by this thread, however, the opinions on whether she did it intentionally or not are quite varied.

[nsxguy]

IMO "they" didn't go far enough in changing the DQ penalty to an additional 2 shots when the Committee alters the score and the played didn't know about it at the time they signed the scorecard. If the Committee is alters the score because of facts previously unknown, fine, but NO additional penalty.

 

 

Nsxguy, I completely understand your point. A player who doesn't realize that they are "due" the penalty strokes actually thinks that they are signing for the correct score, and therefore to penalize them for signing an incorrect card seems unjust.

 

The problem with waiving this rule, though, is that the committee then becomes responsible for reading intent - something that in most cases is going to prove impossible to do. A 'cheat' is never going to acknowledge their true intent, so how do you determine which players 'deserve' the additional 2 strokes and which players don't?

 

I see this as an impossible situation for the committee.

 

Lexi was already afforded the benefit of the doubt in this situation. She was allowed to tack on an additional two strokes to her score and continue to compete: amazingly maintaining her composure and making it to a playoff for the win. Under the old rules, whether she had committed the breach intentionally or not, she would have been DQ'd.

 

Again, I understand your premise and would even like for your solution to be viable. In a perfect world, it would work. In our world, I don't think it is a viable option.

 

Just my $0.02 worth.

 

I'm not suggesting waiving the rule. I'm suggesting it is a STUPID rule and should be done away with.

 

Someone breaks a rule and doesn't realize it and they get hit with a penalty. I don't know about anyone else but that doesn't rise to the level of cheating,,,,,,, to me anyway,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Whatever it takes today to determine a cheat and therefore a DQ (and more) would be the same after rescinding this ridiculous rule. Nothing about a cheater changes. If someone cheats, he/she is DQ'd and certainly more disciplinary action(s) will follow.

 

Well, that would do away with another pesky (and seemingly unjust) Rule.

 

6-1. Rules - The player and his caddie are responsible for knowing the Rules.

 

:taunt: Good one.

 

Yeah ? Well I've seen quite a few of the discussions the 7-10 of youse "Rules Guys" on this site have had and youse guys sure have plenty of difficulties yourselves.

 

And in point of fact, isn't the difficulty in knowing/applying all the rules one of the reasons for the MAJOR revamping of the Rules in 2019 ? :wave:

[dpb5031]

But...rules officials DID make the determination that it was unintentional. In fact the rules official that approached Lexi on the course said as much directly to Lexi on live TV.

 

It WAS also determined that she was unaware of the rules violation, therefore, the score she signed for on Saturday WAS correct to the best of her knowledge at the time she signed it, and further, this fact was attested by her fellow competitors.

 

So if you can go back and adjust her score in this instance, I think many, including some very prominent people in the game, believe that the player should have the opportunity to amend and re-sign without the 2 additional strokes for signing an incorrect card.

 

Yes, that is true. They did in fact agree that it was most likely unintentional.

 

I would submit that it was much easier to make that judgment knowing that she was looking at an additional two stroke penalty for the scorecard infraction. In the absence of the additional scorecard penalty, the committee would have had to look much more diligently at the intent aspect, imo.

 

That's a logical assumption, but the ambiguity of the rules in this scenario is quite obviously problematic and wishy-washy. It also comes across as somewhat cowardly to me.

 

And I know firsthand that its not easy to develop rules and policy. I spent a portion of my career writing policy for a large law enforcement agency where it's important to get it right. Tough to balance the intersection of internal rules & regs, constitutional law, criminal law, use of deadly force, and the risk of civil and other liabilities.

 

There are always exceptions and unintended consequences, but I think the governing bodies can do better with the rules in this circumstance.

 

 

[Sawgrass]

There is nothing "stupid" about the Rules creating a disincentive to recording a wrong score. You may not like it, but it is clearly not stupid. It's one valid way to go.

 

And there is no evidence that the Committee "determined that she didn't cheat." There's simply evidence that they didn't feel they knew clearly that she did. So they let that be.

 

And yes, at rare times Committees have flat out not believed players accounts and penalized them despite their protestations. (It's ugly, but it happens.)

[nsxguy]

There is nothing "stupid" about the Rules creating a disincentive to recording a wrong score. You may not like it, but it is clearly not stupid. It's one valid way to go.

 

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But I think you're purposely missing avoiding the point.

 

It's one thing to penalize for an arithmetic mistake or mistakenly marking a lower score on a hole, "forgetting" a stroke.

 

It's quite another penalizing someone for something they don't know about.

 

And the distinction between the 2 is simplicity itself.

[Hardluckster]

There is nothing "stupid" about the Rules creating a disincentive to recording a wrong score. You may not like it, but it is clearly not stupid. It's one valid way to go.

 

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But I think you're purposely missing avoiding the point.

 

It's one thing to penalize for an arithmetic mistake or mistakenly marking a lower score on a hole, "forgetting" a stroke.

 

It's quite another penalizing someone for something they don't know about.

 

And the distinction between the 2 is simplicity itself.

 

I think you are also missing a point here.

 

How do you determine that she didn't know? Therein lies the problem.

 

The answer is, you can't. Thus, imo, the need for the 2 stroke penalty to protect the field.

 

It simply boils down to this: if she had marked the ball correctly, as it is her responsibility to do, these 14+ pages and her 4 stroke penalty would not exist.