Lexi Thompson ANA

[chris975d]

Who in the hell said "no penalties"??? Where are you guys pulling this from?

 

I am talking about DQ or 2-stroke penalty for signing an incorrect score card.

 

Please consider other scenarios besides this one with Lexi. Folks are upset because the 2 stroke additional penalty doesn't fit her crime, and I completely get that.

 

How would your proposed rules handle the scenarios I gave? No penalties at all for signing incorrect scorecard in those situations?

 

Which scenarios again?

 

Posts #391 (top of page 14) and #424 (3rd post on this page 15 I think)

 

I'm on Tapatalk, so it's not quite as easy to go back and find/address them. But from what I can see, it looks like your scenarios were proposed suggesting that once a scorecard is signed at completion of a round, it can't be altered, no?

 

I'm not even saying that. Im just saying that if rules infractions are found after the completion of the round, and the committee rules that no ill intent was meant (since again, they do this now, since they choose to not DQ Lexi due to intent), then why can't they have the ability to just penalize the 2 strokes for the original infraction, sign an amended scorecard, and move on? Again, they are already attempting to determine intent. So this isn't a new additional wrinkle. They already think they can make this distinction.

 

In several of your scenarios, the infraction would only be made known by the actual player anyway, as several are remembering the violation after the fact or learning it was indeed a violation. If that person never comes forward and tells on himself in those scenarios, then there is no penalty anyway, unless it was caught on video. If that person is willing to come forward and tell on themselves, then it's a safe assumption intent wasn't there to gain an advantage. So why not give them the least possible penalty (original penalty for that violation and no more) for doing the right thing?

[KyGolf]

Who in the hell said "no penalties"??? Where are you guys pulling this from?

 

I am talking about DQ or 2-stroke penalty for signing an incorrect score card.

 

Please consider other scenarios besides this one with Lexi. Folks are upset because the 2 stroke additional penalty doesn't fit her crime, and I completely get that.

 

How would your proposed rules handle the scenarios I gave? No penalties at all for signing incorrect scorecard in those situations?

 

Which scenarios again?

 

Posts #391 (top of page 14) and #424 (3rd post on this page 15 I think)

 

I'm on Tapatalk, so it's not quite as easy to go back and find/address them. But from what I can see, it looks like your scenarios were proposed suggesting that once a scorecard is signed at completion of a round, it can't be altered, no?

 

I'm not even saying that. Im just saying that if rules infractions are found after the completion of the round, and the committee rules that no ill intent was meant (since again, they do this now, since they choose to not DQ Lexi due to intent), then why can't they have the ability to just penalize the 2 strokes for the original infraction, sign an amended scorecard, and move on? Again, they are already attempting to determine intent. So this isn't a new additional wrinkle. They already think they can make this distinction.

 

In several of your scenarios, the infraction would only be made known by the actual player anyway, as several are remembering the violation after the fact or learning it was indeed a violation. If that person never comes forward and tells on himself in those scenarios, then there is no penalty anyway, unless it was caught on video. If that person is willing to come forward and tell on themselves, then it's a safe assumption intent wasn't there to gain an advantage. So why not give them the least possible penalty (original penalty for that violation and no more) for doing the right thing?

 

Lexi didn't call it on herself. I personally think she deliberately moved the ball 3/4 of an inch to a full ball width laterally to avoid something in her line. Just my opinion but the appearance weighs heavily in this direction. I think the LPGA could have been leaning in this direction too, but didn't care to assume intent and felt like 2 strokes (for the incorrect card) was sufficient penalty to account for the advantage gained. I don't think anyone wants to call someone a cheater without ironclad evidence.

 

I am a Lexi fan, she seems like a nice young lady with a ton of talent. But she messed up and paid the price.

 

The point of the 2 strokes for an incorrect card is that there is no motivation for a player to call a penalty on himself the he thinks has gone unnoticed if the penalty will be the same if discovered during the round or after the card is signed. Hence the extra 2 for an incorrect card. I know we tout the integrity of the player, but the truth is, not all people are 100% honest 100% of the time.

[Mr. Bean]

Sui, HitEmTrue and all the others: let it go. These people will never understand it...

[chris975d]

 

Lexi didn't call it on herself. I personally think she deliberately moved the ball 3/4 of an inch to a full ball width laterally to avoid something in her line. Just my opinion but the appearance weighs heavily in this direction. I think the LPGA could have been leaning in this direction too, but didn't care to assume intent and felt like 2 strokes (for the incorrect card) was sufficient penalty to account for the advantage gained. I don't think anyone wants to call someone a cheater without ironclad evidence.

 

I am a Lexi fan, she seems like a nice young lady with a ton of talent. But she messed up and paid the price.

 

The point of the 2 strokes for an incorrect card is that there is no motivation for a player to call a penalty on himself the he thinks has gone unnoticed if the penalty will be the same if discovered during the round or after the card is signed. Hence the extra 2 for an incorrect card. I know we tout the integrity of the player, but the truth is, not all people are 100% honest 100% of the time.

 

If the intent is to "scare" competitors into self admission of violations, then it should have been left as an automatic DQ...and to not say that they can determine intent, because the addition of the option in the rules to not DQ and "just" assess another penalty for incorrect scorecard does just that...it makes the committee have to come up with some judgement call on intent.

 

 

[HitEmTrue]

I'm on Tapatalk, so it's not quite as easy to go back and find/address them. But from what I can see, it looks like your scenarios were proposed suggesting that once a scorecard is signed at completion of a round, it can't be altered, no?

 

I'm not even saying that. Im just saying that if rules infractions are found after the completion of the round, and the committee rules that no ill intent was meant (since again, they do this now, since they choose to not DQ Lexi due to intent), then why can't they have the ability to just penalize the 2 strokes for the original infraction, sign an amended scorecard, and move on? Again, they are already attempting to determine intent. So this isn't a new additional wrinkle. They already think they can make this distinction.

 

In several of your scenarios, the infraction would only be made known by the actual player anyway, as several are remembering the violation after the fact or learning it was indeed a violation. If that person never comes forward and tells on himself in those scenarios, then there is no penalty anyway, unless it was caught on video. If that person is willing to come forward and tell on themselves, then it's a safe assumption intent wasn't there to gain an advantage. So why not give them the least possible penalty (original penalty for that violation and no more) for doing the right thing?

 

Maybe you can look at the scenarios later. Sometimes rules violations are discovered after the fact without being caught on video. Maybe the player says something to someone else (I'm not talking about someone TRYING to cheat) that prompts an inquiry.

 

Tiger stood in front of reports and told them about a rules violation without realizing he had broken the rules. However, he should have known.

 

The rules must contemplate and cover all scenarios. Bringing determination of intent into the equation is a can-of-worms.

 

< edit >

On more thing. The rules must work for amateur competitions, too. The rules treat accuracy of the scorecard with a very high level of importance, and the vast majority of competitive rounds played are NON-professional rounds. Lest someone say "let's have a separate set of rules for the pros", my answer would be...why should the pros be held to a lower standard than the amateurs? To the person who says, "Yeah, but the pros have rules that are being caught on camera," I say they've been given a break: only a 2-stroke penalty instead of DQ if they they camera reveals a penalty they didn't know about.

 

Mr. Bean, hopefully now I've said all I should say on the subject.

[dpb5031]

Sui, HitEmTrue and all the others: let it go. These people will never understand it...

 

Who you callin' "these people?" Lol...kidding?

 

I think those of us who don't like the 2 stroke penalty for signing an incorrect card have articulated our points and position quite well and I'm not going to re-type my reasoning. I've already stated my opinion. Perhaps it's you who doesn't "get it?"

 

You and the other rules apologists think it's fine as is, but clearly a significant group of others, including some prominent people in the game think otherwise. I think the rules as they pertain to this set of circumstances could, and should be amended/improved. And I've acknowledged that it won't necessarily be easy.

 

The way it stands, not only are there various outcomes based on the timing of when the infraction is reported, but "you guys" seem to actually like the passive-aggressive nature of its application, which I find cowardly and ridiculous.

 

I think we can do better

[HitEmTrue]

The way it stands, not only are there various outcomes based on the timing of when the infraction is reported, but "you guys" seem to actually like the passive-aggressive nature of its application, which I find cowardly and ridiculous.

 

It isn't "cowardly" to tell her they aren't accusing her of cheating. Someone doesn't have to have been cheating to break the rules, so there is no reason to accuse her of cheating.

 

If someone can come up with some well-written rules that helps this unfortunate situation AND works with all situations, I'm all ears (not that my ears matter). Haven't seen any real answers by anyone who wants the rules changed.

 

Maybe I'm done now. :)

[chris975d]

Sui, HitEmTrue and all the others: let it go. These people will never understand it...

 

Who you callin' "these people?" Lol...kidding

 

I think those of us who don't like the 2 stroke penalty for signing an incorrect card have articulated our points and position quite well and I'm not going to re-type my reasoning. I've already stated my opinion. Perhaps it's you who doesn't "get it?"

 

You and the other rules apologists think it's fine as is, but clearly a significant group of others, including some prominent people in the game think otherwise. I think the rules as they pertain to this set of circumstances could, and should be amended/improved. And I've acknowledged that it won't necessarily be easy.

 

The way it stands, not only are there various outcomes based on the timing of when the infraction is reported, but "you guys" seem to actually like the passive-aggressive nature of its application, which I find cowardly and ridiculous.

 

I think we can do better

 

Good post. When you have 3 of the greatest to have played this game (Tiger, Jack and Phil) who have been vocal about various aspects of this Lexi scenario, I think something definitely needs to be looked at. Or are we all suddenly supposed to discount their opinions if they don't align with what we feel?

[dpb5031]

The way it stands, not only are there various outcomes based on the timing of when the infraction is reported, but "you guys" seem to actually like the passive-aggressive nature of its application, which I find cowardly and ridiculous.

 

It isn't "cowardly" to tell her they aren't accusing her of cheating. Someone doesn't have to have been cheating to break the rules, so there is no reason to accuse her of cheating.

 

If someone can come up with some well-written rules that helps this unfortunate situation AND works with all situations, I'm all ears (not that my ears matter). Haven't seen any real answers by anyone who wants the rules changed.

 

Maybe I'm done now. :)

Too many contradictions, variable outcomes based on timing, and gaps in basic logic as is. I don't have an easy answer off the top of my head, but I'd be willing to bet this will ultimately be addressed (changed/amended).

[chris975d]

The way it stands, not only are there various outcomes based on the timing of when the infraction is reported, but "you guys" seem to actually like the passive-aggressive nature of its application, which I find cowardly and ridiculous.

 

It isn't "cowardly" to tell her they aren't accusing her of cheating. Someone doesn't have to have been cheating to break the rules, so there is no reason to accuse her of cheating.

 

If someone can come up with some well-written rules that helps this unfortunate situation AND works with all situations, I'm all ears (not that my ears matter). Haven't seen any real answers by anyone who wants the rules changed.

 

Maybe I'm done now. :)

Too many contradictions, variable outcomes based on timing, and gaps in basic logic as is. I don't have an easy answer off the top of my head, but I'd be willing to bet this will ultimately be addressed (changed/amended).

 

Society has shown us that you can never create rules (or laws) that cover every possible scenario. That's why our legal system isn't black and white at all. There's almost always a judge or jury at the end of a rule/law that makes a judgement based on evidence. Why can't there be room in the entire thing for some committee to make true judgement calls in unique situations and penalize accordingly?

[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.

 

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.

 

This thread is a good example of how convoluted the rules of golf can be. 16 pages and counting and still no consensus on what the rule(s) SHOULD be.

 

A player should not be DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard. For example, DeVicenzo signed an incorrect scorecard at the Masters. Look what happened to him. His signing that card had nothing to do with how he played the tournament, or his ability to play golf, it was a simple mental lapse, which is all to common among human beings. To be punished that severely is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

[Sawgrass]

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.

 

This thread is a good example of how convoluted the rules of golf can be.

 

 

 

No, this thread is a good example of the benefits of a representative democracy over a direct democracy.

 

Thank God the articulation of the Rules isn't left to the general public, who typically doesn't bother to put the requisite effort into learning what they're talking about and instead shoots from the hip.

[KyGolf]

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.

 

This thread is a good example of how convoluted the rules of golf can be. 16 pages and counting and still no consensus on what the rule(s) SHOULD be.

 

A player should not be DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard. For example, DeVicenzo signed an incorrect scorecard at the Masters. Look what happened to him. His signing that card had nothing to do with how he played the tournament, or his ability to play golf, it was a simple mental lapse, which is all to common among human beings. To be punished that severely is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

 

Not sure you are aware of this or not, but DeVicenzo was not DQed. He signed for a score one stroke higher and missed a playoff by 1.

[KevCarter]

Not sure you are aware of this or not, but DeVicenzo was not DQed. He signed for a score one stroke higher and missed a playoff by 1.

 

Thank you for pointing that out. I always remember that incorrectly as well...

[Sawgrass]

 

 

( 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.

 

This thread is a good example of how convoluted the rules of golf can be. 16 pages and counting and still no consensus on what the rule(s) SHOULD be.

 

A player should not be DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard. For example, DeVicenzo signed an incorrect scorecard at the Masters. Look what happened to him. His signing that card had nothing to do with how he played the tournament, or his ability to play golf, it was a simple mental lapse, which is all to common among human beings. To be punished that severely is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

 

Not sure you are aware of this or not, but DeVicenzo was not DQed. He signed for a score one stroke higher and missed a playoff by 1.

 

And in the process made himself one of the most famous names ever. (Maybe he wasn't "such a stupid" after all.)

[Halebopp]

 

This thread is a good example of how convoluted the rules of golf can be. 16 pages and counting and still no consensus on what the rule(s) SHOULD be.

 

A player should not be DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard. For example, DeVicenzo signed an incorrect scorecard at the Masters. Look what happened to him. His signing that card had nothing to do with how he played the tournament, or his ability to play golf, it was a simple mental lapse, which is all to common among human beings. To be punished that severely is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

 

Why shouldn't a player be disqualified for signing a lower score on a score card? The whole point of a stroke play tournament is to find out who gets around the course with the fewest shots. Now someone comes in with a score lower than what s/he actually shot and signs his/her name on the card attesting the score to be true. To me that is a huge breach. If long jumpers were supposed to measure and report their own jumps and someone added 10 inches to his result, don't you think that would be quite a serious breach against the rules, the spirit and the whole point of the competition? (assuming the rules required you to report your actual results)

 

While it could be an honest mistake in some cases, there will also be cases where the player is simply trying to cheat and I for one would have no interest in trying to figure out which one is the case when it comes up. I personally find it more equitable to disqualify them all. Certainly it might sound harsh in the case of an honest mistake but looking at it from the other perspective. How difficult is it to go over your score card and check it with your marker? I don't even mind sounding holier than thou on this subject as it really isn't a difficult thing to do. If you can't do that, maybe you deserve to be disqualified.

[Mr. Bean]

Not sure you are aware of this or not, but DeVicenzo was not DQed. He signed for a score one stroke higher and missed a playoff by 1.

 

And in the process made himself one of the most famous names ever. (Maybe he wasn't "such a stupid" after all.)

 

You mean like Van de Velde in The Open 1999? (well, he WAS stupid...no, he was an idiot!!)

 

[Augster]

As this thread has evolved, it seems most are mad about the call-in, and mad about the extra 2 strokes.

 

Call ins aren't going anywhere. At least I hope not.

 

As I said in my initial post, bring back the DQ.

 

It was quite obvious she didn't replace the ball correctly. She didn't include the penalty and signed an incorrect card. Bring back the DQ.

 

The refs who talked to her between 13&14 would have come out and said, "You played from a wrong place yesterday on 17, didn't correct your error, and didn't include the penalty for playing from wrong place. Therefore you signed an incorrect card and are DQ. We'll be happy to show you the video back in the scoring trailer."

 

There would be much less ire about the whole thing. The only issue to be mad about would be call ins and enforcing penalties after the card is signed.

 

 

 

 

 

[Sean2]

Representative democracy? To the best of my knowledge the executive committee is primarily made up of volunteers, who also pay their own expenses. I would hazard a guess that the committee is made up of a very small socio-economic segment of the population.

[Sean2]

 

This thread is a good example of how convoluted the rules of golf can be. 16 pages and counting and still no consensus on what the rule(s) SHOULD be.

 

A player should not be DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard. For example, DeVicenzo signed an incorrect scorecard at the Masters. Look what happened to him. His signing that card had nothing to do with how he played the tournament, or his ability to play golf, it was a simple mental lapse, which is all to common among human beings. To be punished that severely is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

 

Why shouldn't a player be disqualified for signing a lower score on a score card? The whole point of a stroke play tournament is to find out who gets around the course with the fewest shots. Now someone comes in with a score lower than what s/he actually shot and signs his/her name on the card attesting the score to be true. To me that is a huge breach. If long jumpers were supposed to measure and report their own jumps and someone added 10 inches to his result, don't you think that would be quite a serious breach against the rules, the spirit and the whole point of the competition? (assuming the rules required you to report your actual results)

 

While it could be an honest mistake in some cases, there will also be cases where the player is simply trying to cheat and I for one would have no interest in trying to figure out which one is the case when it comes up. I personally find it more equitable to disqualify them all. Certainly it might sound harsh in the case of an honest mistake but looking at it from the other perspective. How difficult is it to go over your score card and check it with your marker? I don't even mind sounding holier than thou on this subject as it really isn't a difficult thing to do. If you can't do that, maybe you deserve to be disqualified.

 

Which is what I suggested earlier, if you bothered to look. The player should go over the card, hole by hole, with the individual who kept his score.

[Sean2]

I didn't say he was DQ'd. I said, "Look what happened to him.

 

 

[HighSpeedScene]

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!!!

 

No. The player makes that determination

[Sawgrass]

Representative democracy? To the best of my knowledge the executive committee is primarily made up of volunteers, who also pay their own expenses. I would hazard a guess that the committee is made up of a very small socio-economic segment of the population.

 

Yeah. Might we say like the U.S. Senate?

 

Now don't you go insulting both . . .

[Sean2]

Representative democracy? To the best of my knowledge the executive committee is primarily made up of volunteers, who also pay their own expenses. I would hazard a guess that the committee is made up of a very small socio-economic segment of the population.

 

Yeah. Might we say like the U.S. Senate?

 

Now don't you go insulting both . . .

 

Comparing the USGA to the Senate of the United States?

 

Actually in some respects that is probably a valid comparison. :-)

[Sawgrass]

Representative democracy? To the best of my knowledge the executive committee is primarily made up of volunteers, who also pay their own expenses. I would hazard a guess that the committee is made up of a very small socio-economic segment of the population.

 

Yeah. Might we say like the U.S. Senate?

 

Now don't you go insulting both . . .

 

Comparing the USGA to the Senate of the United States? Lol.

 

LOLing instead of moving the discussion further? LOL

[KyGolf]

I didn't say he was DQ'd. I said, "Look what happened to him.

 

The way your post was worded it was hard to tell exactly what you were saying. No problem.

[HighSpeedScene]

Representative democracy? To the best of my knowledge the executive committee is primarily made up of volunteers, who also pay their own expenses. I would hazard a guess that the committee is made up of a very small socio-economic segment of the population.

 

Yeah. Might we say like the U.S. Senate?

 

Now don't you go insulting both . . .

 

Comparing the USGA to the Senate of the United States?

 

Actually in some respects that is probably a valid comparison. :-)

 

Actually, it was an analogy about the composition of both, not an outright comparison. And I think I'm beginning to understand the problem as a result.

[Sawgrass]

Representative democracy? To the best of my knowledge the executive committee is primarily made up of volunteers, who also pay their own expenses. I would hazard a guess that the committee is made up of a very small socio-economic segment of the population.

 

Yeah. Might we say like the U.S. Senate?

 

Now don't you go insulting both . . .

 

Comparing the USGA to the Senate of the United States?

 

Actually in some respects that is probably a valid comparison. :-)

 

I appreciate the edit, sir.

[Sawgrass]

Representative democracy? To the best of my knowledge the executive committee is primarily made up of volunteers, who also pay their own expenses. I would hazard a guess that the committee is made up of a very small socio-economic segment of the population.

 

Yeah. Might we say like the U.S. Senate?

 

Now don't you go insulting both . . .

 

Comparing the USGA to the Senate of the United States?

 

Actually in some respects that is probably a valid comparison. :-)

 

Actually, it was an analogy about the composition of both, not an outright comparison.

 

Yes, thank you.

[wadesworld]

I know the current rules only allowed them to do it the way they did in Lexis case, but the powers that be that make up these rules are so intelligent, they should have thought it out more. Allowing penalties to be called after that round is completed is truly asinine. Especially when you don't generally allow it for Sunday rounds (competition is closed at the end of Sunday).

 

The rule should be amended/changed. Mistakes unknown to the player and discovered after the fact should be allowed to sign an amended scorecard. Or, hold the signature until the end of all 4 (or 3) rounds. That actually makes more sense, since the powers that be think of end of play Sunday as the last time to retroactively penalize rules breaches.

 

There has to be a beginning and end. No matter where you set it, the guy whose penalty is discovered before the cutoff is going to get "screwed," while the guy whose penalty is not discovered in time is going to get off. It cannot be 100% completely fair.