Lexi Thompson ANA

[LeoLeo99]

No rules official, spectator, FC, marshall, scorekeeper, or caddie discerned it with their naked eye in real time. Rule says with discernible with the naked eye, and yet HD cameras are used to enforce it. Odd dichotomy.

 

There's no dichotomy at all. The Decision states in part, "When the player's ball has left its original position and come to rest in another place by an amount that was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, a player's determination that the ball has not moved will be deemed to be conclusive, even if that determination is later shown to be incorrect through the use of sophisticated technology."

 

The standard is whether you could have reasonably noticed without technology. In her case, you could. The fact that it was reported by virtue of someone watching a HD telecast is certainly irrelevant. You just don't like the fact that someone who wasn't a ref caught the violation, and you're trying to make that objection into something it isn't.

 

Golf is based so much on self-refereeing that I think it should up to the players and their FC to referee and the rules officials only there to interpret and consult with over the rules themselves. No one other than the player or FC can call a penalty.

[SHIVAN]

As I noted in the DJ fiasco, either they all have HD cameras on them 100% of the time, or none of them do. You can not police 1/8th of the field with ticky-tack junk like this, while allowing 7/8ths to do these things with no repercussions.

 

She did not believe it moved, no one around her accused her of moving it, and no one was aware of it UNTIL technology was introduced. Then it became "clear" that it should have been discernible. Is that clause, "should have been discernible" in the rule book anywhere? No it isn't.

[DaveLeeNC]

No rules official, spectator, FC, marshall, scorekeeper, or caddie discerned it with their naked eye in real time. Rule says with discernible with the naked eye, and yet HD cameras are used to enforce it. Odd dichotomy.

 

There is certainly room for differing opinions about the outcome here. One thing that I see NO ROOM WHATSOEVER for is the view that this does not meet the standard of being discernible with the naked eye ( by the player - not the RO on the other side of the green, spectators 200 feet away in the stands, .....). Her eyeballs were something like 3 feet away from the event.

 

dave

[SHIVAN]

Her eyeballs were something like 3 feet away from the event.

 

dave

 

Did she say it was an improper placement/move? If so, then it is done. If not, then there is not one single set of eyeballs who says it was moved/replaced improperly.

[Sawgrass]

You just don't like the fact that someone who wasn't a ref caught the violation, and you're trying to make that objection into something it isn't.

 

1) Let's cut to the chase, you have no idea what I do, or do not like. True?

2) I mentioned every conceivable person who could have caught the violation using the rule as their guide, with the naked eye.

3) None of those people available, all of whom I mentioned -- including the player -- discerned its movement with the naked eye. None.

 

The chase you want to cut to is a circle. No thanks.

 

When you can differentiate between something that "was" discerned by a naked eye and which "could be" discerned by a naked eye, we can talk again.

[Sawgrass]

Is that clause, "should have been discernible" in the rule book anywhere? No it isn't.

 

"On the other hand, if the Committee determines, based on all of the evidence it has available, that the ball changed its position by an amount that was reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, the ball is deemed to have moved."

 

Round and round we go! I'm thinking it's not that you can't read the Rule book, it's that you don't like the Rule book.

[dpb5031]

Could it simply be that she was a bit careless, nonchalant, or even sloppy in the way she marked and replaced the ball? I mean it was only a 10 inch putt and she was in the heat of battle. I think its certainly plausible and even likely.

 

To those who want to indict, what advantage was there to gain by moving the ball slightly to the side of the coin? I saw no spike mark, and any pitch mark, old or new, would be repairable under the rules. She knows she's on tv front and center and as far as I know has no history of shenanigans.

 

Now, do I believe it was in fact a rules infraction? Yes.

 

I do not however, like the 2 additional strokes for signing an incorrect card based off of a TV call-in after the fact. I think that rule needs to be amended.

[Shipwreck]

Is that clause, "should have been discernible" in the rule book anywhere? No it isn't.

 

"On the other hand, if the Committee determines, based on all of the evidence it has available, that the ball changed its position by an amount that was reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, the ball is deemed to have moved."

 

Round and round we go! I'm thinking it's not that you can't read the Rule book, it's that you don't like the Rule book.

 

In the end, who determines how much evidence is to be used in a case and when does it become "too much evidence"? Like I stated before, the more the USGA and other bodies micromanage golfers, the less it becomes about golfer integrity.

[SHIVAN]

"On the other hand, if the Committee determines, based on all of the evidence it has available, that the ball changed its position by an amount that was reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, the ball is deemed to have moved."

 

Round and round we go! I'm thinking it's not that you can't read the Rule book, it's that you don't like the Rule book.

 

1) You have no idea what I like, or dislike. True?

2) Reasonably discernible, using technology. Not one single person discerned it with the naked eye in real time, including the claims of the player, the other players, and the caddies. Unless some new "testimony" has come out since I last looked...

3) Now, if the committee believes that the player is being deceptive in their response, then they should simply DQ.

4) The committee becomes aware of a "naked eye" infraction, via technology. They are able to determine, using technology, that the naked eye should have seen it. Odd. Especially if they believe the player when the player is asked. Or if they asked all the others around her if they saw it too. Nothing. So the only evidence is arrived at via technology. Ooof.

5) Oh, they don't actually believe the player? Then DQ them.

[hacker49]

The video evidence shows very clearly that Lexi replaced her ball 2-3 millimeters ahead of where she marked it, so there is no doubt in my mind that she played her next stroke from the wrong place. The ball must be placed exactly where it was prior to lifting, and by that I mean on the exact micrometer where the ball sat. Two-stroke penalty no doubt. With new HD technology we can zoom in to see right down to 1 mm where the ball is placed.

 

However, my doubt was why was she not disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard. Has the Rules changed so there is no more DQ if players sign an incorrect scorecard? The rule I have always known is if you sign for a score that is lower than actual on a single hole you are DQ, but no DQ if you sign for a score higher than actual, as my buddy Roberto will attest.

 

I can guaranty you have violated the rules every single time you put down a ball marker and picked up your ball.

[SmoothStroker81]

So what idiot called in and got her penalized?

http://www.golf.com/...rules-violation

 

 

Sad world we live in!

[Sawgrass]

Is that clause, "should have been discernible" in the rule book anywhere? No it isn't.

 

"On the other hand, if the Committee determines, based on all of the evidence it has available, that the ball changed its position by an amount that was reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, the ball is deemed to have moved."

 

Round and round we go! I'm thinking it's not that you can't read the Rule book, it's that you don't like the Rule book.

 

In the end, who determines how much evidence is to be used in a case and when does it become "too much evidence"? Like I stated before, the more the USGA and other bodies micromanage golfers, the less it becomes about golfer integrity.

 

The Committee and/or the ref determine this issue. Fellow competitors do not get a vote, spectators do not get a vote, TV viewers do not get a vote. (Though they are all able to offer evidence/opinions.). But the end result is based on the Committee's view of the facts, and that's just fine with me.

[Sawgrass]

So what idiot called in and got her penalized?

http://www.golf.com/...rules-violation

 

 

Sad world we live in!

 

You don't need to point to a rich golfer getting a frustrating penalty to identify the world as being sad.

[DaveLeeNC]

Her eyeballs were something like 3 feet away from the event.

 

dave

 

Did she say it was an improper placement/move? If so, then it is done. If not, then there is not one single set of eyeballs who says it was moved/replaced improperly.

 

It does not say "it was discerned by the naked eye". It says that "it is discernible by the naked eye". No one is allowed to move a ball just because they closed their eyes and hid the action from others with their feet (or did it when no one was looking).

 

dave

[hacker49]

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.

[ExProGoingBack]

In this day and age is it really the actual players scorecard we go by? Does Jim Nantz sit at each green and ask each player where they stand?

[Sawgrass]

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.)

[nix]

You can't be too upset that a player caught breaking the rules has to face the penalty for breaking those rules.

[bladehunter]

What's reasonably discernable? How much?

 

Exactly. Here's that grey area at play. Again. The rules are not made for video replay. This either the rules should change or the video replay shouldn't be used. I know it will be. But doesn't have to be for tournament purposes. Our game is the only one where idiots from home get to decide a major. It's disgusting.

 

Sawgrass. I respect you for your knowledge and think that you are an asset to this site. But thinking that armchair rules officials should be allowed to call things in is not a check mark to the good. It smells a bit like you're covering for the official at home who called in. High school football refs can't call the nfl office and let someone know of a foot out of bounds. Neither should it happen in our game. The spirit of the rules were never meant for such. It is to be self policed is it not ? The competitors in her group had /have no issue. The walking official didn't see anything. Nor did the tv cameras on the day it happened. 24 hours later while on the back 9 of a major some jerk called it in. disrupted the event and cost Lexi a major. Why not call it on earlier ? Answer is because the caller ( emailer ) knew it would cost her 4 strokes the next day at best and worst a DQ. Disgusting.

 

I play as much tournament golf as I can. And I can tell you that marking the ball is not now nor ever has been an exact science. In fact I've never ever seen it questioned. Why ? Because in the vast scheme of things it doesn't matter. Yes. Does NOT matter.

Checkout the early masters Interviews today. Every single player has been asked about this. Every single one says " viewers at home should absolutely not be allowed to interfere ". Seems the field speaks and does not think they need protection from this.

 

How can there be such a black and white take on such a grey set of rules ? and on top of that yet again overrule the walking officials call. When will we stop using walking officials ? They aren't needed. After all we have " experts " at home with their dvr remote looking for someone to tell on.

 

Next time I here usga say " grow the game " I may kick my own tv to the floor and stomp it. Largest lie ever told.

[Hardluckster]

Spectators at professional golf tournaments are allowed to offer assistance, or advice, if they have information. I personally see no difference in the same being true for fans watching at home (so long as it's an infraction that could have been discernable with the naked eye).

 

Spectators are allowed to help locate golf balls, point out whether a golf ball was picked up by a spectator, or moved by an outside agent. They are even allowed to help move obstacles. They are also allowed to point out rule violations that may have occurred. Volunteers are allowed to actually place flags at the locations of balls in the rough that may be difficult to locate. Should these practices be discontinued?

 

Video can be used to assist players. Locations of hard to locate golf balls have been pinpointed by watching videos of the shot. Wasn't a player a few years ago who hit into a palm tree saved the lost ball penalty by video that proved that the ball was lodged in the tree? Should this also be eliminated?

[Shipwreck]

Is that clause, "should have been discernible" in the rule book anywhere? No it isn't.

 

"On the other hand, if the Committee determines, based on all of the evidence it has available, that the ball changed its position by an amount that was reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, the ball is deemed to have moved."

 

Round and round we go! I'm thinking it's not that you can't read the Rule book, it's that you don't like the Rule book.

 

In the end, who determines how much evidence is to be used in a case and when does it become "too much evidence"? Like I stated before, the more the USGA and other bodies micromanage golfers, the less it becomes about golfer integrity.

 

The Committee and/or the ref determine this issue. Fellow competitors do not get a vote, spectators do not get a vote, TV viewers do not get a vote. (Though they are all able to offer evidence/opinions.). But the end result is based on the Committee's view of the facts, and that's just fine with me.

 

Okay. Now you just stated that TV viewers do not get a vote. Yet TV viewers can bring something up to the attention of the committee, which can then be used against a player. How is this fair? This evidence would not have seen the light of day had it not been for Joe Blow tv watcher seeing an infraction and phoning/emailing the USGA and saying something was wrong. Shouldn't it be up to the player(s), rules officials and committee to see an infraction and impart the penalty within a reasonable manner?

[Shilgy]

What's reasonably discernable? How much?

 

Exactly. Here's that grey area at play. Again. The rules are not made for video replay. This either the rules should change or the video replay shouldn't be used. I know it will be. But doesn't have to be for tournament purposes. Our game is the only one where idiots from home get to decide a major. It's disgusting.

 

Sawgrass. I respect you for your knowledge and think that you are an asset to this site. But thinking that armchair rules officials should be allowed to call things in is not a check mark to the good. It smells a bit like you're covering for the official at home who called in. High school football refs can't call the nfl office and let someone know of a foot out of bounds. Neither should it happen in our game. The spirit of the rules were never meant for such. It is to be self policed is it not ? The competitors in her group had /have no issue. The walking official didn't see anything. Nor did the tv cameras on the day it happened. 24 hours later while on the back 9 of a major some jerk called it in. disrupted the event and cost Lexi a major. Why not call it on earlier ? Answer is because the caller ( emailer ) knew it would cost her 4 strokes the next day at best and worst a DQ. Disgusting.

 

I play as much tournament golf as I can. And I can tell you that marking the ball is not now nor ever has been an exact science. In fact I've never ever seen it questioned. Why ? Because in the vast scheme of things it doesn't matter. Yes. Does NOT matter.

Checkout the early masters Interviews today. Every single player has been asked about this. Every single one says " viewers at home should absolutely not be allowed to interfere ". Seems the field speaks and does not think they need protection from this.

 

How can there be such a black and white take on such a grey set of rules ? and on top of that yet again overrule the walking officials call. When will we stop using walking officials ? They aren't needed. After all we have " experts " at home with their dvr remote looking for someone to tell on.

 

Next time I here usga say " grow the game " I may kick my own tv to the floor and stomp it. Largest lie ever told.

The officials nor Pettersen were not looking at the replacement of the ball by Lexi. If they had been it would have been easily discernible. If Lexi had been really paying attention, giving her the benefit of the doubt about it being intentional, she would have been able to see it without the assist from HD and zoom as well. That is where the HD rule comes into play. If the ball moves so minutely that the player could not and would not be able to see the ball move without the HD and zoom is where the new recently enacted in 2016 rule comes into play.

[bladehunter]

What's reasonably discernable? How much?

 

Exactly. Here's that grey area at play. Again. The rules are not made for video replay. This either the rules should change or the video replay shouldn't be used. I know it will be. But doesn't have to be for tournament purposes. Our game is the only one where idiots from home get to decide a major. It's disgusting.

 

Sawgrass. I respect you for your knowledge and think that you are an asset to this site. But thinking that armchair rules officials should be allowed to call things in is not a check mark to the good. It smells a bit like you're covering for the official at home who called in. High school football refs can't call the nfl office and let someone know of a foot out of bounds. Neither should it happen in our game. The spirit of the rules were never meant for such. It is to be self policed is it not ? The competitors in her group had /have no issue. The walking official didn't see anything. Nor did the tv cameras on the day it happened. 24 hours later while on the back 9 of a major some jerk called it in. disrupted the event and cost Lexi a major. Why not call it on earlier ? Answer is because the caller ( emailer ) knew it would cost her 4 strokes the next day at best and worst a DQ. Disgusting.

 

I play as much tournament golf as I can. And I can tell you that marking the ball is not now nor ever has been an exact science. In fact I've never ever seen it questioned. Why ? Because in the vast scheme of things it doesn't matter. Yes. Does NOT matter.

Checkout the early masters Interviews today. Every single player has been asked about this. Every single one says " viewers at home should absolutely not be allowed to interfere ". Seems the field speaks and does not think they need protection from this.

 

How can there be such a black and white take on such a grey set of rules ? and on top of that yet again overrule the walking officials call. When will we stop using walking officials ? They aren't needed. After all we have " experts " at home with their dvr remote looking for someone to tell on.

 

Next time I here usga say " grow the game " I may kick my own tv to the floor and stomp it. Largest lie ever told.

The officials nor Pettersen were not looking at the replacement of the ball by Lexi. If they had been it would have been easily discernible. If Lexi had been really paying attention, giving her the benefit of the doubt about it being intentional, she would have been able to see it without the assist from HD and zoom as well. That is where the HD rule comes into play. If the ball moves so minutely that the player could not and would not be able to see the ball move without the HD and zoom is where the new recently enacted in 2016 rule comes into play.

 

Sure. And that's part of my point. The rules weren't written for camera aided rulings. The game has been played without It for ever. And still should be.

 

But I'm not even saying she didn't do something wrong. She did. But it isn't to be called by anyone at home. If it's missed its missed. My point is that I don't care to be a fan of a game that can have a major be decided by a jerk at home. It's wrong.

[Sawgrass]

To those well meaning folks who oppose my position on this, let me say:

 

- I have never called anything in, though I have no disrespect for anyone who does

- I cherish the Spirit of the Game and its insistence that players play with integrity, that they call things on themselves

- While I cherish the above, I'm not so foolish as to think that there aren't cheats out there in life, at my course and on the PGA Tour. The only way I can think of to weed them out is to use all available evidence. It's really, really hard to see someone cheat at golf, welcome the limited resources we have to detect it.

- The way a Tour player can avoid problems like this is to avoid making mistakes. Play a pure round, no problems. Of course, some guy or gal in the back of the field may get away with something a leader won't. I don't like that, but I can live with it and it's way better than letting everyone get away with things slippery-slope-wise.

- I have no opinion as to this woman's honesty or intention, but I'm glad the issue was resolved by holding her to a high standard.

- If I make a mistake, I want to be held responsible. I don't care who it is who points it out. I have made mistakes, and while dealing with the outcome is momentarily painful in the long-term it's enriching.

[Shilgy]

What's reasonably discernable? How much?

 

Exactly. Here's that grey area at play. Again. The rules are not made for video replay. This either the rules should change or the video replay shouldn't be used. I know it will be. But doesn't have to be for tournament purposes. Our game is the only one where idiots from home get to decide a major. It's disgusting.

 

Sawgrass. I respect you for your knowledge and think that you are an asset to this site. But thinking that armchair rules officials should be allowed to call things in is not a check mark to the good. It smells a bit like you're covering for the official at home who called in. High school football refs can't call the nfl office and let someone know of a foot out of bounds. Neither should it happen in our game. The spirit of the rules were never meant for such. It is to be self policed is it not ? The competitors in her group had /have no issue. The walking official didn't see anything. Nor did the tv cameras on the day it happened. 24 hours later while on the back 9 of a major some jerk called it in. disrupted the event and cost Lexi a major. Why not call it on earlier ? Answer is because the caller ( emailer ) knew it would cost her 4 strokes the next day at best and worst a DQ. Disgusting.

 

I play as much tournament golf as I can. And I can tell you that marking the ball is not now nor ever has been an exact science. In fact I've never ever seen it questioned. Why ? Because in the vast scheme of things it doesn't matter. Yes. Does NOT matter.

Checkout the early masters Interviews today. Every single player has been asked about this. Every single one says " viewers at home should absolutely not be allowed to interfere ". Seems the field speaks and does not think they need protection from this.

 

How can there be such a black and white take on such a grey set of rules ? and on top of that yet again overrule the walking officials call. When will we stop using walking officials ? They aren't needed. After all we have " experts " at home with their dvr remote looking for someone to tell on.

 

Next time I here usga say " grow the game " I may kick my own tv to the floor and stomp it. Largest lie ever told.

The officials nor Pettersen were not looking at the replacement of the ball by Lexi. If they had been it would have been easily discernible. If Lexi had been really paying attention, giving her the benefit of the doubt about it being intentional, she would have been able to see it without the assist from HD and zoom as well. That is where the HD rule comes into play. If the ball moves so minutely that the player could not and would not be able to see the ball move without the HD and zoom is where the new recently enacted in 2016 rule comes into play.

 

Sure. And that's part of my point. The rules weren't written for camera aided rulings. The game has been played without It for ever. And still should be.

 

But I'm not even saying she didn't do something wrong. She did. But it isn't to be called by anyone at home. If it's missed its missed. My point is that I don't care to be a fan of a game that can have a major be decided by a jerk at home. It's wrong.

I understand your point but do you want people posting these violations on social media and branding players as cheaters over an honest mistake?

[SHIVAN]

...If they had been it would have been easily discernible....

 

It might have been, or might not have been. We only have that luxury to start the analysis when an introduction of HD video takes place. Then it comes down to we think that should have been discernible because the ultra zoom makes a native two pixel-four pixel width, which we are not measuring, look like it's 2".

[bladehunter]

To those well meaning folks who oppose my position on this, let me say:

 

- I have never called anything in, though I have no disrespect for anyone who does

- I cherish the Spirit of the Game and its insistence that players play with integrity, that they call things on themselves

- While I cherish the above, I'm not so foolish as to think that there aren't cheats out there in life, at my course and on the PGA Tour. The only way I can think of to weed them out is to use all available evidence. It's really, really hard to see someone cheat at golf, welcome the limited resources we have to detect it.

- The way a Tour player can avoid problems like this is to avoid making mistakes. Play a pure round, no problems. Of course, some guy or gal in the back of the field may get away with something a leader won't. I don't like that, but I can live with it and it's way better than letting everyone get away with things slippery-slope-wise.

- I have no opinion as to this woman's honesty or intention, but I'm glad the issue was resolved by holding her to a high standard.

- If I make a mistake, I want to be held responsible. I don't care who it is who points it out. I have made mistakes, and while dealing with the outcome is momentarily painful in the long-term it's enriching.

 

I agree with you 1000% minus the phone from home. No offense meant by my earlier post either. I know you mean well. ? As do I.

[Shilgy]

...If they had been it would have been easily discernible....

 

It might have been, or might not have been. We only have that luxury to start the analysis when an introduction of HD video takes place. Then it comes down to we think that should have been discernible because the ultra zoom makes a native two pixel-four pixel width, which we are not measuring, look like it's 2".

It moved from one side of a coin to another. If Lexi was paying attention she could/would have seen it. Yes-the HD zoom enabled viewers to see it from 60 feet away. Her eyes were three or four feet away-tops.

[bladehunter]

What's reasonably discernable? How much?

 

Exactly. Here's that grey area at play. Again. The rules are not made for video replay. This either the rules should change or the video replay shouldn't be used. I know it will be. But doesn't have to be for tournament purposes. Our game is the only one where idiots from home get to decide a major. It's disgusting.

 

Sawgrass. I respect you for your knowledge and think that you are an asset to this site. But thinking that armchair rules officials should be allowed to call things in is not a check mark to the good. It smells a bit like you're covering for the official at home who called in. High school football refs can't call the nfl office and let someone know of a foot out of bounds. Neither should it happen in our game. The spirit of the rules were never meant for such. It is to be self policed is it not ? The competitors in her group had /have no issue. The walking official didn't see anything. Nor did the tv cameras on the day it happened. 24 hours later while on the back 9 of a major some jerk called it in. disrupted the event and cost Lexi a major. Why not call it on earlier ? Answer is because the caller ( emailer ) knew it would cost her 4 strokes the next day at best and worst a DQ. Disgusting.

 

I play as much tournament golf as I can. And I can tell you that marking the ball is not now nor ever has been an exact science. In fact I've never ever seen it questioned. Why ? Because in the vast scheme of things it doesn't matter. Yes. Does NOT matter.

Checkout the early masters Interviews today. Every single player has been asked about this. Every single one says " viewers at home should absolutely not be allowed to interfere ". Seems the field speaks and does not think they need protection from this.

 

How can there be such a black and white take on such a grey set of rules ? and on top of that yet again overrule the walking officials call. When will we stop using walking officials ? They aren't needed. After all we have " experts " at home with their dvr remote looking for someone to tell on.

 

Next time I here usga say " grow the game " I may kick my own tv to the floor and stomp it. Largest lie ever told.

The officials nor Pettersen were not looking at the replacement of the ball by Lexi. If they had been it would have been easily discernible. If Lexi had been really paying attention, giving her the benefit of the doubt about it being intentional, she would have been able to see it without the assist from HD and zoom as well. That is where the HD rule comes into play. If the ball moves so minutely that the player could not and would not be able to see the ball move without the HD and zoom is where the new recently enacted in 2016 rule comes into play.

 

Sure. And that's part of my point. The rules weren't written for camera aided rulings. The game has been played without It for ever. And still should be.

 

But I'm not even saying she didn't do something wrong. She did. But it isn't to be called by anyone at home. If it's missed its missed. My point is that I don't care to be a fan of a game that can have a major be decided by a jerk at home. It's wrong.

I understand your point but do you want people posting these violations on social media and branding players as cheaters over an honest mistake?

 

 

Probably part of my disconnect. Aside from this site I'm not a participant in social media. At all. Have no use for the drama that it's ruled by. And so I really dont have an opinion on that except that I put no stock in Social media opinions. Calling someone a cheater won't make it true.

[HitEmTrue]

Shouldn't it be up to the player(s), rules officials and committee to see an infraction and impart the penalty within a reasonable manner?

 

What if a player's best friend sees an infraction on TV, calls the player, and the player tells the committee? You OK with that?