Thoughts on Couch Potatoes Calling in Penalties

[mallrat]

I will ask this though, do you think if it had been handled in a more timely manner that she would have openly accepted a 2 shot penalty and not the extra 2 for an incorrect scorecard? Should that have been an option?

 

Should scorecards go back to being final? Turn them in at the end of the round let the rules official relook at the broadcast overnight and have the players sign them when they come back in the morning and have the clubs in their bag counted?

 

Still does not address the inequality in coverage and how to address it.

 

 

[8thehardway]

Lots of shade being thrown on that couch potato but there's another possibility,,, the caller might have had the chance to win a wager. With the level of betting surrounding The Masters, it’s a troubling thought that someone who wagered a grand on a 100-1 shot and finds his player in the final group on Sunday is glued to a high res tv with the rules committee on speed dial.

[milesgiles]

Lots of shade being thrown on that couch potato but there's another possibility,,, the caller might have had the chance to win a wager. With the level of betting surrounding The Masters, it’s a troubling thought that someone who wagered a grand on a 100-1 shot and finds his player in the final group on Sunday is glued to a high res tv with the rules committee on speed dial.

 

My first thought when I read this^

 

Entirely possible for whoever rang in to have had a bet against lexi winning.

 

Having said that, imo the tape is bad. Doesn't need to be slo mo'd or blown up, it's not close to the right position. They used to call it fudging. If she has to be the example for players to stop doing it, good.

[bladehunter]

Don't think Vegas doesn't now have goons watching for angles to hedge their bets. Sure what they call in may be true indiscretions. But do we want this type involvement ?

[HighSpeedScene]

Don't think Vegas doesn't now have goons watching for angles to hedge their bets. Sure what they call in may be true indiscretions. But do we want this type involvement ?

 

What is bad about it? When it becomes an issue, the tours will address it. Until then, we are just speculating on possible bad outcomes or bad process.

 

I don't love the idea of Vegas influencing the game in that kind of way, but the whole argument seems to kind of rest on this idea that we should let some infractions go. That I can't get on board with. So, all evidence should be reviewed is where I fall, with the committee and the player making the final call.

 

On thing I will say is that if someone truly wanted to change this, flooding the tour with evidence is a good way to do it - when it becomes unwieldy for financial or operational reasons, they will make a change.

[bladehunter]

Don't think Vegas doesn't now have goons watching for angles to hedge their bets. Sure what they call in may be true indiscretions. But do we want this type involvement ?

 

What is bad about it? When it becomes an issue, the tours will address it. Until then, we are just speculating on possible bad outcomes or bad process.

 

I don't love the idea of Vegas influencing the game in that kind of way, but the whole argument seems to kind of rest on this idea that we should let some infractions go. That I can't get on board with. So, all evidence should be reviewed is where I fall, with the committee and the player making the final call.

 

On thing I will say is that if someone truly wanted to change this, flooding the tour with evidence is a good way to do it - when it becomes unwieldy for financial or operational reasons, they will make a change.

 

 

Infractions have been being " let go" since the game began due to the inability to zoom in freeze time and see them. You have watched for years and apparently didn't know this ? What we have now is a changing of the game. Which will require a changing of the rules. Just watch.

 

And aorry. But waiting for the governing bodies to do something about something that is wrong is jut wishful thinking. Without push back they wouldn't do a thing. $ is what motivates them.

[mallrat]

Don't think Vegas doesn't now have goons watching for angles to hedge their bets. Sure what they call in may be true indiscretions. But do we want this type involvement ?

 

What is bad about it? When it becomes an issue, the tours will address it. Until then, we are just speculating on possible bad outcomes or bad process.

 

I don't love the idea of Vegas influencing the game in that kind of way, but the whole argument seems to kind of rest on this idea that we should let some infractions go. That I can't get on board with. So, all evidence should be reviewed is where I fall, with the committee and the player making the final call.

 

On thing I will say is that if someone truly wanted to change this, flooding the tour with evidence is a good way to do it - when it becomes unwieldy for financial or operational reasons, they will make a change.

 

What is bad is that not all players are subjected to the same scrutiny. One thing about golf is it's supposed to be a level playing field and coverage changes that. If you are going to scrutinize the leader, you have to pour over every shot of the guy in 70th place just grinding out the weekend in the same manner.

 

What if it was someone who went out in the middle of the pack and shot 9 under to take the lead before tv coverage had started for the day? Shouldn't that person be under the same microscope or subject to the same scrutiny?

[HighSpeedScene]

BH, you and I agree about more than it would appear on its face. Of course I'm not so naive as to think that there are infractions that go un-enforced. I'm just not ok with it when it becomes known - when we have evidence available.

 

Where we agree: this isn't about the integrity of the game or some misconstrued sense of honor - it's about money. Maybe not to start, but the sustenance of continuing to accept all evidence is about money. Make it less financially tolerable, and, yes, they find a way to change it. Which would be unfortunate IMO, but nonetheless that is what will change it when it changes.

[North Texas]

Lots of shade being thrown on that couch potato but there's another possibility,,, the caller might have had the chance to win a wager. With the level of betting surrounding The Masters, it’s a troubling thought that someone who wagered a grand on a 100-1 shot and finds his player in the final group on Sunday is glued to a high res tv with the rules committee on speed dial.

 

My first thought when I read this^

 

Entirely possible for whoever rang in to have had a bet against lexi winning.

 

Having said that, imo the tape is bad. Doesn't need to be slo mo'd or blown up, it's not close to the right position. They used to call it fudging. If she has to be the example for players to stop doing it, good.

 

But that's just it. Watch it in real-time and you can't tell that it's not close to the right position unless you know to look for it. I'm telling you someone knew to look for it.

[HighSpeedScene]

Don't think Vegas doesn't now have goons watching for angles to hedge their bets. Sure what they call in may be true indiscretions. But do we want this type involvement ?

 

What is bad about it? When it becomes an issue, the tours will address it. Until then, we are just speculating on possible bad outcomes or bad process.

 

I don't love the idea of Vegas influencing the game in that kind of way, but the whole argument seems to kind of rest on this idea that we should let some infractions go. That I can't get on board with. So, all evidence should be reviewed is where I fall, with the committee and the player making the final call.

 

On thing I will say is that if someone truly wanted to change this, flooding the tour with evidence is a good way to do it - when it becomes unwieldy for financial or operational reasons, they will make a change.

 

What is bad is that not all players are subjected to the same scrutiny. One thing about golf is it's supposed to be a level playing field and coverage changes that. If you are going to scrutinize the leader, you have to pour over every shot of the guy in 70th place just grinding out the weekend in the same manner.

 

What if it was someone who went out in the middle of the pack and shot 9 under to take the lead before tv coverage had started for the day? Shouldn't that person be under the same microscope or subject to the same scrutiny?

 

Without wanting to be aggressive or confrontational, I won't respond to you anymore. You keep moving the goal posts and I don't like discussing things with people that are obviously acting in bad faith.

 

You have your opinions, I have mine. All the best

[ronray43]

If call-in penalties are allowed, and there are logical reasons why this should be allowed (as well as logical reasons why it shouldn't be allowed), a simple solution would be for the tournament director to implement a local rule for that tournament that for any call-in penalties adjudicated after a particular round is over (or 3 hours after the round, or after midnight, or whatever), that the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard will not apply.

 

This can be done by any tournament director independent of the USGA.

 

If nothing else, is would be nice to see tournament directors experiment with this.

[North Texas]

If call-in penalties are allowed, and there are logical reasons why this should be allowed (as well as logical reasons why it shouldn't be allowed), a simple solution would be for the tournament director to implement a local rule for that tournament that for any call-in penalties adjudicated after a particular round is over (or 3 hours after the round, or after midnight, or whatever), that the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard will not apply.

 

This can be done by any tournament director independent of the USGA.

 

If nothing else, is would be nice to see tournament directors experiment with this.

 

Agree. Common sense tells you that she DID NOT sign an incorrect scorecard.

[KyGolf]

If call-in penalties are allowed, and there are logical reasons why this should be allowed (as well as logical reasons why it shouldn't be allowed), a simple solution would be for the tournament director to implement a local rule for that tournament that for any call-in penalties adjudicated after a particular round is over (or 3 hours after the round, or after midnight, or whatever), that the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard will not apply.

 

This can be done by any tournament director independent of the USGA.

 

If nothing else, is would be nice to see tournament directors experiment with this.

 

Agree. Common sense tells you that she DID NOT sign an incorrect scorecard.

 

 

She did sign an incorrect scorecard. The 2 stroke penalty incurred on #17 was not included in the score reported for that hole. She incurred the penalty as soon as she played from a wrong place, whether she was aware of it or not. The fact that it did not come to light until the next day is irrelevant.

 

If there is no penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard, there is no incentive for players to call a penalty on themselves. The score would be the same either way if a breach was discovered after the round. Nothing to lose, everything to gain. The extra 2 strokes is penal enough to make it risky to ignore a breach and hope nobody has noticed.

[North Texas]

If call-in penalties are allowed, and there are logical reasons why this should be allowed (as well as logical reasons why it shouldn't be allowed), a simple solution would be for the tournament director to implement a local rule for that tournament that for any call-in penalties adjudicated after a particular round is over (or 3 hours after the round, or after midnight, or whatever), that the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard will not apply.

 

This can be done by any tournament director independent of the USGA.

 

If nothing else, is would be nice to see tournament directors experiment with this.

 

Agree. Common sense tells you that she DID NOT sign an incorrect scorecard.

 

 

She did sign an incorrect scorecard. The 2 stroke penalty incurred on #17 was not included in the score reported for that hole. She incurred the penalty as soon as she played from a wrong place, whether she was aware of it or not. The fact that it did not come to light until the next day is irrelevant.

 

If there is no penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard, there is no incentive for players to call a penalty on themselves. The score would be the same either way if a breach was discovered after the round. Nothing to lose, everything to gain. The extra 2 strokes is penal enough to make it risky to ignore a breach and hope nobody has noticed.

 

Everything you say makes sense. But here's what I'm asking myself. If I sign a scorecard without knowing that I've incurred a penalty, then how can that be considered an incorrect scorecard?

[KyGolf]

If call-in penalties are allowed, and there are logical reasons why this should be allowed (as well as logical reasons why it shouldn't be allowed), a simple solution would be for the tournament director to implement a local rule for that tournament that for any call-in penalties adjudicated after a particular round is over (or 3 hours after the round, or after midnight, or whatever), that the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard will not apply.

 

This can be done by any tournament director independent of the USGA.

 

If nothing else, is would be nice to see tournament directors experiment with this.

 

Agree. Common sense tells you that she DID NOT sign an incorrect scorecard.

 

 

She did sign an incorrect scorecard. The 2 stroke penalty incurred on #17 was not included in the score reported for that hole. She incurred the penalty as soon as she played from a wrong place, whether she was aware of it or not. The fact that it did not come to light until the next day is irrelevant.

 

If there is no penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard, there is no incentive for players to call a penalty on themselves. The score would be the same either way if a breach was discovered after the round. Nothing to lose, everything to gain. The extra 2 strokes is penal enough to make it risky to ignore a breach and hope nobody has noticed.

 

Everything you say makes sense. But here's what I'm asking myself. If I sign a scorecard without knowing that I've incurred a penalty, then how can that be considered an incorrect scorecard?

 

I'm thinking that is why the penalty was changed to 2 strokes from DQ. You are allowed to play on and finish the competition. It is still a DQ if you knowingly fail to include a penalty or simply write down a lower number than you actually had.

[QEight]

If I sign a scorecard without knowing that I've incurred a penalty, then how can that be considered an incorrect scorecard?

 

The tree did fall in the forest even if you were not there to witness it.

[RobertBaron]

This whole situation is ridiculous. Anyone suggesting it would be ok for someone watching on tv to call in fouls or penalties during the Super Bowl, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup etc would be laughed out of the room

 

Yet that is a perfectly acceptable response in golf. Especially on the biggest stage.

 

This is very simple for me. Rules officials (aka referees) travel with every player and call penalties then and there at the moment something happens. If they miss it they go on like in every other big league sport. And if golf refs need instant replay, then it should be codified like it is in every other big league sport, though I think it's entirely unnecessary in a sport like golf as these rules violations are so infrequent and seemingly have little impact on the competition like a foul ball called fair would.

[llewol007]

I accept the fact that the LPGA accepts calls from the viewing audience on violations. The big thing for me is the unfair aspect of not having every player in the tournament under the same scrutiny. You cannot just follow the leader of the tournament and anybody with in striking distance because a player can be thought of as out of contention and pulling the same tricks. It has to be all or none in my opinion. Either follow every player during the tournament and allow the viewers to call in with any suspected violations or not allow the viewers to call in based on the limited players they choose to show on television. Not fair in my book to spotlight some and not all.

[greengolfer54]

Give Lexi the Trophy!

[QEight]

The big thing for me is the unfair aspect of not having every player in the tournament under the same scrutiny.

 

I would not worry about it. If they were cheating or playing sloppy they would be caught at some point. I would say Tour's should put more pressure on players themselves to play by the rules and then also watch each other.

 

I am more worried about relaxed attitude of players themselves. Someone else winning while breaching rules should not be in their interest.

 

Give Lexi the Trophy!

 

Participation trophy?

[soregongolfer]

This whole situation is ridiculous. Anyone suggesting it would be ok for someone watching on tv to call in fouls or penalties during the Super Bowl, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup etc would be laughed out of the room

 

Yet that is a perfectly acceptable response in golf. Especially on the biggest stage.

 

This is very simple for me. Rules officials (aka referees) travel with every player and call penalties then and there at the moment something happens. If they miss it they go on like in every other big league sport. And if golf refs need instant replay, then it should be codified like it is in every other big league sport, though I think it's entirely unnecessary in a sport like golf as these rules violations are so infrequent and seemingly have little impact on the competition like a foul ball called fair would.

 

The comparison to other sports is ridiculous. Golfers are expected to call penalties on themselves. That's obviously not expected in other sports.

 

As for rules officials making calls, for somebody to catch Lexi's infraction, they'd need to be in her shirt pocket. So that's not going to work. If anything, players will be much better about marking balls now knowing it could cost them a tournament.

[sui generis]

This whole situation is ridiculous. Anyone suggesting it would be ok for someone watching on tv to call in fouls or penalties during the Super Bowl, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup etc would be laughed out of the room

 

Yet that is a perfectly acceptable response in golf. Especially on the biggest stage.

 

This is very simple for me. Rules officials (aka referees) travel with every player and call penalties then and there at the moment something happens. If they miss it they go on like in every other big league sport. And if golf refs need instant replay, then it should be codified like it is in every other big league sport, though I think it's entirely unnecessary in a sport like golf as these rules violations are so infrequent and seemingly have little impact on the competition like a foul ball called fair would.

 

What's done or not done in other sports is not relevant.

[sui generis]

I accept the fact that the LPGA accepts calls from the viewing audience on violations. The big thing for me is the unfair aspect of not having every player in the tournament under the same scrutiny. You cannot just follow the leader of the tournament and anybody with in striking distance because a player can be thought of as out of contention and pulling the same tricks. It has to be all or none in my opinion. Either follow every player during the tournament and allow the viewers to call in with any suspected violations or not allow the viewers to call in based on the limited players they choose to show on television. Not fair in my book to spotlight some and not all.

 

Some players have larger galleries than others, too.

[Strike Force]

The big thing for me is the unfair aspect of not having every player in the tournament under the same scrutiny.

 

I would not worry about it. If they were cheating or playing sloppy they would be caught at some point. I would say Tour's should put more pressure on players themselves to play by the rules and then also watch each other.

 

I am more worried about relaxed attitude of players themselves. Someone else winning while breaching rules should not be in their interest.

 

Give Lexi the Trophy!

 

Participation trophy?

 

No! Give Lexi the ANA Inspiration trophy... She was robbed of the trophy by the stupid LPGA Rules Committee.

[sui generis]

The big thing for me is the unfair aspect of not having every player in the tournament under the same scrutiny.

 

I would not worry about it. If they were cheating or playing sloppy they would be caught at some point. I would say Tour's should put more pressure on players themselves to play by the rules and then also watch each other.

 

I am more worried about relaxed attitude of players themselves. Someone else winning while breaching rules should not be in their interest.

 

Give Lexi the Trophy!

 

Participation trophy?

 

No! Give Lexi the ANA Inspiration trophy... She was robbed of the trophy by the stupid LPGA Rules Committee.

 

You couldn't be more wrong. :swoon:

[Strike Force]

The big thing for me is the unfair aspect of not having every player in the tournament under the same scrutiny.

 

I would not worry about it. If they were cheating or playing sloppy they would be caught at some point. I would say Tour's should put more pressure on players themselves to play by the rules and then also watch each other.

 

I am more worried about relaxed attitude of players themselves. Someone else winning while breaching rules should not be in their interest.

 

Give Lexi the Trophy!

 

Participation trophy?

 

No! Give Lexi the ANA Inspiration trophy... She was robbed of the trophy by the stupid LPGA Rules Committee.

 

You couldn't be more wrong. :swoon:

 

I'll side with Jack Nicklaus, Phil Mickelson and many other reputable professional tour players...who I totally agree with.

[HighSpeedScene]

If call-in penalties are allowed, and there are logical reasons why this should be allowed (as well as logical reasons why it shouldn't be allowed), a simple solution would be for the tournament director to implement a local rule for that tournament that for any call-in penalties adjudicated after a particular round is over (or 3 hours after the round, or after midnight, or whatever), that the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard will not apply.

 

This can be done by any tournament director independent of the USGA.

 

If nothing else, is would be nice to see tournament directors experiment with this.

 

Agree. Common sense tells you that she DID NOT sign an incorrect scorecard.

 

 

She did sign an incorrect scorecard. The 2 stroke penalty incurred on #17 was not included in the score reported for that hole. She incurred the penalty as soon as she played from a wrong place, whether she was aware of it or not. The fact that it did not come to light until the next day is irrelevant.

 

If there is no penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard, there is no incentive for players to call a penalty on themselves. The score would be the same either way if a breach was discovered after the round. Nothing to lose, everything to gain. The extra 2 strokes is penal enough to make it risky to ignore a breach and hope nobody has noticed.

 

Everything you say makes sense. But here's what I'm asking myself. If I sign a scorecard without knowing that I've incurred a penalty, then how can that be considered an incorrect scorecard?

 

Because knowledge of the accuracy is not a factor in whether it is accurate or not.

 

But, officer, I didn't know the speed limit was 45!

[KyGolf]

The big thing for me is the unfair aspect of not having every player in the tournament under the same scrutiny.

 

I would not worry about it. If they were cheating or playing sloppy they would be caught at some point. I would say Tour's should put more pressure on players themselves to play by the rules and then also watch each other.

 

I am more worried about relaxed attitude of players themselves. Someone else winning while breaching rules should not be in their interest.

 

Give Lexi the Trophy!

 

Participation trophy?

 

No! Give Lexi the ANA Inspiration trophy... She was robbed of the trophy by the stupid LPGA Rules Committee.

 

 

I'll bite. Give us your explanation of exactly how she was robbed and back up your position with the applicable rules.

[Strike Force]

The big thing for me is the unfair aspect of not having every player in the tournament under the same scrutiny.

 

I would not worry about it. If they were cheating or playing sloppy they would be caught at some point. I would say Tour's should put more pressure on players themselves to play by the rules and then also watch each other.

 

I am more worried about relaxed attitude of players themselves. Someone else winning while breaching rules should not be in their interest.

 

Give Lexi the Trophy!

 

Participation trophy?

 

No! Give Lexi the ANA Inspiration trophy... She was robbed of the trophy by the stupid LPGA Rules Committee.

 

 

I'll bite. Give us your explanation of exactly how she was robbed and back up your position with the applicable rules.

 

The LPGA Rules Committee never should have considered the infraction on the day following the infraction. But at the very worse case scenario, the Rules Committee should never have given Lexi the 2 stroke penalty for returning an incorrect scorecard - because on the day she signed and returned it her scorecard was not incorrect.

[Baitkiller]

The point of this whole thing is long buried. I don't care about the penalty and I don't care how much the GD ball moved and I don't care about 2 strokes vs a DQ. The point is about people calling it in. The butt hurt is about remote and after the fact inspection of an unbalanced information sample. I have seen the word "intent" used in this discussion. The word has been used in regards to the incurred penalty when in all fact it should be used when discussing the actual Rule of investigating "all reported infractions" I wonder about the (intent) of the Rule regarding review of all reported infractions. I wonder when this Rule was written. I wonder if this Rule was written when the only spectators were actually in attendance. If that is the case, then I whole heartedly agree with said Rule and give it my support. However, if this Rule was written in the days of world wide HD cable and satellite TV network super slow-mo capability and instant world wide online gaming then I am of the firm opinion that it is a very stupid Rule.