Thoughts on Couch Potatoes Calling in Penalties

[bladehunter]

You guys are confusing the rules with the evidence. Lexi should have called it on herself - she didn't, so she runs the risk of signing an incorrect scorecard.

 

The fact that the evidence came from wherever is irrelevant to the rules. Call it yourself, be careful, or this is what can happen. And that's true for everyone. If am RO from the committee was watching the broadcast re-run and called it, would that change anything?

 

 

you cant call what you dont see... unless we are calling her a cheat we have to assume she did not know she committed anything.. Nor did anyone playing with her.. or the official walking with them... so did it happen ? yes i guess so .. BUT it didnt get caught by the policing players therfore we have now changed the soul of our game and replaced it with DVR and other outside sources of info...and why ? to appease the social media crowd.... I am one who is totally against instant replay in the gaem of golf for purposes of rules calls... in my opinion if it isnt caught by the same means MY tournament rules isues are called by then i dont care to have them called.... win some loose some , but it would keeep the spirit of the game alive... as it is we are in the 11th hour of its strangulation

[bladehunter]

The players are NOT the best resource for rules governance - that's so obvious i won't debate it.

 

 

and i dont disagree with that idea. IF zero tollerance policy is the main objective...... But to that point you must agree that we are seeing the game changed from its roots at this moment ...yes? the question then becomes is it a good or bad thing ?

[HighSpeedScene]

Who is saying the game is player policed?

 

All I'm saying is that it needs to remain the players responsibility. Where they SHOULD have taken accountability but didn't, for whatever reason, I prefer to apply the rules equally to all players, regardless of how that comes to light.

[HighSpeedScene]

The players are NOT the best resource for rules governance - that's so obvious i won't debate it.

 

 

and i dont disagree with that idea. IF zero tollerance policy is the main objective...... But to that point you must agree that we are seeing the game changed from its roots at this moment ...yes? the question then becomes is it a good or bad thing ?

 

Sure, I'll agree that game has changed - who wouldn't? But so what? Let's not change that most fundamental part: the players responsibility is to know the rules and abide by them. Where they don't, because it is so important, the penalty must be harsh.

 

In fact, I feel so strongly about it that I wish they still had the auto DQ for signing for a lower score.

[bladehunter]

The players are NOT the best resource for rules governance - that's so obvious i won't debate it.

 

 

and i dont disagree with that idea. IF zero tollerance policy is the main objective...... But to that point you must agree that we are seeing the game changed from its roots at this moment ...yes? the question then becomes is it a good or bad thing ?

 

Sure, I'll agree that game has changed - who wouldn't? But so what? Let's not change that most fundamental part: the players responsibility is to know the rules and abide by them. Where they don't, because it is so important, the penalty must be harsh.

 

In fact, I feel so strongly about it that I wish they still had the auto DQ for signing for a lower score.

 

 

 

Ill agree with that last line.. if they had to DQ her it would have been even worse press for the LPGA and the USGA ( yes i know it wasnt a usga event) ..... press like that is what will enact rules changes....

 

as for player policing .. I was always led to believe ( maybe wrongly) that the core idea of the games rules were the idea that it was self ( player) policed..

 

to me if we are to helicopter watch and then amend cards after the fact we can cut out the farse of attesting to each other scores and having a walking official... those officals are being over ruled left and right ( DJ etc) and the person attesting to a score thats deemed incorrect is surely made to look like a fool ..no?

[bladehunter]

hey man ...and no hard feelings by the way .... we just dont agree on the direction things are going ..... no big deal in the grand scheme of my day....

[North Texas]

I'll say it again.

 

What Lexi did was so obvious that it took a zoomed in, slow motion replay to see it. Damn people, think about that. Watch what happened in real time and you won't notice anything out of the ordinary. Unless you knew to be looking for it. Period.

 

And that's exactly what it going on here. Someone close to the action alerted someone to look for it. And that "someone close to the action" was another player or caddie or someone who stood to benefit from Lexi getting penalized. And that didn't happen until after the final round had started. There is more to this story than some couch potato calling it in. That is not what happened in this case. And I'll go ahead and say it. There has been a certain segment of LPGA players who have been noticeably silent on what happened while the support for Lexi has come from another certain segment. Read between the lines.

[HighSpeedScene]

hey man ...and no hard feelings by the way .... we just dont agree on the direction things are going ..... no big deal in the grand scheme of my day....

 

100% agree - just dudes talking, hopefully

[HighSpeedScene]

I'll say it again.

 

What Lexi did was so obvious that it took a zoomed in, slow motion replay to see it. Damn people, think about that. Watch what happened in real time and you won't notice anything out of the ordinary. Unless you knew to be looking for it. Period.

 

And that's exactly what it going on here. Someone close to the action alerted someone to look for it. And that "someone close to the action" was another player or caddie or someone who stood to benefit from Lexi getting penalized. And that didn't happen until after the final round had started. There is more to this story than some couch potato calling it in. That is not what happened in this case. And I'll go ahead and say it. There has been a certain segment of LPGA players who have been noticeably silent on what happened while the support for Lexi has come from another certain segment. Read between the lines.

 

I'll disagree with the need for slow mo or zoom to see it, besides, Lexi was pretty close to it - close enough to see it. I saw it live and knew it looked funny - no, I didn't call it in.

 

But to your second point, I don't dismiss it out of hand. But I also don't think it matters one whit. Scrutiny level, to me, is wholly immaterial. There is not one single thing in life where equal scrutiny can be guaranteed - so I don't see how that is even an argument. And nothing in the rules guarantees such a thing - but they do require the player to take responsibility.

 

So, maybe you are right - but if Lexi doesn't do it, it doesn't matter, does it?

[HighSpeedScene]

The players are NOT the best resource for rules governance - that's so obvious i won't debate it.

 

 

and i dont disagree with that idea. IF zero tollerance policy is the main objective...... But to that point you must agree that we are seeing the game changed from its roots at this moment ...yes? the question then becomes is it a good or bad thing ?

 

Sure, I'll agree that game has changed - who wouldn't? But so what? Let's not change that most fundamental part: the players responsibility is to know the rules and abide by them. Where they don't, because it is so important, the penalty must be harsh.

 

In fact, I feel so strongly about it that I wish they still had the auto DQ for signing for a lower score.

 

 

 

Ill agree with that last line.. if they had to DQ her it would have been even worse press for the LPGA and the USGA ( yes i know it wasnt a usga event) ..... press like that is what will enact rules changes....

 

as for player policing .. I was always led to believe ( maybe wrongly) that the core idea of the games rules were the idea that it was self ( player) policed..

 

to me if we are to helicopter watch and then amend cards after the fact we can cut out the farse of attesting to each other scores and having a walking official... those officals are being over ruled left and right ( DJ etc) and the person attesting to a score thats deemed incorrect is surely made to look like a fool ..no?

 

To me the core idea is that it is the players responsibility - which is why the rules do not delve into the concepts of advantages gained or whether someone knew or was trying to break a rule. It simply is or is not an infraction, and the player is the one held responsible for it. If they shirk that responsibility, the potential penalty is much harsher as a means to reinforce that responsibility.

 

Don't you think Lexi wishes she had called that on herself? That she had either been more careful, as the rules basically dictate you have to be and which she must know as a professional, or had been cognizant enough of what she was doing to realize she didn't replace the ball?

 

Think she understands her responsibility now?

[Vindog]

highspeed said....

No I don't. You don't understand the rules of golf. The rules are exactly the same.

 

 

 

not when only some players are on TV.... so some have at home refs and some dont? doesnt equate... to assume some players would get preferential treatment if call ins werent allowed is saying that the rules officials themselves are crooked....is this the case?

 

Yes, I assume the players that no longer are penalized for an infraction already committed would get preferential treatment if we are no longer allowed to penalize them dependent on how the evidence is gathered.

 

I asked it a million times and nobody answers: in golf, when is an infraction an infraction? At the time of the act or only when it is "caught"?

 

 

depends.... are players calling it on themselves or are we calling it from home?

 

 

you see the rules are trying to ride the fence that is the idea of a "player policed" game..... it cant be player policed if its policed by fans after the fact... so if we are doing it as we are doing it now its an infraction when its caught just like any other sport... if we are player policed it is an infraction at the time it happens and it gets called IF a player calls on himself or herself and/or if a playing partner or walking official sees it and calls it .... you cant call it a player policed game anymore...not running it as it is now...

 

Given the statements from Phil, and the polls that reflect that most caddies and players have witness some form of cheating, then it's clear that the players don't want to, and won't police themselves. They obviously cant be trusted to do that. Remeber when that caddy called the penalty on Rory for not taking full relief? He got roasted for doing it, even though it was his responsibility to do so and likely saved Rory from DQ.

 

I'm not saying that Lexi cheated though

[bladehunter]

highspeed said....

No I don't. You don't understand the rules of golf. The rules are exactly the same.

 

 

 

not when only some players are on TV.... so some have at home refs and some dont? doesnt equate... to assume some players would get preferential treatment if call ins werent allowed is saying that the rules officials themselves are crooked....is this the case?

 

Yes, I assume the players that no longer are penalized for an infraction already committed would get preferential treatment if we are no longer allowed to penalize them dependent on how the evidence is gathered.

 

I asked it a million times and nobody answers: in golf, when is an infraction an infraction? At the time of the act or only when it is "caught"?

 

 

depends.... are players calling it on themselves or are we calling it from home?

 

 

you see the rules are trying to ride the fence that is the idea of a "player policed" game..... it cant be player policed if its policed by fans after the fact... so if we are doing it as we are doing it now its an infraction when its caught just like any other sport... if we are player policed it is an infraction at the time it happens and it gets called IF a player calls on himself or herself and/or if a playing partner or walking official sees it and calls it .... you cant call it a player policed game anymore...not running it as it is now...

 

Given the statements from Phil, and the polls that reflect that most caddies and players have witness some form of cheating, then it's clear that the players don't want to, and won't police themselves. They obviously cant be trusted to do that. Remeber when that caddy called the penalty on Rory for not taking full relief? He got roasted for doing it, even though it was his responsibility to do so and likely saved Rory from DQ.

 

I'm not saying that Lexi cheated though

 

Yea. Correct. But those things tell me that the players as a whole are good with the rules being bendable. If they wanted rigid then the caddie certainly wouldn't be gotten roasted and Phil would be naming names. He certainly never pulled any punches he didn't want to before.

[Shilgy]

Rules are bendable? Man I hope not. No one sees me? Judge Smails says it's ok to foot wedge my ball from behind the tree. Would that be ok to get caught by television? If the rules are bendable where is the line drawn?

[Vindog]

Of course the players want the rules to be bendable. I'm sure all the defensive backs would just love it they never called a pass interference penalty. Maybe we should just let them maul receivers, because they said it's cool.

[Shilgy]

Vin, I wonder if most of the pros golfers do though. There is no defense in golf like in other sports. So one defense really is playing by the rules. No improving the lie, fudging on replacing the ball on the green, lying about score made, using illegal equipment and so on.

[new2g0lf]

The rules should be applied to all golfers equally. If you're going to allow couch potatoes to call in penalties then you have to ensure all golfers have equal number of cameras covering them and networks will have to ensure they all get equal camera time.

[Shilgy]

So penalties seen should not get enforced because some others may be missed? How is that fair to the guys that do not commit penalties?

[HighSpeedScene]

The rules should be applied to all golfers equally. If you're going to allow couch potatoes to call in penalties then you have to ensure all golfers have equal number of cameras covering them and networks will have to ensure they all get equal camera time.

 

You're confusing application of the rules and evidence of application of the rules. The former is only guaranteed with review of all applicable evidence. We will never be able to guarantee the latter - whether it's golf, moving violations, or murder investigations.

 

So I take it you are actually in favor of the status quo?

[chris975d]

 

To me the core idea is that it is the players responsibility - which is why the rules do not delve into the concepts of advantages gained or whether someone knew or was trying to break a rule. It simply is or is not an infraction, and the player is the one held responsible for it. If they shirk that responsibility, the potential penalty is much harsher as a means to reinforce that responsibility.

 

Don't you think Lexi wishes she had called that on herself? That she had either been more careful, as the rules basically dictate you have to be and which she must know as a professional, or had been cognizant enough of what she was doing to realize she didn't replace the ball?

 

Think she understands her responsibility now?

 

To the part of your post I bolded above....with Lexi's violation, did they not make a determination that she wasn't trying to break a rule, or unknowingly broke a rule...that's why she received the additional 2 stroke penalty vs the more severe DQ, right? So we already are getting into a determination of intent/knowledge, correct?

[HighSpeedScene]

 

To me the core idea is that it is the players responsibility - which is why the rules do not delve into the concepts of advantages gained or whether someone knew or was trying to break a rule. It simply is or is not an infraction, and the player is the one held responsible for it. If they shirk that responsibility, the potential penalty is much harsher as a means to reinforce that responsibility.

 

Don't you think Lexi wishes she had called that on herself? That she had either been more careful, as the rules basically dictate you have to be and which she must know as a professional, or had been cognizant enough of what she was doing to realize she didn't replace the ball?

 

Think she understands her responsibility now?

 

To the part of your post I bolded above....with Lexi's violation, did they not make a determination that she wasn't trying to break a rule, or unknowingly broke a rule...that's why she received the additional 2 stroke penalty vs the more severe DQ, right? So we already are getting into a determination of intent/knowledge, correct?

 

Not really, although that's immaterial - yes, they invoked the 2 strokes vs the DQ due to circumstances, but there was only implicit determination that she wasnt acting in bad faith, it's not part of the decision making process for that. There is a presumption, though, that players won't cheat, so they are implicitly making that determination for every player that isn't DQed, so it's not specific to Lexi.

 

The RULES don't require, except for rare situations, determination of intent, and when they do it's only through either extraordinary circumstances OR through player attestation, and there is NO rule that is dependent on whether or not an advantage is gained in the specific situation. Which makes perfect sense in golf given the size and scope of the playing field - you can't "catch" everything, so you make the rules different and place responsibility with the player for EVERYTHING.

 

Here's the LPGA statement: http://www.lpga.com/news/2017-lpga-statement-regarding-lexi-thompson-penalty-ana-inspiration

 

No indication of intent gleaned/determined.

 

Do you think they should have ignored the infraction?

[chris975d]

 

To me the core idea is that it is the players responsibility - which is why the rules do not delve into the concepts of advantages gained or whether someone knew or was trying to break a rule. It simply is or is not an infraction, and the player is the one held responsible for it. If they shirk that responsibility, the potential penalty is much harsher as a means to reinforce that responsibility.

 

Don't you think Lexi wishes she had called that on herself? That she had either been more careful, as the rules basically dictate you have to be and which she must know as a professional, or had been cognizant enough of what she was doing to realize she didn't replace the ball?

 

Think she understands her responsibility now?

 

To the part of your post I bolded above....with Lexi's violation, did they not make a determination that she wasn't trying to break a rule, or unknowingly broke a rule...that's why she received the additional 2 stroke penalty vs the more severe DQ, right? So we already are getting into a determination of intent/knowledge, correct?

 

Not really, although that's immaterial - yes, they invoked the 2 strokes vs the DQ due to circumstances, but there was only implicit determination that she wasnt acting in bad faith, it's not part of the decision making process for that. There is a presumption, though, that players won't cheat, so they are implicitly making that determination for every player that isn't DQed, so it's not specific to Lexi.

 

The RULES don't require, except for rare situations, determination of intent, and when they do it's only through either extraordinary circumstances OR through player attestation, and there is NO rule that is dependent on whether or not an advantage is gained in the specific situation. Which makes perfect sense in golf given the size and scope of the playing field - you can't "catch" everything, so you make the rules different and place responsibility with the player for EVERYTHING.

 

Here's the LPGA statement: http://www.lpga.com/news/2017-lpga-statement-regarding-lexi-thompson-penalty-ana-inspiration

 

No indication of intent gleaned/determined.

 

Do you think they should have ignored the infraction?

 

If you've followed my posts in all the other Lexi threads, no, I'm not saying they should have ignored the infraction. My biggest hang up is the additional 2 stroke penalty.

[HighSpeedScene]

So penalties seen should not get enforced because some others may be missed? How is that fair to the guys that do not commit penalties?

 

Can I like this a million times? Thank you shilgy, for writing concisely what I have been unable to express adequately.

 

It's almost like folks are more interested in protecting the known violators than those that have committed no infractions. One wonders how they play in tournaments when they think nobody is watching.

[HighSpeedScene]

 

To me the core idea is that it is the players responsibility - which is why the rules do not delve into the concepts of advantages gained or whether someone knew or was trying to break a rule. It simply is or is not an infraction, and the player is the one held responsible for it. If they shirk that responsibility, the potential penalty is much harsher as a means to reinforce that responsibility.

 

Don't you think Lexi wishes she had called that on herself? That she had either been more careful, as the rules basically dictate you have to be and which she must know as a professional, or had been cognizant enough of what she was doing to realize she didn't replace the ball?

 

Think she understands her responsibility now?

 

To the part of your post I bolded above....with Lexi's violation, did they not make a determination that she wasn't trying to break a rule, or unknowingly broke a rule...that's why she received the additional 2 stroke penalty vs the more severe DQ, right? So we already are getting into a determination of intent/knowledge, correct?

 

Not really, although that's immaterial - yes, they invoked the 2 strokes vs the DQ due to circumstances, but there was only implicit determination that she wasnt acting in bad faith, it's not part of the decision making process for that. There is a presumption, though, that players won't cheat, so they are implicitly making that determination for every player that isn't DQed, so it's not specific to Lexi.

 

The RULES don't require, except for rare situations, determination of intent, and when they do it's only through either extraordinary circumstances OR through player attestation, and there is NO rule that is dependent on whether or not an advantage is gained in the specific situation. Which makes perfect sense in golf given the size and scope of the playing field - you can't "catch" everything, so you make the rules different and place responsibility with the player for EVERYTHING.

 

Here's the LPGA statement: http://www.lpga.com/news/2017-lpga-statement-regarding-lexi-thompson-penalty-ana-inspiration

 

No indication of intent gleaned/determined.

 

Do you think they should have ignored the infraction?

 

If you've followed my posts in all the other Lexi threads, no, I'm not saying they should have ignored the infraction. My biggest hang up is the additional 2 stroke penalty.

 

So you want to promote an environment where there is no incentive to call it on yourself? After all, no additional penalty, so why not pretend you didn't see it and see if you get called on it?

 

And I'm not talking about you, but if you don't think that will start to happen, I think you're being naive.

[chris975d]

 

To me the core idea is that it is the players responsibility - which is why the rules do not delve into the concepts of advantages gained or whether someone knew or was trying to break a rule. It simply is or is not an infraction, and the player is the one held responsible for it. If they shirk that responsibility, the potential penalty is much harsher as a means to reinforce that responsibility.

 

Don't you think Lexi wishes she had called that on herself? That she had either been more careful, as the rules basically dictate you have to be and which she must know as a professional, or had been cognizant enough of what she was doing to realize she didn't replace the ball?

 

Think she understands her responsibility now?

 

To the part of your post I bolded above....with Lexi's violation, did they not make a determination that she wasn't trying to break a rule, or unknowingly broke a rule...that's why she received the additional 2 stroke penalty vs the more severe DQ, right? So we already are getting into a determination of intent/knowledge, correct?

 

Not really, although that's immaterial - yes, they invoked the 2 strokes vs the DQ due to circumstances, but there was only implicit determination that she wasnt acting in bad faith, it's not part of the decision making process for that. There is a presumption, though, that players won't cheat, so they are implicitly making that determination for every player that isn't DQed, so it's not specific to Lexi.

 

The RULES don't require, except for rare situations, determination of intent, and when they do it's only through either extraordinary circumstances OR through player attestation, and there is NO rule that is dependent on whether or not an advantage is gained in the specific situation. Which makes perfect sense in golf given the size and scope of the playing field - you can't "catch" everything, so you make the rules different and place responsibility with the player for EVERYTHING.

 

Here's the LPGA statement: http://www.lpga.com/news/2017-lpga-statement-regarding-lexi-thompson-penalty-ana-inspiration

 

No indication of intent gleaned/determined.

 

Do you think they should have ignored the infraction?

 

If you've followed my posts in all the other Lexi threads, no, I'm not saying they should have ignored the infraction. My biggest hang up is the additional 2 stroke penalty.

 

So you want to promote an environment where there is no incentive to call it on yourself? After all, no additional penalty, so why not pretend you didn't see it and see if you get called on it?

 

And I'm not talking about you, but if you don't think that will start to happen, I think you're being naive.

 

And you really think people purposely cheating are going to get caught as it stands now? Those truly hell bent on gaining an advantage are going to do it no matter what. And I think with recent comments by likes of Phil, and the caddy survey I originally linked to in one thread show that none of the "known cheaters" are getting anything as is. Seems the only people ever affected by these are the ones honorable enough to call it on themselves, or the ones that truly make an unknown violation that just happens on camera.

 

Very few if any of these after the fact penalties are ever when someone was purposely cheating.

[HighSpeedScene]

No, I never said that and I think the additional penalty is the primary reason why it's not happening more.

 

I'm sure it happens some...But that penalty for abdicating your responsibility is necessary to keep it from happening more.

 

I'm not interested in catching those cheating - I'm interested in applying penalties to known infractions. Please don't twist my words - all I'm saying is that if you can penalize a known infraction, you do it. And I can't understand how that's controversial, honestly.

[MtlJeff]

I don't see why the tour can't just have 1-2 jabronis in a replay booth like the NFL does, they can report suspicious circumstances to officials during the broadcast. Rules infractions can be applied at any point during the round. Once a round is done it's done. The 4th quarter of the Kings / Lakers game 6 from 2002 is a joke we all know it, no one really thought the NBA was going to change the outcome after the fact, that's just part of sports.

 

I don't have any issue with getting calls right or applying the rules, as long as the benefit of the doubt is given to the player when it comes to rules of "reasonably" seeing a ball move with a human eye vs a HD camera for example. But in cases like this fine, get it right....but do it in a timely manner

 

I'd rather not see viewers be involved in outcomes, or scores changed when a round is concluded.

[HighSpeedScene]

I don't see why the tour can't just have 1-2 jabronis in a replay booth like the NFL does, they can report suspicious circumstances to officials during the broadcast. Rules infractions can be applied at any point during the round. Once a round is done it's done. The 4th quarter of the Kings / Lakers game 6 from 2002 is a joke we all know it, no one really thought the NBA was going to change the outcome after the fact, that's just part of sports.

 

I don't have any issue with getting calls right or applying the rules, as long as the benefit of the doubt is given to the player when it comes to rules of "reasonably" seeing a ball move with a human eye vs a HD camera for example. But in cases like this fine, get it right....but do it in a timely manner

 

I'd rather not see viewers be involved in outcomes, or scores changed when a round is concluded.

 

They certainly have the money to be able to do it, but I wouldn't want anyones "victory" tainted by some short-sighted policy to ignore evidence because someone on the internet thinks it's only beer bellied couch potatoes that are calling in INFRACTIONS. I recoil at the perspective that viewers are influencing the outcome - but the player who knows it is her or his responsibility isn't more to blame for committing the infraction???

 

We are blaming a person that calls in an infraction instead of the person committing the deed? Wut?

[MtlJeff]

I don't see why the tour can't just have 1-2 jabronis in a replay booth like the NFL does, they can report suspicious circumstances to officials during the broadcast. Rules infractions can be applied at any point during the round. Once a round is done it's done. The 4th quarter of the Kings / Lakers game 6 from 2002 is a joke we all know it, no one really thought the NBA was going to change the outcome after the fact, that's just part of sports.

 

I don't have any issue with getting calls right or applying the rules, as long as the benefit of the doubt is given to the player when it comes to rules of "reasonably" seeing a ball move with a human eye vs a HD camera for example. But in cases like this fine, get it right....but do it in a timely manner

 

I'd rather not see viewers be involved in outcomes, or scores changed when a round is concluded.

 

They certainly have the money to be able to do it, but I wouldn't want anyones "victory" tainted by some short-sighted policy to ignore evidence because someone on the internet thinks it's only beer bellied couch potatoes that are calling in INFRACTIONS. I recoil at the perspective that viewers are influencing the outcome - but the player who knows it is her or his responsibility isn't more to blame for committing the infraction???

 

We are blaming a person that calls in an infraction instead of the person committing the deed? Wut?

 

an NBA player knows he committed a foul, an NFL receiver knows if he really had control of the ball or not etc...Sometimes the calls don't go your way. But the majority of the time officials tend to get it right and when they don't it's unfortunate but it happens. I would rather calls get missed than have viewers, whether they are fat or not, calling in penalties.

 

Who is "blaming" callers? I'm not accusing them of anything. I just don't think they should be involved in the action and the PGA should keep their officiating in-house like pretty much every single other sports league does

[chris975d]

No, I never said that and I think the additional penalty is the primary reason why it's not happening more.

 

I'm sure it happens some...But that penalty for abdicating your responsibility is necessary to keep it from happening more.

 

I'm not interested in catching those cheating - I'm interested in applying penalties to known infractions. Please don't twist my words - all I'm saying is that if you can penalize a known infraction, you do it. And I can't understand how that's controversial, honestly.

 

But, people can already say "they didn't know" and receive a lesser penalty than a DQ. This is more or less what happened with Lexi.

 

So the can of worms has already been opened by that. In my opinion, they didn't take it far enough. If they are going to basically ask the player their intent/where they knowledgeable of their rules violation, then they should have given the committee full discretion in what penalty is doled out, if any at all.

 

Specifically I'm talking about the additional 2 stroke penalty decision vs DQ. That part is what I do not agree with. Yes, I understand by the CURRENT rules that it was applied due to incorrect scorecard, but I do not agree with that. Everyone involved with that event, from Lexi, fellow competitor, scorers...everyone...that scorecard was "correct" to everyone's knowledge when she signed it.

I think the committee should have the ability to make a judgement as to when that additional penalty is applied. Yes, that would mean that all rules/etc involved with "signing of an incorrect scorecard" would have to be changed as well (more than likely). So it's not an easy fix.

 

But when your commissioner comes out and publicly admits it was too harsh of a penalty, I think you have an issue.

 

Does that mean that televised, tour golf needs to have their own rules/policies...maybe? It's not the same game we play at the local level.

[HighSpeedScene]

You are just wrong about the intended application​ of that new option.

 

But beyond that, think about it -if you're argument is that players will "just say they didn't know" to avoid the DQ, isn't that really an argument for bringing back the auto DQ for signing for a lower score?

 

And, who would really roll the dice on that? Implicit in your argument is that the player KNOWS they committed an infraction and is hoping it isn't caught - wouldn't it serve their interest more to simply go by the rules in that case?

 

Edit: you keep talking about knowledge level at the time of the signed card - why does that matter? Where is awareness of ANY rule required (in any walk of life) in order to be held accountable to that rule?