Thoughts on Couch Potatoes Calling in Penalties

[chris975d]

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?

 

I've said that she should have been assessed the penalty for the the original infraction. I've never argued that. The powers that be have already decided that her violation, knowledgeable or not, deserves a 2 stroke penalty. She received that.

 

Again, I'm talking about the additional subjective penalty of either two additional strokes, or DQ based on "incorrect scorecard". That part is nonsensical to me.

[Shilgy]

I admit to being mixed on the scorecard penalty portion. On one hand, as highspeed mentioned, it does penalize the player that goes to get away with an error (intentional or not) . However I do have issue with penalties that cannot be enforced the same on the final day of competition. Day after call ins are not valid for the final day of competition. Who ever heard of a penality not being unenforceable 25% of the time?

But if, as Phil related, the players won't enforce themselves then infections caught on video need to be called.

[tannyhoban]

Tannyhoban, I'm "for" maintaining the concept of the player being responsible for following the rules, and that ROs need to consider all evidence in order the keep it that way. I'm afraid if we get rid of call-ins, that it's an erosion of the game because it's one step closer to slashing in the NHL: not a penalty unless the ref blows the whistle.

 

I just can't reconcile ignoring "some" infractions - the penalty is harsh because all players go into it knowing that it's their responsibility. If we take that away, we start applying the rules differently for different players.

 

I can handle the different level of scrutiny, because that's not a practical factor that can be controlled in any enforcement situation (laws, sports, academics, etc) and we all intuitively know it exists in all walks of life - what I can't really wrap my head around is intentionally applying the rules differently for different players.

 

Let's not forget that call-ins are not the rules - it's just evidence that allows us to apply the rules equally. The expectation is the same for each player, and I don't really want to absolve a players responsibility just because he or she was ignorant of it.

 

That, to me, detracts from the fundamental nature of golf: the player is responsible for the entirety of their actions.

 

I get what you're saying. But you didn't call it in. IMO spectators and t.v. viewers are not a part of the game. As such they should have zero participation including calling in evidence.

[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?

 

I've said that she should have been assessed the penalty for the the original infraction. I've never argued that. The powers that be have already decided that her violation, knowledgeable or not, deserves a 2 stroke penalty. She received that.

 

Again, I'm talking about the additional subjective penalty of either two additional strokes, or DQ based on "incorrect scorecard". That part is nonsensical to me.

 

I'm afraid you aren't grasping what I'm saying, as evidenced by the fact you think I'm referring to the 2 strokes for not properly replacing her ball.

[HighSpeedScene]

I admit to being mixed on the scorecard penalty portion. On one hand, as highspeed mentioned, it does penalize the player that goes to get away with an error (intentional or not) . However I do have issue with penalties that cannot be enforced the same on the final day of competition. Day after call ins are not valid for the final day of competition. Who ever heard of a penality not being unenforceable 25% of the time?

But if, as Phil related, the players won't enforce themselves then infections caught on video need to be called.

 

They only can't be enforced because the player didn't take his or her responsibility serious enough or didn't pay enough attention to what he or she were doing.

 

Let's not forget that the penalty for signing an incorrect card (lower than the actual score) only exists because it is the players responsibility, period.

 

This is all moot if the player follows the rules of golf.

[chris975d]

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?

 

I've said that she should have been assessed the penalty for the the original infraction. I've never argued that. The powers that be have already decided that her violation, knowledgeable or not, deserves a 2 stroke penalty. She received that.

 

Again, I'm talking about the additional subjective penalty of either two additional strokes, or DQ based on "incorrect scorecard". That part is nonsensical to me.

 

I'm afraid you aren't grasping what I'm saying, as evidenced by the fact you think I'm referring to the 2 strokes for not properly replacing her ball.

 

I do grasp what you're saying, and I have explained multiple times why I disagree with it.

[EKELLY]

Lexi obviously incurred a penalty, but there has to be a time limit on the call in. Marking from the side as she did will always bring in the risk of not placing the ball where it originally was......

[EKELLY]

My buddy tried calling the NCAA during the Carolina/Gonzaga game, but nobody answered!....LOL

[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?

 

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

 

The difference, at least nominally, is that those players are not held responsible for the final score. So the nature of most all sports is to win at all costs, rules be damned for penalties. A receiver gets away with pushing off, good for them. An NBA player creates space with a subtle push, good for them. Are they called cheaters? No Draymond green jokes considering my profile pic, please!

 

Do we feel that same way for golf? A player replaces his ball about an inch away from his mark to avoid a spike mark and he makes that putt. Do we celebrate him or call him a cheater?

[Shilgy]

I admit to being mixed on the scorecard penalty portion. On one hand, as highspeed mentioned, it does penalize the player that goes to get away with an error (intentional or not) . However I do have issue with penalties that cannot be enforced the same on the final day of competition. Day after call ins are not valid for the final day of competition. Who ever heard of a penality not being unenforceable 25% of the time?

But if, as Phil related, the players won't enforce themselves then infections caught on video need to be called.

 

They only can't be enforced because the player didn't take his or her responsibility serious enough or didn't pay enough attention to what he or she were doing.

 

Let's not forget that the penalty for signing an incorrect card (lower than the actual score) only exists because it is the players responsibility, period.

 

This is all moot if the player follows the rules of golf.

I'm not talking about wrong score written down. Lexi was hit with a two stroke penalty for signing in an incorrect card. For a penalty no one knew existed. That was in addition to replacing ball incorrectly.

[BillyZ2]

Here's a good read: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/apr/03/lexi-thompson-tv-viewer-rules-infraction-golf

[HighSpeedScene]

I admit to being mixed on the scorecard penalty portion. On one hand, as highspeed mentioned, it does penalize the player that goes to get away with an error (intentional or not) . However I do have issue with penalties that cannot be enforced the same on the final day of competition. Day after call ins are not valid for the final day of competition. Who ever heard of a penality not being unenforceable 25% of the time?

But if, as Phil related, the players won't enforce themselves then infections caught on video need to be called.

 

They only can't be enforced because the player didn't take his or her responsibility serious enough or didn't pay enough attention to what he or she were doing.

 

Let's not forget that the penalty for signing an incorrect card (lower than the actual score) only exists because it is the players responsibility, period.

 

This is all moot if the player follows the rules of golf.

I'm not talking about wrong score written down. Lexi was hit with a two stroke penalty for signing in an incorrect card. For a penalty no one knew existed. That was in addition to replacing ball incorrectly.

 

Do you think she SHOULD have known?

 

And, the wrong score WAS written down - or do you think it's only an infraction if caught?

 

Edit: this is my issue entirely - why is everyone so willing to let a player not be responsible. I'm not saying she cheated or even did it intentionally. But the rules only work as a whole if that part doesn't matter. And why should it? Why aren't we more worried about protecting those players that are replacing their ball carefully so as to avoid a penalty they KNOW exists if they don't?

 

I dont care about intent - and neither does this rule.

[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

 

The difference, at least nominally, is that those players are not held responsible for the final score. So the nature of most all sports is to win at all costs, rules be damned for penalties. A receiver gets away with pushing off, good for them. An NBA player creates space with a subtle push, good for them. Are they called cheaters? No Draymond green jokes considering my profile pic, please!

 

Do we feel that same way for golf? A player replaces his ball about an inch away from his mark to avoid a spike mark and he makes that putt. Do we celebrate him or call him a cheater?

 

In those sports the officials are responsible for calling fouls or penalties. In golf , historically players were responsible for self reporting. If the governing bodies feel that now either players can't be trusted, or technology is showing that players are missing obvious infractions through simply not knowing the rules for example. Than they can add more officials to the tournaments on video replay, like the NFL has done. And they will catch more infractions, aswell as instill enough fear in the players that they will be more cautious (at least in theory)

 

Again, i don't see this as black and white, where opposing viewer call-ins is "celebrating cheaters". I simply believe that we are observers to sports and not participants. Even in normal business, employees/executives are accountable to shareholders, who can ask questions on shareholder calls etc....we aren't stakeholders in the PGA tour, we are customers.

 

I just don't care if some calls are missed, i would rather see a call missed than see one adjusted after play has concluded

[HighSpeedScene]

Here's a good read: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/apr/03/lexi-thompson-tv-viewer-rules-infraction-golf

 

Not bad for most of Alvarez's pieces. And I don't necessarily disagree that the perception of the rules are potentially an obstacle to the growth of the game.

 

But that's a need to change the perspective, not the fundamental nature of the player being responsible for their actions, IMO. Changing the rules as a knee jerk reaction to public outcry about A PLAYER BREAKING A KNOWN RULE is like the tail wagging the dog.

 

I'm very sympathetic and wish Lexi didn't have to be penalized to the extent she was, but I think it's the least bad outcome when contemplating the rules of the game as a whole.

[HighSpeedScene]

I don't see it as B&W either Jeff - but I know ignoring an infraction in this kind of case has a TON of much worse consequences.

 

Im just not in favor of moving towards taking responsibility away from the player for their actions - and that's the downstream impact of any additional relaxation of the rules in this regard.

 

The reason everyone thinks that the player has to call their own penalties is NOT some high-minded ideal - it's a practical implication of the game. And because the rules punish NOT doing so harshly when a light is shined upon it. Take away that light, and you provide incentive to try to get over on the field.

 

It's just not what I would like to see happen in golf.

[Shilgy]

High, I'm not referring to this incident alone. Lexi did not replace her ball correctly and received the 2 stroke penalty. I agree with that completely.

The incorrect scorecard penalty she received on the other hand I am mixed on. I understand the reasons some have given completely. Just not a fan of next day call ins being more penal than same day for one. Not a fan of rulings not applied the same on all days of competition for two.

That said I do support the call ins.

[andrew_p]

Definitely not a fan of the scorecard rule. At the time it was a correct score card. Dumb rule in my opinion

[whr]

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

 

The difference, at least nominally, is that those players are not held responsible for the final score. So the nature of most all sports is to win at all costs, rules be damned for penalties. A receiver gets away with pushing off, good for them. An NBA player creates space with a subtle push, good for them. Are they called cheaters? No Draymond green jokes considering my profile pic, please!

 

Do we feel that same way for golf? A player replaces his ball about an inch away from his mark to avoid a spike mark and he makes that putt. Do we celebrate him or call him a cheater?

 

In those sports the officials are responsible for calling fouls or penalties. In golf , historically players were responsible for self reporting. If the governing bodies feel that now either players can't be trusted, or technology is showing that players are missing obvious infractions through simply not knowing the rules for example. Than they can add more officials to the tournaments on video replay, like the NFL has done. And they will catch more infractions, aswell as instill enough fear in the players that they will be more cautious (at least in theory)

 

Again, i don't see this as black and white, where opposing viewer call-ins is "celebrating cheaters". I simply believe that we are observers to sports and not participants. Even in normal business, employees/executives are accountable to shareholders, who can ask questions on shareholder calls etc....we aren't stakeholders in the PGA tour, we are customers.

 

I just don't care if some calls are missed, i would rather see a call missed than see one adjusted after play has concluded

 

Great post, especially the highlighted portion.

[HighSpeedScene]

I agree as well, which is why I would never call in - but I'm also pretty happy a 22 year old doesn't have to face questions the rest of her career about whether she really deserved to win that (hopefully first) major.

 

 

[HighSpeedScene]

Definitely not a fan of the scorecard rule. At the time it was a correct score card. Dumb rule in my opinion

 

Once she signed for the score without adding the penalty for the action already completed, it was not accurate.

 

That's the whole point of why the rule exists - to ensure that players dont the abdicate their stated responsibility.

 

I swear I don't understand how people keep saying the card was correct. Once she breaks the rule, those 2 strokes exist - if the player doesn't add them, then the card is wrong.

 

Please don't start about how she didn't know - I concede that - but the whole thing about player responsibility is that she SHOULD have known.

[HighSpeedScene]

High, I'm not referring to this incident alone. Lexi did not replace her ball correctly and received the 2 stroke penalty. I agree with that completely.

The incorrect scorecard penalty she received on the other hand I am mixed on. I understand the reasons some have given completely. Just not a fan of next day call ins being more penal than same day for one. Not a fan of rulings not applied the same on all days of competition for two.

That said I do support the call ins.

 

I totally get it - it "feels" unfair. I just can't come up with any way to get rid of that without it feeling "more unfair" to those players that replaced their ball well and otherwise followed the rules or added their penalty strokes without being made to.

 

So, I'm left with a bad taste, but an understanding that alternatives would taste much worse to me.

[whr]

Call ins simply need to go the way of the dodo bird.

[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.

 

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?

I'm in favor of all golfers playing under the same rules, evidence of application and enforcement. If we're not a gentlemans sport anymore and can't be trusted to call penalties on ourselves then we need to ensure all pro golfers are being policed fairly. If that means having officials assigned to each player or having cameras following every player around then so be it.

 

Chances are the 50th player could have done the same thing that Lexi did but because they weren't seen doing it on television, no one called in.

[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?

I'm in favor of all golfers playing under the same rules, evidence of application and enforcement. If we're not a gentlemans sport anymore and can't be trusted to call penalties on ourselves then we need to ensure all pro golfers are being policed fairly. If that means having officials assigned to each player or having cameras following every player around then so be it.

 

Chances are the 50th player could have done the same thing that Lexi did but because they weren't seen doing it on television, no one called in.

 

Chances are...Could have...SMH. I'm all for discourse on the subject, but c'mon man.

 

So, the possibility that someone else could have gotten away with it means we don't penalize a player? And that's fair to the field?

[MtlJeff]

Call ins simply need to go the way of the dodo bird.

 

You mean hunt and eat them until they are extinct?

 

I'm down! I mentioned it in another thread but I just watched "hard target"

[warfelg]

Definitely not a fan of the scorecard rule. At the time it was a correct score card. Dumb rule in my opinion

 

Once she signed for the score without adding the penalty for the action already completed, it was not accurate.

 

That's the whole point of why the rule exists - to ensure that players dont the abdicate their stated responsibility.

 

I swear I don't understand how people keep saying the card was correct. Once she breaks the rule, those 2 strokes exist - if the player doesn't add them, then the card is wrong.

 

Please don't start about how she didn't know - I concede that - but the whole thing about player responsibility is that she SHOULD have known.

 

I think the area where most people are having an issue with is the other people not knowing either. If I was your marker and didn't know you moved the ball, and then the next day someone said you moved the ball, I attested to you signing a wrong scorecard.

 

That's where I think the issue lies for myself and others. Her marker/playing competitor attested that her card was correct, and the official checking to make scores official signed off on it being right. I wouldn't feel bad if it was called in that day, and the official said "Hey Lexi there's a dispute over a potential penalty, don't sign." and she did anyways.

 

But everyone in that scoring area didn't know there was an infraction occurring, so when she signed the card, no one knew there was something incorrect about it.

 

And yes I get your's and other's point about the penalty happened, that it means that the card was 'technically' incorrect. But like I will keep arguing, while this was the correct "by the book" ruling, this was not the intent of the rule. The intent of this rule was to protect the field from someone purposely or knowingly falsifying their scorecard. I don't want to get into a "Lexi knew she was cheating" argument, but based off the fact that someone did not call this in until one day later, they implemented the rule.

 

Anyways, the part that's bugging most of us is the lack of knowledge at the time the round was completed of the existence of a penalty.

 

The analogy I keep using with my friends is it's like a traffic cam catches you running a red light, but you don't get the ticket until a month later, then when you go to pay it, they say that your car moved too far in the intersection between captures, that you had to be speeding while they caught your running the light. It's a situation that stinks, and maybe you were speeding, but they are unjustly nailing you for something else at the same time they are getting you for the original infraction.

[Hardluckster]

I simply believe that we are observers to sports and not participants.

 

 

Just curious. Do you think that patrons at golf tournaments should be allowed to help players locate errant shots?

[Hardluckster]

 

But everyone in that scoring area didn't know there was an infraction occurring, so when she signed the card, no one knew there was something incorrect about it.

 

But, Lexi should have known.

 

I understand people thinking that the day after 2 stroke penalty is harsh, but for me it comes back to this simple fact: she should have known. Intentional or not, it was careless, and the rules of golf punish us for being careless.

[HighSpeedScene]

Definitely not a fan of the scorecard rule. At the time it was a correct score card. Dumb rule in my opinion

 

Once she signed for the score without adding the penalty for the action already completed, it was not accurate.

 

That's the whole point of why the rule exists - to ensure that players dont the abdicate their stated responsibility.

 

I swear I don't understand how people keep saying the card was correct. Once she breaks the rule, those 2 strokes exist - if the player doesn't add them, then the card is wrong.

 

Please don't start about how she didn't know - I concede that - but the whole thing about player responsibility is that she SHOULD have known.

 

I think the area where most people are having an issue with is the other people not knowing either. If I was your marker and didn't know you moved the ball, and then the next day someone said you moved the ball, I attested to you signing a wrong scorecard.

 

That's where I think the issue lies for myself and others. Her marker/playing competitor attested that her card was correct, and the official checking to make scores official signed off on it being right. I wouldn't feel bad if it was called in that day, and the official said "Hey Lexi there's a dispute over a potential penalty, don't sign." and she did anyways.

 

But everyone in that scoring area didn't know there was an infraction occurring, so when she signed the card, no one knew there was something incorrect about it.

 

And yes I get your's and other's point about the penalty happened, that it means that the card was 'technically' incorrect. But like I will keep arguing, while this was the correct "by the book" ruling, this was not the intent of the rule. The intent of this rule was to protect the field from someone purposely or knowingly falsifying their scorecard. I don't want to get into a "Lexi knew she was cheating" argument, but based off the fact that someone did not call this in until one day later, they implemented the rule.

 

Anyways, the part that's bugging most of us is the lack of knowledge at the time the round was completed of the existence of a penalty.

 

The analogy I keep using with my friends is it's like a traffic cam catches you running a red light, but you don't get the ticket until a month later, then when you go to pay it, they say that your car moved too far in the intersection between captures, that you had to be speeding while they caught your running the light. It's a situation that stinks, and maybe you were speeding, but they are unjustly nailing you for something else at the same time they are getting you for the original infraction.

 

Not trying to be a jerk or confrontational, but that's just flat out incorrect about the reason behind the rule for signing for an incorrect score - it was designed to place responsibility firmly on the player for ensuring that any penalties are reflected in the scores for each hole. I don't like how "unfair" it feels either, but to me it's FAR more unfair to everyone else (the "field") if we make changes and I just can't figure out how to make it so that the player (who is responsible for it, only) doesn't get a penalty for an infraction - timing be damned - as someone that has played plenty of competitive golf, I would be furious about the unequal application of the rules - imagine a player that DID call that penalty on himself because he took his responsibility seriously, how fair is that if we simply ignore another player's infraction? If we take away the penalty, we move to an atmosphere where players can just try to get away with things. And it's not like I think that would be rampant, but it would happen, but mostly I really like how binary it is: no disputes about whether or not there should be a penalty. It simply...is or is not.

 

I don't think Lexi gained any advantage, I do think it was just an innocent mistake, but I love that the rules don't care about that - they simply place the responsibility on the player. In fact, I think the 2 strokes vs. DQ is a slippery slope that we are already seeing create some erosion in the concept of player responsibility. The language says that if the player could not have reasonably known that an infraction occurred, then the 2 strokes vs. DQ is appropriate. How would Lexi's own actions not be reasonably known to her?

 

What sense does that make? I mean, she did it - was she in a fugue state or blacked out or something? Had been possessed by the demon spirit of Jane Blaylock? Again, not intentional, but she surely should have known if she is replacing the ball correctly. So, slippery slope to me - the "reasonable" standard to me is a just a chicken-sh*t way out for the committee. I consider it entirely reasonable for one to be aware of their own actions - and the rules require that the player know the rules. So, it's not reasonable to me that she could not have known.

 

Bring back the DQ!

[HighSpeedScene]

<p> </p>

<p>

<br />

<br />

Call ins simply need to go the way of the dodo bird.<br />

<br />

<br />

You mean hunt and eat them until they are extinct?<br />

<br />

I'm down! I mentioned it in another thread but I just watched "hard target"<br />

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tastes like chicken.</p>