Thoughts on Couch Potatoes Calling in Penalties

[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.

 

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?

 

Is it fair when a holding penalty isn't called in football or should we have fans call in to point out every time the referees miss a call? The golfer and marker are responsible for ensuring the rules are enforced and the field is protected. If we no longer trust the golfer and marker to enforce the rules then we should have officials assigned to each golfer, this selective enforcement based on who gets more television time or has larger galleries is not fair enforcement.

[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.

 

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!

 

So the rule was written with the intent for someone to call in 24 hours later to report an infraction? That's what I meant by the intent of the rule. It was never designed with the thinking (the original rule, leave out the 2 strokes vs DQ part) that someone sitting at home would watch, in slow motion, and zoom in, with HD, to report an infraction.

 

The intent in the first place with the rule was to punish people who knowingly reported false scores. Not for spectators to call in penalties.

[andrew_p]

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!

 

So the rule was written with the intent for someone to call in 24 hours later to report an infraction? That's what I meant by the intent of the rule. It was never designed with the thinking (the original rule, leave out the 2 strokes vs DQ part) that someone sitting at home would watch, in slow motion, and zoom in, with HD, to report an infraction.

 

The intent in the first place with the rule was to punish people who knowingly reported false scores. Not for spectators to call in penalties.

 

This is exactly what I was saying. I understand the intention of the rule, I just don't think it can be applied in the manner it was. Give her the penalty for the incorrect ball placement, but the doubling up on the scorecard was just mean.

[warfelg]

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.

 

So then your saying Lexi knowingly cheated and tried to gain an advantage. You're not buying at all with what she says is an honest mistake.

[HighSpeedScene]

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.

 

So then your saying Lexi knowingly cheated and tried to gain an advantage. You're not buying at all with what she says is an honest mistake.

 

That is a stunning example of logic fail. That's not what he's saying at all. Intent is irrelevant, and he knows that - you, apparently, do not.

[warfelg]

This is exactly what I was saying. I understand the intention of the rule, I just don't think it can be applied in the manner it was. Give her the penalty for the incorrect ball placement, but the doubling up on the scorecard was just mean.

 

I've asked a couple of rules committee guys I trust from clubs I've worked at and they all say the same thing that you and I did. Yes it's in the rule but the way it was used here does not fit what it was meant for, in that the design of the rule was not for someone to call in long after the fact.

 

99.9% of rules are made for the general golfing public, including this rule. Very few rules are written with the professional golfer in mind.

[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!

 

So the rule was written with the intent for someone to call in 24 hours later to report an infraction? That's what I meant by the intent of the rule. It was never designed with the thinking (the original rule, leave out the 2 strokes vs DQ part) that someone sitting at home would watch, in slow motion, and zoom in, with HD, to report an infraction.

 

The intent in the first place with the rule was to punish people who knowingly reported false scores. Not for spectators to call in penalties.

 

Incorrect. I gave you the correct answer above. You are just wrong about the intent of the rule - it's there as a necessary step for player responsibility.

 

 

[warfelg]

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.

 

So then your saying Lexi knowingly cheated and tried to gain an advantage. You're not buying at all with what she says is an honest mistake.

 

That is a stunning example of logic fail. That's not what he's saying at all. Intent is irrelevant, and he knows that - you, apparently, do not.

 

I'm sorry but every time someone says she knowingly or should have known that she had a penalty there then they are saying she knowingly cheated. You don't unknowingly do something but know you get a penalty at the same time.

[Hardluckster]

 

Is it fair when a holding penalty isn't called in football or should we have fans call in to point out every time the referees miss a call? The golfer and marker are responsible for ensuring the rules are enforced and the field is protected. If we no longer trust the golfer and marker to enforce the rules then we should have officials assigned to each golfer, this selective enforcement based on who gets more television time or has larger galleries is not fair enforcement.

 

If life were fair then military personnel, doctors, policemen, and fire fighters would all make more money than professional golfers and other athletes.

 

Divots, wind, rain, weather in general, condition of the greens throughout the round: how are we to create equity in these situations if we intend for the competition to be "fair".

 

Maybe the option is just give all of them a trophy? Just follow the rules and there is no problem.

[warfelg]

 

Incorrect. I gave you the correct answer above. You are just wrong about the intent of the rule - it's there as a necessary step for player responsibility.

 

I'm never going to agree on this.

 

These rules weren't written for professional golfers. They were written for the masses. This rule wasn't written way back when in the first place with the USGA and R&A thinking this would happen. The reduction from DQ to 2 stroke was done in response to tour players voicing displeasure. I'm sure this will change again, even if it's through the tours implementing their own policy on this.

[new2g0lf]

Is it fair when a holding penalty isn't called in football or should we have fans call in to point out every time the referees miss a call? The golfer and marker are responsible for ensuring the rules are enforced and the field is protected. If we no longer trust the golfer and marker to enforce the rules then we should have officials assigned to each golfer, this selective enforcement based on who gets more television time or has larger galleries is not fair enforcement.

 

If life were fair then military personnel, doctors, policemen, and fire fighters would all make more money than professional golfers and other athletes.

 

Divots, wind, rain, weather in general, condition of the greens throughout the round: how are we to create equity in these situations if we intend for the competition to be "fair".

 

Maybe the option is just give all of them a trophy? Just follow the rules and there is no problem.

Slippery slope much?

[HighSpeedScene]

HOnestly, all the arguments about other games - it's so irrelevant. Keep the topic to golf.

 

For those that don't think she should have received the 2 strokes for the incorrect card, please tell me how that is "fair" or "equal application" for all of those players that DID sign a correct card? What if a player called a penalty on himself during that SAME round that perhaps would have otherwise gone unnoticed? Why are you more concerned about protecting the player committing the infraction than those that did not committ the infraction?

[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.

 

So then your saying Lexi knowingly cheated and tried to gain an advantage. You're not buying at all with what she says is an honest mistake.

 

Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

 

I don't know whether Lexi knew or not, and really don't care, but I know that she should have known. The mistake was either complete carelessness or an attempt to circumvent a rule and nobody but Lexi knows for sure which.

[new2g0lf]

HOnestly, all the arguments about other games - it's so irrelevant. Keep the topic to golf.

 

For those that don't think she should have received the 2 strokes for the incorrect card, please tell me how that is "fair" or "equal application" for all of those players that DID sign a correct card? What if a player called a penalty on himself during that SAME round that perhaps would have otherwise gone unnoticed? Why are you more concerned about protecting the player committing the infraction than those that did not committ the infraction?

I'm not interested in protecting the player who committed an infraction, I just want to ensure we catch all golfers that commit infractions not just the ones that have larger galleries or get more broadcast coverage.

[HighSpeedScene]

Incorrect. I gave you the correct answer above. You are just wrong about the intent of the rule - it's there as a necessary step for player responsibility.

 

I'm never going to agree on this.

 

These rules weren't written for professional golfers. They were written for the masses. This rule wasn't written way back when in the first place with the USGA and R&A thinking this would happen. The reduction from DQ to 2 stroke was done in response to tour players voicing displeasure. I'm sure this will change again, even if it's through the tours implementing their own policy on this.

 

Luckily, your agreement is not a requirement of accuracy. I have no problem with the tv shows creating their own rules - have at it! But the ROG needs to keep the responsibility on the player, and the incorrect card rule is a necessary evil in that regard.

[Hardluckster]

Is it fair when a holding penalty isn't called in football or should we have fans call in to point out every time the referees miss a call? The golfer and marker are responsible for ensuring the rules are enforced and the field is protected. If we no longer trust the golfer and marker to enforce the rules then we should have officials assigned to each golfer, this selective enforcement based on who gets more television time or has larger galleries is not fair enforcement.

 

If life were fair then military personnel, doctors, policemen, and fire fighters would all make more money than professional golfers and other athletes.

 

Divots, wind, rain, weather in general, condition of the greens throughout the round: how are we to create equity in these situations if we intend for the competition to be "fair".

 

Maybe the option is just give all of them a trophy? Just follow the rules and there is no problem.

Slippery slope much?

 

So, you think it should be completely fair? Or you don't?

[HighSpeedScene]

HOnestly, all the arguments about other games - it's so irrelevant. Keep the topic to golf.

 

For those that don't think she should have received the 2 strokes for the incorrect card, please tell me how that is "fair" or "equal application" for all of those players that DID sign a correct card? What if a player called a penalty on himself during that SAME round that perhaps would have otherwise gone unnoticed? Why are you more concerned about protecting the player committing the infraction than those that did not committ the infraction?

I'm not interested in protecting the player who committed an infraction, I just want to ensure we catch all golfers that commit infractions not just the ones that have larger galleries or get more broadcast coverage.

 

So you're ok with Lexi getting the extra 2 for the incorrect card then?

 

I mean, you can't argue that in any other walk of life - that we should only punish actions if we can guarantee that EVERY similar action was punished? Other sports? Law? Academics? Release all the murderers until every murder is solved? The logic just doesn't sustain itself.

 

Look, I would think it's a bad decision, but the tours could easily implement these things. But think about the publicity: the tour says they will no longer review evidence of an infraction in certain circumstances, and something like Lexi happens and now the tour has to answer allegations of allowing a player to win that didn't deserve it, because she clearly didn't replace her ball correctly.

 

Or, ROs dedicated to each player (unwieldy, but the PGA Tour could afford it - not sure about LPGA) - think the players would like being watched by a striped shirt every second? Watch the players b**** and moan about that!

 

Point to me is that I don't care what professional golf does - I care about the rules of the game NOT eroding player responsibility any more.

 

Bring back the DQ!

[warfelg]

HOnestly, all the arguments about other games - it's so irrelevant. Keep the topic to golf.

 

For those that don't think she should have received the 2 strokes for the incorrect card, please tell me how that is "fair" or "equal application" for all of those players that DID sign a correct card? What if a player called a penalty on himself during that SAME round that perhaps would have otherwise gone unnoticed? Why are you more concerned about protecting the player committing the infraction than those that did not committ the infraction?

 

I'm more concerned about the why this came to light so late into Sunday to be honest.

 

If it really was that easy to see, then why did it take so long? Either this person that called/emailed it in was looking for something, was tipped, or had a stake in the outcome. Something just doesn't sit right with me here. How often do you watch a previous round about 1/2 way through the final round of the current event?

 

The show "How I Met Your Mother" always had a funny joke where one character could know if someone was covering up something or lying about something and would ask "Where's the poop?" Well I smell it. Where's the poop LPGA?

[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.

 

So then your saying Lexi knowingly cheated and tried to gain an advantage. You're not buying at all with what she says is an honest mistake.

 

That is a stunning example of logic fail. That's not what he's saying at all. Intent is irrelevant, and he knows that - you, apparently, do not.

 

I'm sorry but every time someone says she knowingly or should have known that she had a penalty there then they are saying she knowingly cheated. You don't unknowingly do something but know you get a penalty at the same time.

 

Wrong. It was an infraction that she should have known that she committed. You dismiss the option that she was careless and not paying attention? OK.

 

You just basically called me a liar, without knowledge of my intent. How hypocritical is that?

 

I forgive you, BTW. ;)

[whr]

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"

 

That's right, take'em out! lol

 

Here's a question, if the USGA does implement the proposed 2019 rules changes, Lexi wouldn't have received a penalty based on the below change, correct?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed Rule: Under new Rule 1.3a(2), whenever required to estimate or measure a spot, point, line, area or distance, the player’s reasonable judgment would be accepted if:

The player did all that could be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make a prompt and accurate estimation or measurement.

This means that the player’s reasonable judgment would be upheld even if later shown to be wrong by other information (such as video technology).

Reasons for Change:

The Rules generally rely on the integrity of the player, and this is a natural and appropriate extension of this trust in the player.

There are many times when the Rules require a player to estimate or measure a spot, point, line, area or distance, such as when the player:

• Uses a ball-marker to mark a ball’s spot, and then replace the ball, or
  
• Needs to find a reference point or reference line for taking relief (such as the nearest point of complete relief or the line from the hole through the spot of an unplayable ball), or to determine the extent of a relief area (such as measuring a fixed distance from a reference point or reference line).
   
  

 

Such judgments need to be made promptly, and players often cannot be precise in doing so.

So long as the player did all that could be reasonably expected under the circumstances:

• The player gets no penalty for any small inaccuracies, irrespective of any advantage gained.
   
  

 

Accepting a player’s reasonable judgment would limit “second-guessing” that can arise from the use of enhanced technology (such as video review when golf is televised).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HighSpeedScene]

HOnestly, all the arguments about other games - it's so irrelevant. Keep the topic to golf.

 

For those that don't think she should have received the 2 strokes for the incorrect card, please tell me how that is "fair" or "equal application" for all of those players that DID sign a correct card? What if a player called a penalty on himself during that SAME round that perhaps would have otherwise gone unnoticed? Why are you more concerned about protecting the player committing the infraction than those that did not committ the infraction?

 

I'm more concerned about the why this came to light so late into Sunday to be honest.

 

If it really was that easy to see, then why did it take so long? Either this person that called/emailed it in was looking for something, was tipped, or had a stake in the outcome. Something just doesn't sit right with me here. How often do you watch a previous round about 1/2 way through the final round of the current event?

 

The show "How I Met Your Mother" always had a funny joke where one character could know if someone was covering up something or lying about something and would ask "Where's the poop?" Well I smell it. Where's the poop LPGA?

 

Yup, I get that. And I don't want to touch it - luckily, the rules are binary and we don't have to worry about it. The easiest way for it to not be an issue is for Lexi to do what all the other players apparently could do well: put the ball back down from where she picked it up. Using her mark for reference. It wasn't even really a difficult thing to do.

 

And I'm not hating on Lexi - I tend to think optimistically about everyone, and wouldn't consider anything nefarious about it, but, again, we don't have to delve into that AT ALL. As I said before, I'm sympathetic, but the rules can't be.

[warfelg]

Look, I would think it's a bad decision, but the tours could easily implement these things. But think about the publicity: the tour says they will no longer review evidence of an infraction in certain circumstances, and something like Lexi happens and now the tour has to answer allegations of allowing a player to win that didn't deserve it, because she clearly didn't replace her ball correctly.

 

So if they just decide that the 2 stroke penalty rule would no longer be enforced after a new round started, but the original penalty would still apply and it would be like that for every player in the event, how would you feel?

[new2g0lf]

HOnestly, all the arguments about other games - it's so irrelevant. Keep the topic to golf.

 

For those that don't think she should have received the 2 strokes for the incorrect card, please tell me how that is "fair" or "equal application" for all of those players that DID sign a correct card? What if a player called a penalty on himself during that SAME round that perhaps would have otherwise gone unnoticed? Why are you more concerned about protecting the player committing the infraction than those that did not committ the infraction?

I'm not interested in protecting the player who committed an infraction, I just want to ensure we catch all golfers that commit infractions not just the ones that have larger galleries or get more broadcast coverage.

 

So you're ok with Lexi getting the extra 2 for the incorrect card then?

 

I mean, you can't argue that in any other walk of life - that we should only punish actions if we can guarantee that EVERY similar action was punished? Other sports? Law? Academics? Release all the murderers until every murder is solved? The logic just doesn't sustain itself.

 

Look, I would think it's a bad decision, but the tours could easily implement these things. But think about the publicity: the tour says they will no longer review evidence of an infraction in certain circumstances, and something like Lexi happens and now the tour has to answer allegations of allowing a player to win that didn't deserve it, because she clearly didn't replace her ball correctly.

 

Or, ROs dedicated to each player (unwieldy, but the PGA Tour could afford it - not sure about LPGA) - think the players would like being watched by a striped shirt every second? Watch the players b**** and moan about that!

 

Point to me is that I don't care what professional golf does - I care about the rules of the game NOT eroding player responsibility any more.

 

Bring back the DQ!

The RoG apply to all golfers, Lexi, intentional or not, didn't mark and replace her ball in accordance with the rules, I have no issue with her being penalized for it if it's caught at the time the rule is broken. I have an issue with fans calling rules violations from the gallery or couch because it means that those who have smaller galleries and less broadcast coverage do not get held to the same level of scrutiny to follow the rules. If you're in the Top 10 or bottom 50 you should be expected to follow the RoG and the level of scrutiny shouldn't vary based on popularity or position in the field.

 

In Lexi's case, I think she should have been shown the replay and asked by the officials given the obvious violation what she wanted to do. My guess is she would have DQ'd herself as I think most players would.

[Hardluckster]

The reduction from DQ to 2 stroke was done in response to tour players voicing displeasure. I'm sure this will change again, even if it's through the tours implementing their own policy on this.

 

The rule was changed, at least in part I think, because of the Tiger issue on #15 at Augusta in 2013(?).

 

The rules are not stagnant. They change as things happen. Maybe the ruling bodies will find a solution to this issue as well, I just don't know what could be done in this situation. I do kno,however, that there is no solution that will satisfy everyone.

 

[HighSpeedScene]

Look, I would think it's a bad decision, but the tours could easily implement these things. But think about the publicity: the tour says they will no longer review evidence of an infraction in certain circumstances, and something like Lexi happens and now the tour has to answer allegations of allowing a player to win that didn't deserve it, because she clearly didn't replace her ball correctly.

 

So if they just decide that the 2 stroke penalty rule would no longer be enforced after a new round started, but the original penalty would still apply and it would be like that for every player in the event, how would you feel?

 

If the tour wants to do that and run the risk of a player winning after violating the incorrect card rule, I'm fine with it - it's their show, I don't care about their rules, honestly. But I would vehemently oppose any attempt to change the rules of golf to do the same thing for the reasons I've stated: I'm against anything that furthers that slippery slope (already too far gone with the 2 strokes vs DQ for signing for a lower score) or player responsibility erosion.

 

I actually don't think that they will do that, because the alternative situations present worse PR than what they have now, to be honest. The tours will endure some carping about this way before they will compromise their product and be faced with potentially crowning a victor that, if they had played by the rules of golf, wouldn't be the victor. I'm thankful that so far they have been sufficiently fore-sighted to not make this change, but if they do, perhaps that will never happen and we can all move on.

 

Just leave the actual rules alone - the incorrect card rule is a necessary evil for the VAST majority of competitive golf. Keeps the player responsible for his/her actions. Enforcement is an entirely different animal, and the tours can do what they want to with that, subject to the obvious risks.

[whr]

http://www.usga.org/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-proposed-changes/proposed-change--reasonable-judgment-in-estimating-and-measuring.html

[Hardluckster]

In Lexi's case, I think she should have been shown the replay and asked by the officials given the obvious violation what she wanted to do. My guess is she would have DQ'd herself as I think <b>most</b> players would.

 

What of the others?

 

If I'm Lexi and you show me that video, I'm eating the 4 strokes. Probably the same for you? How do we reconcile that with those who would suppose that they deserved no penalty?

[HighSpeedScene]

HOnestly, all the arguments about other games - it's so irrelevant. Keep the topic to golf.

 

For those that don't think she should have received the 2 strokes for the incorrect card, please tell me how that is "fair" or "equal application" for all of those players that DID sign a correct card? What if a player called a penalty on himself during that SAME round that perhaps would have otherwise gone unnoticed? Why are you more concerned about protecting the player committing the infraction than those that did not committ the infraction?

I'm not interested in protecting the player who committed an infraction, I just want to ensure we catch all golfers that commit infractions not just the ones that have larger galleries or get more broadcast coverage.

 

So you're ok with Lexi getting the extra 2 for the incorrect card then?

 

I mean, you can't argue that in any other walk of life - that we should only punish actions if we can guarantee that EVERY similar action was punished? Other sports? Law? Academics? Release all the murderers until every murder is solved? The logic just doesn't sustain itself.

 

Look, I would think it's a bad decision, but the tours could easily implement these things. But think about the publicity: the tour says they will no longer review evidence of an infraction in certain circumstances, and something like Lexi happens and now the tour has to answer allegations of allowing a player to win that didn't deserve it, because she clearly didn't replace her ball correctly.

 

Or, ROs dedicated to each player (unwieldy, but the PGA Tour could afford it - not sure about LPGA) - think the players would like being watched by a striped shirt every second? Watch the players b**** and moan about that!

 

Point to me is that I don't care what professional golf does - I care about the rules of the game NOT eroding player responsibility any more.

 

Bring back the DQ!

The RoG apply to all golfers, Lexi, intentional or not, didn't mark and replace her ball in accordance with the rules, I have no issue with her being penalized for it if it's caught at the time the rule is broken. I have an issue with fans calling rules violations from the gallery or couch because it means that those who have smaller galleries and less broadcast coverage do not get held to the same level of scrutiny to follow the rules. If you're in the Top 10 or bottom 50 you should be expected to follow the RoG and the level of scrutiny shouldn't vary based on popularity or position in the field.

 

In Lexi's case, I think she should have been shown the replay and asked by the officials given the obvious violation what she wanted to do. My guess is she would have DQ'd herself as I think most players would.

 

The level of scrutiny thing is an odd deal - not a single player would trade being in contention for not being scrutinized more heavily. And we all know we can't make everything EXACTLY equal, hell, we can't control the weather, divots, conditions changing same day and hole to hole, so it's not like the TV time is the ONE thing that is not exactly the same for all players. Almost NOTHING is the same for all players. Not sure why we have to make this exactly equal.

 

Besides, we have to remember: the player could have made this moot and done what the rules require her to do: add 2 strokes for incorrectly replacing her ball. Done deal - she's a major champion likely and everyone is singing her praises for her ability to not only be the best that week, but to do so while upholding the greatest tradition in the game: following the rules carefully (after all, it IS her profession - she must know she has to replace it correctly, right?) and taking responsibility for your actions.

[HighSpeedScene]

http://www.usga.org/...-measuring.html

 

Not a huge change from what exists now - actually, this is more like what I would like to see: extending the example, show Lexi the video and ask her if she thought she "did all that could be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make a prompt and accurate estimation or measurement." Based on what I read about it, she said that when she saw the video it was clear to her that she didn't replace the ball correctly. Put it totally on the player.

[nbg352]

Nobody is making any "calls" from.home

Then where are they making them from?