Thoughts on Couch Potatoes Calling in Penalties

[Shilgy]

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.

In a few posts you will state that in your opinion it was not intentional/she did not cheat. In that case the card-as best was known-was correct when it was signed. In light of the fact that the ruling cannot be made on all days of the competition my opinion is that "next day" rulings should not include the two strokes for wrong card. Either determine it was deliberate-meaning DQ- or not intentional just add the appropriate penalty.

 

I confess that even as I type this I am not certain how well this would work in actual application.

 

PS-Some of you may feel differently after reading the following tales of dq's over the years. It is a difficult ruling-no doubt. Made even more difficult with people watching events a day later on dvr.

http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news00/disqualifications.html

[BillyZ2]

Nobody is making any "calls" from.home

Then where are they making them from?

Golf is the only sport that allows fans to impact the outcome the event. Golf should monitor itself and disallow 30 handicap golfers from influencing PGA events.

[whr]

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.

 

Even then, I don't think she would be given a penalty since the rule is based on her judgment at the time of the mark.

 

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.
  

[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?

 

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.

 

I think it's something they will eventually change. Or at least look at in how to protect their players from outside forces trying to influence the outcome of the event.

 

I like how the Masters and rules committee at Augusta handled their potential situation last weekend. They got on it right away, made a fast decision, and had it announced ASAP. But this isn't something that could have happened in Lexi's situation because of how long it took to come to light.

 

Basically if the tours decided they were going to (and only on their tour) put a time limit on how long they would enforce the full penalty for 6-6b (incorrect scorecard) I don't think I would have an issue on it, because it's not often someone calls in this late with an infraction. If they said that the penalty would be assessed to it's fullest until the competitor in question teed off on their next round, and then was at the discretion of the rules committee, I would not have an issue with it at all.

 

And the reason why I wouldn't have a problem with them doing that is because technology has really changed not only the game, but how we watch the game. There was a time when most Sunday rounds were on tape delay and really only saw the last group or two. Now more and more events show on TV, have featured groups streaming, have a key hole or two streaming. Some places start cameras rolling all day just in case something great happens. That's more and more chances for us at home to spot something not even the players themselves could catch. So gut feeling is (and I'm not isolating this to Lexi now, but in general), as it becomes easier for us at home to spot infractions that the players who were there cannot, something needs to be done to protect the players a bit.

 

The Anna Norquist situation is perfect example of how we watch the game has changed. If this was the mid-90's there's no way we see that sand move. But make it 2016 with 60" TV's that are super high def, almost 4K, with the ability to zoom in and not be really pixelated, and it becomes easier to see these infractions. So now since we have the ability to do that, we can penalize for something that could not be spotted with the naked eye. And that's the part that bugs me.

[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.

 

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.

Because the RoG should be enforced equitably by player and marker as they were intended to be. If we don't want bifurcation of the rules then we have to reinforce that it is the golfer and markers responsibility to protect the field regardless of if they are on a pro tour or playing in their local club championship. Outside agents are rarely unbiased observers and there is the potential that they start to play a larger role in determining the outcome of tournaments than they should.

[HighSpeedScene]

Nobody is making any "calls" from.home

Then where are they making them from?

 

Pedant - the context I used it in as you know was that people from home are making the actual rulings. That's what I was responding to.

 

But you can continue to be a gnat about it if you choose.

[HighSpeedScene]

Nobody is making any "calls" from.home

Then where are they making them from?

Golf is the only sport that allows fans to impact the outcome the event. Golf should monitor itself and disallow 30 handicap golfers from influencing PGA events.

 

Ugh - let the PGA tour worry about the PGA tour. The rules should be for the game.

 

If the tour wants to change its rules, fine.

[HighSpeedScene]

 

And how is ignoring an infraction equitable to the player that didn't commit said infraction?

[sui generis]

All those no longer in favor of flogging this dead horse . . . say neigh. :)

[HighSpeedScene]

But SG, people on the internet are wrong and I can't rest!

 

J/K - when my wife sees me with my head in my phone and asks me what I'm doing, I have to reassure her that I'm not texting hotties or anything, I'm arguing with the internet!

 

Happy playing everyone.

[PaulCar65]

 

So why is it that if you mark a higher score than what you actually got, you receive the higher score. There is not an extra 2 stroke penalty even though technically it was an incorrect scorecard.

[Shilgy]

All those no longer in favor of flogging this dead horse . . . say neigh. :)

Mr Ed does not play golf.........

[nbg352]

Nobody is making any "calls" from.home

Then where are they making them from?

 

Pedant - the context I used it in as you know was that people from home are making the actual rulings. That's what I was responding to.

 

But you can continue to be a gnat about it if you choose.

Sorry, I had no idea of your intent, except that it is leaning powerfully to embracing call ins. Your choice. Have fun with it while you can. The USGA has said it is ending the practice of allowing phone ins from couch snitches, in 2018. As it should.

Signed

 

The Gnat.

[bladehunter]

im still against it ! just for the record of course ......

 

 

edit- also had this thought ...isnt allowing call ins and outside spotters for pros vs any other tournament a form of rules bifurcation ? I am all for rules bifurcation with regards to equipment ... Most are against that ... how many are against it with regards to the playing rules as well?

[sui generis]

im still against it ! just for the record of course ......

 

 

edit- also had this thought ...isnt allowing call ins and outside spotters for pros vs any other tournament a form of rules bifurcation ? I am all for rules bifurcation with regards to equipment ... Most are against that ... how many are against it with regards to the playing rules as well?

 

Reality TV golf is free to do as it likes . . . when the Rules of Golf no longer sell Buicks and Viagra, they'll move on the their own Rules of Circus Golf.

[chippa13]

For someone who abhors professional golf so much, you sure have a lot of opinions about how they conduct it.

[HighSpeedScene]

im still against it ! just for the record of course ......

 

 

edit- also had this thought ...isnt allowing call ins and outside spotters for pros vs any other tournament a form of rules bifurcation ? I am all for rules bifurcation with regards to equipment ... Most are against that ... how many are against it with regards to the playing rules as well?

 

BH, show me the rule difference. Most people having a very hard time making the distinction between the rules and the circumstances surrounding a competition.

 

In other words, all games are played at many different levels. The rules of the game doesn't have to change, just the conditions of competition. And, like the NFL, the entities running the thing can make their own conditions.

 

Nobody is making any "calls" from.home

Then where are they making them from?

 

Pedant - the context I used it in as you know was that people from home are making the actual rulings. That's what I was responding to.

 

But you can continue to be a gnat about it if you choose.

Sorry, I had no idea of your intent, except that it is leaning powerfully to embracing call ins. Your choice. Have fun with it while you can. The USGA has said it is ending the practice of allowing phone ins from couch snitches, in 2018. As it should.

Signed

 

The Gnat.

 

Not embracing. Recognizing their necessary evil.

[new2g0lf]

im still against it ! just for the record of course ......

 

 

edit- also had this thought ...isnt allowing call ins and outside spotters for pros vs any other tournament a form of rules bifurcation ? I am all for rules bifurcation with regards to equipment ... Most are against that ... how many are against it with regards to the playing rules as well?

 

BH, show me the rule difference. Most people having a very hard time making the distinction between the rules and the circumstances surrounding a competition.

 

In other words, all games are played at many different levels. The rules of the game doesn't have to change, just the conditions of competition. And, like the NFL, the entities running the thing can make their own conditions.

 

Subtle but accurate observation, the rules don't change but imo it goes beyond conditions of competition. The encouragement of fans to call in rules violations potentially compromises the integrity of the golfer and marker and their perceived obligation to the field. With more fans calling in infractions will markers be less motivated to point out a questionable infraction and defer to the couch officials to make the call? Should we all watch the television broadcasts in 4K slow motion and look for every possible infraction to call in so we can be assured all the rules were enforced properly?

[HighSpeedScene]

Nobody is making any "calls" from.home

Then where are they making them from?

 

Pedant - the context I used it in as you know was that people from home are making the actual rulings. That's what I was responding to.

 

But you can continue to be a gnat about it if you choose.

Sorry, I had no idea of your intent, except that it is leaning powerfully to embracing call ins. Your choice. Have fun with it while you can. The USGA has said it is ending the practice of allowing phone ins from couch snitches, in 2018. As it should.

Signed

 

The Gnat.

 

How will they know if they are on the couch?

 

See, I can be a nudge too.

 

But seriously, I don't know anything about the usga doing any such thing in 2018. Source?

[bladehunter]

We all know they are on the couch every day of every tournament .

[bladehunter]

im still against it ! just for the record of course ......

 

 

edit- also had this thought ...isnt allowing call ins and outside spotters for pros vs any other tournament a form of rules bifurcation ? I am all for rules bifurcation with regards to equipment ... Most are against that ... how many are against it with regards to the playing rules as well?

 

BH, show me the rule difference. Most people having a very hard time making the distinction between the rules and the circumstances surrounding a competition.

 

In other words, all games are played at many different levels. The rules of the game doesn't have to change, just the conditions of competition. And, like the NFL, the entities running the thing can make their own conditions.

 

Subtle but accurate observation, the rules don't change but imo it goes beyond conditions of competition. The encouragement of fans to call in rules violations potentially compromises the integrity of the golfer and marker and their perceived obligation to the field. With more fans calling in infractions will markers be less motivated to point out a questionable infraction and defer to the couch officials to make the call? Should we all watch the television broadcasts in 4K slow motion and look for every possible infraction to call in so we can be assured all the rules were enforced properly?

 

 

Agree. That's part of my point. In my opinion the more oversight is added the less likely a player ever is to call it on himself.

[HighSpeedScene]

im still against it ! just for the record of course ......

 

 

edit- also had this thought ...isnt allowing call ins and outside spotters for pros vs any other tournament a form of rules bifurcation ? I am all for rules bifurcation with regards to equipment ... Most are against that ... how many are against it with regards to the playing rules as well?

 

BH, show me the rule difference. Most people having a very hard time making the distinction between the rules and the circumstances surrounding a competition.

 

In other words, all games are played at many different levels. The rules of the game doesn't have to change, just the conditions of competition. And, like the NFL, the entities running the thing can make their own conditions.

 

Subtle but accurate observation, the rules don't change but imo it goes beyond conditions of competition. The encouragement of fans to call in rules violations potentially compromises the integrity of the golfer and marker and their perceived obligation to the field. With more fans calling in infractions will markers be less motivated to point out a questionable infraction and defer to the couch officials to make the call? Should we all watch the television broadcasts in 4K slow motion and look for every possible infraction to call in so we can be assured all the rules were enforced properly?

 

 

Agree. That's part of my point. In my opinion the more oversight is added the less likely a player ever is to call it on himself.

 

Exactly why the penalty for signing for a lower score needs to remain.

 

Edit: wow, that's really full circle. So if we didn't make sure there was equal coverage of all players you think it's better?

[bladehunter]

im still against it ! just for the record of course ......

 

 

edit- also had this thought ...isnt allowing call ins and outside spotters for pros vs any other tournament a form of rules bifurcation ? I am all for rules bifurcation with regards to equipment ... Most are against that ... how many are against it with regards to the playing rules as well?

 

BH, show me the rule difference. Most people having a very hard time making the distinction between the rules and the circumstances surrounding a competition.

 

In other words, all games are played at many different levels. The rules of the game doesn't have to change, just the conditions of competition. And, like the NFL, the entities running the thing can make their own conditions.

 

Subtle but accurate observation, the rules don't change but imo it goes beyond conditions of competition. The encouragement of fans to call in rules violations potentially compromises the integrity of the golfer and marker and their perceived obligation to the field. With more fans calling in infractions will markers be less motivated to point out a questionable infraction and defer to the couch officials to make the call? Should we all watch the television broadcasts in 4K slow motion and look for every possible infraction to call in so we can be assured all the rules were enforced properly?

 

 

Agree. That's part of my point. In my opinion the more oversight is added the less likely a player ever is to call it on himself.

 

Exactly why the penalty for signing for a lower score needs to remain.

 

Edit: wow, that's really full circle. So if we didn't make sure there was equal coverage of all players you think it's better?

 

I see your point if a player is intending to cheat. But i don't truly think their are that many actual intentional cheaters out there.

 

For the rules abiding folks like me. I would be inclined to cal for a ruling for anything to negate any chance of someone at home calling in on me. This way the onus is on the rules folks. Not me. So it would keep me from ever making a rules call myself.

[whr]

If they adopt the new rules in 2019, these types of situations will hopefully be quickly resolved.

 

Official - "Lexi, we noticed on TV that it appeared you replaced your ball in a different spot than the original one on the green. Did you intend to mark the ball in a different spot?"

 

Lexi - "No, based on where I was standing, I thought I put it back in the same spot."

 

Official - "Thank you, no penalty since the player did all that could be reasonably expected under the circumstances, irrespective of any advantage gained."

 

Couch potatoes referees be damned!

[Baitkiller]

I asked earlier but got no traction with my question. I shall ask again:

 

Is the part about "spectators" being allowed to participate in the bringing to the attention of the committee a possible breach of the Rules really old? Like before TV and the internet old?

I ask because if that is the case then anyone making such calls would have had to be present, on site, in person>> actually there if you follow me. Considering that the whole match or competition thing evolved solely upon gambling this makes perfect sense. In todays HD slomo world in which the vast majority of spectators are not actually there, perhaps the Rule needs only be clarified to the original context. if, in fact that is the original context. I haven't the foggiest idea.

Me? I hate the idea of anybody, day-off rules guy, valet parking dude or the Avon lady or anybody calling crap in at their leisure. Drive's me bananas.

[Shilgy]

 

I see your point if a player is intending to cheat. But i don't truly think their are that many actual intentional cheaters out there.

 

For the rules abiding folks like me. I would be inclined to cal for a ruling for anything to negate any chance of someone at home calling in on me. This way the onus is on the rules folks. Not me. So it would keep me from ever making a rules call myself.

You made me realize we could call in everything that is televised. Every mark of the ball. Every replacement. Every address of the ball. Just every single player shown on television. And do it as it is being broadcast. That way the committee cannot give the incorrect scorecard penalty to anyone as they were aware of the infraction before the card was signed. :)

[HighSpeedScene]

I asked earlier but got no traction with my question. I shall ask again:

 

Is the part about "spectators" being allowed to participate in the bringing to the attention of the committee a possible breach of the Rules really old? Like before TV and the internet old?

I ask because if that is the case then anyone making such calls would have had to be present, on site, in person>> actually there if you follow me. Considering that the whole match or competition thing evolved solely upon gambling this makes perfect sense. In todays HD slomo world in which the vast majority of spectators are not actually there, perhaps the Rule needs only be clarified to the original context. if, in fact that is the original context. I haven't the foggiest idea.

Me? I hate the idea of anybody, day-off rules guy, valet parking dude or the Avon lady or anybody calling crap in at their leisure. Drive's me bananas.

 

I've never not known the rules to require consideration of all evidence available to the player/committee in determination of actions.

 

I get the point, but where do you draw the line and why? Without resorting to a base reaction of "it just sucks" or comparisons to other sports?

[new2g0lf]

Maybe we can form an organization whose members all review every televised round of golf in HD slow-mo to ensure no rules infractions are missed.

[HighSpeedScene]

Or players can take the responsibility that they are required to under the rules.

 

Either way.

[MountainGoat]

Has there been any more reporting on who it was who called in the Lexi Thompson rules violation?