Any such thing as an "honest" mistake?

[delfam]

Can a golfer make an "honest" mistake in golf? Is it possible to be "unaware" that you violate a rule.

Pro golfers are expected to know the rules, so ignorance is no excuse.

Are all violations of the rules considered cheating?

If you drop a ball and do not think it rolled nearer the hole, and it is later proved that it did, did you cheat?

You do know cheating requires intent, right?

[Mizzylefty]

I think in cases of placement or determining nearest point of relief there is some room for error. In Anna's case and I believe in Lexi's case they had no idea and they also gained absolutely no advantage so definitely isn't cheating for me. Unavoidable mistake that had no intentand no advantage should equal no penalty.

 

If Lexi gained no advantage, then what was she doing? She literally picked the ball an inch up off the ground and moved it over.

 

She was turning the ball over so the sight lines on the ball were square to the target.

 

When you zoom in on the video, it really doesn't look like she aligns anything with anything, no logo, no line, nothing from what I can see. Unless she likes to have no logo or line visible when she's putting.

[williamsnrb]

I think in cases of placement or determining nearest point of relief there is some room for error. In Anna's case and I believe in Lexi's case they had no idea and they also gained absolutely no advantage so definitely isn't cheating for me. Unavoidable mistake that had no intentand no advantage should equal no penalty.

 

If Lexi gained no advantage, then what was she doing? She literally picked the ball an inch up off the ground and moved it over.

 

She was turning the ball over so the sight lines on the ball were square to the target.

 

Yup, the way I see it she was just lining it up with her alignment markings. Also she did it fro mthe side so that she didn't encroach on either of her playing opponents line.

 

If you can see part of a coin from that view you should be able to clearly see that the green looks perfect smooth, no spike marks to avoid or anything.

 

In my opinion the rules for placing a ball should say something like "The player must make a fair attempt to place the ball back as close as possible to the prior spot without intending to gain any advantage" Then you trust the Golfer to have integrity and honor and follow the rule that CAN actually be followed.

 

I play by the rules, I take stroke and distance when OB or for a lost ball and if I know I made a mistake I call a penalty on myself. Earlier this year on a super wet morning I marked a ball with a dime as usual and tapped it down with my putter only to notice in horror that when I pulled my putter away the dime was stuck to the bottom of it! Called a 1 stroke penalty on myself and replaced the marker to where I thought it was.

 

That's incorrect. The marker should have been replaced without penalty. If Lexi can be assessed a penalty after the fact, you can remove an unnecessary penalty on yourself. Congratulations - your score from that round just improved by one shot.

[Sun Devil]

where do you draw the line? Does the LPGA and Players Union hire attorneys to review all the evidence. Expert witness testimonies on "intent to cheat?" he legal system as is is convoluted and barely works.

 

Keep it simple. She misplaced her ball. by the rules ... She was penalized. Intent or no intent.

 

In law suits ...... Nobody wins ....except for the attorneys. Decision is made as black and white as is possible. you can't please everyone with every decision.

[williamsnrb]

Yes

Yes

No

No

 

Anna Nordqvist moved three grains of sand in a bunker last year and it cost her the US Open. There was no way she could have known she touched them. A penalty but not cheating. Cheating generally requires intent.

 

Read somewhere about Azinger and Seve having a rules discussion during Ryder Cup. Azinger told Seve there was no intent to cheat. Seve said breaking the rules and cheating were totally different.

 

What they had was more than a "discussion". Lol

[bullseye26]

If a person has a violation, calls a penalty on themselves before signing their scorecard, there's no intent and it's an honest mistake.

 

It the violation is discovered after they sign their scorecard, they either were not aware they violated the rules (honest mistake) or they were aware and trying to cover up their violation (intent). Both are treated the same and get an additional penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard.

[Righty]

 

It the violation is discovered after they sign their scorecard, they either were not aware they violated the rules (honest mistake) or they were aware and trying to cover up their violation (intent). Both are treated the same and get an additional penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard.

This is one of the main problems I have with the whole thing. I feel that you should need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the player knew they made a mistake/violated a rule before assessing a penalty for signing the wrong score. Lexi kicked a ball out of the rough when no one was looking and was only caught after her card was signed? Sure, penalize the hell out of her. But I feel that purposely violating a rule, not assessing the penalty, and signing the wrong score should not carry the same weight that a reasonable mistake holds; especially one that no one was able to catch without the assistance of someone sitting at home.

[Vindog]

 

It the violation is discovered after they sign their scorecard, they either were not aware they violated the rules (honest mistake) or they were aware and trying to cover up their violation (intent). Both are treated the same and get an additional penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard.

This is one of the main problems I have with the whole thing. I feel that you should need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the player knew they made a mistake/violated a rule before assessing a penalty for signing the wrong score. Lexi kicked a ball out of the rough when no one was looking and was only caught after her card was signed? Sure, penalize the hell out of her. But I feel that purposely violating a rule, not assessing the penalty, and signing the wrong score should not carry the same weight that a reasonable mistake holds; especially one that no one was able to catch without the assistance of someone sitting at home.

 

What if the only way she was caught kicking her ball out of the rough was by viewer assistance? And if that is okay, then why should that be any different than another violation?

[KyGolf]

Zack Johnson on #18 at the John Deere. Moved his mark out of another player's line and forgot to move it back. Cost him 2 strokes but he still won. He was lucky it came to light before he signed his card.

[nbg352]

Anyone ever notice that most of the funny calls against players in the past several years have involved the use of high speed, high def, zoomed cameras?

And that most of them were called in by couch snitches?

Take cameras out of the very human element of penalty determination and do not allow couch snitches to, well, snitch anymore.

[KyGolf]

Anyone ever notice that most of the funny calls against players in the past several years have involved the use of high speed, high def, zoomed cameras?

And that most of them were called in by couch snitches?

Take cameras out of the very human element of penalty determination and do not allow couch snitches to, well, snitch anymore.

 

Other than Lexi Thompson, what are the other instances called in by "couch snitches". And in which cases were they wrong.

[nbg352]

Anyone ever notice that most of the funny calls against players in the past several years have involved the use of high speed, high def, zoomed cameras?

And that most of them were called in by couch snitches?

Take cameras out of the very human element of penalty determination and do not allow couch snitches to, well, snitch anymore.

 

Other than Lexi Thompson, what are the other instances called in by "couch snitches". And in which cases were they wrong.

They were correct. Infractions had occurred. But zoom cameras had to be used in order for any infraction to be seen.

If you are a golf fan at all, have been a member here for any time, then you already know of at least some of the infractions I spoke of. If not, self education is a wonderful thing. Use the search button and do some reading....You will see how important the camera and couch snitches have become in golf penalties being called.

BTW, we'll never know how often snitches call in with erroneous info. They are not reported to the media or to fans..

[KyGolf]

Anyone ever notice that most of the funny calls against players in the past several years have involved the use of high speed, high def, zoomed cameras?

And that most of them were called in by couch snitches?

Take cameras out of the very human element of penalty determination and do not allow couch snitches to, well, snitch anymore.

 

Other than Lexi Thompson, what are the other instances called in by "couch snitches". And in which cases were they wrong.

They were correct. Infractions had occurred. But zoom cameras had to be used in order for any infraction to be seen.

If you are a golf fan at all, have been a member here for any time, then you already know of at least some of the infractions I spoke of. If not, self education is a wonderful thing. Use the search button and do some reading....You will see how important the camera and couch snitches have become in golf penalties being called.

BTW, we'll never know how often snitches call in with erroneous info. They are not reported to the media or to fans..

 

 

If "couch snitches" were that prevalent in the past several years, you should be able to cite some of the many instances.

 

Here I'll help you. Tiger Woods 2013 but it was a moot point because he snitched himself out in an interview after the round.

[nbg352]

Anyone ever notice that most of the funny calls against players in the past several years have involved the use of high speed, high def, zoomed cameras?

And that most of them were called in by couch snitches?

Take cameras out of the very human element of penalty determination and do not allow couch snitches to, well, snitch anymore.

 

Other than Lexi Thompson, what are the other instances called in by "couch snitches". And in which cases were they wrong.

They were correct. Infractions had occurred. But zoom cameras had to be used in order for any infraction to be seen.

If you are a golf fan at all, have been a member here for any time, then you already know of at least some of the infractions I spoke of. If not, self education is a wonderful thing. Use the search button and do some reading....You will see how important the camera and couch snitches have become in golf penalties being called.

BTW, we'll never know how often snitches call in with erroneous info. They are not reported to the media or to fans..

 

 

If "couch snitches" were that prevalent in the past several years, you should be able to cite some of the many instances.

 

Here I'll help you. Tiger Woods 2013 but it was a moot point because he snitched himself out in an interview after the round.

The Woods drop was not called in by a fan.

There are more, keep looking......

And do try to type without that sneer on your face.........

[KyGolf]

Anyone ever notice that most of the funny calls against players in the past several years have involved the use of high speed, high def, zoomed cameras?

And that most of them were called in by couch snitches?

Take cameras out of the very human element of penalty determination and do not allow couch snitches to, well, snitch anymore.

 

Other than Lexi Thompson, what are the other instances called in by "couch snitches". And in which cases were they wrong.

They were correct. Infractions had occurred. But zoom cameras had to be used in order for any infraction to be seen.

If you are a golf fan at all, have been a member here for any time, then you already know of at least some of the infractions I spoke of. If not, self education is a wonderful thing. Use the search button and do some reading....You will see how important the camera and couch snitches have become in golf penalties being called.

BTW, we'll never know how often snitches call in with erroneous info. They are not reported to the media or to fans..

 

 

If "couch snitches" were that prevalent in the past several years, you should be able to cite some of the many instances.

 

Here I'll help you. Tiger Woods 2013 but it was a moot point because he snitched himself out in an interview after the round.

The Woods drop was not called in by a fan.

There are more, keep looking......

And do try to type without that sneer on your face.........

 

 

The Woods drop was indeed called in, by more than one individual.

 

Still waiting on your extensive list.

[whr]

1) Can a golfer make an "honest" mistake in golf? Is it possible to be "unaware" that you violate a rule.

2) Pro golfers are expected to know the rules, so ignorance is no excuse.

3) Are all violations of the rules considered cheating?

4) If you drop a ball and do not think it rolled nearer the hole, and it is later proved that it did, did you cheat?

 

1) Of course. Technically the USGA only has 34 rules, but add in the hundreds of sub-rules, then the sub-sub rules, then the sub-sub-sub rules. They're so convoluted that the USGA and R&A jointly publish the Decisions on the Rules of Golf every year just to "clarify any ambiguity that might arise from the Rules." That book is 752 pages!!! Think about that. A thick @$s book, written about a tiny book, just to explain 34 rules. Pick one up, I'm sure it'll leave you on the edge of your seat......

 

2) Incorrect. Players are not required to know all the rules to play on the Tour. They know the cores ones and if something is outside the scope of their knowledge, to ask a fellow competitor or rules official. Many admit they don't know all the rules and are stumped from time to time.

 

3) No. Cheating requires intent.

 

4) No.

He didn't say they are required he said excpeted

They're not required to, but they are expected to and are responsible the proper application of the rules. Not knowing a rule does not make them immune from penalty. It is not the Rule Officials job to call penalties around the course, it is in the players' own best interests to know these things.

 

The decisions book is so large because of all the variation occurring in a round of golf, that is not played on a standardized fied, in standardized conditions.

 

Where did I say they were immune from a penalty and that it was a rules officials job to call penalties?

 

[Righty]

 

It the violation is discovered after they sign their scorecard, they either were not aware they violated the rules (honest mistake) or they were aware and trying to cover up their violation (intent). Both are treated the same and get an additional penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard.

This is one of the main problems I have with the whole thing. I feel that you should need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the player knew they made a mistake/violated a rule before assessing a penalty for signing the wrong score. Lexi kicked a ball out of the rough when no one was looking and was only caught after her card was signed? Sure, penalize the hell out of her. But I feel that purposely violating a rule, not assessing the penalty, and signing the wrong score should not carry the same weight that a reasonable mistake holds; especially one that no one was able to catch without the assistance of someone sitting at home.

 

What if the only way she was caught kicking her ball out of the rough was by viewer assistance? And if that is okay, then why should that be any different than another violation?

Because at that point she is caught knowingly signing for the wrong score after purposely committing a violation (again, this is where intent comes into play). If she commits an infraction without realizing she did, and without the referees that are on-hand realizing she did, why should she be penalized a day later for signing for the "wrong" score?

 

One is cheating, one is an honest mistake. That's like using the same punishment for murder and manslaughter.

[Vindog]

 

It the violation is discovered after they sign their scorecard, they either were not aware they violated the rules (honest mistake) or they were aware and trying to cover up their violation (intent). Both are treated the same and get an additional penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard.

This is one of the main problems I have with the whole thing. I feel that you should need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the player knew they made a mistake/violated a rule before assessing a penalty for signing the wrong score. Lexi kicked a ball out of the rough when no one was looking and was only caught after her card was signed? Sure, penalize the hell out of her. But I feel that purposely violating a rule, not assessing the penalty, and signing the wrong score should not carry the same weight that a reasonable mistake holds; especially one that no one was able to catch without the assistance of someone sitting at home.

 

What if the only way she was caught kicking her ball out of the rough was by viewer assistance? And if that is okay, then why should that be any different than another violation?

Because at that point she is caught knowingly signing for the wrong score after purposely committing a violation (again, this is where intent comes into play). If she commits an infraction without realizing she did, and without the referees that are on-hand realizing she did, why should she be penalized a day later for signing for the "wrong" score?

 

One is cheating, one is an honest mistake. That's like using the same punishment for murder and manslaughter.

 

She gets penalized for signing for a wrong score because the score she signed for was wrong. She may not have intended it, but it was the wrong score nonetheless.

[Sean2]

I have been bashed by a few people for saying this, but if you are going to use this kind of technology then you have to use it on every player and every shot.

 

I would suggest if this was done there would be a plethora of penalties assessed. For example, a player sets up to the ball in the rough. And, while the player cannot see it, zoom and slo-motion will show that the ball moved a micrometer. This kind of thing probably happens more often then one would think.

[bullseye26]

It the violation is discovered after they sign their scorecard, they either were not aware they violated the rules (honest mistake) or they were aware and trying to cover up their violation (intent). Both are treated the same and get an additional penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard.

This is one of the main problems I have with the whole thing. I feel that you should need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the player knew they made a mistake/violated a rule before assessing a penalty for signing the wrong score. Lexi kicked a ball out of the rough when no one was looking and was only caught after her card was signed? Sure, penalize the hell out of her. But I feel that purposely violating a rule, not assessing the penalty, and signing the wrong score should not carry the same weight that a reasonable mistake holds; especially one that no one was able to catch without the assistance of someone sitting at home.

 

What if the only way she was caught kicking her ball out of the rough was by viewer assistance? And if that is okay, then why should that be any different than another violation?

Because at that point she is caught knowingly signing for the wrong score after purposely committing a violation (again, this is where intent comes into play). If she commits an infraction without realizing she did, and without the referees that are on-hand realizing she did, why should she be penalized a day later for signing for the "wrong" score?

 

One is cheating, one is an honest mistake. That's like using the same punishment for murder and manslaughter.

 

She gets penalized for signing for a wrong score because the score she signed for was wrong. She may not have intended it, but it was the wrong score nonetheless.

 

So what is a player to do at the end of a round. Lurking in your score may be a violation you are not aware of, only to be uncovered later by some zoom lens.

 

You'll take the penalty, but you want to avoid breaking another rule - signing an incorrect scorecard.

 

The rules state that you must turn in your scorecard "as soon as possible". How long can you wait? 1 hour? 2 hours? Next morning? Start of next round? End of tournament?

[Righty]

 

It the violation is discovered after they sign their scorecard, they either were not aware they violated the rules (honest mistake) or they were aware and trying to cover up their violation (intent). Both are treated the same and get an additional penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard.

This is one of the main problems I have with the whole thing. I feel that you should need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the player knew they made a mistake/violated a rule before assessing a penalty for signing the wrong score. Lexi kicked a ball out of the rough when no one was looking and was only caught after her card was signed? Sure, penalize the hell out of her. But I feel that purposely violating a rule, not assessing the penalty, and signing the wrong score should not carry the same weight that a reasonable mistake holds; especially one that no one was able to catch without the assistance of someone sitting at home.

 

What if the only way she was caught kicking her ball out of the rough was by viewer assistance? And if that is okay, then why should that be any different than another violation?

Because at that point she is caught knowingly signing for the wrong score after purposely committing a violation (again, this is where intent comes into play). If she commits an infraction without realizing she did, and without the referees that are on-hand realizing she did, why should she be penalized a day later for signing for the "wrong" score?

 

One is cheating, one is an honest mistake. That's like using the same punishment for murder and manslaughter.

 

She gets penalized for signing for a wrong score because the score she signed for was wrong. She may not have intended it, but it was the wrong score nonetheless.

I understand that it IS the rule, but I contend that the rule is asinine, particularly in a situation such as this.

[nbg352]

 

 

The Woods drop was indeed called in, by more than one individual.

 

Still waiting on your extensive list.

Actually, it was called in by a well regarded rules expert. Others may have called as well, but got no mention.

Other than that, you'll need to do your own work. Since when do I have to satisfy your doubts? Prove me wrong with something other than alternative facts and embarrass me all over the place. I can handle it. Why is it guys like you insist that someone else does your research for you? Do your other teachers do your research for you?

Let me get YOU started: Craig Stadler....The whole thing started with him. Start there, move on to Tom Kite and eventually you'll catch up to today. Lots of fan call ins over the last 30 or so years. And they're only the ones we hear about.

[KyGolf]

The Woods drop was indeed called in, by more than one individual.

 

Still waiting on your extensive list.

Actually, it was called in by a well regarded rules expert. Others may have called as well, but got no mention.

Other than that, you'll need to do your own work. Since when do I have to satisfy your doubts? Prove me wrong with something other than alternative facts and embarrass me all over the place. I can handle it. Why is it guys like you insist that someone else does your research for you? Do your other teachers do your research for you?

Let me get YOU started: Craig Stadler....The whole thing started with him. Start there, move on to Tom Kite and eventually you'll catch up to today. Lots of fan call ins over the last 30 or so years. And they're only the ones we hear about.

 

 

I have been watching televised golf since the mid 1950's. I am well versed in the history of call-ins for rules violations, I don't need you to do my research for me. You have moved the goalposts from the last few years to 30 years ago and Craig Stadler. What I am asking you to do is back up your claim that there have been many rules violations from call in snitches in the last several years. I don't think you can, but that is up to you.

[Hawkeye77]

My wife cried "Henrik" late last night, had to be an honest and understandable mistake. ;-)

[bullseye26]

My wife cried "Henrik" late last night, had to be an honest and understandable mistake. ;-)

 

Yes, but she still has to be penalized. I would suggest forcing her to take down the Stenson poster on your wall :-)

[Ri_Redneck]

There was no need for close up slo mo to see that Lexi moved the ball. It was obvious. My wife even noticed it when I asked her to watch. Actually, the commentators should have seen it when it happened and mentioned it. Would have only been 2 strokes then and she'd have the trophy.

 

BT

[cardoustie]

If I was Lexi, I'd have said prove it, they can't w 100 per cent certainty

 

Don't go to the playoff ... someone in pro golf has to step up and not accept this BS (DJ should have at Oakmont IMO)

 

They can't put a number on the distance the ball "shifted" by Lexi and whether it meets the "standard" for ball replacement

 

If Bobby Locke can win a British Open while not returning his marker a putter width ... and the rules folks say "no advantage gained" ... then I ask if "the rules are the rules" ... then where the F is the consistency ??????

[KyGolf]

If I was Lexi, I'd have said prove it, they can't w 100 per cent certainty

 

Don't go to the playoff ... someone in pro golf has to step up and not accept this BS (DJ should have at Oakmont IMO)

 

They can't put a number on the distance the ball "shifted" by Lexi and whether it meets the "standard" for ball replacement

 

If Bobby Locke can win a British Open while not returning his marker a putter width ... and the rules folks say "no advantage gained" ... then I ask if "the rules are the rules" ... then where the F is the consistency ??????

 

Concede the playoff. End up in second place anyway. Brilliant!

 

The number they put on it was "too much". As it should have been.

[Vindog]

Lol a DJ not accepting his penalty at Oakmont. You people are nuts man.

 

That was the biggest win of his career. Good lord

[KyGolf]

Lol a DJ not accepting his penalty at Oakmont. You people are nuts man.

 

That was the biggest win of his career. Good lord

 

 

Logic flies out the window in the face of emotion.