Effective Immediately, Rules Change to Limit Video Review

[heavy_hitter]

On that note I'll bid adieu. The officials fulfilled their obligation to investigate the infraction brought to their attention, and deemed a penalty necessary to protect the field. Lexi admitted she broke the rule, and accepted the penalty. The video evidence was presented to her, and she chose to continue with the penalty strokes. The recent change in the rules wouldn't have changed a thing, given that the placement was not reasonable with her eyes being 18 inches away from the ball.

 

Is there anything more to discuss that hasn't already been rehashed? Please do create a new thread, or join an existing thread, in the rules forum to discuss any possible changes you'd like to see.

 

I'm going to go take a nap. :sleep:

 

Show me in the rules where they had an obligation to explore a penalty that was found by a viewer. No where in the rules does it state that. In my opinion with the new rules she doesn't get penalized.

 

Go to the USGA website, look for the rules page and look in the definitions for "referee".

 

Here is what it says, note the last sentence "...he MUST act"

 

 

 

A "referee" is one who is appointed by the Committee to decide questions of fact and apply the Rules. He must act on any breach of a Rule that he observes or is reported to him.

 

Key word is APPOINTED!! If they aren't on grounds at the tournament, they weren't appointed to do anything.

 

Try again bro.

Good gracious, of course they are on the grounds. There are a few of them at every event. And those rules officials and referees and the committee MUST act on any breach-or possible breach-presented to them. That is why during the ANA the woman from the LPGA stated that they get many call ins every week. And they act on all of them-meaning they review them for possible penalties. Most are found to be lacking in proof.

 

As to your next post if "I do not think it was a poor placement." is true then what did "The only reason any one could tell is because she dropped the mark picked the ball up then immediately set the ball back down. " possibly mean? The only reason anyone could tell what?

 

Tell that should moved her ball. Still doesn't mean she committed a penalty.

 

A referee on the grounds didn't spot the penalty. What is your point? You actually don't have one. You are trying to prove me wrong, but you can't because the rule and rules are so vague when it comes to this. It is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, she didn't commit a rules violation. This violation unknowingly happens all the time in golf. Every tournament it happens. She was penalized because she was on TV and someone deemed she moved the ball too far. I contend that letting viewers and outside agencies influence the rules of the game does not protect the integrity of the field. Until every players every move can be scrutinized through a telecast, then you can't use video evidence unless it is used to help determine a penalty seen on grounds during play. The USGA and R&A dropped the ball on the new rule. You won't change my mind on this. You are arguing to the choir.

[Shilgy]

 

Tell that should moved her ball. Still doesn't mean she committed a penalty.

 

A referee on the grounds didn't spot the penalty. What is your point? You actually don't have one. You are trying to prove me wrong, but you can't because the rule and rules are so vague when it comes to this. It is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, she didn't commit a rules violation. This violation unknowingly happens all the time in golf. Every tournament it happens. She was penalized because she was on TV and someone deemed she moved the ball too far. I contend that letting viewers and outside agencies influence the rules of the game does not protect the integrity of the field. Until every players every move can be scrutinized through a telecast, then you can't use video evidence unless it is used to help determine a penalty seen on grounds during play. The USGA and R&A dropped the ball on the new rule. You won't change my mind on this. You are arguing to the choir.

As are you my friend. IMO, evidently not yours, if you can tell she moved her ball then she did not make reasonable effort to get it right and should be penalized. Does not matter in the least if some penalties were missed, this one was not.

Respond however you like as I am out. We will just agree to disagree. See ya on the course guys.

[whr]

.

[Vindog]

On that note I'll bid adieu. The officials fulfilled their obligation to investigate the infraction brought to their attention, and deemed a penalty necessary to protect the field. Lexi admitted she broke the rule, and accepted the penalty. The video evidence was presented to her, and she chose to continue with the penalty strokes. The recent change in the rules wouldn't have changed a thing, given that the placement was not reasonable with her eyes being 18 inches away from the ball.

 

Is there anything more to discuss that hasn't already been rehashed? Please do create a new thread, or join an existing thread, in the rules forum to discuss any possible changes you'd like to see.

 

I'm going to go take a nap. :sleep:

 

Show me in the rules where they had an obligation to explore a penalty that was found by a viewer. No where in the rules does it state that. In my opinion with the new rules she doesn't get penalized.

 

Go to the USGA website, look for the rules page and look in the definitions for "referee".

 

Here is what it says, note the last sentence "...he MUST act"

 

 

 

A "referee" is one who is appointed by the Committee to decide questions of fact and apply the Rules. He must act on any breach of a Rule that he observes or is reported to him.

 

Key word is APPOINTED!! If they aren't on grounds at the tournament, they weren't appointed to do anything.

 

Try again bro.

 

I don't have to brotato chip.

 

If the alleged violation is brought to the attention of a rules official, even if it came from a third party, he (or she) must act on it. Obviously, it was an appointed referee or referees who ultimately made the decision.

[Vindog]

Exactly. There is also an abundance of inconsistency with how precisely the ball should be marked and replaced on the green. In her case she missed her mark by less than a 1/2 ball width (as judged by slow motion zoom). But if she had to move her mark from someones line using the common techniques, then her placement would have likely been worse by way more than a 1/2 ball width... and God forbid she had to move it a couple of club heads where the precision of replacement could have been reduced by several ball widths. Just seems like hypocrisy in the rules to allow error of X in one case and X*Y in another case on the green.

 

Secondly, golf really needs to develop a policy that gives the player the benefit of doubt in cases where a "possible" minor infraction DID NOT likely impact the outcome of the next shot. In Lexi's case it did not for sure. The ruling bodies are making progress but have a long way to go.

 

Several people keep repeating that it is known for sure that her misplacement of the ball did not impact the next shot.

 

No, it is not a certainty. We do not know that there wasn't a spike mark on her line. Short putts are regularly missed, especially if the player is focusing on an imperfection on the putting line. - Not a certainty but a very high probability. Ball alternatively could have been moved to a line with a spike mark instead. - Again golfer should get the benefit of the doubt that they weren't doing something nefarious instead of looking for ways to penalize over minutia.

 

A half ball's width is huge when replacing a ball. That's more than sloppy. I disagree that moving and replacing a ball marker will result in a half ball margin of error. However, let's say for the sake of argument that she did that. Fine. She used the rules to her advantage, and we would very likely not be discussing the incident.- Were gong to have to disagree in part that "moving from line and replacing a marker" wouldn't have more error... aligning a club head to a tree or whatever 20 or 30 yards, walking away and then attempting to realign and move back to original position is subject to great error, especially if you have to move multiple club heads. You can easily miss by well over 1/2 ball width.

 

See comments in line above.

 

Also as Heavy Hitter pointed out, if she had picked up the ball, stepped away and then replaced the ball, no one would have noticed.

 

I just believe that golf needs to move away from penalizing over minutia and things that don't impact the outcome of the next shot. Classic example was Stadler laying down a towel to avoid soiling his knees. Lets give the player the benefit of the doubt. While I'm tough on the USGA, I think they acted quickly and took a step in the right direction. Whether it would have saved Lexi is certainly up to debate.

 

Personal experience a few years back. I drove a ball into the trees along the fairway and came to rest in twigs next to a tree. While moving a couple small sticks the ball moved. I'm not sure if it oscillated or moved because I was focused on a spider near my hand. I told my match play competitor what happened and he astutely asked, "did the shot get any easier?" to which I replied "no, I'm still behind the tree in the sticks and all I can do is punch out." He said, okay don't worry about it.

 

Be careful with that in the future. While your opponent may overlook a rules infraction if he sees one, you to may not agree to waive a rule. Since both of you knew and communicated that you both new, this implies collusion.

[North Butte]

Exactly. There is also an abundance of inconsistency with how precisely the ball should be marked and replaced on the green. In her case she missed her mark by less than a 1/2 ball width (as judged by slow motion zoom). But if she had to move her mark from someones line using the common techniques, then her placement would have likely been worse by way more than a 1/2 ball width... and God forbid she had to move it a couple of club heads where the precision of replacement could have been reduced by several ball widths. Just seems like hypocrisy in the rules to allow error of X in one case and X*Y in another case on the green.

 

Secondly, golf really needs to develop a policy that gives the player the benefit of doubt in cases where a "possible" minor infraction DID NOT likely impact the outcome of the next shot. In Lexi's case it did not for sure. The ruling bodies are making progress but have a long way to go.

 

Several people keep repeating that it is known for sure that her misplacement of the ball did not impact the next shot.

 

No, it is not a certainty. We do not know that there wasn't a spike mark on her line. Short putts are regularly missed, especially if the player is focusing on an imperfection on the putting line. - Not a certainty but a very high probability. Ball alternatively could have been moved to a line with a spike mark instead. - Again golfer should get the benefit of the doubt that they weren't doing something nefarious instead of looking for ways to penalize over minutia.

 

A half ball's width is huge when replacing a ball. That's more than sloppy. I disagree that moving and replacing a ball marker will result in a half ball margin of error. However, let's say for the sake of argument that she did that. Fine. She used the rules to her advantage, and we would very likely not be discussing the incident.- Were gong to have to disagree in part that "moving from line and replacing a marker" wouldn't have more error... aligning a club head to a tree or whatever 20 or 30 yards, walking away and then attempting to realign and move back to original position is subject to great error, especially if you have to move multiple club heads. You can easily miss by well over 1/2 ball width.

 

See comments in line above.

 

Also as Heavy Hitter pointed out, if she had picked up the ball, stepped away and then replaced the ball, no one would have noticed.

 

I just believe that golf needs to move away from penalizing over minutia and things that don't impact the outcome of the next shot. Classic example was Stadler laying down a towel to avoid soiling his knees. Lets give the player the benefit of the doubt. While I'm tough on the USGA, I think they acted quickly and took a step in the right direction. Whether it would have saved Lexi is certainly up to debate.

 

Personal experience a few years back. I drove a ball into the trees along the fairway and came to rest in twigs next to a tree. While moving a couple small sticks the ball moved. I'm not sure if it oscillated or moved because I was focused on a spider near my hand. I told my match play competitor what happened and he astutely asked, "did the shot get any easier?" to which I replied "no, I'm still behind the tree in the sticks and all I can do is punch out." He said, okay don't worry about it.

 

Be careful with that in the future. While your opponent may overlook a rules infraction if he sees one, you to may not agree to waive a rule. Since both of you knew and communicated that you both new, this implies collusion.

 

So they would both be disqualified from their $5 Nassau?

[Vindog]

Exactly. There is also an abundance of inconsistency with how precisely the ball should be marked and replaced on the green. In her case she missed her mark by less than a 1/2 ball width (as judged by slow motion zoom). But if she had to move her mark from someones line using the common techniques, then her placement would have likely been worse by way more than a 1/2 ball width... and God forbid she had to move it a couple of club heads where the precision of replacement could have been reduced by several ball widths. Just seems like hypocrisy in the rules to allow error of X in one case and X*Y in another case on the green.

 

Secondly, golf really needs to develop a policy that gives the player the benefit of doubt in cases where a "possible" minor infraction DID NOT likely impact the outcome of the next shot. In Lexi's case it did not for sure. The ruling bodies are making progress but have a long way to go.

 

Several people keep repeating that it is known for sure that her misplacement of the ball did not impact the next shot.

 

No, it is not a certainty. We do not know that there wasn't a spike mark on her line. Short putts are regularly missed, especially if the player is focusing on an imperfection on the putting line. - Not a certainty but a very high probability. Ball alternatively could have been moved to a line with a spike mark instead. - Again golfer should get the benefit of the doubt that they weren't doing something nefarious instead of looking for ways to penalize over minutia.

 

A half ball's width is huge when replacing a ball. That's more than sloppy. I disagree that moving and replacing a ball marker will result in a half ball margin of error. However, let's say for the sake of argument that she did that. Fine. She used the rules to her advantage, and we would very likely not be discussing the incident.- Were gong to have to disagree in part that "moving from line and replacing a marker" wouldn't have more error... aligning a club head to a tree or whatever 20 or 30 yards, walking away and then attempting to realign and move back to original position is subject to great error, especially if you have to move multiple club heads. You can easily miss by well over 1/2 ball width.

 

See comments in line above.

 

Also as Heavy Hitter pointed out, if she had picked up the ball, stepped away and then replaced the ball, no one would have noticed.

 

I just believe that golf needs to move away from penalizing over minutia and things that don't impact the outcome of the next shot. Classic example was Stadler laying down a towel to avoid soiling his knees. Lets give the player the benefit of the doubt. While I'm tough on the USGA, I think they acted quickly and took a step in the right direction. Whether it would have saved Lexi is certainly up to debate.

 

Personal experience a few years back. I drove a ball into the trees along the fairway and came to rest in twigs next to a tree. While moving a couple small sticks the ball moved. I'm not sure if it oscillated or moved because I was focused on a spider near my hand. I told my match play competitor what happened and he astutely asked, "did the shot get any easier?" to which I replied "no, I'm still behind the tree in the sticks and all I can do is punch out." He said, okay don't worry about it.

 

Be careful with that in the future. While your opponent may overlook a rules infraction if he sees one, you to may not agree to waive a rule. Since both of you knew and communicated that you both new, this implies collusion.

 

So they would both be disqualified from their $5 Nassau?

 

Just sayin be careful.

 

$5 Nassau now. Maybe Club Championship tomorrow.

[Sean2]

People shouldn't believe everything they see on TV...it's not the Internet.

[Hardluckster]

Some are hanging there hat on the idea that if no one else reported it on course or started a thread on wrx immediately then it was not visible without HD. They must not be Phil fans as he feels it happens, a lot, on the mens tour.

 

If you accept that the misplacement was obviously visible, then both penalties become warranted. Doesn't fit their agenda.

[Hardluckster]

 

No one will ever know because this was a freak occasion. If she marks and spends 10 seconds behind the ball, then replaces it in the same place she did, no one even questions it. The only reason any one could tell is because she dropped the mark picked the ball up then immediately set the ball back down. In my eyes, and I know I am in the minority on this statement, she didn't deserve any penalty strokes. This happens every tournament, you just don't know because it isn't an immediate placement.

 

That's not necessarily true.

 

This year's Masters tournament. First round. Hole number 15. Danny Willett putts and misses, leaving the ball three to four feet short. He walks in directly behind the ball and places his coin about halfway off-center. I noticed immediately.

 

Matt Kuchar putts out and Willett comes in to replace his golf ball. The camera immediately panned upwards, so that his replacement was not visible on camera (deliberate?). The point is, if they had shown him replacing and if he had put the ball back down on-center, the misplacement would have been very obvious.

 

If you have the Masters DVR'd, you can check this for yourself.

[North Butte]

Too bad the regular Tours are not able to instruct the TV networks to do the same every week.

[Vindog]

Too bad the regular Tours are not able to instruct the TV networks to do the same every week.

 

All of the sudden I have an image of a future Phil Michelson greasing the camera man with Benjamins "Hey, keep the camera off me ya dig? Buy your wife somethin pretty!"

[Hardluckster]

Too bad the regular Tours are not able to instruct the TV networks to do the same every week.

 

From a personal standpoint, if it was me, I'd rather people not be wondering whether I took liberties in marking my golf ball on the green. So, if I had been in Willett's shoes, I'd have rather had my replacement broadcast - to either show that my honor was intact, or to allow anyone who noticed my mistake to be able to report it to the committee so that I could make the correct score adjustment.

 

That's just the way I was raised.

[SurfDuffer]

Doubting that your serious, and I don't think she cheated. Just momentarily careless and was rightly penalized. Mrs Graham said of the Lexi situation that what they would look at was whether the player actually used reasonable effort. Didn't say much else other than that but it wasn't a swift change of idea, nor was it a sparkling review of Lexi's actions.

 

I'm dead serious. Watch the video closely. She steps over her ball and sees something she doesn't like in the line. Then she marks, picks up her ball and places it over to the side to take relief from whatever is was she didn't like. She improved her line purposefully. That is my opinion and would be my ruling based on the video. I'd have DQed her and it is no doubt a blemish on her.

[SurfDuffer]

As has been pointed out many times before in the multiple threads on this issue, if there is no penalty for signing for a score lower than what you actually had, there is no incentive for a player to report an infraction that may have gone unnoticed. If it was spotted and reported later all you get is the penalty you deserved., if it wasn't you are now two strokes up on the field.

 

How is this different than how golf has been played for hundreds of years before heavily televised coverage became normal? How is this different than the vast majority of time during a tournament when a player isn't on the broadcast?

 

If the only thing keeping golfers honest is the threat of someone replaying video coverage after the scorecards are signed, then there is a bigger problem.

 

The difference is that in the past you thought that someone like Lexi might have purposely cheated but you couldn't back it up. Today you can confirm your suspicion with HD video. No doubt about it. DQ is the correct penalty.

[SurfDuffer]

 

 

Seriously, what would you call a player that intentionally misplaces their ball in violation of the rules?

 

A CHEATER.

[SurfDuffer]

yea i mean, just walk off the back 9 in the final round of a major. easy choice right?

 

Doing the right thing is seldom easy........but it would have been the right thing to do.

[SurfDuffer]

So....to all the 'you can't replace it in the exact same spot' folk. How much of a variance is acceptable in your eyes. 1"? 2"? 4" 12"? Where exactly do you draw the line about where a ball is replaced that is reasonable.

 

Let me draw a scenario for you: You and I are playing for $500 in a Sunday afternoon match. I have a short putt to win a key hole and likely take your $500 but there is a spike mark in my line or a dicey looking spot of grass that might deflect the ball on its way to the cup. Would you be OK if I marked and replaced my ball a half an inch left so that the spike mark or dicey looking spot of grass in my original line is no longer a factor in my putt? Would that be cheating?

 

I think deep down everyone here knows the correct answer to the moral dilemma but some people are having difficulty facing their own cognitive dissonance.

[Vindog]

Doubting that your serious, and I don't think she cheated. Just momentarily careless and was rightly penalized. Mrs Graham said of the Lexi situation that what they would look at was whether the player actually used reasonable effort. Didn't say much else other than that but it wasn't a swift change of idea, nor was it a sparkling review of Lexi's actions.

 

I'm dead serious. Watch the video closely. She steps over her ball and sees something she doesn't like in the line. Then she marks, picks up her ball and places it over to the side to take relief from whatever is was she didn't like. She improved her line purposefully. That is my opinion and would be my ruling based on the video. I'd have DQed her and it is no doubt a blemish on her.

 

Certainly entitled to your opinion, and others may agree with you, but I need more evidence that something that might could maybe be something looking like a mark, before I call someone a cheat.

 

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and just say she had an acute onset of cranius rectus.

[SurfDuffer]

Its pretty obvious unless you are battling cognitive dissonance over similar matters in your own play.

[reqq]

Someone found another case with her, im not gonna post it, but all i can say comment section golfch. news post. Dont know what to believe, if she is careless or if she does it deliberately.

[Vindog]

Its pretty obvious unless you are battling cognitive dissonance over similar matters in your own play.

 

The only dissonance I care to do battle with is Syd Barret Pink Floyd.

[bladehunter]

Shigly -

 

To answer your question on how would I feel if a player I didn't like got away with a enfractuon and video surfaced after the fact .

 

I would feel indifferent. I would much rather have that player get away with something here or there than to see what we just saw. Why ? Because I do not believe that you can get away with any cheat that is meaningful in this game. Players will call you on something that has a effect on outcome . It's this technicality stuff like blades of grass and grains of sand plus millimeters of placement that do not have any effect on outcome. Those things are not worried about in my opinion by true players of this game. Not if their misstep of the rules is done as an honest mistake . The guy or gal who is bending the rules and doing things on purpose gets called out. Unusually in private , but called out nonetheless. Part of this issue I have with calls is that it's part of our " need to know " sickness. We don't alwasy need to know of someone got reprimanded in private or not .

 

[North Butte]

It all comes down to whether you believe one random camera angle proves anything or not. Here's a hint, it does not.

[bladehunter]

Someone found another case with her, im not gonna post it, but all i can say comment section golfch. news post. Dont know what to believe, if she is careless or if she does it deliberately.

 

 

Have a link ? I've searched all over there and see nothing

[Hardluckster]

It all comes down to whether you believe one random camera angle proves anything or not. Here's a hint, it does not.

 

A random camera angle may not have proved anything, but the camera angle used to document Lexi's "gaffe" (if that's indeed what it was) provided proof that she obviously replaced the golf ball incorrectly.

[Sun Devil]

Too bad the regular Tours are not able to instruct the TV networks to do the same every week.

 

All of the sudden I have an image of a future Phil Michelson greasing the camera man with Benjamins "Hey, keep the camera off me ya dig? Buy your wife somethin pretty!"

 

This made me laugh because its probably true. This just makes me like Phil more so. Too funny.

[Hardluckster]

Shigly -

 

To answer your question on how would I feel if a player I didn't like got away with a enfractuon and video surfaced after the fact .

 

I would feel indifferent. I would much rather have that player get away with something here or there than to see what we just saw. Why ? Because I do not believe that you can get away with any cheat that is meaningful in this game.

Your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

 

Players will call you on something that has a effect on outcome .

 

Not always, undoubtedly. Not if you believe what Phil said.

 

It's this technicality stuff like blades of grass and grains of sand plus millimeters of placement that do not have any effect on outcome. Those things are not worried about in my opinion by true players of this game.

 

Watching most players react to having to putt through spike marks, I'd say that quite a few of them fret a lot about blades of grass.

 

Not if their misstep of the rules is done as an honest mistake . The guy or gal who is bending the rules and doing things on purpose gets called out. Unusually in private , but called out nonetheless.

 

And you know this how?

 

Aside from that, the person bending the rules deserves to be penalized for their infractions. That's what the rules of golf demand. The person(s) who allow(s) the rules to be bent are as guilty of breaking the rules of golf as is the "bender of the rules". If you allow others to play without following the rules, then not only are you allowing someone to cheat, you yourself are a cheater.

 

Part of this issue I have with calls is that it's part of our " need to know " sickness. We don't alwasy need to know of someone got reprimanded in private or not .

 

Call-ins is a need to know issue? I don't see the connection between call-ins and need to know, unless you are referring to the committee's "need to know". People call in because they already know: they know that they think there was an infraction and feel that the committee "needs to know".

 

I think that all golfers should be penalized for obvious violations of the RoG, whether intentional or not.

[North Texas]

Someone found another case with her, im not gonna post it, but all i can say comment section golfch. news post. Dont know what to believe, if she is careless or if she does it deliberately.

 

The part in bold is kind of gibberish.

 

Why won't you post it? Provide the link if you really saw something.

[bladehunter]

hardluckster-

 

 

lol.. i know this how? same way you know shes a cheater.... any other brain busters? You are advocating guilty until proven innocent ?