Effective Immediately, Rules Change to Limit Video Review

[whr]

So, as long as nobody sees a violation of the rules, everything is cool then....got it.

 

Yep, you got it. Now go on with your life.

[whr]

Doesn't really say much. A real rule change would be to let the player adjust the card and resign it to not be double penalized. She should have been penalized the 2 strokes, 100 percent. I think that people should really focus more on the fact that she should have been given the chance to correct the scorecard since the penalty was the prior day. When it comes down to it, these are professional golfers, they know better regardless.

 

 

One can only hope that such a change is coming. The uproar would have been an ripple of outrage compared to the tidal wave.

[SurfDuffer]

I disagree. Lexi got caught red handed taking relief that she was not entitled to. Some would call that cheating. She should have been DQd for that one.

[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.

 

 

[KyGolf]

Here are the issues with Lexi's penalty

1. It was not clear she did it intentionally or it provided her with any advantage.
   
2. The penalty wasn't assessed until after she signed her score card - therefore when she signed it, it was accurate. The 2 strokes for incorrect scorecard signing was out of line.
   
3. She wasn't informed of the 4 stroke penalty until the 12th hole of the final day which made it almost impossible to recover from. Why did it take that long to inform her?
   
4. Watching it at regular speed from the angle they provided I doubt any average golf fan would have noticed the infraction without knowing what to look for. There were others on the green with her, why wasn't something said when it occurred if it was so "blatant"?
   

With regards to the new rule, it's still ambiguous and a lame attempt by the USGA to make it appear that they wanted to resolve the issue. It's still not an objective rule that can be applied equally in every instance so what good is it?

 

 

#1. Doesn't matter whether there was an advantage gained or not. Intent is also not a factor. She moved her ball and placed it in an incorrect place. 2 stroke penalty.

 

#2. She incurred the penalty the moment she played from a wrong place. It is irrelevant whether she was aware of the penalty when she signed her card. It is still incorrect. If she had been aware of the penalty and did not include it she would have been DQed.

 

#3. She was informed of the penalty strokes as soon as the committee was aware they were going to assess the penalty.

 

#4. The misplacement of the ball was enough that it would have been visible to the naked eye. That is why the new decision would not have changed anything.

 

If you were looking for a new rule that would have exonerated Miss Thompson you are out of luck. There is no reason to change any of the rules involved in that particular situation and I am glad the RBs didn't fall victim to a knee jerk reaction.

 

If Lexi wasn't on the broadcast it wouldn't have been reported, there were a number of people on the green with her and it doesn't appear anyone took issue with the ball placement until the call in. The language in the new rule refers to players reasonable judgement, so therefore intent and advantage will now factor in.

 

Why did it take them the entire evening and twelve holes of the final pairing to determine a penalty needed to be assessed? If it was as blatant as you claim then it shouldn't have taken that long. Seems to me, someone was waiting to see if the penalty would be a factor in who won and decided to make the call at a time when it would do the most harm to Lexi without seeming like a blatant act.

 

No one saw it with their naked eye when it happened, it took almost 24 hours for them to make a decision to assess the penalty on something you claim was obvious.

 

I'm not a Lexi fan, I'm a golf fan and I don't like seeing tournaments stolen from golfers because the ruling bodies can't decide how to fairly enforce the rules when it comes to events that are broadcast versus those that are not.

In the newly phrased rule... Reasonable judgement refers to drops. For instance where did the ball last cross a hazard line. Reasonable EFFORT is needed in replacing your ball correctly after marking. You may think her judgement was acceptable but she most certainly did not use reasonable EFFORT to get it replaced properly.

 

........as well as REPLACING A LIFTED BALL IN RELATION TO A BALL-MARKER.

 

http://www.usga.org/...o-evidence.html

 

If you are going to quote something from a decision, include all of the wording, not just the part that you think makes your case.

 

It goes on to say:

 

• The amount by which the location was wrong in relation to the type of determination made, recognizing that certain actions (such as replacing a marked ball on the putting green) can be taken with greater accuracy than other actions that may involve more inherent uncertainty (such as estimating where a ball last crossed the margin of a water hazard at a point well ahead of the player)

 

I think that text is the reason that this new decision would not have saved Lexi from a penalty.

[ray9898]

Yup....nothing about this would have changed the Lexi penalty since he act was arguably intentional putting it far down the scale from something that should be done with great accuracy.

[bladehunter]

Yup....nothing about this would have changed the Lexi penalty since he act was arguably intentional putting it far down the scale from something that should be done with great accuracy.

 

 

 

 

Still quite ambiguous .... Just because a mark is stated to require more accuracy than last crossed line in a hazard doesn't mean that the amount she moved it would be deemed a penalty under the new rule. Would they not try to determine this using real time non zoomed camera ? As in naked eye ? And if so how would one determine the distance ? Would be very hard to say. My bet is that it would come down to the conversation between player and official. And likely could be 50/50 at best.

 

[Vindog]

Yup....nothing about this would have changed the Lexi penalty since he act was arguably intentional putting it far down the scale from something that should be done with great accuracy.

 

Or reasonable effort.

[Argonne69]

Yup....nothing about this would have changed the Lexi penalty since he act was arguably intentional putting it far down the scale from something that should be done with great accuracy.

 

Still quite ambiguous .... Just because a mark is stated to require more accuracy than last crossed line in a hazard doesn't mean that the amount she moved it would be deemed a penalty under the new rule. Would they not try to determine this using real time non zoomed camera ? As in naked eye ? And if so how would one determine the distance ? Would be very hard to say. My bet is that it would come down to the conversation between player and official. And likely could be 50/50 at best.

 

 

Given that the ball should have been placed within 2 to 3 mm, and yet was placed 10 to 20 mm, she was off by a factor of 5 to 10. So, if someone is determining where a ball crossed a hazard, and it's reasonable to expect them to be within 1 to 2 yards, you feel that 5 to 20 yards is close enough?

[bladehunter]

Yup....nothing about this would have changed the Lexi penalty since he act was arguably intentional putting it far down the scale from something that should be done with great accuracy.

 

Still quite ambiguous .... Just because a mark is stated to require more accuracy than last crossed line in a hazard doesn't mean that the amount she moved it would be deemed a penalty under the new rule. Would they not try to determine this using real time non zoomed camera ? As in naked eye ? And if so how would one determine the distance ? Would be very hard to say. My bet is that it would come down to the conversation between player and official. And likely could be 50/50 at best.

 

 

Given that the ball should have been placed within 2 to 3 mm, and yet was placed 10 to 20 mm, she was off by a factor of 5 to 10. So, if someone is determining where a ball crossed a hazard, and it's reasonable to expect them to be within 1 to 2 yards, you feel that 5 to 20 yards is close enough?

 

 

and how did you measure that ? without zoom and slow-mo? thats my point... i dont think you can unless its some blatant form of cheating.. this was her hurrying to get out of teh other players way and not trying to step in their line...

[Burt Chance]

My biggest problem with this is still the two shot penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard. I don't believe she intentionally cheated and no rules official caught the infraction. The old disqualification rule was a joke in regards to unintentional infractions leading to wrong scorecard signings. If no officials caught it then that penalty should not be applicable. The person who notified the officials about the infraction from their couch, basically became a rules official that day. That simply can't be allowed to happen.

 

But on the other hand, what do you do if a day later you found out through video evidence that someone blatantly cheated and signed an incorrect card?

 

Their is no win in this situation.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Yup....nothing about this would have changed the Lexi penalty since he act was arguably intentional putting it far down the scale from something that should be done with great accuracy.

 

Still quite ambiguous .... Just because a mark is stated to require more accuracy than last crossed line in a hazard doesn't mean that the amount she moved it would be deemed a penalty under the new rule. Would they not try to determine this using real time non zoomed camera ? As in naked eye ? And if so how would one determine the distance ? Would be very hard to say. My bet is that it would come down to the conversation between player and official. And likely could be 50/50 at best.

 

 

Given that the ball should have been placed within 2 to 3 mm, and yet was placed 10 to 20 mm, she was off by a factor of 5 to 10. So, if someone is determining where a ball crossed a hazard, and it's reasonable to expect them to be within 1 to 2 yards, you feel that 5 to 20 yards is close enough?

 

 

and how did you measure that ? without zoom and slow-mo? thats my point... i dont think you can unless its some blatant form of cheating.. this was her hurrying to get out of teh other players way and not trying to step in their line...

 

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.

[North Texas]

So, as long as nobody sees a violation of the rules, everything is cool then....got it.

 

Does it matter if it's a player, official, caddy, vendor, cameraman, or fan?

If you break a rule, there's a consequence. I know some get away with it, but geez us,

She clearly broke a rule...what some seem upset about is the way she was caught, not that a professional,

Leading a major, somehow forget how to mark and replace a ball.

 

She definitely deserved to be penalized and I am not upset in the least with the way she was caught.

 

But I do think there is more to the story of how she was caught then what is being told and I simply find that interesting.

[Argonne69]

 

Given that the ball should have been placed within 2 to 3 mm, and yet was placed 10 to 20 mm, she was off by a factor of 5 to 10. So, if someone is determining where a ball crossed a hazard, and it's reasonable to expect them to be within 1 to 2 yards, you feel that 5 to 20 yards is close enough?

 

and how did you measure that ? without zoom and slow-mo? thats my point... i dont think you can unless its some blatant form of cheating.. this was her hurrying to get out of teh other players way and not trying to step in their line...

 

You don't have to measure it. Her eyes were 18 inches away. We could tell the ball was in the wrong spot from 30 yards away, i.e. the camera view. Clearly she was able to see that the ball was not in the same spot. There was no need to zoom in to see it. There was no need for slow mo.

[imakaveli]

Given that the ball should have been placed within 2 to 3 mm, and yet was placed 10 to 20 mm, she was off by a factor of 5 to 10. So, if someone is determining where a ball crossed a hazard, and it's reasonable to expect them to be within 1 to 2 yards, you feel that 5 to 20 yards is close enough?

 

and how did you measure that ? without zoom and slow-mo? thats my point... i dont think you can unless its some blatant form of cheating.. this was her hurrying to get out of teh other players way and not trying to step in their line...

 

You don't have to measure it. Her eyes were 18 inches away. We could tell the ball was in the wrong spot from 30 yards away, i.e. the camera view. Clearly she was able to see that the ball was not in the same spot. There was no need to zoom in to see it. There was no need for slow mo.

 

Imho the fact that she didn't say anything for weeks is a proof she knew she didn't do everything correct and yes, she knew what she was doing

[legitimategolf]

It wasn't a zoomed shot, it was a wide angle shot. Big difference.

[Argonne69]

 

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.

 

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.

[heavy_hitter]

Here is what no one had said in this thread.

 

Had she marked and stepped away, and replaced her ball in the wrong place, no one would have known.

[North Texas]

Given that the ball should have been placed within 2 to 3 mm, and yet was placed 10 to 20 mm, she was off by a factor of 5 to 10. So, if someone is determining where a ball crossed a hazard, and it's reasonable to expect them to be within 1 to 2 yards, you feel that 5 to 20 yards is close enough?

 

and how did you measure that ? without zoom and slow-mo? thats my point... i dont think you can unless its some blatant form of cheating.. this was her hurrying to get out of teh other players way and not trying to step in their line...

 

You don't have to measure it. Her eyes were 18 inches away. We could tell the ball was in the wrong spot from 30 yards away, i.e. the camera view. Clearly she was able to see that the ball was not in the same spot. There was no need to zoom in to see it. There was no need for slow mo.

 

I disagree that we could tell the ball was in the wrong spot from 30 yards away, i.e. the camera view.

I agree that she clearly should have been able to see that the ball was not in the same post.

I disagree that there was no need to zoom in to see it.

I disagree that there was no need for slow mo.

[Argonne69]

 

I disagree that we could tell the ball was in the wrong spot from 30 yards away, i.e. the camera view.

I agree that she clearly should have been able to see that the ball was not in the same post.

I disagree that there was no need to zoom in to see it.

I disagree that there was no need for slow mo.

 

Many on this forum were able to spot the misplacement from the normal camera view. However, the 2nd one is only one that matters really.

[Shilgy]

Here are the issues with Lexi's penalty

1. It was not clear she did it intentionally or it provided her with any advantage.
   
2. The penalty wasn't assessed until after she signed her score card - therefore when she signed it, it was accurate. The 2 strokes for incorrect scorecard signing was out of line.
   
3. She wasn't informed of the 4 stroke penalty until the 12th hole of the final day which made it almost impossible to recover from. Why did it take that long to inform her?
   
4. Watching it at regular speed from the angle they provided I doubt any average golf fan would have noticed the infraction without knowing what to look for. There were others on the green with her, why wasn't something said when it occurred if it was so "blatant"?
   

With regards to the new rule, it's still ambiguous and a lame attempt by the USGA to make it appear that they wanted to resolve the issue. It's still not an objective rule that can be applied equally in every instance so what good is it?

 

 

#1. Doesn't matter whether there was an advantage gained or not. Intent is also not a factor. She moved her ball and placed it in an incorrect place. 2 stroke penalty.

 

#2. She incurred the penalty the moment she played from a wrong place. It is irrelevant whether she was aware of the penalty when she signed her card. It is still incorrect. If she had been aware of the penalty and did not include it she would have been DQed.

 

#3. She was informed of the penalty strokes as soon as the committee was aware they were going to assess the penalty.

 

#4. The misplacement of the ball was enough that it would have been visible to the naked eye. That is why the new decision would not have changed anything.

 

If you were looking for a new rule that would have exonerated Miss Thompson you are out of luck. There is no reason to change any of the rules involved in that particular situation and I am glad the RBs didn't fall victim to a knee jerk reaction.

 

If Lexi wasn't on the broadcast it wouldn't have been reported, there were a number of people on the green with her and it doesn't appear anyone took issue with the ball placement until the call in. The language in the new rule refers to players reasonable judgement, so therefore intent and advantage will now factor in.

 

Why did it take them the entire evening and twelve holes of the final pairing to determine a penalty needed to be assessed? If it was as blatant as you claim then it shouldn't have taken that long. Seems to me, someone was waiting to see if the penalty would be a factor in who won and decided to make the call at a time when it would do the most harm to Lexi without seeming like a blatant act.

 

No one saw it with their naked eye when it happened, it took almost 24 hours for them to make a decision to assess the penalty on something you claim was obvious.

 

I'm not a Lexi fan, I'm a golf fan and I don't like seeing tournaments stolen from golfers because the ruling bodies can't decide how to fairly enforce the rules when it comes to events that are broadcast versus those that are not.

In the newly phrased rule... Reasonable judgement refers to drops. For instance where did the ball last cross a hazard line. Reasonable EFFORT is needed in replacing your ball correctly after marking. You may think her judgement was acceptable but she most certainly did not use reasonable EFFORT to get it replaced properly.

 

........as well as REPLACING A LIFTED BALL IN RELATION TO A BALL-MARKER.

 

http://www.usga.org/...o-evidence.html

Yep-you found it. But read the whole thing please. Lexi's mark did not meet spec's. Read the last paragraph please.

A “reasonable judgment” standard is applied in evaluating the player’s actions in these situations: so long as the player does what can reasonably be expected under the circumstances to make an accurate determination, the player’s reasonable judgment will be accepted even if later shown to be wrong by the use of video evidence.

The relevant circumstances to be considered by the Committee when applying this standard include:

• The particular actions taken by the player and the context in which they were taken;

• The player’s explanation of the reasons for those actions;

• Information from other players or persons who were there; and

• The amount by which the location was wrong in relation to the type of determination made, recognizing that certain actions (such as replacing a marked ball on the putting green) can be taken with greater accuracy than other actions that may involve more inherent uncertainty (such as estimating where a ball last crossed the margin of a water hazard at a point well ahead of the player).

[Shilgy]

Here is what no one had said in this thread.

 

Had she marked and stepped away, and replaced her ball in the wrong place, no one would have known.

Actually that has been posted a few times. And may be correct. But she was still wrong.

[Argonne69]

A “reasonable judgment” standard is applied in evaluating the player’s actions in these situations: so long as the player does what can reasonably be expected under the circumstances to make an accurate determination, the player’s reasonable judgment will be accepted even if later shown to be wrong by the use of video evidence.

The relevant circumstances to be considered by the Committee when applying this standard include:

• The particular actions taken by the player and the context in which they were taken;

• The player’s explanation of the reasons for those actions;

• Information from other players or persons who were there; and

• The amount by which the location was wrong in relation to the type of determination made, recognizing that certain actions (such as replacing a marked ball on the putting green) can be taken with greater accuracy than other actions that may involve more inherent uncertainty (such as estimating where a ball last crossed the margin of a water hazard at a point well ahead of the player).

[North Butte]

I think if we had access to video of every PGA Tour, LPGA Tour, Senior Tour and USGA event that's been televised over the past decade it would be possible zoom in on every mark and remark and find dozens of situations that seemed as "obvious" as Lexi's supposed mistake. And hundreds more that someone like friend Argonne might find questionable.

 

Only one problem with that idea. It would be stupid.

[ray9898]

Here is what no one had said in this thread.

 

Had she marked and stepped away, and replaced her ball in the wrong place, no one would have known.

 

Which is exactly what makes her act look intentional, her eyes never left an area 18" above the ball.. We could take some kids with 2 months golf experience and ask them to mark the ball, lift it for a second and place it right back down and they could do it so accurately you couldn't tell it had moved. To think a pro cannot do this is absurd.

[Argonne69]

I think if we had access to video of every PGA Tour, LPGA Tour, Senior Tour and USGA event that's been televised over the past decade it would be possible zoom in on every mark and remark and find dozens of situations that seemed as "obvious" as Lexi's supposed mistake. And hundreds more that someone like friend Argonne might find questionable.

 

Only one problem with that idea. It would be stupid.

 

Yes, it would be stupid because it would not change the outcome of the concluded tournament.

 

However, in Lexi's case the infraction was caught before the tournament was concluded, and the officials were obligated to enforce the rules.

 

You really can't see the difference?

[North Texas]

I disagree that we could tell the ball was in the wrong spot from 30 yards away, i.e. the camera view.

I agree that she clearly should have been able to see that the ball was not in the same post.

I disagree that there was no need to zoom in to see it.

I disagree that there was no need for slow mo.

 

Many on this forum were able to spot the misplacement from the normal camera view. However, the 2nd one is only one that matters really.

 

Yes, many have claimed that they were able to spot the misplacement.

 

My contention is this. Anyone just casually watching it absolutely would not have noticed anything. In order to notice something out of the ordinary, you had to looking for it or be focused totally on the ball and nothing else. I've watched it numerous times and know to look for it and it's barely discernible even then.

[North Butte]

I think judging actions of a player during, after, whenever by someone's interpretation of what they think one camera angle shows is dumb. Yes. Period.

 

If you want a video replay system to be used by tournament officials then implement one. It does not consist of a few groups being followed by a guy with a portable TV camera, trying show interesting angles of the player's stroke or the line of a putt or whatever TV entertainment that camera is there to provide.

[heavy_hitter]

Here is what no one had said in this thread.

 

Had she marked and stepped away, and replaced her ball in the wrong place, no one would have known.

 

Which is exactly what makes her act look intentional, her eyes never left an area 18" above the ball.. We could take some kids with 2 months golf experience and ask them to mark the ball, lift it for a second and place it right back down and they could do it so accurately you couldn't tell it had moved. To think a pro cannot do this is absurd.

 

You would have never known it either if it weren't for video replay. I don't like the new rule, but I think she would be covered.

[whr]

I'm still not convinced it's so clear. It's up to the committee to determine reasonable judgment and no one knows how they would adjudicate it. Without the zoomed in HD footage, NO ONE would have seen this and clearly it didn't pass the "naked eye" test as no one noticed it.