USGA? Teen DQ'd from Sectional for going to the bathroom before turning in his scorecard

[GeorgeHWB]

This sounds like a USGA cover up.

[Philomathesq]

> @dcmidnight said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > I'm not saying the kid is completely blameless, because he is not. However, this situation could have been handled much differently and in a way that didn't leave the USGA open to attack.

>

> Explain how. Honestly, I would like to know what people would have liked done here in a case where no one on site was told about his medical excuse and this only came out in press reports after the fact. It seems like the only thing that would make people happy would be the kid getting a complete pass because to me that is the only thing "differently" that could have been done.

>

> The only way I'm giving the kid a pass is if it was some kid off the street who was completely new to golf tournaments and knew nothing about how high level golf events worked. Its just silly to try and think that is the case here. There is almost no realistic argument that could be made that the "kid" didnt know about the importance of signing your card after the event. You can define "promptly" however you want. But you combine his complete lack of communication to his playing partners and in some order he went to his car, the bathroom, back outside to look at the scoreboard -

>

> Again - it seems like people with blinding hatred for the USGA want to project that onto the actions taken by onsite personnel. Which makes no sense since the USGA had nothing to do with the onsite event or actions.

>

 

Well, you are presuming that the medical issue did not come out until after the fact. I don't know that is the case; to me, there are clearly erroneous statements made by the USGA, and coupled with their prior problems telling the truth, I don't really trust that the story they have put forth is accurate.

 

 

[dcmidnight]

The onsite officials stated that the kid never said anything about a medical condition - even when asked. They are not USGA officials, this was not a USGA run event. Your attitude on the USGA seems pretty clear. But the "USGA are all liars so these guys are lying" is just not accurate here.

 

Otherwise, you argument seems to be that this is a massive conspiracy against the kid.

[bladehunter]

> @dcmidnight said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > I'm not saying the kid is completely blameless, because he is not. However, this situation could have been handled much differently and in a way that didn't leave the USGA open to attack.

>

> Explain how. Honestly, I would like to know what people would have liked done here in a case where no one on site was told about his medical excuse and this only came out in press reports after the fact. It seems like the only thing that would make people happy would be the kid getting a complete pass because to me that is the only thing "differently" that could have been done.

>

> The only way I'm giving the kid a pass is if it was some kid off the street who was completely new to golf tournaments and knew nothing about how high level golf events worked. Its just silly to try and think that is the case here. There is almost no realistic argument that could be made that the "kid" didnt know about the importance of signing your card after the event. You can define "promptly" however you want. But you combine his complete lack of communication to his playing partners and in some order he went to his car, into the clubhouse to use the bathroom, back outside to look at the scoreboard - and then decided to sign his card. And he may or may not have grabbed lunch.

>

> And the whole time - his playing partners are standing in the scorers area just twiddling their thumbs wondering where the heck he was. And BTW, its extremely disrespectful if you are the player he was marking for whos then standing around, wondering wtf is going on and waiting to get his card signed off on.

>

> Again - it seems like people with blinding hatred for the USGA want to project that onto the actions taken by onsite personnel. Which makes no sense since the USGA had nothing to do with the onsite event or actions.

>

>

 

One major thing that could be done differently is don’t make up details to a story to help justify the ruling. If the ruling is correct let it stand on its own. It won’t need propping up with stories of lunch and falsehoods that he returned after the next group had finished 18 and scored. Lies to justify the truth only tarnish the truth. The prevailing attitude here for the USga or the mid Atlantic is they root cause for gripe. I said this in another USga thread. Their attitude spills down to every committee on earth. I’m a part of one of those committees and I hear “ USga “ this or that every single time we meet. I refuse to adopt their attitude.

[bladehunter]

They also claim that nobody knew what this kid looks like ? What the heck does that even mean ? He just played 4 hours with competitors and a walking official. They had their eyes closed the whole time ? Lots of made up details and statements , and I can only ask , why ?

[bscinstnct]

> @dcmidnight said:

> The onsite officials stated that the kid never said anything about a medical condition - even when asked. They are not USGA officials, this was not a USGA run event. Your attitude on the USGA seems pretty clear. But the "USGA are all liars so these guys are lying" is just not accurate here.

>

> Otherwise, you argument seems to be that this is a massive conspiracy against the kid.

 

The USGA communications manager said the kid “went to lunch”.

 

I wonder who told him that?

 

 

 

 

[ExTrumpet]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @dcmidnight said:

> > The onsite officials stated that the kid never said anything about a medical condition - even when asked. They are not USGA officials, this was not a USGA run event. Your attitude on the USGA seems pretty clear. But the "USGA are all liars so these guys are lying" is just not accurate here.

> >

> > Otherwise, you argument seems to be that this is a massive conspiracy against the kid.

>

> The USGA communications manager said the kid “went to lunch”.

>

> I wonder who told him that?

>

>

>

>

 

Apparently somebody that didn't recognize him.

[dcmidnight]

Who cares who told them - I certainly haven't seen it denied by anyone? Either way the kid made a few different stops and only went to the scorers table when he saw NC next to his name on the scoreboard - nothing else motivated him to go. Thats on him.

 

BTW the USGA didnt claim anything about not knowing what the kid looked like. The onsite official's quote - not the USGA - said that his playing partners stated that - the USGA didnt make that up. He's an unremarkable looking young kid wandering a clubhouse/area with a hundred other people milling around - a lot of whom probably looked like him.

 

So what now...the other players are in on the lies and conspiracy?

 

I'm still waiting for someone to make an argument that what the kid did constitutes "promptly" signing his card. There seems to be the usual obfuscating of the issue by beating the same old USGA dead horse.

[caniac6]

Let's start at the beginning; The USGA tempted Eve to eat the apple.

[Philomathesq]

> @dcmidnight said:

> Who cares who told them - I certainly haven't seen it denied by anyone? Either way the kid made a few different stops and **only went to the scorers table when he saw NC next to his name on the scoreboard - nothing else motivated him to go.** Thats on him.

>

> _BTW the USGA didnt claim anything about not knowing what the kid looked like. The onsite official's quote - not the USGA - said that his playing partners stated that - the USGA didnt make that up._ **He's an unremarkable looking young kid wandering a clubhouse/area with a hundred other people milling around - a lot of whom probably looked like him.**

>

> So what now...the other players are in on the lies and conspiracy?

>

> I'm still waiting for someone to make an argument that what the kid did constitutes "promptly" signing his card. There seems to be the usual obfuscating of the issue by beating the same old USGA dead horse.

 

So, it will be difficult to have an intelligent conversation about this if you keep stating as fact things that: (1) you can't possibly know are true (see bold above - you can't possibly know what motivated the kid and you can't possibly know that hundreds of other people looked like him... in fact, given that he was a 16-year-old among many adults, logic would dictate that he may have been easy to identify based on that); or (2) you make claims that are outright refuted by the statements that were made (see bold and italic above - Craig Winter, USGA Senior Director of Rules of Golf and Amateur Status, is the person quoted as saying nobody knew what the kid looked like; there is no mention that he was told this information by someone else).

 

However, for sake of argument, I think there are (at least) three possible scenarios:

 

1. The kid just screwed up. He putted out on the 18th, grabbed his ball, and just left the course without telling anyone (his dad, swing coach, official, playing partners, caddy, etc.) where he was going or what he was going to do. Given that he appears to be a successful golfer for his age, it's highly unlikely he didn't know the rules, so in this scenario, he should have been DQ'd.

2. The kid putted out on the 18th, grabbed his ball, and told someone (be it his caddy, the official, his playing partners, his dad, his swing coach, etc.) that he wasn't feeling well and needed his medicine and to hit the head. He then goes off and does his thing and comes back to find out he has been DQ'd, or at least there is a NC up on the scoreboard. He tries to explain what happened, but gets DQ'd anyway.

3. Something in the middle. I believe this is the most likely scenario, because the USGA has already made statements that can't possibly be true and others that defy logic. And, to be fair, the statements from the kid and his dad don't seem to be 100% kosher, either.

 

Maybe this is where we disagree, but I feel that, unless scenario 1 is what happened, he should not have been DQ'd. If he made some mention of where he was going, or if he did have to use the bathroom so badly that he couldn't hold it, or if he did explain to the scorer's that he had to grab medicine, even if it was after 10 or 15 minutes, he should have been given the opportunity to keep playing.

 

The USGA is supposed to be an organization that advances golf. Hell, their mission and values, taken right from their website, state:

 

"Our Mission

The USGA promotes and conserves the true spirit of the game of golf as embodied in its ancient and honorable traditions. It acts in the best interests of the game for the continued enjoyment of those who love and play it."

 

"Our Values

At the core of all of our work, the USGA:

Leads: We embody the spirit of the game through integrity, transparency, candor, and respect.

Serves: We listen to and leverage diverse perspectives from the golf community; we collaborate and encourage healthy debate

And Inspires: We create opportunity through a shared passion and commitment to excellence."

 

Explain to me how DQ'ing a kid from a US Open Sectional, given these circumstances, "promotes and conserves the true spirit of the game as embodied in its ancient and honorable traditions." How does this DQ work in "the best interests of the game for the continued enjoyment of those who play it?"

 

How does the DQ, the circumstances surrounding it, and the statements made by the USGA "embody the spirit of the game through integrity, transparency, candor, and respect?"

 

The mission and values of the USGA mention the "spirit of the game." Maybe I interpret that phrase differently than you, but to me, and especially as a lawyer, that phrase means that strict adherence is not always called for, and in fact, is not encouraged if the spirit of the game would be done a disservice by strict adherence. Hence, DQ'ing a kid for "wandering around" for no more than 15 minutes seems to be a horrible way to promote the "spirit of the game." Nobody is claiming that the kid somehow gained a competitive advantage during that 15 minute period.

 

I'll get off my soapbox, now.

 

[widow-maker]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @dcmidnight said:

> > Who cares who told them - I certainly haven't seen it denied by anyone? Either way the kid made a few different stops and **only went to the scorers table when he saw NC next to his name on the scoreboard - nothing else motivated him to go.** Thats on him.

> >

> > _BTW the USGA didnt claim anything about not knowing what the kid looked like. The onsite official's quote - not the USGA - said that his playing partners stated that - the USGA didnt make that up._ **He's an unremarkable looking young kid wandering a clubhouse/area with a hundred other people milling around - a lot of whom probably looked like him.**

> >

> > So what now...the other players are in on the lies and conspiracy?

> >

> > I'm still waiting for someone to make an argument that what the kid did constitutes "promptly" signing his card. There seems to be the usual obfuscating of the issue by beating the same old USGA dead horse.

>

> So, it will be difficult to have an intelligent conversation about this if you keep stating as fact things that: (1) you can't possibly know are true (see bold above - you can't possibly know what motivated the kid and you can't possibly know that hundreds of other people looked like him... in fact, given that he was a 16-year-old among many adults, logic would dictate that he may have been easy to identify based on that); or (2) you make claims that are outright refuted by the statements that were made (see bold and italic above - Craig Winter, USGA Senior Director of Rules of Golf and Amateur Status, is the person quoted as saying nobody knew what the kid looked like; there is no mention that he was told this information by someone else).

>

> However, for sake of argument, I think there are (at least) three possible scenarios:

>

> 1. The kid just screwed up. He putted out on the 18th, grabbed his ball, and just left the course without telling anyone (his dad, swing coach, official, playing partners, caddy, etc.) where he was going or what he was going to do. Given that he appears to be a successful golfer for his age, it's highly unlikely he didn't know the rules, so in this scenario, he should have been DQ'd.

> 2. The kid putted out on the 18th, grabbed his ball, and told someone (be it his caddy, the official, his playing partners, his dad, his swing coach, etc.) that he wasn't feeling well and needed his medicine and to hit the head. He then goes off and does his thing and comes back to find out he has been DQ'd, or at least there is a NC up on the scoreboard. He tries to explain what happened, but gets DQ'd anyway.

> 3. Something in the middle. I believe this is the most likely scenario, because the USGA has already made statements that can't possibly be true and others that defy logic. And, to be fair, the statements from the kid and his dad don't seem to be 100% kosher, either.

>

> Maybe this is where we disagree, but I feel that, unless scenario 1 is what happened, he should not have been DQ'd. If he made some mention of where he was going, or if he did have to use the bathroom so badly that he couldn't hold it, or if he did explain to the scorer's that he had to grab medicine, even if it was after 10 or 15 minutes, he should have been given the opportunity to keep playing.

>

> The USGA is supposed to be an organization that advances golf. ****, their mission and values, taken right from their website, state:

>

> "Our Mission

> The USGA promotes and conserves the true spirit of the game of golf as embodied in its ancient and honorable traditions. It acts in the best interests of the game for the continued enjoyment of those who love and play it."

>

> "Our Values

> At the core of all of our work, the USGA:

> Leads: We embody the spirit of the game through integrity, transparency, candor, and respect.

> Serves: We listen to and leverage diverse perspectives from the golf community; we collaborate and encourage healthy debate

> And Inspires: We create opportunity through a shared passion and commitment to excellence."

>

> Explain to me how DQ'ing a kid from a US Open Sectional, given these circumstances, "promotes and conserves the true spirit of the game as embodied in its ancient and honorable traditions." How does this DQ work in "the best interests of the game for the continued enjoyment of those who play it?"

>

> How does the DQ, the circumstances surrounding it, and the statements made by the USGA "embody the spirit of the game through integrity, transparency, candor, and respect?"

>

> The mission and values of the USGA mention the "spirit of the game." Maybe I interpret that phrase differently than you, but to me, and especially as a lawyer, that phrase means that strict adherence is not always called for, and in fact, is not encouraged if the spirit of the game would be done a disservice by strict adherence. Hence, DQ'ing a kid for "wandering around" for no more than 15 minutes seems to be a horrible way to promote the "spirit of the game." Nobody is claiming that the kid somehow gained a competitive advantage during that 15 minute period.

>

> I'll get off my soapbox, now.

>

 

You keep laying this on the USGA and it was the Mid Atlantic that was in charge and levied the DQ. A USGA spokesman(probably not even on site) then got involved in the aftermath.

 

The USGA has a rule for failure to sign and return your scorecard promptly. Another entity interpreted the rule and made the decision. There's nothing wrong with the rule. It's there for a purpose, and there would be chaos without it. Whether it was interpreted properly may be cause for debate, but to blame the USGA for what happened really isn't justified in this instance. They screw up enough in other areas where the complaints are justified but this seems like a witch hunt.

[bladehunter]

> @widow-maker said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > > @dcmidnight said:

> > > Who cares who told them - I certainly haven't seen it denied by anyone? Either way the kid made a few different stops and **only went to the scorers table when he saw NC next to his name on the scoreboard - nothing else motivated him to go.** Thats on him.

> > >

> > > _BTW the USGA didnt claim anything about not knowing what the kid looked like. The onsite official's quote - not the USGA - said that his playing partners stated that - the USGA didnt make that up._ **He's an unremarkable looking young kid wandering a clubhouse/area with a hundred other people milling around - a lot of whom probably looked like him.**

> > >

> > > So what now...the other players are in on the lies and conspiracy?

> > >

> > > I'm still waiting for someone to make an argument that what the kid did constitutes "promptly" signing his card. There seems to be the usual obfuscating of the issue by beating the same old USGA dead horse.

> >

> > So, it will be difficult to have an intelligent conversation about this if you keep stating as fact things that: (1) you can't possibly know are true (see bold above - you can't possibly know what motivated the kid and you can't possibly know that hundreds of other people looked like him... in fact, given that he was a 16-year-old among many adults, logic would dictate that he may have been easy to identify based on that); or (2) you make claims that are outright refuted by the statements that were made (see bold and italic above - Craig Winter, USGA Senior Director of Rules of Golf and Amateur Status, is the person quoted as saying nobody knew what the kid looked like; there is no mention that he was told this information by someone else).

> >

> > However, for sake of argument, I think there are (at least) three possible scenarios:

> >

> > 1. The kid just screwed up. He putted out on the 18th, grabbed his ball, and just left the course without telling anyone (his dad, swing coach, official, playing partners, caddy, etc.) where he was going or what he was going to do. Given that he appears to be a successful golfer for his age, it's highly unlikely he didn't know the rules, so in this scenario, he should have been DQ'd.

> > 2. The kid putted out on the 18th, grabbed his ball, and told someone (be it his caddy, the official, his playing partners, his dad, his swing coach, etc.) that he wasn't feeling well and needed his medicine and to hit the head. He then goes off and does his thing and comes back to find out he has been DQ'd, or at least there is a NC up on the scoreboard. He tries to explain what happened, but gets DQ'd anyway.

> > 3. Something in the middle. I believe this is the most likely scenario, because the USGA has already made statements that can't possibly be true and others that defy logic. And, to be fair, the statements from the kid and his dad don't seem to be 100% kosher, either.

> >

> > Maybe this is where we disagree, but I feel that, unless scenario 1 is what happened, he should not have been DQ'd. If he made some mention of where he was going, or if he did have to use the bathroom so badly that he couldn't hold it, or if he did explain to the scorer's that he had to grab medicine, even if it was after 10 or 15 minutes, he should have been given the opportunity to keep playing.

> >

> > The USGA is supposed to be an organization that advances golf. ****, their mission and values, taken right from their website, state:

> >

> > "Our Mission

> > The USGA promotes and conserves the true spirit of the game of golf as embodied in its ancient and honorable traditions. It acts in the best interests of the game for the continued enjoyment of those who love and play it."

> >

> > "Our Values

> > At the core of all of our work, the USGA:

> > Leads: We embody the spirit of the game through integrity, transparency, candor, and respect.

> > Serves: We listen to and leverage diverse perspectives from the golf community; we collaborate and encourage healthy debate

> > And Inspires: We create opportunity through a shared passion and commitment to excellence."

> >

> > Explain to me how DQ'ing a kid from a US Open Sectional, given these circumstances, "promotes and conserves the true spirit of the game as embodied in its ancient and honorable traditions." How does this DQ work in "the best interests of the game for the continued enjoyment of those who play it?"

> >

> > How does the DQ, the circumstances surrounding it, and the statements made by the USGA "embody the spirit of the game through integrity, transparency, candor, and respect?"

> >

> > The mission and values of the USGA mention the "spirit of the game." Maybe I interpret that phrase differently than you, but to me, and especially as a lawyer, that phrase means that strict adherence is not always called for, and in fact, is not encouraged if the spirit of the game would be done a disservice by strict adherence. Hence, DQ'ing a kid for "wandering around" for no more than 15 minutes seems to be a horrible way to promote the "spirit of the game." Nobody is claiming that the kid somehow gained a competitive advantage during that 15 minute period.

> >

> > I'll get off my soapbox, now.

> >

>

> You keep laying this on the USGA and it was the Mid Atlantic that was in charge and levied the DQ. A USGA spokesman(probably not even on site) then got involved in the aftermath.

>

> The USGA has a rule for failure to sign and return your scorecard promptly. Another entity interpreted the rule and made the decision. There's nothing wrong with the rule. It's there for a purpose, and there would be chaos without it. Whether it was interpreted properly may be cause for debate, but to blame the USGA for what happened really isn't justified in this instance. They screw up enough in other areas where the complaints are justified but this seems like a witch hunt.

 

Lol. So a USga spokesperson who wasn’t on site decided to tell us he was out to lunch and then nobody knew what he looked like ? This is like Dr evil level stuff. They went out of their way to insert foot into mouth ? Wow

[Philomathesq]

> @widow-maker said:

> You keep laying this on the USGA and it was the Mid Atlantic that was in charge and levied the DQ. A USGA spokesman(probably not even on site) then got involved in the aftermath.

>

> The USGA has a rule for failure to sign and return your scorecard promptly. Another entity interpreted the rule and made the decision. There's nothing wrong with the rule. It's there for a purpose, and there would be chaos without it. Whether it was interpreted properly may be cause for debate, but to blame the USGA for what happened really isn't justified in this instance. They screw up enough in other areas where the complaints are justified but this seems like a witch hunt.

 

Your point is well-intended, but not applicable here. I do think the USGA deserves blame _in this situation_ because, rather than just coming out and saying what you said (e.g. "While the USGA has created the rule that is at-issue in this case, we were not involved in the interpretation of that rule to this case. Because the situation was handled by the local entity, we have no further comment."), they put their nose in the situation and start making comments that are not factually accurate and defy logic.

 

And, maybe this is a bigger criticism than is necessary for this discussion, I do have a problem with the USGA propagating such a vaguely-worded rule that imparts in the ruling officials such great latitude over an issue that has no bearing on the actual playing of the game--though it can prevent someone from continuing to play--without providing any examples of when enforcement would be unwarranted... especially in a situation like this, where a black-and-white time limit and black-and-white exceptions make perfect sense (e.g. one is DQ'd if they do not certify their scores before the group behind them has certified their scores; clear exceptions for medical necessity). For example, the USGA rep stated that had they been informed of a medical condition, there may have been an exception made. However, the actual rule lists no such exception, though it does list another exception. How is the local body supposed to enforce the rule and/or its exceptions when there are unstated exceptions to the rule?

 

[dcmidnight]

> @Philomathesq said:

> Leads: We embody the spirit of the game through integrity, transparency, candor, and respect...

> Explain to me how DQ'ing a kid from a US Open Sectional, given these circumstances, "promotes and conserves the true spirit of the game as embodied in its ancient and honorable traditions." How does this DQ work in "the best interests of the game for the continued enjoyment of those who play it?"

 

How about the fact that the way this kid acted had no integrity or respect to it? Zero respect to his playing partners. No transparency as to where he was or what was going on. No rushing back to the scorers table. The best interests of the game also involve adhering to a basic set of rules/values in tournament play that apply to everyone. Again, everyone involves admits that in some order - He went to his car. He went to the locker room. He went to the scoreboard outside. He *then* went to the scorers table.

 

Not one person here wants to argue that the kid returned his scorecard in anything resembling "timely fashion". If they do - lets start that conversation. Because the USGA stuff gets old to me after a while.

 

This also isnt "some kid". You guys seem to want to treat this as some innocent little baby that got this ripped away from him from the big bad USGA and awhh he didnt know any better, how could he possible know he's just a kid, why do this to a kid? He was a "kid" with a swing coach and helicopter golf dad who'd spent years in high level golf competition. It simply defies belief that he did not know to sign his card. It defies belief.

 

Again - not one person here wants to argue that the kid returned his scorecard in a timely fashion. This is all now about bashing the USGA in some sort of race to the best conspiracy theory.

[bladehunter]

> @dcmidnight said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > Leads: We embody the spirit of the game through integrity, transparency, candor, and respect...

> > Explain to me how DQ'ing a kid from a US Open Sectional, given these circumstances, "promotes and conserves the true spirit of the game as embodied in its ancient and honorable traditions." How does this DQ work in "the best interests of the game for the continued enjoyment of those who play it?"

>

> How about the fact that the way this kid acted had no integrity or respect to it? Zero respect to his playing partners. No transparency as to where he was or what was going on. No rushing back to the scorers table. The best interests of the game also involve adhering to a basic set of rules/values in tournament play that apply to everyone. Again, everyone involves admits that in some order - He went to his car. He went to the locker room. He went to the scoreboard outside. He *then* went to the scorers table.

>

> Not one person here wants to argue that the kid returned his scorecard in anything resembling "timely fashion". If they do - lets start that conversation. Because the USGA stuff gets old to me after a while.

>

> This also isnt "some kid". You guys seem to want to treat this as some innocent little baby that got this ripped away from him from the big bad USGA and awhh he didnt know any better, how could he possible know he's just a kid, why do this to a kid? He was a "kid" with a swing coach and helicopter golf dad who'd spent years in high level golf competition. It simply defies belief that he did not know to sign his card. It defies belief.

>

> Again - not one person here wants to argue that the kid returned his scorecard in a timely fashion. This is all now about bashing the USGA in some sort of race to the best conspiracy theory.

 

Eh. I’ll argue it. It’s raining here. Nothing else to do. The Canadian open sucks.

 

Before the group behind you finished and turned in a card seems timely enough for common sense. And it was well before then as they hadn’t made it to the 18TH green yet. And nowhere does it say he went to the locker room. Could have been a porta john beside the scorers tent for all we know.

[Philomathesq]

> @dcmidnight said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > Leads: We embody the spirit of the game through integrity, transparency, candor, and respect...

> > Explain to me how DQ'ing a kid from a US Open Sectional, given these circumstances, "promotes and conserves the true spirit of the game as embodied in its ancient and honorable traditions." How does this DQ work in "the best interests of the game for the continued enjoyment of those who play it?"

>

> How about the fact that the way this kid acted had no integrity or respect to it? No respect to his playing partners. No transparency as to where he was or what was going on. No rushing back to the scorers table. The best interests of the game also involve adhering to a basic set of rules/values in tournament play that apply to everyone. Again, everyone involves admits that in some order - He went to his car. He went to the locker room. He went to the scoreboard outside. He *then* went to the scorers table.

>

> Not one person here wants to argue that the kid returned his scorecard in anything resembling "timely fashion". If they do - lets start that conversation.

>

> This also isnt "some kid". You guys seem to want to treat this as some innocent little baby that got this ripped away from him from the big bad USGA and awhh he didnt know any better, how could he possible know he's just a kid, why do this to a kid? He was a "kid" with a swing coach and helicopter golf dad who'd spent years in high level golf competition. It simply defies belief that he did not know to sign his card. It defies belief.

>

> Again - not one person here wants to argue that the kid returned his scorecard in a timely fashion. This is all now about bashing the USGA in some sort of race to the best conspiracy theory.

 

I'm more than happy to argue that the kid promptly returned his scorecard, as are many who have posted in this thread; so, before you start making claims, maybe you should re-read the thread. Moreover, unless I missed it, you have failed to genuinely reply to my points. You seem to accept everything said by the USGA, in this instance, as gospel. If that is the case, we can't have a proper dialogue, because you are already accepting factually inaccurate claims as truth.

 

Also, while I agree that the kid should play with respect and integrity, I don't know why you think his perceived lack of respect and integrity gives the USGA a pass in failing to live up to the mission and values they so boldly proclaim on their website. I'm also not ready to concede that he didn't exhibit respect and integrity, because I don't know that he didn't tell someone what was going on. The USGA, however, has already spit on those values through the factually inaccurate recitation of the situation (see my above post).

 

And, while you keep wanting to hold this 16-year-old to an adult standard, I find that unreasonable in this instance. You can say anything you want about how talented he is, but he is still a kid. Even on my best days as a 16-year-old, I was nowhere near as mature as I was at 20, 25, 30, 35, and beyond. There is a reason 16-year-olds can't vote or legally purchase alcohol; society realizes that 16-year-olds make bad decisions.

 

But, back to your initial point. According to the schedule for the first round, the group behind the kid started 22 minutes after he teed off. So, assuming pace of play was kept up all day, I'd say he was prompt if he turned in his card 22 minutes after his round, which is much more time than the 10 or 15 minutes he actually used. It may also be worth mentioning that he was beating the other amateur in his group,who is 12 years his senior, so maybe their was some animosity there.

 

So, I think he is "prompt" so long as he turns in his scorecard before the group behind him does. Given that the group behind him started 22 minutes after he did, I fail to see how they could have finished their round AND turned in their cards before him, even assuming he took 15 minutes.

 

 

[HitEmTrue]

> @bladehunter said:

> They also claim that nobody knew what this kid looks like ? What the heck does that even mean ? He just played 4 hours with competitors and a walking official. They had their eyes closed the whole time ? Lots of made up details and statements , and I can only ask , why ?

 

There was no one who knew what he looked like that was available to go wandering around the property looking for him. The two guys in the scoring area weren’t going to leave the scoring area to look for him.

 

The the other players were certainly less than thrilled by this delay. They apparently did not have much time before starting the next round.

 

Oh, and inaccuracies in news stories are often caused by the reporters/writers. They good some info and quotes, crank out the story, leave out lots of context, and move on.

[bladehunter]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > They also claim that nobody knew what this kid looks like ? What the heck does that even mean ? He just played 4 hours with competitors and a walking official. They had their eyes closed the whole time ? Lots of made up details and statements , and I can only ask , why ?

>

> There was no one who knew what he looked like that was available to go wandering around the property looking for him. The two guys in the scoring area weren’t going to leave the scoring area to look for him.

 

Just mentioned that was an odd thing for a USga spokesperson to say who wasn’t even on site.

[dcmidnight]

I know the club quite well, I live about a half hour away. The parking lot where players would have probably parked is not that close. It also doesnt strike me as the kind of club that lines up portajohns for the players next to the scorers tent. The articles say he either went to the bathroom, used a bathroom or went inside to use the bathroom. Those arent portajohns near the scorers tent.

 

I just cant fathom that people think this kind of behavior is OK in a tournament of this magnitude, its just preventing me from seeing any other "side" of the argument. He told no one about where he was going and then just disappeared.

 

If this was some middle aged journeymen type player who disappeared for fifteen minutes and went to grab a beer and a hot dog and then sauntered into the scorers area - we wouldnt even be having this conversation as to whether or not he should have been DQd.

[Philomathesq]

> @dcmidnight said:

> I know the club quite well, I live about a half hour away. The parking lot where players would have probably parked is not that close. It also doesnt strike me as the kind of club that lines up portajohns for the players next to the scorers tent. The articles say he either went to the bathroom, used a bathroom or went inside to use the bathroom. Those arent portajohns near the scorers tent.

>

> I just cant fathom that people think this kind of behavior is OK in a tournament of this magnitude, its just preventing me from seeing any other "side" of the argument. He told no one about where he was going and then just disappeared.

>

> If this was some middle aged journeymen type player who disappeared for fifteen minutes and went to grab a beer and a hot dog and then sauntered into the scorers area - we wouldnt even be having this conversation as to whether or not he should have been DQd.

 

So, I love to debate, it's literally what I do for a living. However, it is clear to me that we (you and I) can't have a reasoned, productive discussion on this issue because you just can't accept that the USGA _could_ be wrong, and you admit that you can't see any other side of the argument. If you go back a few posts, I clearly state that there is a scenario in which I think the kid should have been DQ'd. However, I can't say that is the proper result based on the statements that have been made by all parties. Can you admit that there is a situation that could have occurred here where the kid should not have been DQ'd? If so, what is that situation?

 

With regard to your supposition that we wouldn't be talking about this if situation if the kid were replaced by a middle-aged journeymen who went to grab a beer and hot dog, I actually agree. Though, my agreement is based on the fact that I don't think some uptight rules official would have treated a middle-aged journeyman with the same contempt as a 16-year-old kid. In your alternate scenario, I doubt the middle-aged journeyman is DQ'd. Everyone probably laughs it off and he tees it up for his 19th hole as if nothing ever happened.

 

[dcmidnight]

> @Philomathesq said:

> Can you admit that there is a situation that could have occurred here where the kid should not have been DQ'd? If so, what is that situation?

 

Should not have been DQd? I would stipulate that if the kid had told...pretty much anyone "hey guys I'm having a migraine attack, here's my card, I'm going to be about ten minutes, I'm running to my car and then to the bathroom". But he apparently never told anyone - anything.

 

Thats it. No one is wondering where he is. He isnt completely screw1ng over his playing partners. Thats it. Done.

 

In an event with such tight windows he is really screw1ng over his playing partners by doing what he did. If I were one of them, I would have been fuming too. Those guys shouldnt have had to screw around putting together their scores on a blank scorecard.

 

And lets...set aside the innocent kid routine. This isnt some naive 16 year old who doesnt know how golf tournaments work. He has a swing coach and a golf tournament dad. He didnt mark his playing partner's scores the whole round, walk off the 18th green and then stare at the scorecard wondering man, this is weird, I have a scorecard in my hand with another guy's scores on it, I dont know what to do with this scorecard, I'm only 16.

 

And again, the USGA made statements after the fact. They had *nothing* to do with the decision being in the wrong or the right. The decision was made by the onsite local association.

 

 

 

[widow-maker]

>

> I'm more than happy to argue that the kid promptly returned his scorecard, as are many who have posted in this thread; so, before you start making claims, maybe you should re-read the thread. Moreover, unless I missed it, you have failed to genuinely reply to my points. You seem to accept everything said by the USGA, in this instance, as gospel. If that is the case, we can't have a proper dialogue, because you are already accepting factually inaccurate claims as truth.

>

> Also, while I agree that the kid should play with respect and integrity, I don't know why you think his perceived lack of respect and integrity gives the USGA a pass in failing to live up to the mission and values they so boldly proclaim on their website. I'm also not ready to concede that he didn't exhibit respect and integrity, because I don't know that he didn't tell someone what was going on. The USGA, however, has already spit on those values through the factually inaccurate recitation of the situation (see my above post).

>

> And, while you keep wanting to hold this 16-year-old to an adult standard, I find that unreasonable in this instance. You can say anything you want about how talented he is, but he is still a kid. Even on my best days as a 16-year-old, I was nowhere near as mature as I was at 20, 25, 30, 35, and beyond. There is a reason 16-year-olds can't vote or legally purchase alcohol; society realizes that 16-year-olds make bad decisions.

>

> But, back to your initial point. According to the schedule for the first round, the group behind the kid started 22 minutes after he teed off. So, assuming pace of play was kept up all day, I'd say he was prompt if he turned in his card 22 minutes after his round, which is much more time than the 10 or 15 minutes he actually used. It may also be worth mentioning that he was beating the other amateur in his group,who is 12 years his senior, so maybe their was some animosity there.

>

> So, I think he is "prompt" so long as he turns in his scorecard before the group behind him does. Given that the group behind him started 22 minutes after he did, I fail to see how they could have finished their round AND turned in their cards before him, even assuming he took 15 minutes.

>

>

 

This "kid" entered an "adult" event and is therefore subject to the same rules as everyone else in the field. Perhaps the on site rules officials jumped the gun with how quick they dq'd him, but if they would have treated everyone else in the field the same way had they done the same thing, then they administered the rules fairly. If they would have not dq'd others for the same infraction, then you'd have a point that the officials treated him unfairly.

 

It's hardly worth discussing the sequence of events at this point because of the different stories being put forth. We don't know what's true and what isn't... what's the point of arguing it? I will say, that if this kid has the game to make it to sectional qualifying for the US Open, then this isn't his first rodeo with regards to posting scores in a timely fashion after completing a competitive round. This was a lesson for not only him, but everyone who read the story and now knows what the penalty is for not going straight to the scoring tent after a round.

[bladehunter]

Couldn’t agree more ^^^. And I agree with dcmidnight as well. A 16 year old isn’t held to the same standard as any adult in any walk of our society short of the very rare capital murder case. Even then it’s handled with great care. It’s of course not the same thing. I too have said multiple times that the outcome could be the same and still have better actions by all involved. All.

 

To that point. The article even quotes the official as saying that a pro may have dodged that type ruling. He doesn’t say how. I took it to mean they’d think twice about a DQ depending on who it is. Maybe he meant a pro knows better ? But better than what is the question? Because it’s not clear what the standard is.

 

How about addressing the standard. Why is it too late to turn in the card before the group behind you does ?

 

As for being familiar with this club. Are you saying that all competitors have access to the locker room ? If so I’m impressed. Generally speaking I’ve seen the locker rooms be off limits , with areas like the pro shop and grille restrooms would being common areas. Not speaking for this club.or about this club, Just as a competitor whos played at clubs that are hosting open type events.

[dcmidnight]

I cannot say for sure since I was not there. But I would be stunned at a USGA event of this caliber if the competitors did not have access to their locker room to change before or in between their rounds. With 70 or so competitors, you probably aren't going to have those PGA guys waiting in lines to change and wash up in portajohns?

 

I think a two-round kind of an event has to have a different standard. When there was - apparently, by all accounts - such little time between rounds, you cant be doing what he did. You are affecting the rounds of the other two guys in your group when you make everyone else sit there wondering where you are. Again in a real emergency, he could have handed off his card and said hey guys, I'll be right in.

 

Isnt it...possible...possible...that the kid just didnt want to continue? There's absolutely no chance of this? At...T40 or so, he wasnt getting one of the 4 spots. Go to your car, the bathroom, grab some food, oh hey I got DQd, that stinks. But dad, I was just using the bathroom! I have...some experience with bratty high level high school golfers and helicopter parents...so if everyone else is allowed USGA conspiracy theories, maybe I'm going with this one.

[15th Club]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > Of course, but we learn from them. Well most of us do anyways.

> > >

> > > As to this story, I've yet to see where they are wrong here.

> >

> >

> > Well, lets start with this,

> >

> > “Brian DePasquale, manager of championship communications for the USGA, confirmed Skyler Fox's disqualification, writing in an email to Golfweek that Fox "went to lunch and did not enter the scoring area until the following group had returned their cards."”

> >

> >

> > So, if he did not go to lunch

> > Why is the “manager of championship communications for the USGA” making a written communication to Golfweek that he did?

> >

> > The statement is either

> >

> > Correct or not correct.

> >

> > If it is not correct, then it is a

> >

> > False statement made by a USGA communications manager? A false statement, not necessarily intentional, but quite an error for a communication manager.

> >

> >

> > Why was it made? Why hasn’t it been retracted?

>

> Well, let's also keep in mind this great quote from the USGA communications manager: “nobody knew what he looked like.” I'd like someone to explain how this statement is true. We know that he played with two other people, both of whom would have presumably known what he looked like. Apparently, the player's dad and swing coach were in the vicinity of the scorer's table, and they likely know what he looks like.

>

> The simple fact of the matter is that there a bunch of facts that don't add up, and I see no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to the USGA when they have not earned that right; in fact, they have shown that they make false statements and then have to retract them.

>

> I'm not saying the kid is completely blameless, because he is not. However, this situation could have been handled much differently and in a way that didn't leave the USGA open to attack.

 

 

We went through that. My simple (obvious?) presumption was that “nobody” among the scoring officials in the scoring area knew what Skyler looked like. Skyler’s father was not there to say, “He needed his medication; he has the scorecard with him and he’ll be here in just a few minutes.” Skyler’s caddy/coach was not there to offer that communication either. It apparently would have forestalled the whole problem.

 

The fellow competitors were working on their cards.

 

So of the people who could have gone on a hunt for Skyler in the clubhouse and the parking lot, “nobody” knew what he looked like.

 

This is the second, and hopefully last, time that we have to follow that literalist backwater.

 

Oh; and since you brought it up, I see EVERY reason to explore giving the USGA the benefit of the doubt here. Time and time and time again, large numbers of GolfWRX commenters make the knee-jerk presumption that the USGA is to blame in any controversy. Routinely, they are not. This is certainly not the first, and won’t be the last, occasion on which we see many commenters here rush to judge the USGA negatively.

[bladehunter]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > > Of course, but we learn from them. Well most of us do anyways.

> > > >

> > > > As to this story, I've yet to see where they are wrong here.

> > >

> > >

> > > Well, lets start with this,

> > >

> > > “Brian DePasquale, manager of championship communications for the USGA, confirmed Skyler Fox's disqualification, writing in an email to Golfweek that Fox "went to lunch and did not enter the scoring area until the following group had returned their cards."”

> > >

> > >

> > > So, if he did not go to lunch

> > > Why is the “manager of championship communications for the USGA” making a written communication to Golfweek that he did?

> > >

> > > The statement is either

> > >

> > > Correct or not correct.

> > >

> > > If it is not correct, then it is a

> > >

> > > False statement made by a USGA communications manager? A false statement, not necessarily intentional, but quite an error for a communication manager.

> > >

> > >

> > > Why was it made? Why hasn’t it been retracted?

> >

> > Well, let's also keep in mind this great quote from the USGA communications manager: “nobody knew what he looked like.” I'd like someone to explain how this statement is true. We know that he played with two other people, both of whom would have presumably known what he looked like. Apparently, the player's dad and swing coach were in the vicinity of the scorer's table, and they likely know what he looks like.

> >

> > The simple fact of the matter is that there a bunch of facts that don't add up, and I see no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to the USGA when they have not earned that right; in fact, they have shown that they make false statements and then have to retract them.

> >

> > I'm not saying the kid is completely blameless, because he is not. However, this situation could have been handled much differently and in a way that didn't leave the USGA open to attack.

>

>

> We went through that. My simple (obvious?) presumption was that “nobody” among the scoring officials in the scoring area knew what Skyler looked like. Skyler’s father was not there to say, “He needed his medication; he has the scorecard with him and he’ll be here in just a few minutes.” Skyler’s caddy/coach was not there to offer that communication either. It apparently would have forestalled the whole problem.

>

> The fellow competitors were working on their cards.

>

> So of the people who could have gone on a hunt for Skyler in the clubhouse and the parking lot, “nobody” knew what he looked like.

>

> This is the second, and hopefully last, time that we have to follow that literalist backwater.

>

> Oh; and since you brought it up, I see EVERY reason to explore giving the USGA the benefit of the doubt here. Time and time and time again, large numbers of GolfWRX commenters make the knee-jerk presumption that the USGA is to blame in any controversy. Routinely, they are not. This is certainly not the first, and won’t be the last, occasion on which we see many commenters here rush to judge the USGA negatively.

 

Lol. Come on man. There is no knee jerk reactions being discussed here. Only direct quotes from the article.

[b.helts]

> @bladehunter said:

> Couldn’t agree more ^^^. And I agree with dcmidnight as well. A 16 year old isn’t held to the same standard as any adult in any walk of our society short of the very rare capital murder case. Even then it’s handled with great care. It’s of course not the same thing. I too have said multiple times that the outcome could be the same and still have better actions by all involved. All.

>

> To that point. The article even quotes the official as saying that a pro may have dodged that type ruling. He doesn’t say how. I took it to mean they’d think twice about a DQ depending on who it is. Maybe he meant a pro knows better ? But better than what is the question? Because it’s not clear what the standard is.

>

> How about addressing the standard. Why is it too late to turn in the card before the group behind you does ?

>

> As for being familiar with this club. Are you saying that all competitors have access to the locker room ? If so I’m impressed. Generally speaking I’ve seen the locker rooms be off limits , with areas like the pro shop and grille restrooms would being common areas. Not speaking for this club.or about this club, Just as a competitor whos played at clubs that are hosting open type events.

 

The standard is known to every seasoned tournament golfer. You finish your round, you go to the scoring table.

 

If that isn’t going to happen for any reason, you notify everyone involved. From your marker to the person you’re marking for.

 

That is all.

[15th Club]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > > > Of course, but we learn from them. Well most of us do anyways.

> > > > >

> > > > > As to this story, I've yet to see where they are wrong here.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Well, lets start with this,

> > > >

> > > > “Brian DePasquale, manager of championship communications for the USGA, confirmed Skyler Fox's disqualification, writing in an email to Golfweek that Fox "went to lunch and did not enter the scoring area until the following group had returned their cards."”

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > So, if he did not go to lunch

> > > > Why is the “manager of championship communications for the USGA” making a written communication to Golfweek that he did?

> > > >

> > > > The statement is either

> > > >

> > > > Correct or not correct.

> > > >

> > > > If it is not correct, then it is a

> > > >

> > > > False statement made by a USGA communications manager? A false statement, not necessarily intentional, but quite an error for a communication manager.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Why was it made? Why hasn’t it been retracted?

> > >

> > > Well, let's also keep in mind this great quote from the USGA communications manager: “nobody knew what he looked like.” I'd like someone to explain how this statement is true. We know that he played with two other people, both of whom would have presumably known what he looked like. Apparently, the player's dad and swing coach were in the vicinity of the scorer's table, and they likely know what he looks like.

> > >

> > > The simple fact of the matter is that there a bunch of facts that don't add up, and I see no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to the USGA when they have not earned that right; in fact, they have shown that they make false statements and then have to retract them.

> > >

> > > I'm not saying the kid is completely blameless, because he is not. However, this situation could have been handled much differently and in a way that didn't leave the USGA open to attack.

> >

> >

> > We went through that. My simple (obvious?) presumption was that “nobody” among the scoring officials in the scoring area knew what Skyler looked like. Skyler’s father was not there to say, “He needed his medication; he has the scorecard with him and he’ll be here in just a few minutes.” Skyler’s caddy/coach was not there to offer that communication either. It apparently would have forestalled the whole problem.

> >

> > The fellow competitors were working on their cards.

> >

> > So of the people who could have gone on a hunt for Skyler in the clubhouse and the parking lot, “nobody” knew what he looked like.

> >

> > This is the second, and hopefully last, time that we have to follow that literalist backwater.

> >

> > Oh; and since you brought it up, I see EVERY reason to explore giving the USGA the benefit of the doubt here. Time and time and time again, large numbers of GolfWRX commenters make the knee-jerk presumption that the USGA is to blame in any controversy. Routinely, they are not. This is certainly not the first, and won’t be the last, occasion on which we see many commenters here rush to judge the USGA negatively.

>

> Lol.

 

 

Look at the title given to this thread: “USGA? Teen DQ’d from Sectional for going to the bathroom before turning in his scorecard.”

 

A title loaded with victimology, accusation and ridiculousness. The player was disqualified for a Rules violation. He could have “gone to the bathroom” and not have been in trouble as long as his delay didn’t violate the Rule. He could have taken his time, if he had communicated with Scoring. And his being a “teen” is not why the Rule was enforced.

 

“Lol.”

 

I want this fight. Not laughing.

[sui generis]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > > > > Of course, but we learn from them. Well most of us do anyways.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As to this story, I've yet to see where they are wrong here.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Well, lets start with this,

> > > > >

> > > > > “Brian DePasquale, manager of championship communications for the USGA, confirmed Skyler Fox's disqualification, writing in an email to Golfweek that Fox "went to lunch and did not enter the scoring area until the following group had returned their cards."”

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > So, if he did not go to lunch

> > > > > Why is the “manager of championship communications for the USGA” making a written communication to Golfweek that he did?

> > > > >

> > > > > The statement is either

> > > > >

> > > > > Correct or not correct.

> > > > >

> > > > > If it is not correct, then it is a

> > > > >

> > > > > False statement made by a USGA communications manager? A false statement, not necessarily intentional, but quite an error for a communication manager.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Why was it made? Why hasn’t it been retracted?

> > > >

> > > > Well, let's also keep in mind this great quote from the USGA communications manager: “nobody knew what he looked like.” I'd like someone to explain how this statement is true. We know that he played with two other people, both of whom would have presumably known what he looked like. Apparently, the player's dad and swing coach were in the vicinity of the scorer's table, and they likely know what he looks like.

> > > >

> > > > The simple fact of the matter is that there a bunch of facts that don't add up, and I see no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to the USGA when they have not earned that right; in fact, they have shown that they make false statements and then have to retract them.

> > > >

> > > > I'm not saying the kid is completely blameless, because he is not. However, this situation could have been handled much differently and in a way that didn't leave the USGA open to attack.

> > >

> > >

> > > We went through that. My simple (obvious?) presumption was that “nobody” among the scoring officials in the scoring area knew what Skyler looked like. Skyler’s father was not there to say, “He needed his medication; he has the scorecard with him and he’ll be here in just a few minutes.” Skyler’s caddy/coach was not there to offer that communication either. It apparently would have forestalled the whole problem.

> > >

> > > The fellow competitors were working on their cards.

> > >

> > > So of the people who could have gone on a hunt for Skyler in the clubhouse and the parking lot, “nobody” knew what he looked like.

> > >

> > > This is the second, and hopefully last, time that we have to follow that literalist backwater.

> > >

> > > Oh; and since you brought it up, I see EVERY reason to explore giving the USGA the benefit of the doubt here. Time and time and time again, large numbers of GolfWRX commenters make the knee-jerk presumption that the USGA is to blame in any controversy. Routinely, they are not. This is certainly not the first, and won’t be the last, occasion on which we see many commenters here rush to judge the USGA negatively.

> >

> > Lol.

>

>

> Look at the title given to this thread: “USGA? Teen DQ’d from Sectional for going to the bathroom before turning in his scorecard.”

>

> A title loaded with victimology, accusation and ridiculousness. The player was disqualified for a Rules violation. He could have “gone to the bathroom” and not have been in trouble as long as his delay didn’t violate the Rule. He could have taken his time, if he had communicated with Scoring. And his being a “teen” is not why the Rule was enforced.

>

> “Lol.”

>

> I want this fight. Not laughing.

 

None of that matters to the anarchists.

[puttingmatt]

After reading the comments, I am good with the DQ