[JohnV]

So what would be the downside to moving the statute of limitations to the end of the round rather than the end of the competition? At least in this case, if Bamberger had reported it after the interview with Wie --after she had signed her card, then she would have been DQ'd on Saturday rather than Sunday and Sunday could have belonged more to Sorenstam. But by Sunday how are we still protecting the field, when Monday we no longer need to.

Dan King

those who are non-golfers will again scratch their head at the reverence officials and players have for rules that seem archaic to some, downright confusing or silly to others. The game certainly didn't gain any new fans Sunday, and Wie's disqualification stole some of the spotlight away from another unbelievable performance by Annika Sorenstam.
 --Larry Bohannan (The Desert Sun

She wouldn't have DQ'ed at all if Bamberger had spoken up before she finished her round.  That is the message that people should take from this.

How much crap would Mr. Bohannan (and those on this site who think Wie is being treated differently thanothers) have been throwing at the LPGA officials if Bamberger were to write a story saying he told the tour, but they ignored it ?  They did the right thing.

For some reason Bamberger, who should have known better, sat on this overnight.  He should be getting flamed, not anyone else.

[TEPaul]

"Golf officials seem to have one objective, get it right. Who has a problem with that?"

Sully:

Good point. Some obviously do or they wouldn't second guess and blame rules officials (or anyone else) on Monday morning so often.  

Did Smith and Haley "get it right"? Well yes they did under the present and current Rules and Decisions of golf as well as the recognized tournament procedures regarding rules today.

Dan King wonders, for instance, what's so terrible about Smith just thanking Bamberger for his interest and then just doing nothing?  

I don't think there's anything all that terrible if Smith had done that but Smith understands the significance of Decision 6-6d/5 and by using a procedure that seems to have emanated and developed from it for a number of years now he was simply following the Rules and Decisions of golf as they exist today and have existed and in that way he was staying consistent. Sure he could've just overlooked it but obviously he knows it wasn't overlooked with Stadler or the others who've been DQed under this rule, decision and procedure.

Sure, he may not like it but he should follow it as others have until and unless it's changed in some way which frankly I think it should be somehow given some of the recent realities that have evolved since that desision was written years ago.

The important thing to note in what Smith and Haley did is they determined the "facts" not from Bamberger but from those actually involved---eg Wie and her caddy. Smith did say in an interview if he'd had to depend on the video tape he felt it was 'inconclusive' and any rules official knows if a situation is "inconclusive" it will in almost every case be resolved in the favor of the player (Dec. 34-3/4). The points that the measurment was made from later to determine if there was a violation were not the points Bamberger thought but the points Wie and her caddy felt were the points where the ball originally lay and to where relief was taken.

[Brent Hutto]

What's that Latin phrase for "the thing speaks for itself"?

If he noticed it at the time and wanted to be helpful, he would have mentioned it right away. Especially being an experienced golfer and a member of the press he knew how to go about bringing it up to the proper parties.

The way he went about it very clearly indicates that his purpose is shit-stirring in the good old Sports Illustrated tradition. He's a kneebiter and should be treated as such any time he shows up at a golf tournament.

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
The important thing to note in what Smith and Haley did is they determined the "facts" not from Bamberger but from those actually involved---eg Wie and her caddy. Smith did say in an interview if he'd had to depend on the video tape he felt it was 'inconclusive' and any rules official knows if a situation is "inconclusive"

This came up elsewhere. Lets say Wie was in an earlier group (perhaps in a full field event.) Everything plays out the same, but Wie and entourage have already left for the airport when all this is discovered. Smith would have watched the tape, found it inconclusive, and then looked for Wie and caddy. Without them to go out and recreate the scene he would have dropped the whole affair, giving any benefit of the doubt to Wie.

It's fine to say you are out for all the facts. But the issue becomes what length do you go to get all the facts? I think they went well beyond what they needed to because they worried about a golf writer taking them to task if they did not.

Dan King

I was standing 5 feet away when 16-year-old Michelle Wie declared an unplayable lie, carefully measured two club lengths with her driver, and dropped her ball. To those of us who clustered around her when she made the drop, the ball didn't appear to come to rest closer to the hole.
 --James Achenbach

[TEPaul]

Brent:

In my opinion, if anyone, including anyone on this website, wants to take Bamberger to task for what he did then that's a separate matter from the way the Rules of Golf and those LPGA rules officials handled a situation like Wie's. Should they have listened to Bamberger or perhaps questioned his motives? I don't really know about that, perhaps they should have. But as Decision 6-6d/5 clearly states, rules officials can collect information from witnesses (spectators). Any good rules official knows that's been around for years and they know what it means in the context of 'determing the facts'---which is always what they hopefully are trying to do in any "rules situation".

Should it be changed and refined somehow in a Decision (same effect as a "Rule"). Personally, I think it should be but that could not be done yesterday and Smith and Haley undertand that. A new decision on a situation like that may come into effect but it will have to wait for the Biennial.

[Mike Hendren]

What's that Latin phrase for "the thing speaks for itself"?

Res ipsa loquitur.  

I assume this was a rhetorical question, but I've waited 22 years to use my law degree

Mike

[TEPaul]

"It's fine to say you are out for all the facts. But the issue becomes what length do you go to get all the facts? I think they went well beyond what they needed to because they worried about a golf writer taking them to task if they did not."

Dan:

I was in agreement with everything you said up to that remark. You don't know what they were worried about. How the hell could you know? Were you there? Did you talk to them?

Of course if Wie had left the outcome might've been different. There are a ton of "Ifs" in golf and in officiating golf. The point is to do the best you can to collect the facts and apply them within the Rules. Obvously you couldn't do that as well if Wie was on down the road versus being there to be interviewed.  

The Rules aren't supposed to take sides with any golfer within the Rules. Wie lost perhaps $50,000 that time but the same thing that happened to Hale Irwin could happen to Wie at any time too.

Here's ago Irwin won a considerable amount in an event. On Monday he saw a tape of a fellow competitor being DQed for something Hale had done. On Monday Hale called the TOUR and told them about it and said he was mailing his winnings back because his score was higher than he signed for and he said he should be DQed too.

The TOUR thanked Hale for his honesty and concern but they told him they could not take his check back because he informed them of this violation AFTER the "Compeition Closed".

Dan, any intelligent and level-headed tournament golfer should come to realize the Rules of Golf both can and do cut both ways and there's no reason to think that has anything to do with him perrsonally or what happened to him.

That's the point.

[PThomas]

on a similar vein, hasn't the PGA TOur stopped taking calls from TV Viewers on possible rules infractions?

I think Wiesy got the short end of the stick here

[JESII]

Paul, this was not a call in. Michael Bamberger watched her in person go through the process, went home and slept on it, then said something to the rules officials the next day, Sunday.

[PThomas]

I know that JJES, it just made me think of it

just doesn't seem right that he could come back the next day and report it

[JESII]

I'd say it's wrong that he did it.

It struck me as odd the minute I heard about it, I wonder if there will be any reprecussions

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
I was in agreement with everything you said up to that remark. You don't know what they were worried about. How the hell could you know? Were you there? Did you talk to them?

You'll notice I said I think, not I said I know.

Rereading Decision 6-6d/5 I see your point. But the referee still has some leeway on how much credibility they put in the witness and how they investigate the infraction.

That's the point.

Not my point.

Personally I don't care about Michelle Wie losing $50k. I feel worse for the locker room attendent who probably lost out on a bigger tip than I'm worried about Wie. My guess (again just a guess) is that Sony, Nike or maybe even Samsung will make up for any loss to the Wie franchise. What made it interesting is it was Wie's first paycheck, and perhaps she would have framed it and put it up in her study or something like that.

My issue is that golf was hurt by what happened on Sunday, and I think it could easily have been avoided by both Smith and Bamberger. I'm a fan of Bamberger, I enjoy his books and articles. I guess this should once again show me that people who write well don't always behave right.

Golf will be slower in the future thanks to what happened. My only interest in the pro events (other than being involved with GolfObserver) is that they set an example for the rest of us and their future example will be even slower. Everyone will get referees involved even for the most casual drops. Wie has said as much. And Joe Shmo playing in his club championship will also get on his cell phone and call the pro shop to get a ruling while challenging for a stroke play club championship. Why not, it is his right and the pros do it? And I'll be stuck behind him waiting.

We will now become accustomed to longer rounds and accept it because it is the pace the pros use.

Bamberger could have brought it up earlier or shut up. Smith could have dismissed him as not a credibile spectator and ignored him. He brought it up 24 hours later, I don't see that as being credible., Achenbach was also there and says he saw nothing wrong. There were plenty of other people around who didn't see anything wrong with the drop. If Smith needed to investigate it he could have limited to watching the replay, questioning Wie and caddy and Grace Park and caddy.

Using string was excessive. What would he have done had they been 200 yards from the pin, find longer string?

Perhaps Bambergers past as a caddy made him more credible as a witness than Achenbach, TV crews, other writers and spectators. Perhaps Lorne Rubenstein or Brad Klein would have been just as observant. But once Bamberger waited 24 hours I think he lost all credibility and Smith could have easily dismissed or casually investigated his observation by asking the people there.

Just to make it clear Tom, all this is my opinion, though I have trouble figuring out who elses opinion I'd be posting.

Dan King

Once we pointed out, you know, went through the whole procedure, and they realized that they did play, or Michelle did play from a closer spot, I mean it was fairly conclusive then after we used the string. And it was conclusive. There wasn't much they could say unfortunately.
 --Jim Haley

[Brent Hutto]

Tom P,

Yes, I would love to see codified as a Decision the principle that a member of the committee is under no obligation to investigate an unsolicited, uncorroborated accusation of a Rules infraction, by a person with no standing in the tournament, the day after it allegedly occurred.

In fact, I think it would be reasonable for such a Decision to state that it is purely optional on the part of the committee to hear and act on such outsider information at any time unless they have requested it from the bystander in question.

In other words, they are not obliged to act on a unsolicited accusation at all and they don't even have the option of acting on it a day later. To me the very idea of a person not involved as a player or official throwing around accusations that the player is obliged to defend is contrary to the spirit of the game and is inequitable for all the reasons cited in this thread about greater scrutiny for star players and so forth. Plus the fact that it's total bullshit.

Mike B,

It was not a rhetorical question. I could not recall the phrase and knew that someone among the highly educated elite making up this forum would have it readily at hand.

[A_Clay_Man]

I have a question.

Could a spectator stop the wrong action? Or would that be advice from an outside agency?

In reality, they would likely be laughed off the course.  

I wonder , Did they investigated exactly the point of entry?

And just to relate it Furyk's drop in the playoff, It always bothers me when I drop within two clubs length, of a greenside pond, because invariably it is alsways closer to the hole, than the point of entry. Just Like Furyk's yesterday.

[George Pazin]

For the people who claim that Tiger, Wie, etc., are under unfair scrutiny, they also benefit from the added spectators, viewers, etc. Few other golfers could have marshalled the fans to move the boulder that was moved for Tiger a few years back. Jack didn't lose a ball on Tour for 25 years or so.

It breaks both ways, in other words.

I wouldn't be against some sort of statute of limitations, so someone like Bamberger reports it in time or its ignored, but I don't know how you develop that in a practical manner.

[Mike Benham]

This was a small field, 10 twosomes, why wasn't there a rules official assigned to each group from the first round on?

[PThomas]

Shiv-you are correct...but his last lost ball before that was something like 20 years prior

[Sean_A]

Tiger lost his very first shot of the Open the last time round Sandwich.  Ouch!  One of only a very few I have seen lost on tv.  I remember Greg Norman losing a ball in th Open.  Can't remember where or when.  I think there is a song there somewhere.  

Ciao

Sean

[George Pazin]

Jack started on Tour in 61, Shinnecock was in 86, 86-61=25.

Mike B -

Excellent question. Probably has to do with the enormous salaries that guys like JohnV and Dennis Harwood pull down.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan King,

It's a further and continuing deterioration of the culture of golf

Mike Sweeney,

Is it any different than the police chase videotaped by the camera crew in the helicopter ?

Or the attorney practicing in court on TV.

If she's a professional, she should know the rules BETTER than a rules official because that's her livelihood, her chosen profession.

Or, would you seek surgeons that need to reference their anatomy books before slicing and dicing patients.

The rules of golf, and the decisions of golf are neither difficult to read nor overly voluminous.

If any golfer on any of the professional tours doesn't know them backwards and forwards, and better than the rules officials, then they're not consumate professionals, they're just exceptional players.

[TEPaul]

 
Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 02:36:17pm
The Rules of Golf are the same for everyone and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

“Tom,
It not the same for everyone.     If the same rules infraction had occured in the same tournament to one of the lesser known players, chances are the TV cameras and sports writers would not be following that player, and thus the incident goes away without the player knowing they created a penalty. That is inequity!”

MikeS:

The Rules of Golf around the world largely are the same for everyone and I’d like to see them stay that way. While I completely understand what you are getting at here, I must tell you that what you said above about TV cameras, more writers scrutinizing top players and such so that an incident such as Wie’s may happen more to golfers like her versus unknowns have nothing specifically to do with the RULES OF GOLF.

Tufts’s point about equity in the Rules of Golf was to forget about the attendant circumstances of a particular incident and treat like situations alike no matter who they may happen too. The Rules of Golf contemplated as well that good breaks within the Rules and golf can come as easily as bad breaks to anyone.

This incident may’ve happened to Wie to her disadvantage this time but what about another famous golfer, Woods when due to his fame he was able to have enough fans around to roll a boulder away as a loose impediment? Should they have ruled that was a violation under the Rules because the guy behind didn’t have as many fans with his group? One might legitimately ask you how many different and various scenarios you’d like to see encompassed within the rules? If that kind of thing is attempted within the Rules and Decisions those books will end up being enormous.  

In the philosophy of equity in the Rules of Golf the idea is that good breaks and bad breaks cut both ways as those two examples of the famous contingent of golfers shows.

Having said that I don’t see why some of those recommendations of yours couldn’t be implemented in “Tournament Committee” procedures regarding something like making a statute of limitations on how long within the Rules of when a “Committee” will no longer entertain witness information. Cutting it off after a competitor signs a card in something like the Wie incident with Bamberger seems reasonable to me.

As to your recommendation of a rules official with every group, that probably won’t happen in anything other than the last few rounds of a National Open> Frankly, there aren’t enough competent rules officials around to do something like that.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I've never understood why so many professional tournament players seem to be so uninformed on the Rules of Golf since violating them could potentially cost them some significant money. I think most tournament players are quite good on understanding most all the details of the first 28 Rules simply because those rules pertain to them in their play so often. Rules 29-32 really don't much pertain to TOUR professionals and Rules 33 and 34 don't pertain to them often in their actual playing of the game directly but both sure as hell do when they start to get involved with the "Tournament Committee", the "Conditions of Competitions" and how rules officials operate under the Rules of Golf in tournaments. It would be a very good thing for all tournament players to become as familiar with Rules 33 and 34 as they obviously are with the first 28 Rules of Golf.

[Brent Hutto]

Tom,

Are you saying she should know that by waiting around on a Rules official before wiping her nose she'll ensure never having a penalty assessed the next day? Or are you saying she should take her own piece of string to measure the distance to the hole before a drop?

It sounded to me like she knew the Rule and applied it correctly. Her estimation of distance was retroactively determined to be in error which is what resulted in her disqualification. It's not knowing the Rules of Golf that would help her, it is knowing the proper procedure for immunizing herself against retroactive disqualification.

At any rate, she knows it now and as Dan King said at the top of the thread this will just be one more step in the inexolerable slowing of the game.

[rgkeller]

Tom,

Are you saying she should know that by waiting around on a Rules official before wiping her nose she'll ensure never having a penalty assessed the next day? Or are you saying she should take her own piece of string to measure the distance to the hole before a drop?

It sounded to me like she knew the Rule and applied it correctly. Her estimation of distance was retroactively determined to be in error which is what resulted in her disqualification. It's not knowing the Rules of Golf that would help her, it is knowing the proper procedure for immunizing herself against retroactive disqualification.

At any rate, she knows it now and as Dan King said at the top of the thread this will just be one more step in the inexolerable slowing of the game.

Ms. Wie clearly knew the rule and just as clearly applied the rule incorrectly. She took an illegal drop on grass when the legal drop, according to the RO on the scene, would have been in the dirt/sand.

Ms. Wie pushed the envelope, trying to gain an undeserved advantage. She crossed the line, got caught and paid the price.

If all she learns from this incident is that she should always call a rules official for every drop situation, then she is just acting her age.

[Brent Hutto]

Since Mr. Keller was apparently on the scene pacing it off with Mr. "Not Part of the Story" Bamberger, I'll defer to his superior knowledge of the situation. I guess that's the problem with kids these days, they'll cheat every time they get the chance. Good thing we've got people with press passes on the spot to keep them honest. Maybe his not saying anything until the next day was just intended to teach the girl a lesson.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()