News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #300 on: July 20, 2008, 10:44:03 PM »
All tours define some kind of scoring area. 

Which they don't police.  The LPGA had volunteers staffing this area and someone the Association only found out the next morning.  Thanks for the explanation, but it hasn't changed my point.  All tours define some kind of scoring area, and it is not consistent.

Someone raised a great point about the celebrations.  Look at Harrington today, or anyone else that holds their kids and trophy before the pencil. 

If I were King of Golf I'd look for ways to make sure scores are recorded correctly.  Your charge is enforcing the rules.

Even the dumb ones.

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #301 on: July 20, 2008, 10:53:17 PM »
[ the vast majority of professionals appear to be able to count 18 tiny boxes just fine.  Not rocket science.


well said Margaret
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #302 on: July 20, 2008, 11:02:29 PM »
I'm beginning to think that it may be time to consider that MW has a psychological underlying or subconcious desire to NOT WIN because golf has been painful to her due to mismanagement and early unregulated limelight.  Money can't buy happiness, nor buy a well centered youth.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Tim Gavrich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #303 on: July 20, 2008, 11:17:40 PM »
If I walked out of a scoring area after my round and someone asked me if I'd signed my card, I'd feel slightly insulted, because it's that easy a rule to follow.

At the D-III National Championship this year, there was a white spray-painted boundary that defined the scoring area.  Same deal as the LPGA rule.  We all knew the deal, and no one got disqualified for failing to sign his card, because each one of us has played enough tournament golf to know the rules.

Signing your scorecard in the tent after your round should be as unconscious as breathing.  Why aren't we all on oxygen machines?
Senior Writer, GolfPass

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #304 on: July 21, 2008, 03:17:38 AM »
If I walked out of a scoring area after my round and someone asked me if I'd signed my card, I'd feel slightly insulted, because it's that easy a rule to follow.

At the D-III National Championship this year, there was a white spray-painted boundary that defined the scoring area.  Same deal as the LPGA rule.  We all knew the deal, and no one got disqualified for failing to sign his card, because each one of us has played enough tournament golf to know the rules.

Signing your scorecard in the tent after your round should be as unconscious as breathing.  Why aren't we all on oxygen machines?

This entire thread is bordering on surreal.

Tim

Hallelujah.  I am heartened to see that there are at least a few folks around here who place the responsibility squarely where it belongs.  The bottom line is nobody but the player is responsible for returning the card in the correct manner.  There is not a golfer on this planet who doesn't accept this.  Various organizations can make it easier (though retubing a card properly can't be deemed as onerous) if they like, but the player still should be going through the same motions after every round.  Because the player is responsible for the card, surely it can be nobody but the player's fault when things go wrong.  You folks can make excuses for Wie (or whoever) all you like, but if Wie doesn't accept her mistake and move on she is bound to commit it again. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #305 on: July 21, 2008, 08:29:52 AM »
You folks can make excuses for Wie (or whoever) all you like, but if Wie doesn't accept her mistake and move on she is bound to commit it again. 

Based on this from Sue Witter's press conference,  I don't think that's a problem:

>>There was never at any point did she try to deceive us. She couldn't have been more honest. It was a total, total mistake. There was no malice involved. She was like looking at a little kid after you tell them there's no Santa Claus.

Q. That's what I was about to ask. Was she very emotional? Was she crying?

SUE WITTERS: She was upset. I don't blame her. We forget how young she is because of how well she plays. We've got to remember she's a kid, and she made an honest mistake. She was upright and honest from the beginning. Never tried to deceive us in any notion.

She was very forthcoming. It was like I said, that's the only analogy I can make, I felt like I was telling somebody there was no Santa Claus.

The look on her face, you could see it all come together and click. She was just horrified. I give her credit for coming in here today, because she didn't have to.<<
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Doug Ralston

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #306 on: July 21, 2008, 08:32:33 AM »
Wow! Page 10 is an entire page of bull shit!

Who is 'making excuses for Wie'? I think everyone said she was in error. So what?

She was distracted and left out a detail. You are a liar if you claim you have never forgotten a detail before. We all do.

 She erred! SHE ERRED!! She made a mistake! Yes!! We get it!!

The question is the remedy!! Did she purposely try to gain advantage? Did she damage another with her evil inaction? Is her 'crime' really deserving of 'the death penalty'. MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT IS NOT ABOUT MICHELLE WIE!! Why do you pretend it is?

Should ANYONE be fined several hundred thousand dollars, as has happened too often over this kind of trivial crap in Pro golf? It is clearly absurdly out of proportion and context with the 'crime'. The insanity here is not trying to make sure a clear scorecard is posted, it is the idea that an error made by an athelete that harms no one and seeks no advantage should level such a destructive penalty.

In a Club Championship, a DQ costs someone a little chance at glory. In Professional golf, it can cost absurdly more.  This is a story to be read IN CONTEXT. There is simply not way such an extreme penalty makes any sense at all.

To sum up:

1. Michelle Wie erred!
2. Others also forget details, especially in distractive circumstances.
3. The rule assumes all such errors are of equal consequence.
4. The actual remedy does NOT meet out penalty equally because:
 a. It lacks context
 b. It does not differentiate between 'cheat' and 'error'
 c. Pro's loss is absurdly out of proportion to amateur for same
5. Therefor the REMEDY is inappropriate

I know the 'Wie-haters' and the 'regulation-charlies' agree that she should shut up and take her medicine. I get it.

But change the damned rule to make it more in context! This should never happen to ANY person who makes their living playing golf again!!

And please give up the self-righteous "oh, the rule is so easy, so clear, I sure denigrate anyone who is distacted enough to forget it, I SURE AM BETTER THAN THEM"!

Doug

PS: kmoun, your post came while I was writing, my 1st line does not apply to you

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #307 on: July 21, 2008, 08:46:36 AM »
Wow! Page 10 is an entire page of bull shit!

Who is 'making excuses for Wie'? I think everyone said she was in error. So what?

She was distracted and left out a detail. You are a liar if you claim you have never forgotten a detail before. We all do.

 She erred! SHE ERRED!! She made a mistake! Yes!! We get it!!

The question is the remedy!! Did she purposely try to gain advantage? Did she damage another with her evil inaction? Is her 'crime' really deserving of 'the death penalty'. MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT IS NOT ABOUT MICHELLE WIE!! Why do you pretend it is?

Should ANYONE be fined several hundred thousand dollars, as has happened too often over this kind of trivial crap in Pro golf? It is clearly absurdly out of proportion and context with the 'crime'. The insanity here is not trying to make sure a clear scorecard is posted, it is the idea that an error made by an athelete that harms no one and seeks no advantage should level such a destructive penalty.

In a Club Championship, a DQ costs someone a little chance at glory. In Professional golf, it can cost absurdly more.  This is a story to be read IN CONTEXT. There is simply not way such an extreme penalty makes any sense at all.

To sum up:

1. Michelle Wie erred!
2. Others also forget details, especially in distractive circumstances.
3. The rule assumes all such errors are of equal consequence.
4. The actual remedy does NOT meet out penalty equally because:
 a. It lacks context
 b. It does not differentiate between 'cheat' and 'error'
 c. Pro's loss is absurdly out of proportion to amateur for same
5. Therefor the REMEDY is inappropriate

I know the 'Wie-haters' and the 'regulation-charlies' agree that she should shut up and take her medicine. I get it.

But change the damned rule to make it more in context! This should never happen to ANY person who makes their living playing golf again!!

And please give up the self-righteous "oh, the rule is so easy, so clear, I sure denigrate anyone who is distacted enough to forget it, I SURE AM BETTER THAN THEM"!

Doug

PS: kmoun, your post came while I was writing, my 1st line does not apply to you

Doug

The entire thread is bullshit.

Of course we all make mistakes, but that isn't the issue.  Neither is being a fan or Wie or not the issue - jeepers why would anybody even bring this up if they had any common sense?  I couldn't care less who made the mistake.  The rules are in place at least in part to treat everybody equally.  No matter the process, so long as humans are in charge of the process, mistakes will happen.  Its pie in the sky stuff to imagine they wont.  Hence, the responsibility of following the rules rests with the player.  This means that the process, caddie or God can't be blamed for the mistake for failing to sign a card appropriately - the player is.  This is a very simple concept which many don't seem able to accept or threads like this wouldn't exist.

Ciao   
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Phil_the_Author

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #308 on: July 21, 2008, 09:11:47 AM »
Doug,

I completely understand your feelings on this one, yet I also completely disagree with your statement, "She erred! SHE ERRED!! She made a mistake! Yes!! We get it!!"

You are incorrect... she did not make a MISTAKE, she coomitted an INFRACTION. This is not semantics but the reality of what happened.

How many decent, honest and downright nice people get a ticket in the mail stating that their car went through a redlight and when appearing before the judge say something like, "Your honor, I KNOW the light was YELLOW when I enterered the intersection plus I didn't think the person behind me could stop in time. What was I to do?"

The judge will always answer with something like, "Mr. Smith, I feel for you and have been in that situation myself. I know you wouldn't run a red light, but unfortunately the camera doesn't lie and you went through too late. I find you guilty and pay the fine..."

Michelle WAS guilty and had to pay the fine...

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #309 on: July 21, 2008, 09:18:46 AM »
Doug,

I completely understand your feelings on this one, yet I also completely disagree with your statement, "She erred! SHE ERRED!! She made a mistake! Yes!! We get it!!"

You are incorrect... she did not make a MISTAKE, she coomitted an INFRACTION. This is not semantics but the reality of what happened.

How many decent, honest and downright nice people get a ticket in the mail stating that their car went through a redlight and when appearing before the judge say something like, "Your honor, I KNOW the light was YELLOW when I enterered the intersection plus I didn't think the person behind me could stop in time. What was I to do?"

The judge will always answer with something like, "Mr. Smith, I feel for you and have been in that situation myself. I know you wouldn't run a red light, but unfortunately the camera doesn't lie and you went through too late. I find you guilty and pay the fine..."

Michelle WAS guilty and had to pay the fine...


Philip,

Many of us who are on the other side of the argument completely agree with everything you have said including myself. What we don't agree with is the amount of the fine.

If the fine for running a red light were $100,000 and 6 months in prison would you call this just?  Would you tell the judge "thanks you honor" and not bat an eyelash?

This is the point, give her two strokes or something, but how can you DQ in this case?  Rules change from time to time, they even changed right after that raking the bunker fisasco on tour a few months back.  All I'm really advocating in the end is a more reasonable punishment for the infraction committed.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #310 on: July 21, 2008, 09:24:21 AM »
Kalen,

Her signature on the card is what testifies to its accuracy...how do we know she agrees with its accuracy if she hasn't signed it?

Remember...she was disqualified the minute she left the scoring tent. The fact that she later came back and signed it is irrelevant.

Also, if you knew running a red light meant 6 months in jail, you might not hit the gas when the light turns yellow, right?

rjsimper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #311 on: July 21, 2008, 09:39:17 AM »
If the fine for running a red light were $100,000 and 6 months in prison would you call this just?  Would you tell the judge "thanks you honor" and not bat an eyelash?

If you knew this in advance, would you run a red light?  If you did, I'd have little sympathy for you or anyone else who knew and broke a rule with such a severe penalty.


Brent Hutto

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #312 on: July 21, 2008, 09:39:51 AM »
The red-light analogy is not apt. That's an instantaneous decision made under possibly unique or unforseen circumstances.

The correct legal analogy is someone signing important legal papers in their lawyer's office. Everything is right there in front of you, take as long as you need and there's somebody sitting across the table from you to make sure you dot every I and cross every T. At some point you have to simply take responsibility for the matter at hand with no recourse to special pleading if you do it incorrectly.

Jim Nugent

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #313 on: July 21, 2008, 10:05:20 AM »
I believe the punishment is too harsh for the "crime". 

Would like to see the rules committees change this rule, so results reflect what players shoot, not mistakes they or their playing partners might make in the scorecard tent.  Not holding my breath on this one. 

The game looks ridiculous to outsiders, I believe, when these scorecard incidents take place.  Divicenzo and Pung are especially sore thumbs.  Considering that Bobby and Cliff stiffed Dr. Mac at ANGC, they come across as quite the hypocrites in the Divicenzo affair. 

There are some pretty easy solutions to make sure scorecards are a non-issue, especially in PGA and LPGA events. 




JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #314 on: July 21, 2008, 10:13:56 AM »
very simple, Shivas...because that is the easiest, least arbitrary way, for the player to respond to your proposed system of..."on your honor, what did you shoot?", the player answers, the score gets posted.../

Jim Nugent

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #315 on: July 21, 2008, 10:29:06 AM »
The red-light analogy is not apt. That's an instantaneous decision made under possibly unique or unforseen circumstances.

The correct legal analogy is someone signing important legal papers in their lawyer's office. Everything is right there in front of you, take as long as you need and there's somebody sitting across the table from you to make sure you dot every I and cross every T. At some point you have to simply take responsibility for the matter at hand with no recourse to special pleading if you do it incorrectly.

If you are signing important legal papers in your lawyer's office, they will not invalidate them because you leave the office to visit the bathroom.  The agreement will still hold if you walk into the hallway for a minute or twenty, to make a call or sign an autograph, before you return to sign the contract.  I think your analogy does the opposite of what you intended. 

Shivas and other lawyers: if this issue ever went to court, who do you think would win?  Point of curiosity only. 


Ryan Farrow

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #316 on: July 21, 2008, 10:35:49 AM »
Jes #2 thanks for proving Shivas's point. Your gang can't bring yourself to the realization that a DQ for this infraction and especially this specific infraction is utterly ridiculous. No need to keep repeating yourself.





So yay or nay, WHO THINKS THE RULE SHOULD CHANGE. No DQ, say, a 2 stroke penalty.

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #317 on: July 21, 2008, 10:38:08 AM »
Shivas -

Are you saying that if the committee finds an unsigned scorecard and everyone has gone home, they should just assume the scores are correct, add two strokes, make the cut and the pairings, and just sort everything out in the morning?
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #318 on: July 21, 2008, 10:42:52 AM »
Ryan,

Two stroke penalty for what?

Doug Ralston

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #319 on: July 21, 2008, 10:44:31 AM »
Doug,

I completely understand your feelings on this one, yet I also completely disagree with your statement, "She erred! SHE ERRED!! She made a mistake! Yes!! We get it!!"

You are incorrect... she did not make a MISTAKE, she coomitted an INFRACTION. This is not semantics but the reality of what happened.

How many decent, honest and downright nice people get a ticket in the mail stating that their car went through a redlight and when appearing before the judge say something like, "Your honor, I KNOW the light was YELLOW when I enterered the intersection plus I didn't think the person behind me could stop in time. What was I to do?"

The judge will always answer with something like, "Mr. Smith, I feel for you and have been in that situation myself. I know you wouldn't run a red light, but unfortunately the camera doesn't lie and you went through too late. I find you guilty and pay the fine..."

Michelle WAS guilty and had to pay the fine...


And if the fine for running a red light was $1,000,000 and 5yr prison, some would STILL run it! They would not INTEND to run it, but they would. Distraction is easy in our World, and we all can and do suffer from it.

So, now we have some poor sucker who has evilly run a red light because someone else in the car spilled coffee and they were distracted. What then? Foreclose on his family's house, attach his earning for life, and off to the hooscow!

Do not be absurd. It has no context at any level. That is why we need someone to put 'infractions' in context. A 'death penalty' for something that harms no one and is unintentional is WAY out of proportion, and no crying of LAW MUST BE APPLIED EQUALLY will make it reasonable. Law must also be 'in context', never 'the same for everybody', just 'in context. One person DQ'ed and losing the glory of competing for Club Champion is not even close to 'equal' to someone losing 100's of thousands of dollars, plus qualification for making a living [LPGA, in this case]. Context!

The remedy needs to change. You sound absurd if you are in any way responsible for making this rule violation remedy. USGA & R&A? Too much self-righteous declaration of "I wouldn't and they did so there" and not enough reasonable insight into human frailty and foresight of consequences. Context!

Doug

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #320 on: July 21, 2008, 10:45:40 AM »
Shiv has clarified this whole scenario in the best way I think.

The key point here should be the intent and what the penalty is as a result of that.  In the rules of golf, there are sins of comission, sins of omission with both devious and very innocent intent.

MW's actions in doing this were very minor, with no ill-intent towards fellow competitors, or to gain an advantage.

How is the world can the logic be that this should result in a DQ?  All i'm advocating is a simple rule change where this doesn't result in a DQ.

Kalen
« Last Edit: July 21, 2008, 10:47:51 AM by Kalen Braley »

JohnV

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #321 on: July 21, 2008, 10:47:12 AM »
Dave,

For all who say it is just a clerical error, how long should the player have to correct it?

Since this occurred on a Friday when the tour has to make a cut, they have to know that the score is correct in order to do so.  How long do we wait?

On Saturday pairings have to be made for Sunday.

If it had been on Sunday when they have to hand out checks (the Futures Tour actually did hand out checks right after play), how long do they have to wait?

There are not rules officials with every group.   The LPGA has 5-7 officials at any event.  Only the US Open, Open Championship and PGA Championship have officials with every group.

If a player hasn't signed her card, we have no way of knowing that it is correct.  As Jim said it is the way the player says, "This is my score".  Without the signature we have no real way of knowing if the player even looked at the card and made sure it was correct.  Every day, I see scores being corrected in the scoring tent because the marker recorded it incorrectly.  At the US Open I had a walking scorer incorrectly report a score that got corrected in scoring after the player and the marker agreed on what he really shot.  Without the player validating the score we don't know what is correct.  That is why the penalty is so severe.

All you who think it is too harsh have yet to convince me why it shouldn't be required and that it is so difficult to remember.  As I said above, I did forget once and I paid the price.  I wasn't happy to be DQ'ed, but I unhappy with myself, not the rule.

Your hypothetical about blue ink and pencil is a red herring.  The Decisions already give players lots of leeway and restrict what the Committee can require.  The player can sign it anywhere on the card.  They can sign in the marker's box and the marker can sign in the players box.  They can not be required to add up the score or figure out anything like best ball, Stableford points etc.   After the Roe/Parnevik incident they can even turn in cards with the names of the other player on them and the Committee can correct that.  They don't have to initial changes (even though many of them think they have to do so).

They can lose the card and turn in a piece of toilet paper with 18 scores and two signatures on it.  That is all they have to do.

The following mistakes were made:

1) MW forgot to sign her card and left the designated scoring area.
2) When the volunteers noticed it was missing, instead of informing the LPGA, they sent someone to find her and get her to sign it.  Would they have done that for a less well known player?
3) They turned it over to the LPGA with two signatures and no comment about the mistake.
4) The LPGA did not have someone in the scoring area who had enough knowledge to deal with all of this appropriately.  This one should be corrected immediately.

I think the LPGA had a tough call to make about pulling her off the course when they discovered the problem after she teed off.  Given they needed to talk to her about it, it makes sense not to interrupt play.  But, her play could have influenced others play.  If it was the fourth round, I think I would have been more in favor of resolving it during play.

Jim, the bathroom analogy is also a red herring.  The player can certainly ask to leave the tent for something like that without the card being considered to be returned.

JohnV

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #322 on: July 21, 2008, 10:50:12 AM »
Kalen, there are sins of omission in the rules of golf.  Forget to mark the location of your ball when you lift it as Bernhard Langer did a couple of years ago and you get a penalty.  Should we be nice and say, "Gee Bernie we know you meant to mark the position so just put it back?"

I have a friend who went brain dead and picked up his ball without holing out in a tournament.  He teed off on the next hole.  A sin of commission or omission?  Do we give him a break because he never misses 2 inch putts?

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #323 on: July 21, 2008, 10:51:33 AM »
V -

Nice summary.

If I were truly concerned that I might forget to sign, is there anything in the rules that prevents me from, on the first tee, grabbing my empty scorecard out of my marker's hand, signing it, and giving it back to him?
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #324 on: July 21, 2008, 10:56:50 AM »
To Shivas' point of the lack of necessity of a scorecard, it overlooks that the rules are designed to apply across the entire spectrum of golf. While it may be true on the PGA Tour that every stroke is monitored by some impartial observer, nothing could be further from accurate in the Peter Jans Nat'l memeber/guest.

The rules of golf require the player to sign a scorecard. The rules of golf do not require walking scorekeepers, galleries, and a television audience
"We finally beat Medicare. "

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back