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.


George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #425 on: July 24, 2008, 10:54:29 AM »
I was at the Coldplay concert last night (don't ask how I got roped into that -- let's just say that chicks dig Coldplay more than the long ball) and I brought my buddy who is a long-time, well-respected local head pro.

We talked about this issue.  He told me something VERY surprising:

He NEVER requires people to sign their cards in club events he runs.

Do you know why?

Because he says people screw it up all the time and he doesn't want to have to DQ people for forgetting.  He views it, in a certain respect, as job preservation - sort of like not being too nice to the members' wives while balancing that against catering to them so they don't complain about him to hubby. 

He doesn't want to get tabbed as a dick for DQing the wrong guy at the wrong time in the wrong situation, so as a policy, he does not require signature and never has.  He told me point blank that it's a stupid rule.

Interesting, huh?

Interesting and not surprising.

It does kind of beg the question of what other rules he ignored in the interest of keeping the peace, however.

How about this, Shiv: the player's signature is not required, but he cannot protest anything on the card that he didn't bother to sign.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #426 on: July 24, 2008, 11:05:42 AM »
I wonder how many pros take the same approach that Dave resports. I have never heard of anyone being DQ'd at my club. I remember spacing that detail out myself once and having to ask for the card back to sign it.

The PGA Tour and the LPGA Tour did not make the rule about signing the card. They can only make administrative details about what they allow to be considered signed. I think the PGA Tour has it right. They didn't make the rule requiring the signature, so they make sure the competetors that intend to turn in a score sign their card. That makes much more sense to  me than making rules like if you walk 30 paces away from the scorers table without veering either right or left, or if you sign more than 30 autographs without signing your card, then we apply the  DQ rule.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

JohnV

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #427 on: July 24, 2008, 11:14:21 AM »
George,  It is a shame that the PGA didn't do a better job of training one of its members.  It does make you wonder what other rules are ignored at this club.  I'm glad the pro at my last club was not that lax.

I wonder what happens when a card gets turned in with no signatures and another player says that the score on the card is lower than what the player made?  There is no accountability there in my mind.

Why even deal with score cards?  Just have them tell you their total score at the end of the day?  It sure is a headache to deal with all that paperwork.  

Any why have a marker?  After all, it is distracting to have to keep track of someone elses score.

I've yet to read one argument that comes even close to convincing me that it is in some way horrible to require a player put a mark somewhere on his card during the 4+ hours from when the cards are handed out until they are handed in to show that he at least looked at it once.

We give the players tremendous leeway in a lot of this.  They can sign it anywhere.  The marker can sign in the player's box and vice versa.  It doesn't have to be a full signature.  It can be an X for all we care.  Just put a mark on the card that we can somehow interpret to mean that you saw the card.

Last Friday a group of four boys came off the 18th green and stood there discussing their scores and signed the cards.  The scoring area was in a courtyard where I couldn't see  them doing this.  In the end, three boys went straight to their cars while the fourth one brought me the cards.  They all had 2 signatures and all was well.  If no signature is required, how do I know if anyone looked at their own card or not?  How to do I even have a clue that anyone might agree with what is written on them?

JohnV

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #428 on: July 24, 2008, 11:19:57 AM »
What's ridiculous is that the USGA changed the rule because they were sick of chasing down the oh-so-huge number of unsigned cards, thus turning golf into a biathalon:

From the 1899 R&A Rules of Golf, Stroke play rules:
Quote
4.  The scores shall be kept by a special marker or by the competitors noting each other’s scores. The scores marked shall be checked after each hole. On completion of the round, the score of the competitor shall be signed by the marker, counter-signed by the competitor, and handed to the Secretary or his deputy, after which, unless it be found that a card returned shows a score below that actually played (in which case the competitor shall be disqualified), no correction or alteration can be made.

The USGA was 4 years old at that point, but, some people can always find a reason to blame the USGA.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #429 on: July 24, 2008, 11:26:26 AM »
While we are on the subject, what good does the markers signature do? I have put down a score on a card that I know the competitor disagreed with. If I sign that card, give it to the competitor, he changes it and turns it in and I never see it again, what good was my signature? The time mentioned above where there was a disagreement, the competitor refused to turn in the card, so at least in that case this scenario did not play out to the conclusion.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

JohnV

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #430 on: July 24, 2008, 11:52:23 AM »
Garland,

While the marker can sign the card at any time, he should (but obviously doesn't always) come to the scoring area with the player and make sure that the card isn't altered without his consent.  There have been cases of players altering cards after the marker has left the area (Vijay Singh in Asia many, many years ago.)  Sometimes they get caught, sometimes they don't.  Usually they get caught when the marker sees the score posted for the player and comes back to tell us that it doesn't look right.  We can pull the card and usually see the erasures etc.

It has happened at least once this year in an NCGA event.  Needless to say a player who cheats like this will be suspended for a considerable period.

If the player makes a change after the marker has left the scoring are he has invalidated the signature and he would be DQ'ed if he didn't inform the Committee that he was doing so.  If he did so and they came to an agreement about the correction, he would be ok.  See Decision 6-6b/7.

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #431 on: July 24, 2008, 11:59:33 AM »
While we are on the subject, what good does the markers signature do? I have put down a score on a card that I know the competitor disagreed with. If I sign that card, give it to the competitor, he changes it and turns it in and I never see it again, what good was my signature? The time mentioned above where there was a disagreement, the competitor refused to turn in the card, so at least in that case this scenario did not play out to the conclusion.


The markers signature would be a way of identifying who kept up with the competitors round if there was some later dispute
"We finally beat Medicare. "

tlavin

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #432 on: July 24, 2008, 12:00:37 PM »
I have a solution: fire Carolyn Bivens.  She's an embarrassment.

JohnV

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #433 on: July 24, 2008, 12:06:09 PM »
Dave,

I assume you feel the same way about contracts?  What is the point of the signature.  If you put it in front of the person and he hands it back it seems to be good enough for.

At some point, I have to resort to saying that there is no real valid reason to change this in my opinion.  It is not a burden in any way to put this responsibility on the player.

You are willing to do away with scorecards completely.  Match play does this because the only other person who cares is right there in a position to watch.  Stroke play requires some amount of accountability because there are a significant number of people who care and are not there to check on it.

The rules assume honesty, but at some point there has to be some kind of check on it.  The scorecard and the procedures required for it are that check.  You don't like it.  Too bad.  If it changes, I'll live with the change, but I see no reason to change it whatsoever.

I won't change and you won't change so I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you about it.

MargaretC

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #434 on: July 24, 2008, 08:00:51 PM »
George,  It is a shame that the PGA didn't do a better job of training one of its members.  It does make you wonder what other rules are ignored at this club.  I'm glad the pro at my last club was not that lax.

The shame is that the Rules of Golf put a PGA member, a good man, in a position where he'd have to DQ a bunch of other good people because their actuarial skills aren't very good.

I wonder what happens when a card gets turned in with no signatures and another player says that the score on the card is lower than what the player made?  There is no accountability there in my mind.

You don't see accountability because you see signature and accountability as synonymous.  But you said it yourself -- a card got turned in.  And it has a player's name on it.  And it was given to the player at the start of the round.  And there is only one of them.  The player is accountable from the second he gets it.  The fact that it got turned in IS the accoutability.  It's like luggage at the airport - what do they say?  Don't give it to strangers because you're accountable for it.  Same principle.  The signature adds nothing. It's just a gotcha trap.

Why even deal with score cards?  Just have them tell you their total score at the end of the day?  It sure is a headache to deal with all that paperwork.  That would work.  Verbal representations of fact are valid in multitudes of other situations and there is no reason that it could not work. Having a written record is better, but in a hypothetical country where all paper and writing instruments were outlawed, are you seriously telling me that the game of golf could not be played?  That's ridiculous.  Of course it could. 

Any why have a marker?  After all, it is distracting to have to keep track of someone elses score.

Great question.  I'd love to know the answer.  Golf is a game of honor.  But we don't trust people to keep their own scores.  That makes little sense to me.

I've yet to read one argument that comes even close to convincing me that it is in some way horrible to require a player put a mark somewhere on his card during the 4+ hours from when the cards are handed out until they are handed in to show that he at least looked at it once.

That's because nobody is arguing that it's horrible.  All the argument does is say that mandatory DQ is a ridiculous penalty for a clerical error that has nothing to do with the game itself, and that there is a way to avoid that ridiculous result.  

We give the players tremendous leeway in a lot of this.  They can sign it anywhere.  The marker can sign in the player's box and vice versa.  It doesn't have to be a full signature.  It can be an X for all we care.  Just put a mark on the card that we can somehow interpret to mean that you saw the card.

John, the committee hands the card to the player before he tees off.  Of course he saw the card.  If you just take the position that you already take -- that the player is responsible for the card -- you already KNOW that he's seen the card as is responsible for the numbers on it.  Again, the signature is unnecessary if you take the position that when that card comes in with the player's name on it and you handed it to him, he's responsible for whatever is on it -- like luggage at the airport.

Last Friday a group of four boys came off the 18th green and stood there discussing their scores and signed the cards.  The scoring area was in a courtyard where I couldn't see  them doing this.  In the end, three boys went straight to their cars while the fourth one brought me the cards.  They all had 2 signatures and all was well.  If no signature is required, how do I know if anyone looked at their own card or not?  How to do I even have a clue that anyone might agree with what is written on them?

Great example.  This happens all the time.  But take the position that each of these kids is responsible for his own card, and that if they're willing to hand it to someone to turn it in for them, it's their ass on the line if that guy changes a number or something, who cares if they signed it?  Even with it signed, the kid turning them in could change a number as it is....again, the signature adds nothing.

OMG!  I have been away from this board almost 2 days and this thread is still on the first page...   ::)

As I'm reading the posts, I'm saying to myself, talk about beating a dead horse and then, I said, nope, this is abuse of a corpse...   :o

I accept the rule.  If any of your "arguments" sway the USGA or R&A such that they choose to modify it, fine.

My issues are with the LPGA.  Clearly, the volunteers were not properly trained and they weren't appropriately supervised.  IMO, a LPGA employee and/or a Rules Official should be in the scoring tent at all times.  Michelle should never have played on Saturday.  The LPGA blew it big time.

Michelle Wie made a mistake and handled it as a professional.  Too bad the same can't be said for the LPGA.  >:(

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #435 on: July 24, 2008, 08:10:50 PM »

Michelle Wie made a mistake and handled it as a professional.  Too bad the same can't be said for the LPGA.  >:(



Margaret,

How do you feel about Michelle not thinking there was a problem after she was called back into the tent to sign her card after having left for a few minutes?   

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #436 on: July 24, 2008, 10:01:23 PM »
"My issues are with the LPGA.  Clearly, the volunteers were not properly trained and they weren't appropriately supervised.  IMO, a LPGA employee and/or a Rules Official should be in the scoring tent at all times.  Michelle should never have played on Saturday.  The LPGA blew it big time."


Michelle Wie should never have been allowed to leave the scorers tent on Friday without signing her scorecard....if indeed her signature on the card is SUCH A BIG DEAL....The LPGA blew it big time.
No one is above the law. LOCK HIM UP!!!

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #437 on: July 24, 2008, 10:02:39 PM »
Shivas this is pure poetry! 

"George,  It is a shame that the PGA didn't do a better job of training one of its members.  It does make you wonder what other rules are ignored at this club.  I'm glad the pro at my last club was not that lax.

The shame is that the Rules of Golf put a PGA member, a good man, in a position where he'd have to DQ a bunch of other good people because their actuarial skills aren't very good.

I wonder what happens when a card gets turned in with no signatures and another player says that the score on the card is lower than what the player made?  There is no accountability there in my mind.

You don't see accountability because you see signature and accountability as synonymous.  But you said it yourself -- a card got turned in.  And it has a player's name on it.  And it was given to the player at the start of the round.  And there is only one of them.  The player is accountable from the second he gets it.  The fact that it got turned in IS the accoutability.  It's like luggage at the airport - what do they say?  Don't give it to strangers because you're accountable for it.  Same principle.  The signature adds nothing. It's just a gotcha trap.

Why even deal with score cards?  Just have them tell you their total score at the end of the day?  It sure is a headache to deal with all that paperwork.  That would work.  Verbal representations of fact are valid in multitudes of other situations and there is no reason that it could not work. Having a written record is better, but in a hypothetical country where all paper and writing instruments were outlawed, are you seriously telling me that the game of golf could not be played?  That's ridiculous.  Of course it could.

Any why have a marker?  After all, it is distracting to have to keep track of someone elses score.

Great question.  I'd love to know the answer.  Golf is a game of honor.  But we don't trust people to keep their own scores.  That makes little sense to me.

I've yet to read one argument that comes even close to convincing me that it is in some way horrible to require a player put a mark somewhere on his card during the 4+ hours from when the cards are handed out until they are handed in to show that he at least looked at it once.

That's because nobody is arguing that it's horrible.  All the argument does is say that mandatory DQ is a ridiculous penalty for a clerical error that has nothing to do with the game itself, and that there is a way to avoid that ridiculous result. 

We give the players tremendous leeway in a lot of this.  They can sign it anywhere.  The marker can sign in the player's box and vice versa.  It doesn't have to be a full signature.  It can be an X for all we care.  Just put a mark on the card that we can somehow interpret to mean that you saw the card.

John, the committee hands the card to the player before he tees off.  Of course he saw the card.  If you just take the position that you already take -- that the player is responsible for the card -- you already KNOW that he's seen the card as is responsible for the numbers on it.  Again, the signature is unnecessary if you take the position that when that card comes in with the player's name on it and you handed it to him, he's responsible for whatever is on it -- like luggage at the airport.

Last Friday a group of four boys came off the 18th green and stood there discussing their scores and signed the cards.  The scoring area was in a courtyard where I couldn't see  them doing this.  In the end, three boys went straight to their cars while the fourth one brought me the cards.  They all had 2 signatures and all was well.  If no signature is required, how do I know if anyone looked at their own card or not?  How to do I even have a clue that anyone might agree with what is written on them?

Great example.  This happens all the time.  But take the position that each of these kids is responsible for his own card, and that if they're willing to hand it to someone to turn it in for them, it's their ass on the line if that guy changes a number or something, who cares if they signed it?  Even with it signed, the kid turning them in could change a number as it is....again, the signature adds nothing."
No one is above the law. LOCK HIM UP!!!

Tim Bert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #438 on: July 24, 2008, 10:10:46 PM »
I was at the Coldplay concert last night (don't ask how I got roped into that -- let's just say that chicks dig Coldplay more than the long ball) and I brought my buddy who is a long-time, well-respected local head pro.


Didn't you confess recently to another cheeseball concert you attended?  How many passes do you get?  How many can you blame on "chicks?"  It seems like at some point you have to fess up and just admit you like this crap.   ;D

I think you want someone to call you on it because you keep bringing it up.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #439 on: July 24, 2008, 10:15:25 PM »
Hey I'm going to ColdPlay when they come to Utah.

I don't see anything wrong with it!!  ;D

MargaretC

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #440 on: July 24, 2008, 10:16:10 PM »

Michelle Wie made a mistake and handled it as a professional.  Too bad the same can't be said for the LPGA.  >:(



Margaret,

How do you feel about Michelle not thinking there was a problem after she was called back into the tent to sign her card after having left for a few minutes?   

JES:

Apparently, she didn't give it a thought.  

In that situation, I would have preferred that she would have questioned the volunteer and then DQ'd herself.  [Oh, Lord, I can hear some of the posters shriek now.  ::)]  But that's part of the game.  A golfer penalizes himself/herself.

Meg

Jim Johnson

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #441 on: July 24, 2008, 10:17:29 PM »
14 pages on Michelle Wie.

Wow.

Tim Bert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #442 on: July 24, 2008, 10:23:08 PM »

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #443 on: July 24, 2008, 10:35:55 PM »
14 pages on Michelle Wie.

Wow.

It's not the first time...

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,18825.0.html



That's nothing. there was a thread one time titled "Michelle and Jack and a loosely woven thread" or some such, and it went 25 pages or so before it got deleted by the moderation
"We finally beat Medicare. "

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #444 on: July 24, 2008, 10:37:39 PM »
I was at the Coldplay concert last night (don't ask how I got roped into that -- let's just say that chicks dig Coldplay more than the long ball) and I brought my buddy who is a long-time, well-respected local head pro.


Dave,

I've got a chance to go see Snoop Dog this weekend, wanna go?

Didn't you confess recently to another cheeseball concert you attended?  How many passes do you get?  How many can you blame on "chicks?"  It seems like at some point you have to fess up and just admit you like this crap.   ;D

I think you want someone to call you on it because you keep bringing it up.

LOL!

Yeah, I had to take the girls to Hannah Montana.

So one for the wife, and one for the kids.

Last thing I saw before that was probably The Who.
"We finally beat Medicare. "

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #445 on: July 24, 2008, 11:11:07 PM »
Perhaps Michelle Wie should sue...wasn't the application of this rule somewhat arbitrary and capricious? You walk away, come back and sign, and you are out...you stay and sign, you are in....you walk to the edge of the "boundary" and return and sign and you are in...one week it's a tent, the next week a white line in the grass...the next week a roped off area...
No one is above the law. LOCK HIM UP!!!

JohnV

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #446 on: July 24, 2008, 11:37:09 PM »
Dave you asked for another rule that DQ's a player that has nothing to do with the actual playing of the game.

1) Putting a handicap on the card that is too low or telling your opponent that yours is lower than it actually is
2) Returning a score that is too low.
3) Up until 2008, simply carrying a non-conforming golf club.  Now you at least have to use it.
4) Agreeing to waive any rule, even if that rule had nothing to do with the playing of the game.
5) When discovering that you have 15 clubs, failing to immediately declare one out of play.
6) Up until 2004, having two caddies.
7) Being late to the tee.
8) Practice on the course before a stroke play round or between rounds played on consecutvie days.
9) Using some kind of training or swing aid during the round.

Some of these can be looked at as having something to do with playing the game, but I hope a few of them meet even your standards.

MargaretC

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #447 on: July 24, 2008, 11:46:49 PM »
Dave,

I assume you feel the same way about contracts?  What is the point of the signature.  If you put it in front of the person and he hands it back it seems to be good enough for.


Okay, I give-up.  Dave who?  ???  Is Shivas, Dave?   :-\

Meg

John Moore II

Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #448 on: August 17, 2008, 07:49:10 PM »
Well, Miss Wie managed to shoot -3 this week to finish T-12, not a bad finish I suppose. Baring any foolishness as what happened with the scorecard, perhaps she might actually make something of herself.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wie Forget ...
« Reply #449 on: August 18, 2008, 12:37:25 AM »
John,

Compare her annual salary to yours and tell me whether or not she has already made something of herself.
 ;D
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back