[Bernie Bell]

To a casual fan, or even a quasi-knowledgeable one, a set of rules and processes that allow Spieth to do what he did -- after a 30 minute delay -- to win a major but cost DJ and Thompson majors might seem quite absurd.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Golf on the other hand is largely self-policing and relies on the golfers integrity which is why the collective shrug from the likes of Erik to an incident like this annoys me. Golf is more than just about being within the exact letter of the law.

The shrug is because I consider these two things as factual:
1. She didn't breach the rules (and wasn't penalized).
2. We don't know what was going on in her head.

"Cheating" to me has always implied willful intent. If you accidentally move your ball on the fairway, you're in breach of the Rules and you'll suffer a penalty, but you didn't intend to. If you purposefully kick your ball out from behind a tree, even if nobody sees it and you're not penalized, you're cheating.

We don't know what was going on in her head. I have said she should pay more attention to things. I have mentioned that I think she's cavalier with the rules and treated the rules official at the ANA poorly. But in this case, you, me, nobody but her know what she was thinking.

[Tim Martin]

Lexi seems to always be involved in some sort of drama. Regardless of this current imbroglio I find her hard to root for.

[Bernie Bell]

Golf on the other hand is largely self-policing and relies on the golfers integrity which is why the collective shrug from the likes of Erik to an incident like this annoys me. Golf is more than just about being within the exact letter of the law.

The shrug is because I consider these two things as factual:
1. She didn't breach the rules (and wasn't penalized).
2. We don't know what was going on in her head.

"Cheating" to me has always implied willful intent. If you accidentally move your ball on the fairway, you're in breach of the Rules and you'll suffer a penalty, but you didn't intend to. If you purposefully kick your ball out from behind a tree, even if nobody sees it and you're not penalized, you're cheating.

We don't know what was going on in her head. I have said she should pay more attention to things. I have mentioned that I think she's cavalier with the rules and treated the rules official at the ANA poorly. But in this case, you, me, nobody but her know what she was thinking.

Every one has their own opinion.  I thought she handled ANA with class and grit; if memory serves she made up the 4 stroke penalty with inward birdies after the "ruling" and almost won with an eagle that was an inch short.  Under the circumstances, "is this a joke?" is probably the very mildest the rules official could have reasonably expected after that travesty.  Still shocking years later.  If a rules official had done that to a male golfer, he surely would have taken security along with him, and expected and deserved some much stronger treatment.

[JESII]

Erik,


How can you claim to not know what she was doing? Is there a single alternative to attempting to move that wispy grass out of the way?


Ignorance is not an excuse last I checked.


What saved her is simply that she failed to help herself...this is what leaves the distaste.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

How can you claim to not know what she was doing? Is there a single alternative to attempting to move that wispy grass out of the way?

I stated what I consider to be a fact: none of us know what she was thinking.

Ignorance is not an excuse last I checked.

I never said it was. It does, however, matter when you're going to judge someone a "cheater."

[Mark Pearce]

Sean


Most other sports have an umpire or referee on hand to regulate play, whereas golf generally doesn't. In other sports they generally play to the ref/umpire and their interpretation of the rules. To take rugby as an example the way the ref's referee the game seems to change year on year without them actually changing the rules sometimes which I find baffling. That leads, IMO, to players trying to game the ref rather than trying to play within the rules.


Golf on the other hand is largely self-policing and relies on the golfers integrity which is why the collective shrug from the likes of Erik to an incident like this annoys me. Golf is more than just about being within the exact letter of the law.


Niall

Really well put, Niall.  I remember when my eldest was playing as a hooker in the school 1st XV, they'd actually spend scrummaging sessions learning how to break the rules and get away with it.  Indeed, Cam often said that if he wasn't offside most of the time but getting away with it, he wasn't doing his job. 


Golf shouldn't be like that.  Nor should we collectively shrug when someone tries to break the rules but fails, or, as others would have it, takes an action that risks breaking the rules but doesn't, because of things outside their control.  Golf should be about rigorous, almost over-enthusiastic compliance with the rules.

[Kalen Braley]

How can you claim to not know what she was doing? Is there a single alternative to attempting to move that wispy grass out of the way?

I stated what I consider to be a fact: none of us know what she was thinking.

Ignorance is not an excuse last I checked.

I never said it was. It does, however, matter when you're going to judge someone a "cheater."

Erik,

This is a good scenario to apply Occams Razor.  Yes we don't know exactly what was going on in her head, but based on her actions what is the most plausible/simplest explanation?

[JESII]

Forget "simplest explanation", could someone provide any other possible explanation for what she was doing if not trying to brush the grass back so she could see the ball clearly?

[JohnVDB]

The Rules of Golf are written assuming players are honest and make mistakes.  There is one Rule which deals with players who cheat and it disqualifies them (1.3b(1)).
That Rule says:

Players are expected to recognize when they have breached a Rule and to be honest in applying their own penalties.
If a player knows that he or she has breached a Rule that involves a penalty and deliberately fails to apply the penalty, the player is disqualified.

'
So how can you "cheat" in a way that gets you DQ'ed:1) You know that something is against the Rules, do it anyway and then not apply the penalty (the guy who puts down another ball when he can't find his).2) You do something accidentally or without thinking about it.  You know you're not allowed to that, but you choose to ignore it and don't apply the penalty.
3) You know you did something, but not know it is against the Rules when you did it, but then find out it is and not apply the penalty without anyone else knowing about it.4) You know you did something, but not know it is against the Rules when you did it and then deny you did it when confronted with evidence that you did and refuse to accept the penalty.
I think #2 is a typical scenario.  I accidentally bump my ball and it moves. I see it, but it only moved a fraction of an inch and even though I know it's a penalty I just choose to ignore it since I didn't really gain anything and nobody else saw it.

So, you can do something and know it is against the Rules, but then give yourself the penalty and you won't be disqualified under Rule 1.3b(1).  For example, I know can't lift my ball to clean it in fairway, but if I look down and see a large clump of mud on my ball, I could lift my ball, clean it replace it and give myself a one-stroke penalty.  Rule 1.3b(1) doesn't apply since I gave myself the penalty.
However, there is one other way to get disqualified.  A Committee could decide that my actions (especially since I know I was doing wrong) were so contrary to the spirit of the game that they could disqualify me under Rule 1.2a.  They might not unless there was some kind of pattern of abuse of the Rule.  After all, I could have decided my ball was unplayable, lifted it cleaned it and dropped it or another ball within two club-lengths of where I was for the same one-stroke penalty.

[Sean_A]

Forget "simplest explanation", could someone provide any other possible explanation for what she was doing if not trying to brush the grass back so she could see the ball clearly?

As I said before, I think she may have been trying to judge how tough the grass would be to swing through. It doesn't seem at all likely that she thought a few gentle passes of the club through the rough was going to be enough to permanently move the grass.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Forget "simplest explanation", could someone provide any other possible explanation for what she was doing if not trying to brush the grass back so she could see the ball clearly?

Maybe she noticed a very rare type of fly nestled on the grasses and was using her club to help it out of the way as she did not want to kill it when making her shot. 


On another point. If you deliberately use the old leather mashie to extricate your ball from behind a tree you would not be cheating so long as you invoke the correct rule and call a penalty on yourself.

[JESII]

Sean,


I didn't realize you'd suggested that possibility earlier...and it applies to my question. But I don't think it exonerates her. You can take practice swings in similar grass to your own lie, but I don't think you can fiddle with the exact grass that may impact your swing as a way to gauge its reaction.


Although I may well be wrong about that...can you do that?

[JohnVDB]

Sean,


I didn't realize you'd suggested that possibility earlier...and it applies to my question. But I don't think it exonerates her. You can take practice swings in similar grass to your own lie, but I don't think you can fiddle with the exact grass that may impact your swing as a way to gauge its reaction.


Although I may well be wrong about that...can you do that?

There are many things you can do around your ball when it is in the general area as long as you don't improve one of the conditions affecting the stroke.  Remember what "improve" means, "to give the player a potential advantage", so no harm no foul.
Also, when it comes to moving something such as a tree branch, an OB stake or a blade of grass, it can be undone as long as the original object is used and the improvement is removed.  If you remember the incident with Chip Beck from many years ago where he took out an OB stake where he wanted to stand and then replaced it, he was penalized just for removing it.  Today he wouldn't be as long as he undid the improvement by replacing it.
In Lexi's case, she moved the grass, the grass moved back. No improvement, no harm, no foul.  If she had broken off some grass with a practice swing or when she moved it, she could have been penalized for improving it.
Someone a couple of pages back hypothesized that if Patrick Reed had moved the sand back would he get out of the penalty.  The answer to that is NO.  Only 8.1a(1) and 8.1a(2) can be undone in 8.1c.  His breach was of 8.1a(4).  Since you could never get the sand back exactly as it was you can't undo that.

[JESII]

Thank you John!


What is the ruling if someone does as Sean suggests; testing the grass behind the ball for resistance?

[Sean_A]

Thank you John!

What is the ruling if someone does as Sean suggests; testing the grass behind the ball for resistance?

Jim

I was only suggesting a possible explaination for Lexi's actions.  I don't think why she was doing what she did matters so long as an advantage wasn't gained.  Judging by the shot, I wouldn't think she gained an advantage  .  I simply cannot see how Lexi gained an advantage in this situation.  If not, how can anyone call her a cheat?  That strikes me as a completetely unreasonable conclusion.

I do see players stick their club behind the ball quite often without taking a stance to determine how the lie looks for club selection. To me, this is materially no different to what Lexi did as the potential for an advantage exists even if not likely.   

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,

We've already conceded that she attempted to cheat and failed, and this is the #1 issue as it pertains to the very first Rule in golf.

P.S.  This sequence occurred on the only hole she birdied on day 1, are you sure she didn't gain any advantage?

[JohnVDB]

You are allowed to ground your club behind the ball.  This means to let the club touch the ground and it might cause an improvement in the conditions affecting the stroke as long as you just let the weight of the club cause it.  If you push it down more than that and it causes an improvement you have breached 8.1a.
As for whether Lexi was cheating or not, do any of you honestly think that she would do something that obvious knowing it was a breach of the Rules when a camera man was standing 10 feet behind her?  I don't. I think she, like most PGA and LPGA pros, doesn't know the Rules well enough to know what she can and can't do.

[Bernie Bell]

Sean,

We've already conceded that she attempted to cheat and failed, and this is the #1 issue as it pertains to the very first Rule in golf.

P.S.  This sequence occurred on the only hole she birdied on day 1, are you sure she didn't gain any advantage?

BS.  "We" haven't conceded anything.  You and others have inferred that she attempted to cheat.  Careful . . . .  it gets slippery on that self-righteous slope.  Four pages of censorious commentary on a player who didn't make the cut.  Relevance to GCA nil.  Basis in fact to infer "cheating" intent nil.  Again, thank goodness they did away with the armchair rules officials phoning in.  Blight on the sport.

[Tim Martin]

I think she, like most PGA and LPGA pros, doesn't know the Rules well enough to know what she can and can't do.

I agree. As far as casual players go I think very few know the rules well enough to post an accurate 18 hole medal score. That is in no way a dig as there is a big slice of golfers who never bother with any kind of sanctioned handicap or events. It’s a big tent.

[Kalen Braley]

John,

Your last point goes right to the heart of the matter as I see it.  In nearly every other sport, you will be penalized regardless of your knowledge of the rule as a player. And amazingly everyone learns them very quickly, even the rookies, much less vets like Lexi. 

In the current environment of golfers playing for literally tens of millions, with equal, if not more money up for grabs in endorsements and otherwise, TV exposure, etc, its far past time for golf to put aside is naivete of the honor code thing and start actively officiating professional and top am golf events.  We can even give em yellow hankies like football and chuck it at their feet for visual effect too. 

[Thomas Dai]

The players (and caddies) ought to know the Rules. If they don’t it ought to be their loss not the not of some other player who does know the Rules but finishes lower down the field, and thus earns less prize money, because another player was allowed to ‘get away’ with something ‘iffy’.

And players, caddies too, even those who are IQ wise not exactly the sharpest tool in the box, are more likely to learn if they are penalised for their um, oversights, than if they are allowed to get away with something. And when there is oodles of £$€ on the line, as in elite pro golf these days, the more important accurate enforcement becomes.

Whilst folks can agree or disagree as to whether LT deserved to be penalised in this case let’s hope that the powers that be and the players, caddies and all others involved learn something from this incident. A repeat or something similar on the 72nd hole at a major in full view of the worlds media wouldn’t be good for the image of the game nor for those who run events.

Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

This is a good scenario to apply Occams Razor.  Yes we don't know exactly what was going on in her head, but based on her actions what is the most plausible/simplest explanation?

That she wasn't really thinking at all? I think she was just brain farting, or brain dead, or just being dumb. I think "she was trying to cheat" is a stretch.

It might be a good time to apply "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

BS.  "We" haven't conceded anything.  You and others have inferred that she attempted to cheat.  Careful . . . .  it gets slippery on that self-righteous slope.  Four pages of censorious commentary on a player who didn't make the cut.  Relevance to GCA nil.  Basis in fact to infer "cheating" intent nil.  Again, thank goodness they did away with the armchair rules officials phoning in.  Blight on the sport.

+1

[Niall C]

Sean,

We've already conceded that she attempted to cheat and failed, and this is the #1 issue as it pertains to the very first Rule in golf.

P.S.  This sequence occurred on the only hole she birdied on day 1, are you sure she didn't gain any advantage?

BS.  "We" haven't conceded anything.  You and others have inferred that she attempted to cheat.  Careful . . . .  it gets slippery on that self-righteous slope.  Four pages of censorious commentary on a player who didn't make the cut.  Relevance to GCA nil.  Basis in fact to infer "cheating" intent nil.  Again, thank goodness they did away with the armchair rules officials phoning in.  Blight on the sport.

Bernie


I don't think it self-righteous to scrutinise the actions of a player who appears to have such a cavalier attitude to the rules. To not scutinise or hold them to account just enables them to continue what they are doing. And as others have said before, it's not the armchair punters who making the ruling, it's the rules officials. To follow your line of thinking, unless a rules official witnesses something first hand they can't call a ruling on it. Now that would be BS.


Niall

[Lou_Duran]

Niall,


Your expectations of your fellow golfers are rather ideal, romantic even.  We are talking about the same guys and gals who don't fix their ball marks on the greens, sand or replace divots, rake bunkers, dispose of trash appropriately, etc.  The % of this type may not be large, but their effects are noticeable.


The rules are there to facilitate fair play, but they do not guarantee it.  I disagree with Erik that the rules are simple and easy to understand.   They might be for John or Erik who made/make a living in the game and had/have some responsibilities in tournament administration.  They are certainly not for me and I've read the book many times over.


There are any number of possible reasons why Lexi fanned the natives before hitting her shot.  If we had the ability to put her through an FBI lie detector test, I would place a good sum of money that cheating was not her motive.  Like so many golfers, a number from this site whom I've played with, some have less than proper habits around the ball.  I think that this is Lexi's problem, one that she needs to be counseled on.


As to other sports, I played basketball and baseball in high school where we were shown how to take advantage of the rules in all sorts of nefarious ways.  It was expected that a player would employ these tactics, and if he didn't get called on it from time to time, he just wasn't being aggressive enough.


I've seen some outright cheating in club tournaments on two or three occasions, but any number of rules violations that I am sure were the result of ignorance or carelessness.  The rules and the spirit behind them require that we protect the field from such violations.  I wonder how many of us are willing to take the heat for calling a penalty on another competitor.  I've refused to sign a scorecard on two occasions involving  blatant, intentional violations.  It didn't make me very popular with the pro as he had to resolve the matter, which he did by signing the card himself when a DQ was the proper call.  It is called the path of least resistance/conflict avoidance.  We do like our +1s!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()