[Erik J. Barzeski]

As TD's example shows, there is no guarantee that knowing your opponent used a 7 iron will result in you making a perfect swing and choosing the right club.

There's no guarantee, but it's still going to potentially "influence" their play. Positively or negatively (which is why gamesmanship isn't legal either).

I know it’s legal to look into another player’s bag to determine what club they hit but it seems at odds with the spirit of the rule.

It's simply observation. If you observe a player hitting a driver off the tee instead of a 3W… is that against the "spirit" of the rule? Turns out there really isn't any such thing as "spirit of the rules."

There's the "spirit of the game," which includes obeying the rules. But no "spirit of the rules."

[Tim Martin]

As TD's example shows, there is no guarantee that knowing your opponent used a 7 iron will result in you making a perfect swing and choosing the right club.

There's no guarantee, but it's still going to potentially "influence" their play. Positively or negatively (which is why gamesmanship isn't legal either).

I know it’s legal to look into another player’s bag to determine what club they hit but it seems at odds with the spirit of the rule.

It's simply observation. If you observe a player hitting a driver off the tee instead of a 3W… is that against the "spirit" of the rule? Turns out there really isn't any such thing as "spirit of the rules."

There's the "spirit of the game," which includes obeying the rules. But no "spirit of the rules."

Thanks for that invaluable insight DE!

[Kalen Braley]

I understand Toms point,

But then who is going to decide which rules shall be followed and which ones ignored?  I thought golf was supposed to be a game of honor and integrity not one of "well everyone is doing it" or "I can get away with it".

All the more reason to address it by either scratching the rule or enforcing it, not just burying the head in the sand and looking the other way..

[Rob Marshall]

As TD's example shows, there is no guarantee that knowing your opponent used a 7 iron will result in you making a perfect swing and choosing the right club.

There's no guarantee, but it's still going to potentially "influence" their play. Positively or negatively (which is why gamesmanship isn't legal either).

I know it’s legal to look into another player’s bag to determine what club they hit but it seems at odds with the spirit of the rule.

It's simply observation. If you observe a player hitting a driver off the tee instead of a 3W… is that against the "spirit" of the rule? Turns out there really isn't any such thing as "spirit of the rules."

There's the "spirit of the game," which includes obeying the rules. But no "spirit of the rules."

Gamesmanship isn't legal? What?

[Tom_Doak]

That's the way authoritarian countries work

Or, you know, rules of a sport… 

Yes, I know, rules of a sport . . .


Just like that pass interference call in the last minute of the Super Bowl.

[Tom_Doak]

I understand Toms point,

But then who is going to decide which rules shall be followed and which ones ignored?  I thought golf was supposed to be a game of honor and integrity not one of "well everyone is doing it" or "I can get away with it".

All the more reason to address it by either scratching the rule or enforcing it, not just burying the head in the sand and looking the other way..

Kalen:


There is a committee for that.


As George Carlin used to say, it's a big club, and you [we] aren't in it.

[Tim Martin]

As TD's example shows, there is no guarantee that knowing your opponent used a 7 iron will result in you making a perfect swing and choosing the right club.

There's no guarantee, but it's still going to potentially "influence" their play. Positively or negatively (which is why gamesmanship isn't legal either).

I know it’s legal to look into another player’s bag to determine what club they hit but it seems at odds with the spirit of the rule.

It's simply observation. If you observe a player hitting a driver off the tee instead of a 3W… is that against the "spirit" of the rule? Turns out there really isn't any such thing as "spirit of the rules."

There's the "spirit of the game," which includes obeying the rules. But no "spirit of the rules."

Gamesmanship isn't legal? What?

Rob-Websters Dictionary says gamesmanship “Is the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules.” That’s code for legal.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Gamesmanship isn't legal? What?

Giving someone the wrong information (like "I hit 6 there" when you hit a 7-iron) is illegal yes. I was playing off Jeff's post where he seemed to call this kind of misleading info as "gamesmanship." And if that's not exactly what he was saying, that's how I was using it.

Just like that pass interference call in the last minute of the Super Bowl.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/eagles/2023/02/12/james-bradberry-holding-penalty-super-bowl-57/11246373002/ - The one the player who committed the penalty admitted it was a penalty?

[Kalen Braley]

That's the problem with just letting stuff go, because for every tight call like this years super bowl, you get a ton more blatant non-calls like this that robbed the Saints from locking down a Super Bowl appearance a few years back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x66DzCsNfEU

[Bill Seitz]

That's the problem with just letting stuff go, because for every tight call like this years super bowl, you get a ton more blatant non-calls like this that robbed the Saints from locking down a Super Bowl appearance a few years back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x66DzCsNfEU

Kalen hopes all of you only remember that PI call, and not the missed call when the Saints grabbed Goff's facemask that would have given the Rams a first down and probably a game sealing touchdown.  Don't click this if you want to stay in Kalen's fantasy world.
https://twitter.com/camdasilva/status/1087120351098781697?lang=en

[Charlie Goerges]

Giving someone the wrong information (like "I hit 6 there" when you hit a 7-iron) is illegal yes. I was playing off Jeff's post where he seemed to call this kind of misleading info as "gamesmanship." And if that's not exactly what he was saying, that's how I was using it.

Yes, and I believe it would also be covered by the advice rule. I would say that when it comes to the advice rule, the legal analogue wouldn't be speed limit laws, but maybe more like the prohibition laws. If nobody wants to follow them (and they give inordinate power to bad actors), better to do away with them altogether.

[A.G._Crockett]

Giving someone the wrong information (like "I hit 6 there" when you hit a 7-iron) is illegal yes. I was playing off Jeff's post where he seemed to call this kind of misleading info as "gamesmanship." And if that's not exactly what he was saying, that's how I was using it.

Yes, and I believe it would also be covered by the advice rule. I would say that when it comes to the advice rule, the legal analogue wouldn't be speed limit laws, but maybe more like the prohibition laws. If nobody wants to follow them (and they give inordinate power to bad actors), better to do away with them altogether.

Charlie,
Though I take your point about laws that nobody wishes to follow, is that a correct assessment of the asking or giving advice rule in golf?  I can ONLY speak for myself, but I just can't imagine a scenario where I'd give a player I'm competing with advice that MIGHT help them beat me.  Nor would I think badly of them for feeling the same way about helping me.  I'll wait for a survey of Tour players to decide if this really is something that happens all the time or not; I just find that VERY hard to believe; that would make golfers different from athletes in any other sport that I know of, and I just don't accept that without proof.

And there is at least a bit of a slippery slope here, isn't there?  Writing workable rules for any sport is difficult, and the rule against giving advice is fairly simple and workable.  Would telling a fellow competitor what club you just hit, or are going to hit, or asking him the same, be an exception to the advice rule, or would advice of ANY sort become permissible under the Rules?  What about advice concerning a target line?  Or how much a putt might break?  Or what shot to play out of the rough or a bunker?
Going back a few posts, I also don't accept the premise that this doesn't matter because the player still has to make a good swing, etc.  If it wasn't helpful information, it wouldn't be asked for, would it?  And the idea that not everybody uses the same club for the same distance doesn't hold water either, at least for me.  It doesn't take long to figure out that a guy you are playing with is a club longer or shorter than you are, so variations don't matter much if you know what they are hitting from 150, etc. 

[Charlie Goerges]

Giving someone the wrong information (like "I hit 6 there" when you hit a 7-iron) is illegal yes. I was playing off Jeff's post where he seemed to call this kind of misleading info as "gamesmanship." And if that's not exactly what he was saying, that's how I was using it.

Yes, and I believe it would also be covered by the advice rule. I would say that when it comes to the advice rule, the legal analogue wouldn't be speed limit laws, but maybe more like the prohibition laws. If nobody wants to follow them (and they give inordinate power to bad actors), better to do away with them altogether.

Charlie,
Though I take your point about laws that nobody wishes to follow, is that a correct assessment of the asking or giving advice rule in golf?  I can ONLY speak for myself, but I just can't imagine a scenario where I'd give a player I'm competing with advice that MIGHT help them beat me.  Nor would I think badly of them for feeling the same way about helping me.  I'll wait for a survey of Tour players to decide if this really is something that happens all the time or not; I just find that VERY hard to believe; that would make golfers different from athletes in any other sport that I know of, and I just don't accept that without proof.

And there is at least a bit of a slippery slope here, isn't there?  Writing workable rules for any sport is difficult, and the rule against giving advice is fairly simple and workable.  Would telling a fellow competitor what club you just hit, or are going to hit, or asking him the same, be an exception to the advice rule, or would advice of ANY sort become permissible under the Rules?  What about advice concerning a target line?  Or how much a putt might break?  Or what shot to play out of the rough or a bunker?
Going back a few posts, I also don't accept the premise that this doesn't matter because the player still has to make a good swing, etc.  If it wasn't helpful information, it wouldn't be asked for, would it?  And the idea that not everybody uses the same club for the same distance doesn't hold water either, at least for me.  It doesn't take long to figure out that a guy you are playing with is a club longer or shorter than you are, so variations don't matter much if you know what they are hitting from 150, etc.

A.G., I can't really disagree with much of anything you say here. I, too, am surprised at the apparent extent to which this type of sharing occurs. I could even also accept that the information may have more usefulness than I've given it credit for (I still think it would be of very limited value though). But it's clear that the players and the rules committees don't really care much about this, which leads to lax enforcement and it would have been pretty unfair to have penalized Brooks for this just because it was caught on live TV. To me they either need to fully enforce the rule or get rid of it.


My own disdain for the rule stems from my high school golf career because it felt like it needlessly complicated my life as far as I was concerned (we're talking things like lines and distances and locations of blind hazards, doglegs and the like).


I imagine ditching the advice rule would seem to open up the things you mention, and no I don't want that information being shared either, but some of it, like putting breaks, they seem to already understand not to share it now. Honestly, it's a mess, I'm not certain about anything other than lax, spotty enforcement isn't acceptable.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My own disdain for the rule stems from my high school golf career because it felt like it needlessly complicated my life as far as I was concerned (we're talking things like lines and distances and locations of blind hazards, doglegs and the like).

Distances to things, the locations of things (whether hidden or not), etc. are not advice.

I can tell you "there's a creek that crosses this hole at 255." I cannot tell you "hit a 3W so you stay short of the creek on this hole."

[Jonathan Mallard]

   It’s almost a given that, unless the player confesses, he “gets the benefit of the doubt.”  This may work on the tour, it wouldn’t work in a courtroom, where only “reasonable doubt” exonerates. How many bathrooms in Koepka’s house isn’t reasonable. Reed has benefited from this standard (embedded ball) as has Tiger (where ball crossed hazard at Players).

But, in any courtroom in this courntry, there has already been...
 
"[an] Alice in Wonderland determination that there are judicially determinable "essential" and "nonessential" rules of a made up game..."


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/661/
[PGA Tour Inc. vs Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001)


So, maybe it is a nonessential rule?

[Kalen Braley]

That's the problem with just letting stuff go, because for every tight call like this years super bowl, you get a ton more blatant non-calls like this that robbed the Saints from locking down a Super Bowl appearance a few years back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x66DzCsNfEU

Kalen hopes all of you only remember that PI call, and not the missed call when the Saints grabbed Goff's facemask that would have given the Rams a first down and probably a game sealing touchdown.  Don't click this if you want to stay in Kalen's fantasy world.
https://twitter.com/camdasilva/status/1087120351098781697?lang=en

Bill,

I'm not a Saints fan, so I don't have a dog in the fight.

You're post does basically hits the nail on the head thou, that everyone has a list of grievances a mile high as it pertains to feeling "cheated".  But I don't think the solution to that is letting stuff slide and not calling it because "everyone does it".  You call em as you see em as best you can, or you implement a review process to get it right, or you get rid of the rule.  Doing nothing and/or letting stuff slide only leads to MORE frustration not less.

And in this case I don't see any other conclusion than the Masters Committee had direct video evidence and chose to ignore it.

[Charlie Goerges]

My own disdain for the rule stems from my high school golf career because it felt like it needlessly complicated my life as far as I was concerned (we're talking things like lines and distances and locations of blind hazards, doglegs and the like).

Distances to things, the locations of things (whether hidden or not), etc. are not advice.

I can tell you "there's a creek that crosses this hole at 255." I cannot tell you "hit a 3W so you stay short of the creek on this hole."

Indeed, and that is always how I explained those things, but it would have sometimes been easier to have been able to say: "Hit it at that tree" or something to that effect rather than walk over and explain how many yards in from the right the hazard comes, the fact that the fairway slopes toward the hazard, it's X yards to reach and X yards to carry etc. I realize its not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

[Bill Seitz]

Bill,

I'm not a Saints fan, so I don't have a dog in the fight.

You're post does basically hits the nail on the head thou, that everyone has a list of grievances a mile high as it pertains to feeling "cheated".  But I don't think the solution to that is letting stuff slide and not calling it because "everyone does it".  You call em as you see em as best you can, or you implement a review process to get it right, or you get rid of the rule.  Doing nothing and/or letting stuff slide only leads to MORE frustration not less.

And in this case I don't see any other conclusion than the Masters Committee had direct video evidence and chose to ignore it.

I'm not necessarily saying they should have let the PI slide because of the earlier missed call, and I don't think that's what happened.  I bring up the facemask only to remind butthurt Saints fans (which does not include you) who seem to forget that it happened whenever they want to feel victimized by the missed PI call.


Agree with your take on the Masters committee.  And the lies that the players and caddies told in their defense are really insulting to everyone's intelligence.

[Charlie Goerges]

Agree with your take on the Masters committee.  And the lies that the players and caddies told in their defense are really insulting to everyone's intelligence.

I'm just going to push back on this a little. If the committee questioned Brooks along the lines of "did you intend to influence play" or something to that effect, he might have honestly answered no. I realize that that doesn't hold up in a court of law, but the rules of golf aren't a court of law. They often say about racing drivers that they are "blessed with a certain lack of imagination". It might really apply to any high-level athlete. But really even all of that shouldn't really matter in this case. If the general culture has been permissive of this for decades at this point and all of a sudden called this penalty now, they would be been acting extremely unfairly.

[Rob Marshall]

Agree with your take on the Masters committee.  And the lies that the players and caddies told in their defense are really insulting to everyone's intelligence.

I'm just going to push back on this a little. If the committee questioned Brooks along the lines of "did you intend to influence play" or something to that effect, he might have honestly answered no. I realize that that doesn't hold up in a court of law, but the rules of golf aren't a court of law. They often say about racing drivers that they are "blessed with a certain lack of imagination". It might really apply to any high-level athlete. But really even all of that shouldn't really matter in this case. If the general culture has been permissive of this for decades at this point and all of a sudden called this penalty now, they would be been acting extremely unfairly.

You can't defend it. It was obvious and intentional on his part and his caddie. They knowingly breached the rules and then lied about it.  If it was the US open they would have been penalized. Augusta has a long history of not following the rules. If he was still alive Ken Venturi would tell you how they stole his championship and gave it to Arnie.

[Pete_Pittock]

"Why are you penalizing me when you didn't penalize Brooks Koepka?"

[Chip Gaskins]

How would a story that Adam Scott has told numerous times about Tiger factor into this discussion?
Scott said Tiger would loudly talk to his caddie about his club selection on a par 3, then intentionally pull and hit a club that was two clubs too long for the stock/needed shot, only to pull Scott into doing the same, which he did and flew the green to make bogey.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

How would a story that Adam Scott has told numerous times about Tiger factor into this discussion?

What's the question? Nothing in there sounds against the Rules.

[Charlie Goerges]

How would a story that Adam Scott has told numerous times about Tiger factor into this discussion?

What's the question? Nothing in there sounds against the Rules.

The language of the rule is intent to influence, if he intended to influence, he broke the rule. It’s essentially unprovable in a situation like this, which to me is a weakness of the rule. Of course by that criteria, Scott might have also broken it.

[Rob Marshall]

How would a story that Adam Scott has told numerous times about Tiger factor into this discussion?

What's the question? Nothing in there sounds against the Rules.

The language of the rule is intent to influence, if he intended to influence, he broke the rule. It’s essentially unprovable in a situation like this, which to me is a weakness of the rule. Of course by that criteria, Scott might have also broken it.

You do know it's not against the rules to walk over and look in another players bag right? It's also not against the rules to hear what someone else says. What rule did Scott may have broken?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()