[Kalen Braley]

So how do you know if the not signing the name was intentional or an oversight? Maybe there is a mistake in the person's favor they are trying to get away with - is that now a "whoops, forgot to sign" mistake or a trying to get away with something mistake? Is there really a need to create more confusion in the rules?

I'm not at all the right person to argue or explain the rules - JVB has done so on this thread more than capably. I'm saying his arguments are a lot stronger than everyone on the other side, to me at least.

George,

Do you honestly believe that MW did this on purpose when she was tied for I beleive was 2nd at the time?  Her card, so to suggest it was wrong is very disingenious.

I can easily see how she could get distracted, because she was once again in contention, getting positive press, and in a great place to get the 800lb gorilla off her back and win on tour.  Why in the world would she be trying to cover something up when her marker and the tourney officals already knew her score was legit?

JVB has indeed given some very good input on this one, and I agree completely that there needs to be a defined process whereby the card is deemed as submitted and in the hands of the committee.  So at least I understand the scorers tent concept. My only beef at this point is having the punishment match the severity of the crime...hence a 2 stroke penalty instead of slamming the trunk on the way out of town.

[JESII]

Kalen,

Assuming the 2 strokes is for not signing a card, when is that penalty imposed?

[George Pazin]

Kalen, what Jim said.

And Shiv, I'm not even gonna try to go toe to toe with you and further expose my ignorance.

 

I do kinda like your system, but it also seems unnecessarily complicated to me. I don't see attesting through signing as being that difficult. Your system would seem to require a later meeting in situations of discrepancies, when things may not be as clear and witnesses may be less available.

[JESII]

EDit:
This was meant to go right after Shivas' hairbrained solution...



"Imagine the innocent scenario between player Jesus and marker Ghandi, where player Jesus just make a boneheaded scoring mistake.  Nobody's cheating.  The discrepency is caught.  Nobody gets DQd.  The scores get reported correctly.  And Jesus lives to play another day, despite his boneheaded scorecard error. "

...unless Jesus leaves the tent to walk across the lake in front of 18 and reach down to pick out his ball and cannot be found to clarify a discrepancy...


Regardless, how does your plan do anything other than add confusion to everybody's day?   What you've just laid out there has two people keeping two scores that go into the committee...

As it is, I keep you score and sign it and hand it to you as we alk off 18...short of any mistakes, I don't have to think about you anymore...what you'velaid out will double the amount of work everyone has to do, and it still will not guarantee anything...

[George Pazin]

I don't know, I don't play tournament golf, but Jim's scenario seems pretty plausible, maybe even commonplace.

[Kalen Braley]

Jes,

When are any penalties assigned?  When they occur?  When people come to the realization that a penalty has occured?  On the courese? In the scorers tent? Its all irrelevant...add 2 to the players total and say "We'll see you tommorow" instead of "pack your bags, your going home"

Shiv also makes a great point.  Take the cheating aspect out of the whole thing and turn it into a non-issue.  The committe keeps track.  You concur when you get in the tent as does your marker.  How hard is this?  Signing the card is a complete non-issue.

[George Pazin]

Jes,

When are any penalties assigned?  When they occur?  When people come to the realization that a penalty has occured?  On the courese? In the scorers tent? Its all irrelevant...add 2 to the players total and say "We'll see you tommorow" instead of "pack your bags, your going home"

Shiv also makes a great point.  Take the cheating aspect out of the whole thing and turn it into a non-issue.  The committe keeps track.  You concur when you get in the tent as does your marker.  How hard is this?  Signing the card is a complete non-issue.

I think Jim's question refers to the fact that it was not known what happened with Wiesy until the next afternoon. In Harrington's case, it was on Sunday morning after a Friday mistake, I believe.

What do you do, have everyone set aside an hour in the evening to be available for disputes that occur?

[JESII]

The committee has to add up your total and my total FOR ME before knowing if there is a discrepancy...that's the extra work. In a threesome this will add to the confusion at the table, immeasurably...or at least exponentially...and it still hasn't stopped disqualifications for non-golf issues...which was your crusade about 6 pages ago...

[John_Cullum]

How about a rule like this:

"On completion of the stipulated round the card shall be signed by the Marker and countersigned by the competitor, who shall hand it in as soon as reasonably possible.
A card cannot be held to be valid until it has been signed by both marker and competitor, but a competitor should not be disqualified for a breach of this clause until a reasonable attempt has been made to obtain a missing signature."

Since no one bit on this one all day, be advised that the above is from the 1950 USGA Rules of Golf. Prior to that time, it was not necessary for the player to sign his card. Only the marker signed.

In 1952 the current rule was adopted

[Pete_Pittock]

Shivas,
Have you worked in a scoring tent and been responsible for tabulating all the scores and checking them against computer entries? Scorecards are usually kept by order of score. How do you do this when two players on one card shoot 71 and 75?



   If I correctly remember readings from years ago there were a number of decisions, since withdrawn, which dealt with many scenarios where a player was not prompt in turning in a complete scorecard. Most all of these were made moot by delineating the current wheres and whens and what was a grey sitution became black and white.
   If the penalty was two strokes, would that be equitable if someone signed a card one minute later and fifty feet away versus a card finally being signed hours later off the course?
  The only non-positive bit I heard about Michelle Wie was the report that after finally signing the card she 'didn't think it was a problem'.
   

[Garland Bayley]

...
  The only non-positive bit I heard about Michelle Wie was the report that after finally signing the card she 'didn't think it was a problem'.
   

The tournament people brought her back to sign the card. They made no indication that there would be a problem. Why would an 18 year old that plays professional golf part-time have any reason to then think it was a problem?

[Pete_Pittock]

She is a professional golfer, has been for a year, who happens to be 18.
I agree with you that she was brought back by tournament people. But there should have been a seed of doubt, or a 1 watt lightbulb. 

[Craig Sweet]

Signing an incorrect score card is way different from failing to sign in the scorers tent...BECAUSE...you have not yet "signed" or "verified" your score...why should failing to sign your score card carry a greater penalty than signing an inaccurate one?

As for why Wie did not sign, or whether Wie might have had any idea it was wrong (a seed of doubt), it is totally inappropriate for us to assume anything regarding that...she has played enough golf to know she has to sign her card...

[Pete_Pittock]

Craig,
I was trying to say that a question should have been asked, but maybe she did ask the volunteer and that wasn't reported.

[Kalen Braley]

How about a rule like this:

"On completion of the stipulated round the card shall be signed by the Marker and countersigned by the competitor, who shall hand it in as soon as reasonably possible.
A card cannot be held to be valid until it has been signed by both marker and competitor, but a competitor should not be disqualified for a breach of this clause until a reasonable attempt has been made to obtain a missing signature."

Since no one bit on this one all day, be advised that the above is from the 1950 USGA Rules of Golf. Prior to that time, it was not necessary for the player to sign his card. Only the marker signed.

In 1952 the current rule was adopted

John,

This is beyond epic.  Great post!!

Game, set, and match...ballgame over.

[Jim Nugent]

How about a rule like this:

"On completion of the stipulated round the card shall be signed by the Marker and countersigned by the competitor, who shall hand it in as soon as reasonably possible.
A card cannot be held to be valid until it has been signed by both marker and competitor, but a competitor should not be disqualified for a breach of this clause until a reasonable attempt has been made to obtain a missing signature."

Since no one bit on this one all day, be advised that the above is from the 1950 USGA Rules of Golf. Prior to that time, it was not necessary for the player to sign his card. Only the marker signed.

In 1952 the current rule was adopted

Any discussion from 1952 on why they made the rule change? 

Were there lots of scorecard problems before this?  If there were, they don't seem to be real famous.   

[Jim Nugent]

Before 1950, if a scorecard got turned in with a mistake on it, what happened?  Say they made a Devicenzo type error: incorrectly give you a score that is too high.  Or a Pung error: correct score for the round, but scores on two holes reversed. 

[JR Potts]

I have a solution to this "problem" - sign the $#^%ing card after the round.  Of all the dumb things I've done in my life and on the golf course, the one mistake I've never even come close to making is failing to sign my card.  Could there be an easier rule to comply with?  I can't envision one scenario where this would be difficult to do....besides sudden death or a heart attack immediately after holing out.  And I mean immediately as I will have the card fully prepared and ready for signature within 30 seconds of making that last putt.

Wie is an idiot.

[Phil McDade]

Ryan:

What is idiotic is a major sport that can't figure out ways to keep track of the main thing about the contest -- the score of its participants -- to avoid the kind of mishaps seen in the '68 Masters, the Roe/Parnevik mix-up, and the Wie debacle.

What a bunch of Luddites.

[George Pazin]

Ryan:

What is idiotic is a major sport that can't figure out ways to keep track of the main thing about the contest -- the score of its participants -- to avoid the kind of mishaps seen in the '68 Masters, the Roe/Parnevik mix-up, and the Wie debacle.

What a bunch of Luddites.

I respectfully disagree.

I still think you underestimate the difficulty of keeping 150+ scores on a 150+ acre playing field, where players can and do call penalties on themselves that only are made aware to the player keeping their score, and eventually the tournament officials at the end.

Dave's system sounds intriguing, but I can't help but thinking the current system is far less complicated, in spite of what he says. The notion of someone sitting entering what sounds like 2 scorecards for each player, with 2 scores on them, sounds like a system that will yield far greater errors than the current system, not to mention the difficulties associated with resolving a dispute after someone else discovers a discrepancy at some later, undetermined point.

The "cost" of the current system is the rare DQ that we hear about and yammer on about for days and weeks on end. In the end, I think Ryan is right, just sign the card, is it really that difficult?

To label someone a Luddite for believing the current system works in 99.9999999% of cases is a bit over the top, imho. We're a bunch of golf geeks arguing on the internet - does that sound like a Luddite to you?

[Phil McDade]

To label someone a Luddite for believing the current system works in 99.9999999% of cases is a bit over the top, imho. We're a bunch of golf geeks arguing on the internet - does that sound like a Luddite to you?

George:

I think we -- meaning the GCA discussion board broadly -- do have some Luddite tendencies, with regard to technology and esp. regarding scoring. Not that there's anything wrong with that! Healthy skepticism is a valuable thing, in almost any enterprise.

But I think you over-estimate the challenge of harnessing current technology to simplify and make more accurate the scoring of major golf tournaments, rather than continuing to rely on the good intentions of fellow competitors, (perhaps untrained) volunteers, and a few rules officials.

Look at tennis. Have you noticed that, generally, behavior among contestants has improved as technology utilized for line calls has improved (and been embraced by major tournaments)? One of the reasons McEnroe berated umps and judges in tennis was that he -- correctly -- argued that line judging and refereeing was often done by a bunch of ill-trained amateurs, compared to sports like basketball and baseball. Was his bahavior over-the-top and detrimental? Yes. Was his essential beef with the quality of officiating on the mark? I'd argue yes.

Now, I'm not suggesting any behavior similar to McEnroe occurs in golf. Wie, from most reports, although upset, handled her DQ w/ a fair degree of professionalism. But my main point is that a better system of scoring ought to be pursued aggressively by the major golf tours. I'd revisit my views on running contests -- the Boston Marathon starts in one town with thousands of runners, finishes in a major city 26 miles away, and every single runner gets an exact time within tenths of a second, in a sport backed by a lot less corporate/tour money than the PGA/LPGA, through the use of very simple technology.

I don't play competitive golf, never really have, know alot less about the mechanics of turning in cards than Shivas/Potts/Sully, and can't do much more with technology than answer a cell phone and type on a computer  -- but I am a fan of the game and sports in general. When the main argument against utilizing better technology to avoid even the rare instance of scoring mishaps is essentially: It's a rule; it's been done that way for years; it's an extension of golf's "honorable tradition;" it would be difficult; it would diminish the growth of the game -- well, that's when I get a bit skeptical of the rationale behind the arguments, and think that folks simply don't want to change the way things have been done for years. And I think that lends itself to an argument that those who oppose change because -- well, just because -- can be viewed as having Luddite tendencies.

[George Pazin]

Phil, to me one of the beauties of the current system is that it doesn't even require a volunteer, just 2 players following a simple procedure. And I personally like the idea of the system remaining the same throughout the ranks, rather than requiring a player to learn a new system as he progresses to an event with spectators and a full computerized and televised scoring system.

A tennis court is tiny in comparison to a golf course. I really don't think there is a valid comparison out there to another sport (if there is, I'd ask someone else to point it out, we may all learn something). Tennis requires continual updating of the scoring, as each game/set/match is based on it. That's where Shivas's analogy to the Federer/Nadal match fails, not because the players are too tired to keep score themselves and sign cards afterwards.

Many of this site have a (healthy) resistance to change. I've had the good fortune of spending a good bit of time with JohnV and I can tell you, he's no Luddite who abhors change. He simply wants to get a tournament done in the best way possible. I haven't had the pleasure of spending much time with Sully, but his experiences ring true to me.

In the end, you are talking about changing a rather large system to accommodate someone simply forgetting to sign a scorecard - that seems like overkill to me. I wouldn't be against trying Shivas's system out on a small scale someone to see how it functions, but it just strikes me as overcomplicating a rather simple task. I look at it this way: If I were running a tournament, which system would I choose, if the rulesmakers didn't stipulate one? The current setup appears to me to be both simpler and have less potential for problems. I haven't seen it in action, but having 2 sets of scores on each scorecard and having someone else compare sets of 2 scorecards, checking for agreement, seems like it has the potential for more problems. (Most of the other recommendations from others seem no more reasonable to me, btw.)

And that's all said without even referencing tradition, personal responsibility, etc (things which also resonate with me, but are left out for purposes of reasoned discussion of the task of scorekeeping in golf).

[Garland Bayley]

She is a professional golfer, has been for a year, who happens to be 18.
I agree with you that she was brought back by tournament people. But there should have been a seed of doubt, or a 1 watt lightbulb. 

You have to remember that this professional has also not known that you couldn't contact the hazard on your back swing resulting in a two stroke penalty. I guess the details of the rules are not at the forefront of her interest.

[Justin_Zook]

In light of Sarbanes-Oxley, where this thread has gone is very interesting. 

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Gents it really is simple...from day one of competing, you take your opponents scorecard...mark it and sign thiers and yours.....we all grew up playing that way...it is like brushing your teeth before you go to bed....no excuses for forgetting and it should not be anybody else's responsibility.

On saying that.....if there are people in the scorers tent to check the cards, it should not be much to expect them to check the numbers and make sure that the card does indeed have two signatures....ultimately the players responsilblilty...but how hard can it be for someone to check it as well?

heck...they are not playong a shotgun and have 54 cards to check at once!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()