Wie in water hazard

[Anthony Butler]

I find it hilarious that she claims she did it to keep balance. Look at the vid, her weight is nowhere near her right side, and she isn't going to fall in the water at all. Just a stupid mistake and she has payed for it. I only play the game, and am not a rules expert by any means, but 2 shots for "that" seems unfair. She hasn't gained any unfair advantage and I can't imagine she did it to test the surface, so maybe the ruling is a bit unfair in that case? Just my opinion anyway.

Pup

Given the slope of the ground, you would at least have to ground your club on the right-hand side of your body to even make that argument. Or in the act of struggling to move your body away from the water, perhaps overcorrect and touch your club on the bank while doing so. None of these were remotely close to happening.

Being a college student, Michele probably views getting a favorable ruling at about the same level of difficulty as getting an assignment extension from a Stanford TA.

[Garland Bayley]

Well, never mind Garland; I think I remember you and your schtick; and I recall it doesn't take much to lose you. Maybe the Rules of Golf just ain't your thing. I vaguely recall you're one of the ones on here who thinks he knows I&B better than the USGA Tech Research center. Or am I thinking of one of the others?

You are probably thinking of me. However, I think you've got the details wrong. From my experience hitting TopFlites a lonnnng lonnng way when I was young compared to not being able to control the Titleist balata balls, I concluded that the USGA was not giving us any data on such a comparison with their reports on the new balls. Eventually you wrote that the USGA had personally told you that because of the lack of spin the new ball would go about 25 yards longer than the old Titleists, thereby making me in complete agreement with the USGA. So, I didn't know better, I was in complete agreement.

[George Pazin]

A long time ago I made the decision not to sit for the USGA Rules Exam because my mind thinks logically and I have no chance of passing.

I know you're kidding, but I will say, JVB is one of the most logical thinkers I've ever met. I can't count how many times I've questioned the logic of a ruling and then read his explanation and found it eminently well-reasoned.

[Scott Warren]

Unless I have missed it buried in a post above, I can't believe no one has commented on the brilliant comedy of the thread title. Well played, Jerry!

[Jay Flemma]

I don't know if I agree with Jon's opinion.  He says give her the benefit of the doubt, but even with "discretion," the video is pretty clear...she sure didn't look unbalanced in the video...

I just know what I see on the video, and it looks damning...

[Brent Hutto]

A long time ago I made the decision not to sit for the USGA Rules Exam because my mind thinks logically and I have no chance of passing.

I know you're kidding, but I will say, JVB is one of the most logical thinkers I've ever met. I can't count how many times I've questioned the logic of a ruling and then read his explanation and found it eminently well-reasoned.

I guess it's the difference in "pure logic" vs. "conditional logic". If you're like John and have all the Rules and darned near all the Decisions committed to memory, using logic will get you through the situations that call for interpretation or interpolation. That logic but it is constrained by the actual Rules.

It's when you try to use "pure logic" and derived Rules and Decisions on the fly from first principles (rather than learning them) that you're doomed. For better or worse there have been arbitrary decisions made at every point in the history of the Rulebook and you can't recapitulate that process just by starting from "Play it down and putt it out" and working backwards from there.

[PThomas]

looks guilty as charged to me, and doesnt look like she was trying to balance herself either

[Garland Bayley]

looks guilty as charged to me, and doesnt look like she was trying to balance herself either

That's it. Throw out golf tradition. Let's turn this into a regular sport with referees. Make sure we get them some glasses with Coke bottle bottoms so the partisans can all jeer at them about their eyesight.
 

[George Pazin]

I guess it's the difference in "pure logic" vs. "conditional logic". If you're like John and have all the Rules and darned near all the Decisions committed to memory, using logic will get you through the situations that call for interpretation or interpolation. That logic but it is constrained by the actual Rules.

It's when you try to use "pure logic" and derived Rules and Decisions on the fly from first principles (rather than learning them) that you're doomed. For better or worse there have been arbitrary decisions made at every point in the history of the Rulebook and you can't recapitulate that process just by starting from "Play it down and putt it out" and working backwards from there.

Fascinating post by one of the other top logicians on the site. Gotta think about it a bit more.

[PThomas]

looks guilty as charged to me, and doesnt look like she was trying to balance herself either

That's it. Throw out golf tradition. Let's turn this into a regular sport with referees. Make sure we get them some glasses with Coke bottle bottoms so the partisans can all jeer at them about their eyesight.
 

you're entitled to your opinion and i am entitled to mine

why do some people need to get sarcastic right away when some people disagree with them?  whatever happened to reasonable dialogue?

[Garland Bayley]

I guess it's the difference in "pure logic" vs. "conditional logic". If you're like John and have all the Rules and darned near all the Decisions committed to memory, using logic will get you through the situations that call for interpretation or interpolation. That logic but it is constrained by the actual Rules.

It's when you try to use "pure logic" and derived Rules and Decisions on the fly from first principles (rather than learning them) that you're doomed. For better or worse there have been arbitrary decisions made at every point in the history of the Rulebook and you can't recapitulate that process just by starting from "Play it down and putt it out" and working backwards from there.

Fascinating post by one of the other top logicians on the site. Gotta think about it a bit more.

Logician? I thought he was a physicist! 

[Tim Nugent]

A) she  called it on herself, B) she took it up with the tournament committee and argued her case. (Happened to my daughter at her Sectional golf tournament - she prevailed - after an identical situation was outlined in the Decisions on the Rules of Golf, somehow I knew it but the on-course rules official didn't.  An erroneous ruling could have knocked her out of advancing to Regionals.  That is why they have a provision for aurguing the grey aeas of the Rules.  C) she was standing in water/mud, having just swung a golf club - who is to say what she felt pertaining to her balance?

I'm sure the Wie fan's will back her and the ones who think poorly of her will do the opposite.

[Matthew Rose]

I'm not sure I really understand her argument. She acknowledges grounding her club, and then spends 45 minutes trying to explain that she did it because she was un-balanced. Did she think she would get out of a penalty?

The rule seems pretty black and white to me.... yes, it's pretty harsh considering she was temporarily blinded by the water and would not have immediately known that her ball had failed to leave the hazard, but the club was absolutely grounded, there's no disputing that.

I think she should have just let it go. I felt like the more she talked, the less I sympathized with her.

[Brent Hutto]

I think she should have just let it go. I felt like the more she talked, the less I sympathized with her.

I think she was more concerned about the two strokes than gained sympathy. 

[Garland Bayley]

...
I think she should have just let it go. I felt like the more she talked, the less I sympathized with her.

JVB, probably the top rules official on this site, thinks differently than you. So much for that.

[Jud_T]

I'm on vacation in Oahu currently with the family.  Wiezy was front page news here BEFORE the incident.  You can only imagine what kind of coverage this is getting here now.....

[Garland Bayley]

looks guilty as charged to me, and doesnt look like she was trying to balance herself either

That's it. Throw out golf tradition. Let's turn this into a regular sport with referees. Make sure we get them some glasses with Coke bottle bottoms so the partisans can all jeer at them about their eyesight.
 

you're entitled to your opinion and i am entitled to mine

why do some people need to get sarcastic right away when some people disagree with them?  whatever happened to reasonable dialogue?

You are not disagreeing with me. You are assuming you know what was in the mind of Michelle Wie from watching a video of her. That means you are attributing yourself with God like characteristics. I always get sarcastic when people attribute themselves with God like characteristics. IMO playing God is not "reasonable dialogue".

[Jay Flemma]

Jud, I love your profile picture!  Is that "Lake Placid Blue?"

Matt, I agree with you.  I don't really understand why Jon would have let her have a pass under "discretion" unless the offense was so de minimus as to have no impact on play whatsoever.  The rule seems black and white:  you do this you get a two-stroke penalty.  Personally I would have been offended had she gotten away with it because it opens the doors to inconsistency going forward in applying the same rule to other competitors.

I also see where some are coming from that - in this case - it was a ticky-tack call.  But sadly, that's golf and that's what all agree to be bound by in the interests of universal fairness.

[PThomas]

looks guilty as charged to me, and doesnt look like she was trying to balance herself either

That's it. Throw out golf tradition. Let's turn this into a regular sport with referees. Make sure we get them some glasses with Coke bottle bottoms so the partisans can all jeer at them about their eyesight.
 

you're entitled to your opinion and i am entitled to mine

why do some people need to get sarcastic right away when some people disagree with them?  whatever happened to reasonable dialogue?

You are not disagreeing with me. You are assuming you know what was in the mind of Michelle Wie from watching a video of her. That means you are attributing yourself with God like characteristics. I always get sarcastic when people attribute themselves with God like characteristics. IMO playing God is not "reasonable dialogue".

lighten up , ii was just giving an opinion

you may continue if you want but i am done with this

[TEPaul]

“Quote from: Paul Thomas on Today at 09:49:52 AM
looks guilty as charged to me, and doesnt look like she was trying to balance herself either


That's it. Throw out golf tradition. Let's turn this into a regular sport with referees. Make sure we get them some glasses with Coke bottle bottoms so the partisans can all jeer at them about their eyesight.”



“You are not disagreeing with me. You are assuming you know what was in the mind of Michelle Wie from watching a video of her. That means you are attributing yourself with God like characteristics. I always get sarcastic when people attribute themselves with God like characteristics. IMO playing God is not "reasonable dialogue".”



Garland:

I’ve been wondering what point you’re trying to make with your two posts quoted above. In your opinion does it actually have anything to do with this Wie situation and how it was resolved?

[Garland Bayley]

“Quote from: Paul Thomas on Today at 09:49:52 AM
looks guilty as charged to me, and doesnt look like she was trying to balance herself either


That's it. Throw out golf tradition. Let's turn this into a regular sport with referees. Make sure we get them some glasses with Coke bottle bottoms so the partisans can all jeer at them about their eyesight.”



“You are not disagreeing with me. You are assuming you know what was in the mind of Michelle Wie from watching a video of her. That means you are attributing yourself with God like characteristics. I always get sarcastic when people attribute themselves with God like characteristics. IMO playing God is not "reasonable dialogue".”



Garland:

I’ve been wondering what point you’re trying to make with your two posts quoted above. In your opinion does it actually have anything to do with this Wie situation and how it was resolved?

Tom,

If you followed the thread closely and looked up JVB's comments on the ruling you would know that Michelle said she did it for balance, and that JVB thought the official overstepped in insisting on the penalty. In golf, the player is expected to act within the rules and call penalties on themselves. If you start having officials make the call, you are in the realm of the other sports that have referees. To continue to maintain a position in contradiction to what the player said seems to me to go against the spirit of golf and its rules. Unfortunately, lots of people chime in on threads without bothering to fully digest what has transpired. Perhaps that is the case here.

[Pete_Pittock]

JVB has much more tournament experience than I do, and has dealt with similar situations. Later on, watching a telecast replay I was lookng to see if she used the club for balance as she moved out of her stance which had the right foot in the water. They only showed about waist and above but from the angle of her hand and the grip of the club, she didn't appear she was using it for balancing purpose. I also heard an official say that all three of them agreed the grounding of the club did not fall under the rule's exception clause.

Garland,
Even though the incident happened at my club, I still have no knowledge of it. Usually I was volunteering and nowhere near the playing field.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
If you followed the thread closely and looked up JVB's comments on the ruling you would know that Michelle said she did it for balance, and that JVB thought the official overstepped in insisting on the penalty."



Garland:

Did JVB actually say he thought the official overstepped in insisting on the penalty?

[Gary Slatter]

It was a bogus penalty and not necessary IMHO.   I saw Arnie do the same thing at Doral 18 and it was not a penalty (no henious intent).   Golf does not need officials with whistles calling penalties.

Wie is going to the great player someday, she'll have be to shake her "luck".

[Jim Sweeney]

If you start having officials make the call, you are in the realm of the other sports that have referees.

Garland:
I understand your sentiment. However, if a rules official (or referee, in match play) sees and infraction, he must  act upon it. he has no choice, if he is a good rules official.
It is also true that sometimes players who know something about the rules try to take advantage of them. In watching the video of the Wie incident, I saw no indication that she was on the verge of slipping; just the opposite- she was disgusted by the shot, put her hand on her hip to pout, and droped the clubhead into the grass. Had she not done that, then used the club as a cane to help raise herself out of the muck, then there is no problem.
I see it happen all the time in amateur events. The rules official overexplains a rule before asking the right questions. For example, a rules offical might say, "you are penalized two shots for grounding your club in the hazard unless you were using the club as a cane to help with your balance." Guess what the player says next? "Well, that's what I was doing!" What then official should have askes was, "You dropped the club in the grass in the hazard. Why did you do that?"
I don't know if that was the case here. With all due respect to my good friend JVB, I have no doubt she deserved the penalty. And although one should take the player's sattement into account, one should not try to find ways to get him off the hook.