[Thomas Dai]

The film shows the 35th hole. I recall watching it 'on the box' and the incident I'm thinking of happened on the previous hole/tee so perhaps a bit of revenge on the 35th. There was a bit of niggle. In a TV interview the previous night prior to the match with both players the interviewer asked Gary how he was looking forward to the final and GP said something like "Well I've been in 4 finals and I've never lost one yet" to which GM, who was playing in his first final, when asked the same question replied akin to "Well I haven't lost one yet either"! The mind is a strange beastie though, so I might have it wrong.


Atb

[Chris Cupit]

There was nothing inadvertent or sloppy about the ball placement. She cheated.

Thank you for being the first to have the courage to say this.

Its good to be so clear about the intentions of others...I wish I had your powers. 


So we are clear, the rule seems to be that until a winner for a tournament is crowned, anybody from anywhere can raise a rules violation about any of the shots hit over 4 days.  Yep, I think its time this approach to running a tournament should be re-thought. One question though, why stop at when a winner is crowned?  Why can't a victory be potentially stripped from someone a day, a week or a year after the event?  If the issue is getting the correct ruling and time sensitivity is secondary, what is the logic in saying its fine that someone cheated once the cheques are handed out, but not if it was 30 minutes earlier?


Ciao

Sean,


I can assure you a lot of thought has gone into this by lots of people who run lots of events.  Again, you can run any type of tournament you wish and you can play by whatever standards or rules you wish.  Nothing compels you, the PGA or the LPGA to play by any particular set of rules.


The USGA and R & A have a series of decisions based on their Rules.  I am guessing few people have read them based on the comments in this post.  And they have clearly established deadlines as to when penalties can and cannot be imposed and they vary greatly based on the form of play.


In stroke play the notion is that you have a large number of competitors and the committee must do all it can to make sure everyone plays by the rules.  Lacking drones overhead watching every shot, there is no way to see everything.  While the game has a tradition of players calling penalties on themselves and fellow competitors "protecting the field" this quaint notion seems to be going away as attested to by some of the greats of the game who acknowledge that there seems to be a "professional code" and way of handling things that are outside the rules as written.


Back to the time limits--most stroke play events you watch on TV happen to be 72 holes and played over 4 days though the overwhelming number of stroke play events (at least in the US) are one day 18 hole events.  Sometimes more than 18 holes is played each day.  I played many events with 36 hole days and in college we had two days of 27 holes at times.  The point is that having a "deadline" "after a round is over" is more arbitrary than you think and opens another can of worms.


Some deadline had to be picked and is.  In fact the Rules are full of lots of deadlines and how they effect the competition--deadlines in stroke play include when a stipulated round starts and stops, when a scorecard is considered returned and therefore when corrections can be made, and when penalties may or may not be imposed by a committee using The Rules.  Please read them--they are actually well thought out and have a logic to them. 


If a breach of a rule comes up that will effect the result of the entire (72 hole) competition, why should it be ignored just because it happens between rounds or on different days?  In a professional competition if a player clearly got away with an unnoticed breach in round 2 that allows him to win after round 4, are you really doing them any favors by not holding them accountable to the rules everyone else agreed to play by?  Just as a stipulated round is 18 holes a competition you are referring to is 72 holes--not 4 days, 3 days or whatever else.  By this logic (not having a deadline at the end of all holes played), anything is possible--after sunset, after the round is over and scorecard signed, after the next shot is played.....


As to this question you raise, "One question though, why stop at when a winner is crowned?  Why can't a victory be potentially stripped from someone a day, a week or a year after the event?  If the issue is getting the correct ruling and time sensitivity is secondary, what is the logic in saying its fine that someone cheated once the cheques are handed out, but not if it was 30 minutes earlier?"

In fact, if it is determined that a player knowingly breached the rules and simply tried to get away with it, i.e. cheated, the decision of the USGA/R&A is that there is indeed NO TIME LIMIT and by their rules, you should go back and grab the trophy.  I think many sports have stripped "champions" who later (even years later) were found to have cheated.  I don't see what is so shocking here.


There is a clear deadline too that prohibits the committee from imposing any penalty after the competition is over for a player who unknowingly breached a rule or unknowingly signed a wrong score card or failed to sign it.  If the committee has not caught the breach by then, it is too late and according to the rules, that player is the "rightful winner".

[MClutterbuck]

Erik, this is incorrect. The Rules of Golf did allow for the two-stroke option since the committee had intervened already. This was not unprecedented and covered by prior decisions.

IIRC they hadn't talked to him. They "intervened" without actually intervening at all. It was all a little fishy. I was the guy who called after his post-round conference and helped ultimately add the extra two shots for playing from a wrong place. David Eger had called while Tiger was still on the course, when the committee supposedly decided his drop was okay. But they never talked to him about it… that was my point. Had they, they might have discovered he deserved the two strokes right away, and so my efforts wouldn't have been needed. As it turned out, he too signed an incorrect scorecard. He got away with it because the committee had supposedly decided (without talking to him about it) that his drop was okay. His post-round comments put them up a creek…

Erik, I agree with what you are stating in this post 100%, the "intervention" is not auditable by us and could be found suspect by folks. But to be clear, assuming the intervention ocurred, then the ruling is fine.

[Bruce Katona]

Now onto 12 pages....this is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.......the LPGA got their 15 minutes of free press on this issue and now we're off the an event where TMOTM would head over to Butler Cabin, have a libation, declare a ruling, and move on if this were to occur this weekend.


If the PGA/USGA/CBS don't like their ruling, if this were to occur, they'll just invite whomever they like this time next year to their annual 6 day outing in early April....gotta think the guys wearing the green sport coats would throw together some small change gathered from their couches for the lads to have a little friendly wager over.

[MClutterbuck]

The LPGA video should be watched.  Many of the other videos end showing Lexi's hand moving back down towards the ball. That is poor editing and does not happen when you watch the entire sequence.

I think that is just the video going back and forth over a loop and they chose to cut it there. I am not sure she replaced the ball once more. But what I was trying to see is if she marked and replaced the ball prior to the incident, then took her stance, then marked again.

[Pete_Pittock]

Open letter to the "professional" golfers on the PGA Tour.
 
            Do your job. You are professionals. One of the papers you are given says USGA Rules apply, or R&A Rules apply. That means all the Rules of Golf. Those words are capitalized. Do we need to put them in boldface, or underline them? It's not some of the Rules, it is all of the rules. It is all of the rules, not the ones you agree with. It is all the rules, not the minor - it didn't affect the results types that some overlook..
            If you have a rule book, open it to Rule 1-3. As you may not own a copy of the rule book, borrow one. It will only cost you a dollar or so. Rule 1-3 is  Agreement to Waive Rules. It reads "Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred."  There does not have to be a verbal agreement, tacit approval by failing to call penalties is enough. The penalty is Disqualification.
            Some of your players implied or said that some of you are lax when replacing the ball under Rule 18-2.  This needs to stop. I'm not worried about the replacement error which can only be detected by HDTV, just replace it to the best of your ability. You have great hand/eye coordination when you play or shot, use it in replacing the ball. 
            While I'm at it, you might want to check out Rule 22, Ball Interfering or Assisting With Play, when you play a shot with another near the hole. Before you put the rulebook away, or return it, look at Rule 6-6d and read every word. Also check out Rule 34, it is short. If you know you committed a penalty and did not include it on the scorecard there is no time limit. If you witness a penalty and do not let the player know, there is no time limit. 
           
             With your actions you are making it harder on your club professionals to administer a club tournament.
             With your actions you are making it harder on golf associations to administer local, state and regional competitions.


You job title is Golf Professional. Be professional. Protect the field. It may hurt your stats, but in the end the same people will continue winning. as the playing field remained even.   

[Pat Burke]

Open letter to the "professional" golfers on the PGA Tour.
 
            Do your job. You are professionals. One of the papers you are given says USGA Rules apply, or R&A Rules apply. That means all the Rules of Golf. Those words are capitalized. Do we need to put them in boldface, or underline them. It's not some of the Rules, it is all of the rules. It is all of the rules, not the ones you agree with. It is all the rules, not the minor - it didn't affect the results types.
            If you have a rule book, open it to Rule 1-3. As you may not own a copy of the rule book, borrow one. It will only cost you a dollar or so. Rule 1-3 is  Agreement to Waive Rules. It reads "Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred."  There does not have to be a verbal agreement, tacit approval by failing to call penalties is enough. The penalty is Disqualification.
            Some of your players implied or said that some of you are lax when replacing the ball under Rule 18-2. This needs to stop.
I'm not worried about the replacement error which can only be detected by HDTV, just replace it to the best of your ability.
You have great hand/eye coordination when you play or shot, use it in replacing the ball. 
            While I'm at it, you might want to check out Rule 22, Ball Interfering or Assisting With Play, when you play a shot with another near the hole.
             Before you put the rulebook away, or return it, look at Rule 6-6d and read every word. Also check out Rule 34, it is short.
If you know you committed a penalty and did not include it on the scorecard there is no time limit. If you witness a penalty and do not let the player know, there is no time limit. 
           
             With your actions you are making it harder on your club professionals to administer a club tournament.
             With your actions you are making it harder on golf associations to administer local, state and regional competitions.


You job title is Golf Professional. Be professional. Protect the field. It may hurt your stats, but in the end the same people will continue winning. as the playing field remained even.

Have to say, I like it!

[noonan]

In fact, if it is determined that a player knowingly breached the rules and simply tried to get away with it, i.e. cheated, the decision of the USGA/R&A is that there is indeed NO TIME LIMIT and by their rules, you should go back and grab the trophy.  I think many sports have stripped "champions" who later (even years later) were found to have cheated.  I don't see what is so shocking here.

Years later? You realize this would have people watching old telecasts trying to see if anyone needs a penalty assessed.


Cheated means they intended to play their ball from a better spot. I do not believe Lexi cheated.

[Chris Cupit]

In fact, if it is determined that a player knowingly breached the rules and simply tried to get away with it, i.e. cheated, the decision of the USGA/R&A is that there is indeed NO TIME LIMIT and by their rules, you should go back and grab the trophy.  I think many sports have stripped "champions" who later (even years later) were found to have cheated.  I don't see what is so shocking here.

Years later? You realize this would have people watching old telecasts trying to see if anyone needs a penalty assessed.


Cheated means they intended to play their ball from a better spot. I do not believe Lexi cheated.

First I have NEVER said Lexi cheated.  No one can know and earlier I explained that if the officials in charge felt there may have been intent on her part, then they would have been obligated to ASK HER.  From the video I saw, there was never a question in the officials minds as to whether they felt Lexi "cheated".  In fact, when Lexi said she must have made a mistake, the rules official is quick to confirm that no one was questioning her intent and they agreed it must have been an oversight/honest mistake in replacing her ball.


Whether she had intent or not though, the way the Rules of Golf exist today, she was properly assessed four penalty strokes given the timing of when the breach was noticed and brought to the committee's attention and then to her attention.


Now, I will try this again for those wishing to review old tape:


1.  After the competition is closed the committee can only disqualify a player who KNOWINGLY ignored a Rule.  Just finding a breach on video tape is not enough after the end of the competition. 


So, if you find a breach and can track down the player and they admit (yes, even 25 years later) that they KNEW they had "cheated" and their conscience has finally persuaded them to admit it, then YES--go get that trophy back. 


Read Rule 34.  Actually here it is (abridged slightly):


34-1b  Stroke Play
In stroke play, a penalty must not be rescinded, modified or imposed after the competition is closed.  (I deleted the sentences describing when a competition is closed but for our purposes this means when the trophy is presented).


Exceptions:  A penalty of disqualification must be imposed after the competition has closed if a competitor:
     i.  was in breach of Rule 1-3 (Agreement  to Waive Rule)(this assumes knowledge)[size=78%] : or[/size]
     ii.  returned a score card on which he had recorded a handicap that, before the competition closed, he KNEW was higher than that to which he was entitled, AND this affected the number of strokes received (Rule 6-2b); or
     iii.  returned a score for any hole lower than actually taken (6-6d) for any reason other than failure to include one or more penalty strokes that, before the competition closed, he did not know he had incurred; or
     iv.  KNEW, before the competition closed, that he had been in breach of any other Rule for which the penalty is disqualification. 


One moral of this story is to be completely ignorant of the rules and all their penalties, or at least claim as much, and then if you get "caught" on video after the competition is closed, you are safe

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Thank you for  your previous post, it sums up nearly everything I've thought the past couple of days... nearly.

First, I have had it with the idea that in the "Game of Honor," the surest way to branded an asshole is to know the rules and expect people to play by them.

"Golf is the only game in the world in which a precise knowledge of the rules can earn one a reputation for bad sportsmanship." - Patrick Campbell, How to Become a Scratch Golfer

Once a round is completed, that should be that.

It's a 72-hole event. I disagree.

I agree, there are a few different issues in play.  I am not concerned about the actual infraction.  I am concerned as to where the source witness for the infraction came and more importantly, when the penalty is assessed.  I am for fair rules which are consistently applied.  IMO, it is unacceptable to assess a penalty half way through the next day's round then tack on 2 shots for incorrectly signed card.  This is neither fair nor consistent simply because the source of the info is random and the timing is very late.  If a tourny is going to be seen a legitimately administered, this aspect of random people calling infractions is well out of bounds.

That makes no sense. I completely disagree.

It's the responsibility of the player to play by the rules and sign for a correct score. Lexi failed to do so, so the integrity of the competition had to be increased by someone else pointing out her failure to comply with the rules.

Erik, I agree with what you are stating in this post 100%, the "intervention" is not auditable by us and could be found suspect by folks. But to be clear, assuming the intervention ocurred, then the ruling is fine.

Yes, I agree.

I agree, too, with what Chris Cupit has said throughout this topic.

[Jim_Coleman]

    Thanks Pete.  I've been on the failing to mark one's ball to help a competitor issue for years, and have been mocked for it here.  The problem is now coming into the light.  The players will never police it.  I suggest a tour local rule - if one player's ball is within 10 yards of the green, and a competitor's ball is within 10 feet of the hole, the ball on the green must be marked.  No, I don't think this will materially slow up play.

[MClutterbuck]

Well, we got what most of us suggested here. Video evidence will not be used for minor violations. Good step.


The marking is still awful.

[jim_lewis]

I have a solution to the viewer call in/email to bring attention to a rules violation. I have not heard it mentioned before.


The caller/emailer should be publically identified. If the person who ratted on Lexi thought they would be outed, chances are they would not have exposed themselves  to the abuse and embarrassment that would likely result. Do that a couple of times and the problem will evaporate.


 

[Jerry Kluger]

The Nordqvist penalty was far more obvious and I wondered why the TV tried to minimize it.  I happened to be watching it live and I said to my son the moment that it happened that she grounded her club as it was obvious that sand came up on her backswing. From the side it looks far less significant but think about the shape of a golf club - it is curved on the bottom so only part of it would touch but a typical iron has a back edge that would bring up sand on a backswing. The tv people repeatedly showed the side view while the view from the back made it obvious, at least to me.

[Mike_Clayton]

Jim


Lexi should be given the callers/viewers number so she can call and thank him/her for bringing the infraction to light before it was too late.
It'd have been unimaginably worse had it been Monday.

[jeffwarne]

Jim


Lexi should be given the callers/viewers number so she can call and thank him/her for bringing the infraction to light before it was too late.
It'd have been unimaginably worse had it been Monday.

Why? Unimaginably worse?


People either think she cheated, or they don't.
Most would see that she won by four, assume she should've been penalized 2 shots, and move on.
Those who think she cheated would've been , and are, unhappy either way.


I've read today's "ruling/interpretation" twice, and I'm still confused.
Seems to me they still continue to empower the caller on the couch-just perhaps in more limited circumstances.
It's a game of honor.
Anyone who routinely marks as Lexi did would be taken care of by the players eventually.
Golf is great because it gives the player, not some clown on the couch, the benefit of the doubt.

[JESII]

I think they simply made it easier for the rules officials to approach the player the same as they have with the last three high profile incidents, DJ, Nordquist and Lexi and show them what happened and ask the player to decide. In each of these, the officials made the ruling more or less without the players input which is not in the underlying intention of a rules official.


All three penalties would remain if that is the case because none of them are deniable at the point that video is introduced.

[George Pazin]

Sad responses. I weep for the world.


I like Mike C's and Sully's.



Oh well, why should golf be any different?

[Thomas Dai]

The marking is still awful.

Fair point.

I wonder though if height of cut and speed of the putting surface now almost inhibit replacing a marked ball in exactly the same spot? Wouldn't it be easier to replace a ball in a slightly higher height of cut, ie a better chance of the ball staying in it's spot rather than moving around?

Atb

[Sean_A]

Erik...my logic makes perfect sense if pay attention.

Chris

IMO this is a crazy situation.  The problem isn't the rule.  Its the application of the rule which is (was?) ludicrous.  Its hard to say the ball wasn't misplaced...intent has nothing to do with it.  The issues are

1. Is the penalty calling system the same for all golfers.  The answer is an emphatic no. TV replay should be used for all golfers equally or not at all. This is quite a basic concept in reffing/umping sports...all contestants are treated equally.

2. Should penalties be called after the start of play the next day?  The answer should be an emphatic no for obvious reasons.  It is not protecting the field when the field doesn't know if the posted scores are accurate prior to the next day's play.  Players set goals based on previous scores and so calling a next day penalty can actually screw up game plans for players.

3. Should a 2 shot penalty be tacked on for signing a wrong card when a penalty wasn't called prior to the card being signed.  The answer should be an emphatic no for obvious reasons.  Its hard to justify a 2 shot penalty for unknowingly signing for an incorrect card for an infraction which is only detected the following day using a system not applied to all contestants.   

This should be basic stuff in the rules of tournament golf....consistency and equal application of the rules IS rules 101....its no brainer stuff.  At most, it should have been a 2 shot penalty if called prior to play commencing the next day.  At the very least, there should be no tv review until they can figure out a way to apply the system consistently and equally. 
Ciao

[Josh Stevens]

I confess I am confused at the support for Lexi.  As one pro golfer said - none of this would have happened had she mastered the art of replacing the ball on the same spot.

She deserved 2 shots as she broke a rule - but 4 shots I agree is harsh and would not stand up in any court as it was not an incorrect card at the time she signed it and only became incorrect by the actions of the rules officials afterward.

But there is lots of precedent for penalties after the fact - simply look at the cases where athletes have been stripped  of medals etc for drug offences years afterward.  Now that of course is an extreme example and cant be compared to moving a ball one inch, but the point is, where does one draw the line?

The question is not one of whether she broke a rule - she did - but rather what the officials do about it once they knew.  Once they know then they cant simply ignore it - the box has been opened and cant be shut.  They have to make a choice - to do something or not to do something?  If they decide not to do something then they have to explain why they didn't and there are only two possible justifications, one that its too late, or two that it was not a material breach. 

The first of those is nor fair to the rest of the field and the other is just plain wrong.

They chose the least bad option and should be applauded.  Lexi on the other hand needs to go away and practice placing her ball.

[Mike_Clayton]

Jeff


Unimaginably worse because what no one can know is how the extra two shots may have impacted her play and the play of others the next day. The pressure shifts completely when you are two ahead and not four and two behind and not four. Who is to say she would have won by two? Who can say she would have birdied 13 and 15 is the issue had not come up? No way of knowing. So Yeon Ryu was tied when she played 18 and played safely left and made 4. If she is one behind maybe she goes at the flag with a 5 rescue - not an unreasonable shot - knowing she probably needs a three. Maybe she makes an eagle.
The maths are Lexi would have won by two but championship golf is decided my more than pure maths. It's decided by pressure and the pressure is entirely different when the scores are different.
Maybe Greg Norman would have won the 1996 Masters is he'd been one behind Faldo and not six ahead on Saturday night. If Greg was one behind and not level with Nicklaus on 18 in the '86 Masters does he hit it 30 yards right? I'll bet not.

[jeffwarne]

Erik...my logic makes perfect sense if pay attention.

Chris

IMO this is a crazy situation.  The problem isn't the rule.  Its the application of the rule which is (was?) ludicrous.  Its hard to say the ball wasn't misplaced...intent has nothing to do with it.  The issues are

1. Is the penalty calling system the same for all golfers.  The answer is an emphatic no. TV replay should be used for all golfers equally or not at all. This is quite a basic concept in reffing/umping sports...all contestants are treated equally.

2. Should penalties be called after the start of play the next day?  The answer should be an emphatic no for obvious reasons.  It is not protecting the field when the field doesn't know if the posted scores are accurate prior to the next day's play.  Players set goals based on previous scores and so calling a next day penalty can actually screw up game plans for players.

3. Should a 2 shot penalty be tacked on for signing a wrong card when a penalty wasn't called prior to the card being signed.  The answer should be an emphatic no for obvious reasons.  Its hard to justify a 2 shot penalty for unknowingly signing for an incorrect card for an infraction which is only detected the following day using a system not applied to all contestants.   

This should be basic stuff in the rules of tournament golf....consistency and equal application of the rules IS rules 101....its no brainer stuff.  At most, it should have been a 2 shot penalty if called prior to play commencing the next day.  At the very least, there should be no tv review until they can figure out a way to apply the system consistently and equally. 
Ciao

+1

[jeffwarne]

Jeff


Unimaginably worse because what no one can know is how the extra two shots may have impacted her play and the play of others the next day. The pressure shifts completely when you are two ahead and not four and two behind and not four. Who is to say she would have won by two? Who can say she would have birdied 13 and 15 is the issue had not come up? No way of knowing. So Yeon Ryu was tied when she played 18 and played safely left and made 4. If she is one behind maybe she goes at the flag with a 5 rescue - not an unreasonable shot - knowing she probably needs a three. Maybe she makes an eagle.
The maths are Lexi would have won by two but championship golf is decided my more than pure maths. It's decided by pressure and the pressure is entirely different when the scores are different.
Maybe Greg Norman would have won the 1996 Masters is he'd been one behind Faldo and not six ahead on Saturday night. If Greg was one behind and not level with Nicklaus on 18 in the '86 Masters does he hit it 30 yards right? I'll bet not.

Yes, how one stands affects how one may or not play-especially if your name is Greg Norman, but if the incident had been discovered the day after there would've been some logic to the outcome.
i.e. the competition was closed and it was over-as every round should be after the card is signed.
Additionally Lexi would NOT have been a sympathetic figure which is probably the correct outcome.

[Mike_Clayton]

Jeff


But it's a 72 hole competition made up of 4 x 18 holes. No matter when it comes up anything pre the 72nd hole should be admissible. Post is more problematic obviously.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()