Play it as it Lies

[JESII]

But the bank robbery is only fitting in the context of, she packed her things to go rob a bank and got lost on the way. This is not analogous with getting into the vault only to find it empty.

She forced her way into the bank vault, picked up a gold bar and put it in her bag but it fell out and landed where she took it from?

Disagree because I don't think she ever actually effected the grass the way she was trying to.


Before they allowed tapping down spike marks, if you attempted to tap one down and you missed it, were you penalized?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Every attempt was made to gain an undue advantage but she didn't gain one.

Really? Every attempt? She pretty gently pushed it away, and it immediately sprung back. She didn't step on it. She didn't tap it down. She didn't do anything except push it lightly enough that it sprung right back.

I'm not a Lexi fan. Her treatment of the rules officials for the penalty she got at the ANA for replacing her ball almost an inch away from where it was soured me quite a bit, and she deserved that penalty. She deserved the other one as well, and I've not particularly enjoyed her Instagram stuff. I try to keep in mind that she's young, but she's been playing golf for a long time, so while the age excuses the Instagram stuff, it doesn't excuse the competitive stuff.

I just don't see this as that: she gently pushed a tuft of grass, it rebounded immediately, and she played on. There was no rules infraction, as explained by the R&A, John VDB, and the Rules themselves.

I also learned this week that you can test the condition of a bunker as many times as you want… so long as you do it with your feet. I'm far, far more dismayed at that revelation than anything relating to this Lexi Thompson business, particularly since she didn't even make the cut and it had no bearing on the tournament at all.

[Niall C]

Actually Erik, gently or not she had two goes at moving the grass so in my mind at least there is no doubt that she was attempting to improve her lie. It was a deliberate act and had she accomplished what she intended, it would have been a breach of the rules. To be generous, maybe it didn't occur to her at the time that what she was attempting to do was against the rules, although something like that should be second nature to a professional I'd have thought. We all have mental lapses and perhaps this was one. If it was she'd be doing herself a huge favour by holding her hand up and acknowledging what happened. 


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

An aside .....
Some pro's, Annika being one, took the time to pass the various tests to become high level rules official. A smart move imo.
Perhaps passing such tests should be a condition of entry to pro (and elite amateur?) competitions? Maybe even include those caddying at the highest elite level too?
I wonder if some of the participants, no names, are bright enough to actually pass the tests though?
atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Actually Erik, gently or not she had two goes at moving the grass so in my mind at least there is no doubt that she was attempting to improve her lie.

I'm only saying this: she failed at improving her lie, thus, there was no penalty. The ruling under the current Rules was correct.

I'm not getting into whether Lexi Thompson failed humanity at this point, or even if she failed golf or herself. I don't know what she was doing. If anything, maybe she just blanks out and doesn't pay attention. It might explain the replacing her ball gaffe, too. I don't know.

It was a deliberate act and had she accomplished what she intended, it would have been a breach of the rules.

I agree, but again, she didn't "accomplish what she intended," and I don't know what she intended to do, and neither do you. I agree you can make a pretty good assumption, but you don't truly know. You don't have "virtual certainty" (a 95% threshold or so) or "beyond a reasonable doubt" here.

This isn't one of the rules where intent really matters. Was the lie improved? No? No penalty.


To Thomas, I used to think similarly, but playing the sport is a different skill entirely than being a rules official. I would think if I were on the Tour I might pay my caddie to go learn the Rules really well (he might save me a few shots a year), and I'd learn at least the basics. But I'm out on "requiring" them to pass a test, unless it's some very basic stuff, and if it's very basic, what's the point?

[JESII]

"Every" as in sincere, true.


Not "Every" as in all possible alternatives.


Example, in use; Erik made every attempt to not argue for the sake of arguing, but failed miserably...



Thank you!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Example, in use; Erik made every attempt to not argue for the sake of arguing, but failed miserably...

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. Arguing to point out that the rules were properly applied.

Lexi should be careful. She's in danger of getting a reputation if she doesn't have it already. But this wasn't a penalty. Both things can be true.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

I haven't seen anyone dispute that it wasn't a penalty...with the way the rule is currently written. 

The issue is the rule comes up woefully short as she clearly had intent AND made a deliberate attempt to improve her lie.

Using the bank analogy, this is the equivalent of her breaking into the bank, banging a sledge hammer on the vault door and then abandoning the job because it was unsuccessful.

P.S.  In last weeks US Amateur where the caddie...not the player....tested the sand and the player never got anywhere near the ball, much less take a shot...and he still was penalized by loss of hole, Lexi's act seems far worse in comparison.

[Thomas Dai]

To Thomas, I used to think similarly, but playing the sport is a different skill entirely than being a rules official. I would think if I were on the Tour I might pay my caddie to go learn the Rules really well (he might save me a few shots a year), and I'd learn at least the basics. But I'm out on "requiring" them to pass a test, unless it's some very basic stuff, and if it's very basic, what's the point?

Thanks Erik. If I were on tour or an elite amateur I'd want my caddy to know the Rules intimately and I would certainly follow Annika's lead myself. And go through the process regularly as well to ensure I am up to date.
Not sure it would look good for golf and the golf authorities were a rules issue to arise in full view of a story hungry media and it became obvious that the player concerned didn't even know the Rules properly. A prominent player becoming a laughing stock or subject to ridicule, which social media is so apt at these days, wouldn't look good to sponsors and wouldn't make the tour officials and the like look to good either. Mind the tour authorities seem to have been pretty good at brushing some, some, things under the carpet when it's suited them over the years.
Generally it's amazing how many elite sportsmen/women don't seem to know the Rules of their sport.
atb


PS - I see that John Paramor and Andy McFee will soon be retiring as Rules Officials primarily on the European Tour - see https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/news/john-paramor-retiring-rules-seve-cheats/ and https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/news/john-paramor-interview-2019-rules-of-golf/

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Using the bank analogy, this is the equivalent of her breaking into the bank, banging a sledge hammer on the vault door and then abandoning the job because it was unsuccessful.

IMO that analogy fails too. She didn't cause damage to anything like you would "banging on a vault door." She pushed a tuft of grass out of the way and it immediately rebounded. She played her shot, and even after that happened, the tuft of grass was still there.

I don't like coming up with analogies, but maybe it's more like she went to the grocery store and tried to use a coupon for free milk, but when the coupon scanner didn't credit her for the free milk because she didn't buy $50 worth of groceries or whatever, she just paid for the milk. That analogy is probably bad too, but I think people are getting pretty far out there. Some of golf's rules allow you to "do something" and then say "oops, that wasn't right" and correct it. In this case, she didn't have to correct it because the grass rebounded.

Rather than an analogy, let's try coming up with a likely poor hypothetical. Let's say a player takes an unplayable lie and intends to cheat (which we can't often know, but for the sake of this argument, let's say we do know), and takes a bad/illegal drop. The player then has a change of conscience and corrects his drop. Is he subject to the same vitriol as Lexi Thompson? Both situations resulted in adherence to the rules after an initial attempt to "cheat" (which in the Lexi case is still an assumption).

P.S.  In last weeks US Amateur where the caddie...not the player....tested the sand and the player never got anywhere near the ball, much less take a shot...and he still was penalized by loss of hole, Lexi's act seems far worse in comparison.

So, not actually breaking the rules is "far worse" than actually breaking the rules?


Anyway, not sure what any of this has to do with GCA. Ran doesn't love when we talk about the off-topic stuff, as far as I understand things. So I'm going to try to slow down a bit here as I've said my bit.

[Bernie Bell]

Thank goodness they changed the rules after the ANA travesty so at least now the armchair rules officials are confined to the internet and can't actually influence outcomes.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Thank goodness they changed the rules after the ANA travesty so at least now the armchair rules officials are confined to the internet and can't actually influence outcomes.

To the surprise of nobody, I still disagree with that one.   I'd prefer whatever is closer to the "truth" be the way things go, not the truth depending on who happened to see it.

[Bernie Bell]

Thank goodness they changed the rules after the ANA travesty so at least now the armchair rules officials are confined to the internet and can't actually influence outcomes.

To the surprise of nobody, I still disagree with that one.   I'd prefer whatever is closer to the "truth" be the way things go, not the truth depending on who happened to see it.

Who determines "the truth"?  Who determines who's a "cheater"?  A push poll of armchair critics on Twitter?  What's wrong with sitting back and enjoying the best players in the world battling over a legendary course, and leaving the rulings to rules officials and the players inside the ropes?  Or should the tours assign drones to hover over each player for every second of all four rounds?

[Brian_Ewen]

I can't keep up ...


Is it still a penalty if I remove an OB post, but replace it before I hit my shot?

[JESII]

Not if the wind blows it back into the hole...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Who determines "the truth"?

The "truth" in this context is what actually happened. So if someone breaches the rules, and only someone watching on TV saw it, I'd prefer that the "truth" be represented and not just ignored because nobody in person saw it who is willing to say "yeah, he did this and this."

A push poll of armchair critics on Twitter?

When has a viewer call-in ever actually assessed the penalty? Never. Hasn't happened. What they have done is point out a breach from time to time that the on-site rules officials, the Committee, etc. can review and act upon.

This is even further off topic, so I tried to keep these short.

[Thomas Dai]

A point mentioned in discussion by a golfing non-poster herein.
If there is an attempt at deceit in order to gain an advantage, like ‘iffy’ or ‘attempted iffy’ actions in a pro golf tournament, and money, ie prize money, is involved is that fraud?
The same person then added that attempted murder is a crime as is attempted robbery as is attempted bribery as is attempting to pervert the course of justice!
There were no real lawyers nearby so it was very much an armchair, barrack room lawyer type comment but knowing a more realistic position would be nice.
Don’t shoot the messenger! Repeat, don’t shoot the messenger!
Atb

[JESII]

Golf rules appear to be written differently than those you reference.

[Kalen Braley]

Everyone talks about Rule 8, but assuming the Rules Makers decided to put the most important stuff first... 

How about Rule 1, specifically the section on "Purpose of Rule" and Rule 1.2? In the very first bullet of the rule book, they call out "'play the ball as it lies".  Were her actions in "the spirit of the game" as called out in the 2nd bullet?

Are these meaningless, even thou its literally the very first things they mention in the Rule Book?

[Jon Wiggett]

Indeed Jim, in this case the rule deals with what actually happened not the intent which is what riles many of the posters here.

[Lou_Duran]

I can't keep up ...


Is it still a penalty if I remove an OB post, but replace it before I hit my shot?

No, unless you replace it with a different OB post, the original post if broken can't be substantially repaired, or if you fail to replace it in the same original position, then it's the GP.


Now that I have seen the video, I still believe that the ruling was correct, doubt that the young lady was trying to cheat, but think that she has developed some very poor habits that I see quite often in causal play.

[Rob Marshall]

Since it wasn’t in her line she should have ripped it out to see which way the wind was blowing

[Sean_A]

Knowing the rules is an interesting concept. Is there another major sport where high level players don't seem to know the rules as well as they should? It's fairly obvious it is necessary to have an excellent command of the rules to compete in most sports. I definitely think the complicated rules of golf make it difficult to know the rules nearly as well as the adjudicator. But it does seem strange for a self policing sport that high level players don't seem to have a very good command of the rules. It may not be as advantageous as other sports, but it certainly would help.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Knowing the rules is an interesting concept. Is there another major sport where high level players don't seem to know the rules as well as they should?

I doubt football players know most of the rules. They'll know the basics, but so do golfers. A wide receiver may not know all the rules regarding stuff that is mostly about special teams, or rules that linemen have to deal with, or anything regarding defense (except as it pertains to penalties committed against them).Thing is, though, in almost every other sport… there are people paid to understand and apply the rules. In golf, that's most often the golfer, and they can bring in assistance on special occasions. The vast majority of golf is conducted without a rules official checking over everything.

It's fairly obvious it is necessary to have an excellent command of the rules to compete in most sports.

Is it though?

I definitely think the complicated rules of golf make it difficult to know the rules nearly as well as the adjudicator.

I don't think golf's rules are all that complicated, and I feel like most golfers at a reasonably high level actually do have a higher command of the Rules than their equivalents in other sports.I mean, the rules for hockey in the NHL are 233 pages long (inclusive of title pages, etc.):https://nhl.bamcontent.com/images/assets/binary/308893668/binary-file/file.pdfThere are going to be some obscure bits in there, and the rules for many sports are a LOT more subjective than golf's rules. But mainly, again, players get to outsource knowing the rules to officials. They only have to know enough so that they can play their position without (being caught) breaching the rules.

P.S. Heck, the rules for soccer are 144 pages: https://img.fifa.com/image/upload/datdz0pms85gbnqy4j3k.pdf
If you understand how to tackle, how to not go offsides, and a few rules about handballs and when the goalie can pick up the ball, you've got most of the situations down. Just like golf: a little knowledge covers the vast majority of your rounds of golf.

So, I'm never going to say players shouldn't know the rules. They all should, not for the least bit because it can help them. But I think you're under-estimating the rules knowledge of many golfers and over-estimating it in other sports.

[Niall C]

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