[Bernie Bell]

Sean,

We've already conceded that she attempted to cheat and failed, and this is the #1 issue as it pertains to the very first Rule in golf.

P.S.  This sequence occurred on the only hole she birdied on day 1, are you sure she didn't gain any advantage?

BS.  "We" haven't conceded anything.  You and others have inferred that she attempted to cheat.  Careful . . . .  it gets slippery on that self-righteous slope.  Four pages of censorious commentary on a player who didn't make the cut.  Relevance to GCA nil.  Basis in fact to infer "cheating" intent nil.  Again, thank goodness they did away with the armchair rules officials phoning in.  Blight on the sport.

Bernie

I don't think it self-righteous to scrutinise the actions of a player who appears to have such a cavalier attitude to the rules. To not scutinise or hold them to account just enables them to continue what they are doing. And as others have said before, it's not the armchair punters who making the ruling, it's the rules officials. To follow your line of thinking, unless a rules official witnesses something first hand they can't call a ruling on it. Now that would be BS.

Niall

Niall - Scrutiny is one thing - did she break the rule or not?  Fair enough.  Those on this board who know far more than I say she did not.  Scrutinise the rule then?  Again, fair enough.  But labelling LT a "cheat" -- the worst thing you can say about a golfer -- is total BS.  There's no fair basis for anyone here to infer she intended to "cheat."  And my line of thinking is not at all that "unless a rules official witnesses it, there's not foul."  That's absurd.  My line of thinking is that you leave the rulings to the rules officials and the players and caddies inside the ropes.  You don't make rulings on the basis of phone calls 24 hours after the fact from armchair hi-def slo-mo rules jockeys.  As it happens, I believe my line of thinking matches up with the rules as they stand, and I believe they were changed precisely because of the ANA travesty. 

[Mike_Clayton]

Bernie


I'm not sure the ANA was a  "travesty"
Until that year (or perhaps the one previous) she wouldn't have even finished the round.
She clearly moved the ball.
Only she knows her intent (the same as at Troon) - but it's not hard to put the ball back in the same place and it's inexcusable to move it as far as she did.


And, would the reaction have been the same if it'd been a Korean player? I suspect not.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

We've already conceded that she attempted to cheat and failed, and this is the #1 issue as it pertains to the very first Rule in golf.

P.S.  This sequence occurred on the only hole she birdied on day 1, are you sure she didn't gain any advantage?

Your holier than thou attitude is exactly what golf doesn't need especially as your conclusion is at best dubious.

It's clear that many people do not accept the "ruling". That's a sad situation. Let it go, there will soon be another issue which will push your buttons. I have nothing invested in golf as tv entertainment, but it does seem that far too much press and social media focuses on negative golf topics. It's a drag to constantly get whacked by this stuff.

Clayts...what are you suggesting with the Korean comment? That seems straight from left field.

Ciao

[Bernie Bell]

Bernie


I'm not sure the ANA was a  "travesty"
Until that year (or perhaps the one previous) she wouldn't have even finished the round.
She clearly moved the ball.
Only she knows her intent (the same as at Troon) - but it's not hard to put the ball back in the same place and it's inexcusable to move it as far as she did.


And, would the reaction have been the same if it'd been a Korean player? I suspect not.

My reaction would have been the same.  I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else and not sure why you would either.  Anyway, I'll stick with travesty, I'm comfortable with it.  Mostly for Lexi but also unfair for the Korean winner in important ways. 

[JMEvensky]

Bernie


I'm not sure the ANA was a  "travesty"
Until that year (or perhaps the one previous) she wouldn't have even finished the round.
She clearly moved the ball.
Only she knows her intent (the same as at Troon) - but it's not hard to put the ball back in the same place and it's inexcusable to move it as far as she did.


And, would the reaction have been the same if it'd been a Korean player? I suspect not.

I'd suspect those most able to accurately guess LT's intent are her peers Want to share how she's regarded by the other players?

[Mike_Clayton]

Bernie


I'm not sure the ANA was a  "travesty"
Until that year (or perhaps the one previous) she wouldn't have even finished the round.
She clearly moved the ball.
Only she knows her intent (the same as at Troon) - but it's not hard to put the ball back in the same place and it's inexcusable to move it as far as she did.


And, would the reaction have been the same if it'd been a Korean player? I suspect not.

I'd suspect those most able to accurately guess LT's intent are her peers Want to share how she's regarded by the other players?

JME


No - and I'm not close enough to really know anyway.


Sean A


I'm simply suggesting the reaction in the US would have been different if it'd been a Korean player.
In Madrid in the early 1980s Gordon Brand Jnr and Paul Way called Antonio Garrido for fudging his ball on a green.
He loudly protested his innocence and the Spanish press backed Garrido and gave the British players a hell of a time. No one doubted Gordon and Paul were right and the reaction would have been entirely different if the same incident had played out in England.
John Huggan did an anonymous player survey on the European Tour for Golf Digest a couple of years ago.
One question was: "Have you ever seen another player cheat?"
39 of 40 players said yes.


As Huggy says, "There is a lot more of it that goes on than people want to admit."

[Sean_A]

I'm not fussed about reaction for golf. In truth, it's one of the more polarized sports because of the equipment and rules debates. The situation is getting ugly.

I know more funny business goes on in golf than many care to think is kosher. The difference for me is I don't really care that much. At my level it makes little difference in the big scheme of things. I have more important things to worry about. At the pro level, well, if one doesn't like what they see switch the channel. That's how entertainment works. I do dislike all the finger pointing and accusations. Far too much focus in golf is on the negative aspects. These are tired narratives.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

As Huggy says, "There is a lot more of it that goes on than people want to admit."

I wouldn’t doubt this for a minute but would there be if the tour officials and their superiors had more cojones and were prepared to back-up the likes of Gordon Brand Jnr, Paul Way, Maarten Lafeber when they reported matters or refused to counter-sign scorecards?
At the end of the day folks who get away with ‘iffy’ actions take £$€ from legitimate folks pockets.
By the way, anyone know if Simon Dyson is still involved in the game?
Atb

[Mike_Clayton]

As Huggy says, "There is a lot more of it that goes on than people want to admit."

I wouldn’t doubt this for a minute but would there be if the tour officials and their superiors had more cojones and were prepared to back-up the likes of Gordon Brand Jnr, Paul Way, Maarten Lafeber when they reported matters or refused to counter-sign scorecards?
At the end of the day folks who get away with ‘iffy’ actions take £$€ from legitimate folks pockets.
By the way, anyone know if Simon Dyson is still involved in the game?
Atb

Thomas,


John Paramour - who announced his retirement this week - is a brilliant rules official and talking with him about how they work in practice is fascinating.
The Brand Jnr/Way scenario is always one player's word (2 in that case) versus another and if there is no film it's difficult if the player denies the charge.
There was by all accounts a lot of evidence/testimony against Jane Blalock in the early 1970s but losing the case cost the LPGA lot of money. Bobby Vervey and the South African PGA the same think.
Ultimately the game relies on trust.

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,

I'm not sure where the holier than thou stuff is coming from.  If anything the Rules of golf are guilty of this when they include in the actual rules that players act with honor and integrity and maintain the spirit of the game while playing.  And then someone questions whether a player violates this and people lose their minds? 

I may have missed it, but has anyone yet offered a defense that what she did was in the spirit of the game?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I may have missed it, but has anyone yet offered a defense that what she did was in the spirit of the game?

Have you proven that she did that with the ill intent you've imagined?

My goodness, she moved some grass that moved right back. Grass that, as it turned out, wasn't affected by her swing, as it remained unchanged after she hit the ball.

You're the one with the higher bar to clear. Innocent until proven guilty. You've not done that.

[JESII]

She was hoping to clear it from her view of the ball...clearly!


She failed...


No penalty!


Strange, but not the end of the world. With this particular player though, it builds on a track record.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

The attempt is clear.  The R&A explicitly state the grass was behind her ball.  She only didn't incur a penalty because it moved back.  Hence she failed in her attempt to cheat...

"Following a discussion between Chief Referee David Rickman and the player prior to her signing her scorecard it was determined that, although the player had moved a growing natural object behind her ball, it had returned to its original position.

[Jim Hoak]

Why does this episode seem to not be an issue with golf fans outside of GCA?  I have seen almost nothing about it beyond a few brief mentions in other sites.  Time to move on?
I've read nothing new on here in the last 2-3 pages.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The attempt is clear.

I disagree.

The R&A explicitly state the grass was behind her ball.

It remained even after she played the shot, so it was either the toughest tuft of grass in existence, or it wasn't really right behind the ball.

She only didn't incur a penalty because it moved back.  Hence she failed in her attempt to cheat...

You don't know what she was thinking, and "cheating" requires intent.

Time to move on?

Absolutely!

[Thomas Dai]

John Paramour - who announced his retirement this week - is a brilliant rules official and talking with him about how they work in practice is fascinating.
..
Ultimately the game relies on trust.

+1 for JP - there's a fine podcast with him here - https://www.golfaustralia.com.au/news/the-thing-about-golf-podcast-13---john-paramor-539144

As to trust, I'm reminded of the old slogan "Would you buy a used car from this ..........?"

"Honour, integrity, at face value they're only words" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZUs-_Vakp0 - well said and acted, Brian Davis, 2010 Harbor Town.

atb

[Rob Marshall]

Erik,

The attempt is clear.  The R&A explicitly state the grass was behind her ball.  She only didn't incur a penalty because it moved back.  Hence she failed in her attempt to cheat...

"Following a discussion between Chief Referee David Rickman and the player prior to her signing her scorecard it was determined that, although the player had moved a growing natural object behind her ball, it had returned to its original position.

The grass wasn't attached to the ground behind the ball Kalen. It was blowing behind the ball. The same tuft of grass is still in the same spot after she hits the ball.


One final thought. Having not seen video from the time she arrived at the ball to when she hit the ball, what if and it's a big what if she was moving the grass with her club to positively identify her ball? Likewise what would happen if she moved the grass to identify her ball and the grass didn't bounce back?

[JESII]

Rob,


Not sure what you mean...she did this moments before hitting the ball. Literally a second or two. This was not an attempt to identify the ball.


If you're asking how the rules apply when a player wants to identify their ball, ok. The expectation is to replace the lie as near as possible.






Erik, you disagree that she attempted to move the grass?


Okey dokey...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik, you disagree that she attempted to move the grass?

Okey dokey...

Where did I ever say that? I didn't. You don't know what she was thinking, or if she was thinking at all.

[JESII]

First two words in post 114 after Kalen's quoted section...about the attempt was clear.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

First two words in post 114 after Kalen's quoted section...about the attempt was clear.

No, sorry, that's not what I said. I was saying that the attempt to cheat was not clear.

[Rob Marshall]

Rob,


Not sure what you mean...she did this moments before hitting the ball. Literally a second or two. This was not an attempt to identify the ball.


If you're asking how the rules apply when a player wants to identify their ball, ok. The expectation is to replace the lie as near as possible.






Erik, you disagree that she attempted to move the grass?


Okey dokey...

Jim,
She hits it 13-14 seconds after moving the grass. You can get the exact time while watching the video. All I'm saying is, what if she starts to address the ball and then has the thought " his is my ball right" moves the grass to see and then plays the shot. We'll never know the real thought process.


Thanks for answering my question. You have to return it to the original position which makes perfect sense. Like Rory making his lie worse since he know he couldn't see the ball before someone stepped on it a few weeks ago.

[JESII]

I went back to the video so I could call bs on the 13 seconds...holy mackerel these people stand over the ball a long time these days!!! Ha






Erik, do you disagree that she was trying to move the grass out of her way?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik, do you disagree that she was trying to move the grass out of her way?

I don't disagree that she moved a tuft of grass out of the way and that the grass almost immediately moved back.

Cheating requires intent in my book. Oh, and you have to actually breach the rules.

[Niall C]

Bernie


I'm not sure the ANA was a  "travesty"
Until that year (or perhaps the one previous) she wouldn't have even finished the round.
She clearly moved the ball.
Only she knows her intent (the same as at Troon) - but it's not hard to put the ball back in the same place and it's inexcusable to move it as far as she did.


And, would the reaction have been the same if it'd been a Korean player? I suspect not.

Lets just call it what it clearly was - she cheated, got caught and then showed no remorse. Trying to pretend it was something else, or even worse, that it doesn't really matter, does the game a disservice.


Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()