[btbgolf4]

OK. What are yalls opinions on these "viewer snitches"? I've gotta be honest and say that I didn't een think this could happen, but to my surprise it's happened twice over the past month. I think the PGA shouldn't allow this anymore because I think they're almost taking away from the tournaments.

[GolfSpy Matt]

To me, someone sitting at home should not be able to influence the outcome of a sporting event. It amounts to penalizing the guys who are shown on TV. I appreciate the need to play by the rules as much as anyone, that's why the tour has rules officials, but the idea of viewers impacting the outcome doesn't sit well with me.

[jamo]

I like it. If someone breaks a rule and someone sees it, they should be penalized for it. Period. Rules officials are there for consult and clarification, not to watch for every broken rule. Not to mention that if a guy thinks he may have broken a rule, he reserves the right to wait until he sees video replay and consult a rules official before he signs his card.

[Trebuchet]

I agree in principal that the rules are the rules. However, the nature of television coverage puts disproportional focus on the leaders and top-tier players. Asking for a video review sounds like an answer, but unlike a more contained sport like football, cameras cannot cover every stroke for every player across a course. This leaves the option of calling for review disproportional in favor of the leaders and top-tier players. (or looking at it from another perspective, more likely that someone receiving less coverage can get away with something)

Perhaps empowering the rules officials to be more of a referee than walking reference guide?

Using football as an example, not a game goes by when a rules infraction occurs and isn't called. (Ask a lineman how many uncalled holds occur in a typical game) It's just part of the game... Golf is and always has been a gentleman's game. It's up to the player to adhere to the rules and call penalties on themselves. Take that away, and you have something less...

Note that none of the recent "TV Penalties" that resulted in a player disqualification have been intentional. DJ gained no advantage grounding in a hazard, and Pagrig's ball got 1mm closer... If they had been egregious, then I'd probably feel differently. I for one, could live with the occasional uncalled penalty to maintain the spirit of the game.

[jamo]

Trebuchet, on 26 January 2011 - 11:27 AM, said:

I agree in principal that the rules are the rules. However, the nature of television coverage puts disproportional focus on the leaders and top-tier players. Asking for a video review sounds like an answer, but unlike a more contained sport like football, cameras cannot cover every stroke for every player across a course. This leaves the option of calling for review disproportional in favor of the leaders and top-tier players. (or looking at it from another perspective, more likely that someone receiving less coverage can get away with something)

You say that, but people have been able to call in rules for years. When was the last time someone called in a rule on Tiger, or Phil, or any of the highly-covered golfers? The answer is never, because those guys know the rules. They know that if they consult an official during the round for a ruling, that ruling is final, and they know that if they need to check what they did on hole X, they can after the round on high-def TVs in slow motion before they sign their card. And if that particular shot wasn't on tape and the player can't review it, then no viewer can call it in either.

[Shambles]

jamo, on 26 January 2011 - 04:28 PM, said:

You say that, but people have been able to call in rules for years. When was the last time someone called in a rule on Tiger, or Phil, or any of the highly-covered golfers? The answer is never, because those guys know the rules. They know that if they consult an official during the round for a ruling, that ruling is final, and they know that if they need to check what they did on hole X, they can after the round on high-def TVs in slow motion before they sign their card. And if that particular shot wasn't on tape and the player can't review it, then no viewer can call it in either.

Seems to me that it was difficult for Paddy to miss the ball movement. He should have felt it against his marker or his finger. Regardless, he had the option to mark and place his ball again, and he could also have called in a ref to adjudicate before doing anything more.

The problem here is the USGA rule that the ball has moved even if it's only a shiver. It is especially difficult to rule on as one could consider the ball to have gone back to it's original place and therefore not be suitable for penalty. The R&A used to require a ball to move one diameter before it could be considered to have moved. Rules should really be as little subject to interpretation as possible.


Shambles

[BIG STU]

Speaking of the rules of golf the rules prohibit soliciting advice from an outside source. That same rule should also apply to call in viewers. Violations should only be called by either the player themself or playing opponents or a duly appointed tour official period!
One other note Camillo said he did not know he had violated any rule at the time. My opinion on this is that he is a professional golfer and should have known that basic rule. I know that is almost impossible to know all the rules I dont but I do go to the USGA website and do the rules quizzes etc to stay up on the rules. I cant quote many rules by scripture or verse but I do try to stay informed. I waswatching the tournament live when Camillo done his infraction and told my wife that he had comitted a violation I did not know what scripture or verse but I knew but I did not call in.

[jamo]

BIG STU, on 29 January 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:

Speaking of the rules of golf the rules prohibit soliciting advice from an outside source. That same rule should also apply to call in viewers. Violations should only be called by either the player themself or playing opponents or a duly appointed tour official period!

Then, by that logic, why would the playing opponent or rules official not be an outside source?