Should a spectator be allowed to call in a rule violation?

[Kenny B]

A book that needs to be updated is First Off The Tee by Don Van Natta Jr.  Golfing Presidents from Harding to Bush.  There is a section in the book titled "Hail To The Cheats".  

[Kenny B]

We have had a lot of comments in this thread and in the Lexi thread, all seem to agree that Lexi committed a penalty for playing from a incorrect spot.  However, most also think that the 2-stroke penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard the next day, albeit the correct ruling, was excessive and not timely thereby potentially affecting play of the final round for potentially many players.

 

We can all make comments here and then it will die eventually.  However, I personally will be drafting a response in the form of comments to the USGA rules committee for consideration in their rules update.  

[Kor.A.Door]

The correct ruling was given. However, that doesn't make it right. I think we can all agree to that. As the rules state currently, they handed out the correct penalty. It's very simple, the rules need to change. 1. No call in penalties of any kind. It's just not right. 2. There should be a max number of penalty strokes for violations, and should not be stacked on. Because of one penalty the other penalty was unavoidable in this case. They shouldn't stack on each other. 3. Fix the da.. rules so that this crap doesn't happen anymore. It's stupid. The LPGA president even said that the penalty didn't fit The crime. They know there is a problem, yet no one will stand up and fix these issues. I say fire all the rules committee and Bring in some new blood with a bit of common sense, get rid of the old school 1800's rules that are so far outdated they make no sense.

[Undershooter]

The correct ruling was given. However, that doesn't make it right. I think we can all agree to that. As the rules state currently, they handed out the correct penalty. It's very simple, the rules need to change. 1. No call in penalties of any kind. It's just not right. 2. There should be a max number of penalty strokes for violations, and should not be stacked on. Because of one penalty the other penalty was unavoidable in this case. They shouldn't stack on each other. 3. Fix the da.. rules so that this crap doesn't happen anymore. It's stupid. The LPGA president even said that the penalty didn't fit The crime. They know there is a problem, yet no one will stand up and fix these issues. I say fire all the rules committee and Bring in some new blood with a bit of common sense, get rid of the old school 1800's rules that are so far outdated they make no sense.

I know we've disagreed before on some things but....

 

 

https://img.memesuper.com/7a251e4b8614c2aff8cb6311aeb7b2da_did-we-just-become-best-did-we-just-become-best-friends-meme_480-360.jpeg

[jaskanski]

We have had a lot of comments in this thread and in the Lexi thread, all seem to agree that Lexi committed a penalty for playing from a incorrect spot.  However, most also think that the 2-stroke penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard the next day, albeit the correct ruling, was excessive and not timely thereby potentially affecting play of the final round for potentially many players.

 

We can all make comments here and then it will die eventually.  However, I personally will be drafting a response in the form of comments to the USGA rules committee for consideration in their rules update.  

 

Good luck with that !

From Lexi's perspective, she may count herself quite lucky actually - the previous penalty for signing for a wrong card was disqualification. The penalty process was reviewed after a lot (and I mean a lot) of cases of pros signing for wrong cards before further evidence of a breach made earlier came to hand.

The R&A / USGA have actually relaxed the penalty for incorrect cards.

I respect Lexi for her comments after the tournament finished and taking it on the chin by saying "it is what it is" - but I have no sympathy whatsoever for her clumsy attempt at marking a ball and thinking that nobody would notice. This sort of thing is so common in professional tournaments these days, it does rather sound like she should have known better. And I think she knows it.

[Undershooter]

Good luck with that !

From Lexi's perspective, she may count herself quite lucky actually - the previous penalty for signing for a wrong card was disqualification. The penalty process was reviewed after a lot (and I mean a lot) of cases of pros signing for wrong cards before further evidence of a breach made earlier came to hand.

The R&A / USGA have actually relaxed the penalty for incorrect cards.

I respect Lexi for her comments after the tournament finished and taking it on the chin by calling it "it is what it is" - but I have no sympathy whatsoever for her clumsy attempt at marking a ball and thinking that nobody would notice. This short of thing is so common in professional tournaments these days, it does rather sound like she should have known better. And I think she knows it.

No doubt!

 

Still not worth 4 shots though. Especially when it seems to be a common thing. 

[Kor.A.Door]

I know we've disagreed before on some things but....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzBmQMyYDBk

 

https://img.memesuper.com/7a251e4b8614c2aff8cb6311aeb7b2da_did-we-just-become-best-did-we-just-become-best-friends-meme_480-360.jpeg

Nice. Just don't teabag my drums. 😂

[Jmikecpa]

The kicker is... ALL OF THIS, is assuming that someone isn't calling in for selfish reasons.

What if someone has money on another player and calls it in to help themselves out. Or if they just dislike a player and would otherwise not call in if it was a player they liked.

 

Let me give you one particularly crappy scenario with this Lexi fiasco. What if... The person who emailed in to call out Lexi, actually noticed this rules infraction on Saturday right after it happened. He/she doesn't like Lexi. In fact, she is his/her least favorite player(or they have $$$ on someone else, whatever). The second they saw the penalty, they got really excited because they get to call a rules infraction on someone they dislike. Then they realize, I can call this in now and she will get a 2 shot penalty. Orrrrrr. I can wait until tomorrow and call it in(email) and then she will not only get a 2 shot penalty but also an additional 2 shot penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard!

This person just negatively affected the outcome of the tournament to serve their own purposes. Not to protect the field but to hurt an individual and change the outcome of a major.

 

Think about that for a second.

Valid hypothetical but as someone that has a few sports books around the globe the action on Women's golf is nonexistent.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Undershooter]

Valid hypothetical but as someone that has a few sports books around the globe the action on Women's golf is nonexistent.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

The hypothetical was not purely for this situation as I know there isn't much action on women's golf. This was more in general. 

 

In the Lexi situation, it would be more likely that someone has something personal against her and waited to call it in because they dislike her. 

[Undershooter]

The hypothetical was not purely for this situation as I know there isn't much action on women's golf. This was more in general. 

 

In the Lexi situation, it would be more likely that someone has something personal against her and waited to call it in because they dislike her. 

Hell, imagine if one of her competitors parents or coaches saw it and waited to call it in. 

[cmost60]

The answer is No! What has the world come to that people are watching golf to look for violations. That's what there are rules officials on the course.

There are so many other things that these do-gooders should be calling out. Get real people!

 

Sent from my 831C using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Webz59]

Absolutely not! And once a scorecard is signed, there can be no retroactive penalty called.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[808nation]

NO.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[mbrodeur86]

It's like being at a football game and some idiot in the stands says there was an infraction and the refs penalize the team. It's ridiculous and should never ever happen again. It's embarrassing to the sport

 

Sent from my XT1563 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[808nation]

IMHO, never.  It should be the player or rules official that should call a violation.  I have never seen other sports where spectators are allowed to call fouls, or any other violations to my knowledge.

[dang3rtown]

I know the rest of the field didn't make a gaffe in the tournament. Why should Lexi get away with it at the expense of the other players? And take the better part of $150,000 out of someone else's hands?

 

How do you know that? Was there a TV camera on every player for the duration of every hole? 

[jaskanski]

How do you know that? Was there a TV camera on every player for the duration of every hole? 

 

I guess I should qualify that remark with "didn't get caught making a gaffe" - either way, I've seen the footage and it was a gross error on her part. 

But taking you up on your point - maybe it's just as well somebody did see it and call it in for precisely those reasons. It doesn't need to be on tv either to be a breach. See it, say it. Whats wrong with the truth?

[dang3rtown]

I guess I should qualify that remark with "didn't get caught making a gaffe" - either way, I've seen the footage and it was a gross error on her part. 

But taking you up on your point - maybe it's just as well somebody did see it and call it in for precisely those reasons. It doesn't need to be on tv either to be a breach. See it, say it. Whats wrong with the truth?

 

The point is, it's not fair unless every athlete is subject to the same level of observation. Also, saying it was a "gross error" is both subjective and a point with which I would personally disagree.

[jaskanski]

The point is, it's not fair unless every athlete is subject to the same level of observation. Also, saying it was a "gross error" is both subjective and a point with which I would personally disagree.

 

Point taken, but every player should expect to see some sort of attention in a major tournament - especially when they are at or near the top of the leaderboard. To expect anything else from a professional perspective would be pretty naive.

Only Lexi herself can probably explain her actions for that fateful ball marking incident, but having watched the footage myself on several occasions, I can't see how it can be anything less than deliberate.

You simply don't "accidentally" alter the position of your ball in such a glaring brief situation with such a putt as a professional. Period.

If it had been anything else or slightly more ambiguous (say, returning to replace the ball after a longer period of time after walking away from the putt) it could have been interpreted as a lapse in concentration, but would certainly have not been excusable in the circumstances either.

Regardless of whether anyone thinks it's fair, justifiable, understandable, inevitable or rub of the green, the correct decision to the situation was applied. The last time I checked, the rules of golf is not a two-tier system of deciding what a player is entitled to based on their extenuating circumstances, their background, or what anyone else wants to cast judgement on. They are applied based on fact, or in the absence of any other reasonable evidence, they are applied in equity with everyone else competing.

The beauty is, they also apply to everyone who wants to play golf. Once you start selecting what parts you agree with and what parts you don't, then you are not playing golf as the rules intended.

So rather than let a kangaroo court decide on what Lexi did or didn't do, or what advantage she did or didn't achieve, or even worse - decide what rules apply to ourselves and others - it's a lot better to let the official ruling bodies to decide the outcome.

Sure, we can all have opinions on the matter, but the opinion that matters the most are the ruling bodies - and to make a claim otherwise is pure folly. In summary, the ruling bodies reviewed the evidence (it doesn't matter where the evidence came from - evidence is evidence) and the correct decision was applied. Get over it.

[Undershooter]

Point taken, but every player should expect to see some sort of attention in a major tournament - especially when they are at or near the top of the leaderboard. To expect anything else from a professional perspective would be pretty naive.

Only Lexi herself can probably explain her actions for that fateful ball marking incident, but having watched the footage myself on several occasions, I can't see how it can be anything less than deliberate.

You simply don't "accidentally" alter the position of your ball in such a glaring brief situation with such a putt as a professional. Period.

If it had been anything else or slightly more ambiguous (say, returning to replace the ball after a longer period of time after walking away from the putt) it could have been interpreted as a lapse in concentration, but would certainly have not been excusable in the circumstances either.

Regardless of whether anyone thinks it's fair, justifiable, understandable, inevitable or rub of the green, the correct decision to the situation was applied. The last time I checked, the rules of golf is not a two-tier system of deciding what a player is entitled to based on their extenuating circumstances, their background, or what anyone else wants to cast judgement on. They are applied based on fact, or in the absence of any other reasonable evidence, they are applied in equity with everyone else competing.

The beauty is, they also apply to everyone who wants to play golf. Once you start selecting what parts you agree with and what parts you don't, then you are not playing golf as the rules intended.

So rather than let a kangaroo court decide on what Lexi did or didn't do, or what advantage she did or didn't achieve, or even worse - decide what rules apply to ourselves and others - it's a lot better to let the official ruling bodies to decide the outcome.

Sure, we can all have opinions on the matter, but the opinion that matters the most are the ruling bodies - and to make a claim otherwise is pure folly. In summary, the ruling bodies reviewed the evidence (it doesn't matter where the evidence came from - evidence is evidence) and the correct decision was applied. Get over it.

So when they amend the rule again, Ryu should have an asterisk next to her title? 

Because it will eventually happen. There is doubt that the 2 shot penalty for signing incorrectly will be amended or changed in the upcoming years. It is only fair seeing as she signed for the correct score at the time. Agreed on by the scorer, her and her playing partners.

I love golf, but the rules can be an issue sometimes. And sadly they can also be interpreted differently depending on the official/ person. See US Open 2016

[jaskanski]

So when they amend the rule again, Ryu should have an asterisk next to her title? 

Because it will eventually happen. There is doubt that the 2 shot penalty for signing incorrectly will be amended or changed in the upcoming years. It is only fair seeing as she signed for the correct score at the time. Agreed on by the scorer, her and her playing partners.

I love golf, but the rules can be an issue sometimes. And sadly they can also be interpreted differently depending on the official/ person. See US Open 2016

 

I love golf but I've never found them to be an issue. 

They are pretty clear. Point one, she never signed for a correct score - the "at the time" excuse does not apply, simply because breaches of the rules only happen in real time. The fact that a card was signed does not alter the fact. You and I could be reviewing evidence some two weeks later and it's still a breach, even if the event has long finished.

For the tournament itself, the breach was recognised and penalty applied before it's conclusion - so the outcome cannot be in any question afterwards.

Point two, rules are not open to interpretation - they are clear on how and when they should be applied. That is not to say the wrong decision can't be made, but the correct ruling is always there to be applied in the correct manner - it just needs the right evidence to be present to make that decision.

From what I have seen of the incident - and given the timeframe of when the evidence came to light - everything the tournament organisers and the ruling bodies did was 100% correct.

The 2016 US Open was the same - only that was captured before DJ signed for his card - which proved to be immaterial anyway.

Nobody said you have to like the decision made, or indeed agree with the logic used to reach that decision, but you have to respect and agree with the rules of golf. If you don't, you're not playing golf. If you're playing golf and you're thinking a rule doesn't apply or you might disagree with a decision, then you have every right to appeal, but you have zero right to alter the rules of golf to suit your circumstances.

Having said that, the ruling bodies themselves are not immune to making mistakes. The obvious parallel with Lexi-gate would probably be Bobby Locke's 1957 Open win:

 

Locke had failed to properly replace his ball after marking on the 72nd green, and proceeded to putt out. This had been confirmed through newsreel footage provided to the R&A after the trophy presentation. The rules at the time made no provision for a two shot penalty, thus Locke's win could have been overturned through disqualification. However, the Championship committee did not enforce the disqualification rule, citing "equity and spirit of the game" as overriding factors in sustaining the posted result.

 

I'm pretty sure that equity an spirit are alive and well in todays game, but the difference in todays society is that is so much more at stake in winning and losing and sports men and women are no strangers to legal, contractual and ethical obligations every time they tee it up.

​Sure, the committee could have used the Locke example to make a decision in the same spirit for Lexi, but the political mushroom cloud that would have blown up as a result of this would be seen and heard around the world - not least from the remaining competitors who would pretty promptly say: "dude - where's my money?"

And consequently they applied the most logical and conservative (and correct) decision.

[dang3rtown]

"...it's a lot better to let the official ruling bodies to decide the outcome."

 

Exactly. Which is why spectators should not be calling in rules violations.

[GeekingGolf]

Absolutely not the thing that truly makes these sort of things unfair is there could be other people doing the same thing but they aren't on video because they are outside the top 10

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Undershooter]

I love golf but I've never found them to be an issue. 

They are pretty clear. Point one, she never signed for a correct score - the "at the time" excuse does not apply, simply because breaches of the rules only happen in real time. The fact that a card was signed does not alter the fact. You and I could be reviewing evidence some two weeks later and it's still a breach, even if the event has long finished.

For the tournament itself, the breach was recognised and penalty applied before it's conclusion - so the outcome cannot be in any question afterwards.

Point two, rules are not open to interpretation - they are clear on how and when they should be applied. That is not to say the wrong decision can't be made, but the correct ruling is always there to be applied in the correct manner - it just needs the right evidence to be present to make that decision.

From what I have seen of the incident - and given the timeframe of when the evidence came to light - everything the tournament organisers and the ruling bodies did was 100% correct.

The 2016 US Open was the same - only that was captured before DJ signed for his card - which proved to be immaterial anyway.

Nobody said you have to like the decision made, or indeed agree with the logic used to reach that decision, but you have to respect and agree with the rules of golf. If you don't, you're not playing golf. If you're playing golf and you're thinking a rule doesn't apply or you might disagree with a decision, then you have every right to appeal, but you have zero right to alter the rules of golf to suit your circumstances.

Having said that, the ruling bodies themselves are not immune to making mistakes. The obvious parallel with Lexi-gate would probably be Bobby Locke's 1957 Open win:

 

Locke had failed to properly replace his ball after marking on the 72nd green, and proceeded to putt out. This had been confirmed through newsreel footage provided to the R&A after the trophy presentation. The rules at the time made no provision for a two shot penalty, thus Locke's win could have been overturned through disqualification. However, the Championship committee did not enforce the disqualification rule, citing "equity and spirit of the game" as overriding factors in sustaining the posted result.

 

I'm pretty sure that equity an spirit are alive and well in todays game, but the difference in todays society is that is so much more at stake in winning and losing and sports men and women are no strangers to legal, contractual and ethical obligations every time they tee it up.

​Sure, the committee could have used the Locke example to make a decision in the same spirit for Lexi, but the political mushroom cloud that would have blown up as a result of this would be seen and heard around the world - not least from the remaining competitors who would pretty promptly say: "dude - where's my money?"

And consequently they applied the most logical and conservative (and correct) decision.

The rules official fallowing DJ's group ruled there was no penalty yet it was overturned. Wasn't this man the head of the rules committee? So there is interpretation to different rules. In that situation the USGA thought they would flex their muscles and "make the right call" when there is nothing more than speculation on either side. Its a straight up guess one way or another whether he caused it to move or not. 

It has been pretty widely agreed upon that had this been another PGA event and not a USGA run one, there would have been no penalty issued because DJ's word would have been taken instead of the educated guess of a guy who wasn't even around. 

 

You mention the political mushroom cloud that would've blown up. You don't think there is already one? People weren't happy about this. Still aren't. 

 

For another instance of rules being interpreted differently by different people. Google Jack Nicklaus rules controversy.  

[Cobrasw8]

I say NO also especially 24 hours later

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Dgolfer]

No no no...

 

Sent from my SM-N920T using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[LostInMyWoods]

It should be just like any other sport, the officials and/or players need to call it when it happens and if they don't then it doesn't get called. 

[Rickp]

NO, once the score card has been signed that should be it. To assess 4 shot penalty a day later is ridiculous.

The fans should be out of it. No other sport that I know of allows this. Redo the 4 th quarter of a superbowl due to a fan calling in on a blown call.

I'll probably be in the minority on this.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[jaskanski]

NO, once the score card has been signed that should be it. To assess 4 shot penalty a day later is ridiculous.

The fans should be out of it. No other sport that I know of allows this. Redo the 4 th quarter of a superbowl due to a fan calling in on a blown call.

I'll probably be in the minority on this.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

 

No other sport? I'm sure Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson and most of the Russian Olympic team are on your side too. 

I won't go as far as saying her actions were those of a cheat, but sh*t sticks for a long time - and regardless of how "fair" we or anybody else thought it was at the time, nobody can escape their destiny if their actions are called out. 

A lot of you seem to think that the scorers hut is some kind of safe house where anyone inside is exempt from scrutiny simply because their card has been signed. Think again. 

[Rickp]

No other sport? I'm sure Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson and most of the Russian Olympic team are on your side too.

I won't go as far as saying her actions were those of a cheat, but sh*t sticks for a long time - and regardless of how "fair" we or anybody else thought it was at the time, nobody can escape their destiny if their actions are called out.

A lot of you seem to think that the scorers hut is some kind of safe house where anyone inside is exempt from scrutiny simply because their card has been signed. Think again.

I don't remember a fan calling in to request Lance Armstrong and the others requesting a blood test. Blood tests at the end of those sports is common.

Not the same.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy