Rules change effective NOW!

Sneakylong

I guess I'd answer what is the reasonable doubt standard in our judicial system? The answer is there is no exact standard. It's subjective to everyone.

There can't be an exact standard in what we're discussing either. Like I've mentioned before and darpar mentioned above when you move your mark away one or two putter head lengths because it's in the line of another player.

What exact standard is used when everyone looks up and picks a spot off in the distance and places their mark in reference to something only they see?

When they replace their mark did they get the exact angle from whatever they referenced correct? I guess to answer your question for me at least the standard is common sense. Otherwise they should all carry tape measures, slide rules etc. and be able to video replay questionable marks on their cell phones in real time using super imposed high def.

I'm not going to change your mind and you're not changing mine. Everyone has an opinion. Paul Azinger wants to keep the viewer referees for example.

I guess it comes down to (again) what was your reaction to what happened in these cases cited? Mine was an immediate visceral reaction of injustice. I think that was the majority reaction, otherwise you wouldn't see the USGA and R&A acting so fast to try and remedy these injustices.

Our judicial system is far from perfect and perfecting the rules of golf can never be perfected. IMO we're a little closer to being at least reasonable. And yes reasonable is subjective. But for me what happened to Lexi, Anna and Dustin was extremely unreasonable.

PA-PLAYA

Sneakylong

I definitely understand the premise of your argument. My argument is that the governing bodies aren't going to reduce the potential for further controversy simply because they've decided to allow the input of "reasonability" via the player's determination in helping them figure out how to proceed, whether they absolve the player completely or enforce a penalty outright.

Granted, we might come upon these type instances maybe once or twice every few years. Luckily they don't occur every week. But when they do occur, particularly in a major tournament when there's a lot more significance in the outcome - it only stands to reason that more people are tuning in, more people have an opinion of how it was dealt with, etc.

We might as well accept it that we've officially entered into the sports era of asterisks.

There really is no simple fix or easy solution that's gonna make everyone happy. But the act of enforcing the rules per the letter, in itself, hasn't fueled the controversy. The viewers being the ones pointing out the infractions is what has fed the fallout.

Sneakylong

PA-PLAYA

For me it's more the rule itself. I guess I'd put it this way. It's a matter of the degree of reasonableness I suppose.

What I mean by that is, I'd rather see someone 'get away with' a little unintentional sloppiness than to see someone get a 4 stroke penalty a day later for getting their mark wrong by less than 1/2 of an inch. For me that is outrageously unreasonable.

I understand that for the letter of the rule sticklers this seems unreasonable and for them a 4 stroke penalty seems reasonable. And since people have different subjective opinions of what reasonable means I think the USGA and R&A have struck a fair balance.

darpar

I say just leave it to the players/walking rules official in each group to "police" themselves and totally
dump/disregard any outside influence that might or might not see something that could alter the outcome of an event.
THAT would level the playing field,because is it really fair that certain players/groupings get WAY more airtime
than a player who just barely makes the cut and not one of their shots ever sees the light of tv?
Who knows what the hell they may or may not be doing back in the 'just made the cut pack'?
I have a feeling that a lot more rules infractions occur on tour, (either knowingly or otherwise) than we'll ever know or be privy too!

After all,this goofy game of golf has more rules,decisions,decisions of decisions etc. than any other sport,!
Even the governing bodies like the USGA/R&A have a hard time figuring what to make of certain situations
involving players,rulings,playing conditions etc.,so don't expect every pro to know all the rules....
Hell it's hard enough just getting the ball to go from point A to point B in the fewest # of strokes!

PA-PLAYA

These days tour pros don't need to know all of the rules, but obviously they need to be fairly familiar with the most basic ones that are encountered on a normal basis. And even then it's become pretty standard to have several rules officials roaming the course during the round that they have access to.

I also agree about the disparity in televised coverage from one round to the next, but on that same token - players who aren't being covered on Thursday because they went out early are generally covered on the coverage Friday afternoon. Or to put it this way - the cameras are out there recording anyway. Obviously there are players that still don't get the airtime even during the televised coverage times, but that's just the way it is. It's not fair scrutiny, but still about as fair as it can possibly be given the obvious.

PA-PLAYA

Sneakylong

I can accept that.

Weirfan

Sneakylong

The issue becomes who decides what is reasonable and what is not, what was intentional and what was not, what could have provided an advantage what could not have.

In Lexi's case, the ruling was not made based on subjectivity or whether or not she gained any advantage. The rule (s) is in place and penalty applied because she could have gained an advantage by improperly placing her coin. It would be more confusing, controversial and conflicting to base the decision on a subjective interpretation . Having rules avoid subjectivity is so much better. (Whether or not the penalty fits the crime is another discussion)

I'm paraphrasing something I read but .....Based on the existing rules, the officials made an objective ruling using fact not a subjective interpretation . attempts should be made to reduce and eliminate all subjectivity in rulings. Did Lexi improperly place her ball and play it from there? Yes she did , that's a penalty ( no subjectivity) Did Lexi sign an incorrect scorecard? Yes she did ( no subjectivity) that's a penalty. A correct application of the rules in both cases.

Sneakylong

Weirfan

I imagine the rules officials for that tournament will decide what reasonable is. It will be subjective just as every jury is subjective when they decide what reasonable doubt means to them in the case they're deciding on.

Again, we can't change history or undo an injustice. But the USGA and R&A have made it more difficult for these type injustices going forward. Missing her mark by less than 1/2" isn't gaining an advantage IMO. Neither is nicking a grain of sand only perceivable by magnification. Neither is unexplained outside forces moving your ball on a green. In Lexi's case missing her mark by 1/2" would fall under 'reasonable judgement' or 'reasonable attempt' language.

We're going in circles. But going forward Lexi (reasonable judgment), Anna (naked eye) and Dustin (outside forces) would not be assessed penalties if it happened today. Some of us thinks that's a good thing, but I understand sticklers for unreasonable / insignificant rules don't like it.

Bottom line. The rules have changed and for the better IMO. Time to move on.

PA-PLAYA

If we're gonna talk about perceived injustices, at least the ones that really and royally stand out... it's hard to find anything that remotely compares to Roberto Di Vicenzo and the 1968 Masters.

Interestingly enough, Roberto just celebrated his 94th birthday a few weeks back.

I agree with you about many things, Sneaky, but in this one point in particular... in the modern age of electronic scoreboards and what have you - the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard seems extremely outdated to say the very least.

« Previous Page