No More Viewer Call ins!!!

sdandrea1 · 2017-12-11T14:02:50+00:00

More common sense prevailing on the tours........... http://www.globalgolfpost.com/now/2017/12/11/breaking-news-new-protocols-will-eliminate-viewer-call-ins

Spuzz

Here's why:
https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.26679.kevin-stadler.html

Long putter still in play.
then.
Wikipedia says he"s been practicing putting left handed for his return this year on a med exemption.

Rickochet

Spuzz Is Kevin Stadler still using a long putter?
He's disappeared.

PA-PLAYA

(channeling my Homer Simpson voice...)

Joe: "Uh, hi... this is Joe from Minneapolis, calling in on the PGA Tour rules hotline.... I'd like to report a rules violation on Jeff Overton. Uh, yeah - his ball moved when he grounded his club in the rough."

PGA Tour Hotline: "That's interesting, Joe. I don't think Jeff Overton hasn't been on television for years. Was this last week? A special exemption maybe?"

Joe: "Uh, yeah. I was watching the Ryder Cup highlights Sunday around 2 p.m. on Golf Channel last Sunday and I saw him move his ball. I'm sure he didn't mean to, but, well, you know - rules are rules. By the way - this is like the 9th time I've called in this year... do you guys have like a frequent caller reward, for say like some free golf tickets somewhere out this way next season, or maybe a free tee shirt? A hat? Something? Would I be overstepping my bounds by asking for 4 practice round badges for Augusta next year?

PGA Tour Hotline: "Uh, Joe - hate to break this to you, but the last Ryder Cup Jeff Overton played in was back in 2010 at Celtic Manor, in Wales."

Joe: "Uh, yeah, well, uh, that sounds right. Remember the "boom baby" shot when he holed out from the fairway, on like the 8th hole or something? I think he was playing with Bubba Watson at the time. Well, uh, it was right after that, happened on the next hole."

PGA Tour Hotline: "Joe, that tournament is finished. And it wouldn't matter anyway, since Hunter Mahan duffed that simple chip shot on the last hole on Sunday and ended up losing it for the US, 14-1/2 to 13-1/2. We've not heard much from Hunter since. So if you do happen to see him on a live telecast somewhere - please be sure to call us then and let us know. He probably snuck in uninvited, since he is no longer exempt to play on tour."

Joe: "Uh, okay will-do. But back to that rules violation. I would really appreciate it if you guys would correct the score, for historical accuracy.... not to mention - it would mean a lot to me. Like I said earlier - I've called you guys like 9 times this year and you've not changed the outcome of any of those tournaments. I've got three other buddies who have called in this year and two of them have ended up being right on a couple of their hotline viewer call-ins. I'm still O-fer-ton. Get it - Overton=O-fer-ton? LOL...."

PGA Tour Hotline: "We're sorry, Joe, but that tournament ended over 7 years ago. There's no way we can go back and change the score. Furthermore, you might want to tell your buddies that we're no longer taking viewer call-ins for rules violations, so don't bother with calling us back again regarding rules violations. New policy, effective immediately."

Joe: "Wait, you mean to tell me that you guys no longer care if the guys on tv don't play by the rules? Hey, not for nothing, but this is the primary reason I even watch televised golf to begin with! And now you're telling me I can't call in and tell you that one of your players broke a rule?"

PGA Tour Hotline: "That's what I'm telling you, Joe. We're no longer taking viewer call-ins, but instead will have one of our tour rules officials watching the same live coverage during each televised tournament round that you watch on tv, just to make sure that all televised players are playing by the rules."

Joe: "Dammit! You cannot be serious! You've taken away my sole enjoyment of watching golf on tv! What else am I going to do on the weekends now?"

PGA Tour Hotline: "Well, Joe... might I suggest that you actually get out and play golf on the weekends, enjoy the game, make it your goal to educate those you play with about the rules of the game at your club?"

Joe: "Well, that ain't happening. You see, I, uh, well... let's just say I quit playing the game several years ago, because of this asshole opponent in our club championship who called me out for tapping down a stupid spike mark between my ball and the hole on a measly 10 footer, and the spike mark wasn't even on my intended putting line. Now my ball did roll over the tapped down spike mark, but I still missed the putt. I was in the 5th flight finals, my one big chance to cash-in. The nerve of him... Anyway, I haven't played in years, the game has gotten much too hard for me."

PGA Tour Hotline: "Oh, I see... so you didn't believe in playing by the rules yourself, but couldn't wait to call out the guys on tv for something that you thought was illegal?"

Joe: "Uh, well - I'm not making 20 million a year like those guys are. Duh. They should be held to a higher standard."

PGA Tour Hotline: "Not if you're playing by the rules, Joe. Now if you don't mind, we're kinda busy here...."

Joe: "Uh, wait. Can I, uh, still get a couple of tournament passes? Or a tee shirt at least? I've invested a huge part of my weekends these past seven years and, uh"

CLICK–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Good riddance to Joe.

sdandrea1

PA-PLAYA

Scott - that is hilarious, but you may have a bit too much time on your hands. 😉

PA-PLAYA

sdandrea1

Guilty. But don't have the hotline number. lol

sdandrea1

PA-PLAYA Guilty. But don't have the hotline number. lol

I'm calling in.......

fatshot

PA-PLAYA
At the very least the "signing an incorrect scorecard" penalty should NOT have been applied in Lexi's case. She signed a card that was correct (to the best of her knowledge)
at the time. It was only rendered "incorrect" by the ruling
that came the next day. An impossibly stupid ruling.....

Weirfan

fatshot

But that was the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard at the time so while unfortunate, the right assessment. Which was better than the penalty for signing an incorrect card prior to that which was a DQ. Rules change some for the better some for the worse. With this penalty we have moved in the right direction DQ > 2 stroke penalty> current ruling.

Note the 2 stroke penalty is still in effect for signing an incorrect card but not in cases where the player didnt know they committed a violation.

ode

fatshot unfortunately they had to based on the footage and the rule at the time...but no mas,"reasonable judgement" takes care of the game of gotcha for replacing a ball a quarter inch off, and the new rule will not allow for a 2 stroke penalty as noted above by weirfan. We wouldn't even get to step two in Lexi's situation if it happened today.

PA-PLAYA

Weirfan

Exactly. Some think it was a travesty, but quite frankly - those who came before her, who would've done the same thing back in the day, would've been DQ'd and not even allowed to continue playing the next day. To say that she was wronged would be to exempt herself from any blame whatsoever...

And it wasn't like she had to move her ball mark because of her mark being in the intended path of a playing competitor putting behind her on a similar path... this was a fairly routine situation, put down the coin directly behind the ball, lift the ball, replace the ball back directly in front of the coin. Not a ball to the left of the coin or to the right, but directly in front of the coin, just like she lifted it.

She was either simply negligent/sloppy in her routine, or she was intentionally trying to avoid some sort of imperfection on the green that might influence the path of her putt. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt in assuming that she was just sloppy with replacing her ball, I can't claim that she intentionally replaced it wrongly.

But that doesn't mean she didn't break a rule. I mean, we are talking about replacing the ball behind a ball marker or coin. This really isn't that complicated.

But I also think that doing away with the viewer call-ins helps in these type situations. And, I might also add, puts the onus on the fellow playing competitors and rules officials to assume their own responsibilities to protect the field as well.

Phil Mickelson said a few days later that he thought it was horrible what happened, but also noted than on numerous occasions over the years that he himself witnessed the same degree of "sloppiness" of fellow competitors doing the same thing with regard to replacing their balls on the green. Well, I love you Phil, but you're not protecting the field when you see stuff like this happening and (at the very least) not saying something about it to your fellow playing competitors. I know it puts you in a tough position, having to play the role of "that guy"... but you're competing for a bit more than a $2 nassau with your buddies on the weekend, where stuff like this could be more understandably tolerated.

ode

PA-PLAYA IMO the reasonable judgement aspect of this now does away with the game of gotcha in golf....and that is huge.....doesn't matter what you or I think about what Lexi did, whether it was sloppy as you put it or even downright negligent in allegedly trying to avoid a pitch mark or imperfections in the surface. The minion in the truck can inquire with her but they would have no basis for a penalty. In fact we likely would never even hear about it...one can only hope!

PA-PLAYA

ode

While I am ecstatic that the armchair trolls can no longer call in and change the outcome of a tournament, the new policy says absolutely nothing about exempting players for being sloppy/indifferent as it relates to following the rules.

Had a tour official in a trailer caught Lexi’s error with replacing her ball - she likely would’ve still been penalized.

She just wouldn’t have been assessed an additional 2-shot penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard under the new guidelines.

ode

PA-PLAYA this is where we part....she absolutely would not have been penalized.....again reasonable judgement....read the article and what is said about reasonable judgement....it is exactly what is being talked about, as with the game of gotcha about a ball mismarked by 1/4" as seen by a slowed down shot on high def camera, replayed several times....which could not have been be seen by the naked eye in real time. The only way she is penalized is if she admits to cheating, ie doing it on purpose. If you don't believe me, see the John Rahm rules controversy. The sh1ts not getting called anymore!

PA-PLAYA

ode

Duly noted. 🙂

I guess where I question that change of MO with regard to "reasonable judgement" is that there's still no exact definition (or standard) of what "reasonable" is.

I mean - DJ's ball moving on the green a couple years back at the US Open at Oakmont - that's a "reasonable" judgment situation where there seems no "reasonable" justification for penalizing a player. It was obvious that he didn't cause his ball to move.

Going back to 2013 with Tiger's drop at the Masters during the second round on the 15th hole, where he was at least 3-4 feet beyond where he was otherwise required to drop? Under this new "reasonable judgement" rule - they would be required to ask Tiger if he felt, under that situation, that he felt he proceeded accordingly, "within reason."
What is the standard there? A foot? Two feet? Ten feet?

I mean, if Lexi replaces her ball within 1/8 of an inch of where she originally marked it, "reasonable" comes into play. But half an inch? A ball diameter? Where exactly is the standard of "reasonable?"

Now, if one wants to define "reasonable" as no intentional advantage gained from not being exact in relation to the rules - that's fine - as long as everybody else in the field has that same exact degree of latitude.

But therein lies the problem. What is "reasonable?" What is the standard? A penalty drop made 6 inches outside of the 2-club length rule, to potentially avoid a ball rolling back into an unsettled lie? A ball being replaced on the green 1/2 inch beyond where it originally lied, perhaps avoiding an imperfection in the putt surface?

This ain't about holding the players to this umpteenth degree of integrity... I don't think any player playing today would intentionally try to gain an unfair advantage, including Tiger, including Lexi Thompson.

But when you leave "reasonable" up to the judgement of the players - you are going to naturally encounter varying degrees of difference. This opens a huge can of worms imo, when there is no definable standard of "reasonable."

Thus my argument.

Not against the new policy of no longer allowing viewer call-ins impacting the tournament after the fact. I am against playing professionals, competing for their livelihoods, being able to determine what they deem "reasonable" when there are no hardline definitions or standards used to differentiate "reasonable" from "unreasonable."

Is it reasonable to assume that a player at that level, who has competed in tournament golf going all the way back to their pre-college days, should know precisely how far "two club-lengths" are? Or perhaps should know that when they mark their ball on the green - that replacing their ball outside of where it originally lied behind the marker, either left or right of where it originally lied, is a breach of the rule? In my mind in Lexi's situation, reasonable would've been a dimple, maybe even two. But an inch? GTFO.

You might as well play a scramble format, winter rules, and take "bad luck" or a "bad break" from an undesirable outcome completely out of play. It does a huge disservice to those who came before them, who lost tournaments, major championships, potentially hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars for those very reasons.

And don't get me wrong - I am not against sports evolving. I understand that there are things picked up via a high-def television camera that couldn't otherwise be detected with the naked eye. That is reasonable. What isn't reasonable is a situation where a player proceeds sloppily, whether an advantage was gained or not, beyond "reasonable." What is reasonable?

Bad luck and bad breaks are as much a part of the game as great execution. But when a situation is allowed to happen where those things are no longer in play, because of "reasonable judgement" - then it doesn't set the type of standard that golf at that level has always honored and been held to.

Again, I ask: what is "reasonable judgement?"

That's where I think this process runs into issues. Define reasonable. If they want to give the players an inch of liberty on the greens when replacing their ball behind the mark - fine. If they want to give the players an additional foot beyond two club lengths on a penalty drop - fine. There's an enforceable standard there, as "reasonable" has a standard.

Something I always found interesting.... that in both Tiger's case back in 2013 at the Masters, and in Lexi's case last season with the improper ball replacement on the green - neither of them felt the need, on any level, to assume at least the smallest amount of responsibility for their errors. And both were very routine situations.

Doesn't mean I think they intentionally tried to gain unfair advantages, but that the concept of knowing the rules, applying the rules, proceeding under the rules that govern their profession and livelihoods was cast aside and replaced with a notable sense of entitlement.

JMO. 🙂

Weirfan

PA-PLAYA

Re- reasonable judgement.

Reasonable means different to different people, Ofiicials with their better understanding of the rules and their application see reasonable very differently than casual fan.

Im a member of amother golf forum where several current and retired rules officials regularly take part in discussions. Rules officials are well trained and extremely knowledgeable. They will in most cases have a much greater depth of knowledge and understanding of the minutia and intricacies of rules and their application and most of the time that view and their explanation of a ruling will differ from us Untrained and inexperieced Joe Blow armchair fans.

We fans as non rule officials respond viscerally to situations , screaming thats not fair , but fair sometimes as we see it isnt the issue. Its not fair if i get a parking ticket for being 1 minute over on my meter or for speeding 10 over.

In Lexis mark case it was not intent or whether or not she gained an advantage. The rule is not written that way. The penalty was justified. Her penalty I can argue as unfair but it is the penalty for the breach of said rule.

I can say this from interacting with and reading the responses from the rulies in the long and detailed discussions about Lexi's mark......armchair fans are likely incorrect if they think that Lexi would not still be penalized for that mark, From what I have read ....by them she would quite possibly still be penalized ( if the rules official sees or is made aware of the infraction) Now a situation where the player would not still be penalized would be Anna Norvquist (sp) where she moved a couple of grains of sand with her club in the bunker.

PA-PLAYA

Weirfan

Yeah, most rules officials are removed from the hoopla of social media and internet fan knee-jerk reactions on discussion boards. I'm sure they are much more aware of a particular "standard" than most of us are. Many have decades of experience dealing with these situations when they come up, and I must say that 99% of the time (imo) they get it right. Even when it might seem "unfair" to us, or perhaps "too liberal" to us.

And they get it right because in the past - there's always been this premise of black-and-white - an exact standard - that they've been able to rely on and use as a "reasonable" guideline.

But this is new territory, however, even for them. And I'm sure they'll be trained-up on whatever that particular standard might be given certain situations.

Where I feel the discourse will occur is when "reasonable" might apply to one player, and under a similar situation it doesn't apply to another. Two players, two identical situations, one gets the benefit of the doubt, the other doesn't. This is where I fear that this eventually leads to. And it might not make the headlines if it happens the week of the Safeway Open, but you can bet your ass that it'll be a big story if it happens in a major tournament. That's the potential that comes with this imo. And it doesn't paint our sport in a glowing light if there's this sense that there is the slightest degree of bias toward one player over another. "Well, Tiger wasn't penalized for this last week, so why is Phil Mickelson getting penalized for it this week?" The rules officials might better understand why, given the context of variables in those situations. But explaining them to the fans and having them understand the subtle differences won't be so easy. Especially if there are already underlying biases that go along with those two players (just using them as examples). In fact - going back to DJ's ball moving on the green back at Oakmont - there was such a situation. Identical situation. One player's ball moved on the green (he wasn't in contention so we didn't hear much about it) just an hour or so earlier. No penalty. Yet DJ was assessed a penalty after the fact.

I mean - they had a black-and-white standard there, in both instances neither player grounded their putters behind the ball when it moved. Yet one guy got penalized, the other didn't. And although I know the new rules regarding this particular issue have changed (or will have changed soon, which should've occurred long ago) and shouldn't be a huge issue now going forward - nevertheless it just reiterates how players are treated differently.

And let's face it - the discussional discourse over the past few seasons from the fans is ultimately what has prompted the USGA/PGA Tour/LPGA to react the way they have... they don't want to be perceived as being unfair, or to continue keeping the game itself embedded in its long-held historical perception that it hasn't evolved and is still governed and made much more penal for no good reason, to the point where it completely turns people away from even considering picking up the sport. There are several external pressures that have forced them to reconsider changing the rules and changing that perception. They want to grow the game! It keeps the cash flowing into the entire industry!

But at some point there has to be a "known" standard of "reasonable."

And educating the fans about where those differences in standards lie? I just don't think it's possible.

I trust they'll do the best they can, but I seriously doubt that this change toward "reasonable judgement" will be exempt of its fair share (and perhaps justified) level of controversy.

ode

Weirfan why was Rahm not penalized?

johnnydoom

I have to say I've been baffled by some of the rulings, particularly those against Dustin and Anna. The penalty on Lexi, in my opinion, was fully justified as far as the infraction goes - after viewing the replay. I'm convinced that she marked far enough off that it wasn't due to being casual with the replacement. However, I think it was up to her competitors and those actually at the scene to concern themselves with that issue and that it was completely unfair to inflict a penalty after the fact and, even more so, based upon a call in.

Weirfan

ode

Im not familiar with the Rahm sitiation. Perahps if you could explain or link me to it.
My immediate thought though is a different set of officials from Lexi and they ruled how they saw fit . I think that there will always remain a degree of subjective determination in any ruling and that gets more difficult as the situation becomes less clear. Again The Lexi ruling was not that she intentially tried to get away with something or that she gained an advantage but that the mark was off enough that there was the potential for an advantage to be gained ( in the eyes of the officials) . I dont see that type of decision being changed going forward under these rule modifications ( but I could be wrong) with the same group of officials and the input by rules officials elsewhere who have commented on this seems to support that notion.

To add i think the whole eliminate viewer call ins is lots of window dressing in response to the uproar by fans. As ive posted earlier, its probably a good thing from an optics perspective as other sports dont do this. However, Im sure there are literally hundreds of call ins and the few that have been determined to be right are the minority. cant say that i would have want to see A player win when they should have been penlized and im hope going forward with less eyes - but the correct eyes, we dont have a situation where there was a breach not seen and somebody undeservedly wins when they shouldnt have. I fear this is an inevitable certainty tho .

TonyJesselli

sdandrea1 Yes indeed. That was from me. 😀

« Previous Page Next Page »