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. 🙂