Viewer call ins

[Gary Hill]

I assume the intent of the flag rule is not to interfere with a ball that has the potential to go in.

Not necessarily. What about a scenario in which a player skulls his chip shot 3 feet high directly at the flagstick.
I run over and remove the flagstick and the ball goes directly over the hole, across the back of the green and into a water hazard?

You would want the Rules to prevent this action, but you could not reasonably argue that the ball had the potential to go in the hole.

if his fellow competitor agrees, we will wave the penalty

Paul Azinger is playing against the score of 155 players in the Canadian Open.
Are you going ask all 155 to agree to waive the penalty?

SURELY the rules officials can say "Yes, it is clearly a penalty, yet the intent of the rule is "so and so"

As I have shown above, the intent of the Rule is not always obvious.

If you meant the intent of the player, then you are opening a Pandora's Box of problems.

eg. Tiger Woods marks his ball 1/2 inch to the side of his marker on a 40 foot putt.

What was his intention?
Was it an accidental error or was he manuvering the ball to avoid a spike mark?

[NoBack]

Gary

What about a scenario in which a player skulls his chip shot 3 feet high directly at the flagstick.

That ball still has an outside chance of hitting the flag and dropping straight down and into the hole. So I wouldnt be running over to take the flag out, would you?

We are talking about how Funk's ball was already past the hole and had zero, OOOO.OO chance of going in after the flag was pulled. His intent was ONLY to take the flag out for his player, who next to putt.

[Rough Stuff]

Sorry, I was not clear. I guess I should have asked "What is the intent of the rule." If the action (removing the flag) had no bearing, positive or negative, on the result of that specific play...what is the harm? I'm playing devil's A, here, because it seems like they want to play black and white rules so they don't have to do what the law does...collect years of precedences that give lawyers jobs.

[Gary Hill]

His intent was ONLY to take the flag out for his player, who next to putt.

Okay. Lets open the Pandora's Box of player intent.

Would you like to start by answering my "Tiger Woods marks his ball 1/2 inch to the side of his marker on a 40 foot putt" question?

[NoBack]

My only point was on this particular example......Funk's ball was not going in the hole, so big deal, he took the flag out 1/100 of second early, who cares. Has NO influence on the outcome whatsoever.

You want to use Tiger putting his marker in an illegal position on the green after marking it to avoid a spike mark, as the SAME thing????

Let's wait till it happens and is on tv so i can call it in Gary.

[Gary Hill]

I doubt if the PGA Tour would delay rulings until you phoned them with your personal determination of:
1. His intent was ONLY to...
2. so big deal
3 who cares
4 Has NO influence on the outcome

Of course the Tiger Woods question is the same thing.
You want to waive the Rules based solely on the intention of the player.
I did not say that our hypothetical Tiger moved the ball to avoid a spike.
I was asking whether or not to waive the penalty based on your determination of his intentions when replacing the ball.
Obviously an impossible task.

[NoBack]

Ok Gary............

different scenerio........

you are standing behind me on the green nothing between me and the hole ........ no flag to hit either ............ is there any chances of me hitting YOU with my ball while putting??

No other answer than a yes or no Gary ....... i dont want you ramble on with more technical stuff other than yes or no......

Now the answer is easy and its NO ............ 0.00000 chance of hitting you with the ball .......... when Funk's ball went by the hole and the caddy picked up the flag, it also had NO chance of going in the hole. THAT' IT .......as for your Tiger example ,I have no idea what is in his mind when he improperly marked his ball, and that example is totally different.

[Kilroy]

You are correct Steve, it is silly to worry about it once the ball has passed the hole, but the rule reads that you cannot pull the flag while the ball is moving. It's dumb. It's right up there with no tapping down spike marks, (thank god that is addressed by soft spikes).

The rules of golf are applied in black and white. There is no allowance for a referee to allow a penalty to go uncalled even if the violation is of no cosequence to the outcome. The penalty applied certainly is of concequence (ask Azinger).

Players in all other sports try to get illegal moves in when the ref isn't looking. That is part of the game. Just look at the cheating that goes on during the playoffs, and nothing gets called. In fact whenever a penalty in hockey is called, it is because someone did something they should not have "by the book". Personally it makes me wonder what we teach the kids who play these team sports. "Get away with whatever you can".

In golf you get a penalty for ending up in a bad place without trying to push anyone out of the way. Golf is different, it is considered bad form to try to get away with anything.

Golf = Black + White
Other sports = Black + grey

[Gary Hill]

different scenerio........

Your caddie is standing 40 feet behind you during the stroke.

No chance of him affecting the ball, the hole, the game, or the Tournament.

Waive the penalty under Rule 14-2?

[Gary Hill]

There is no allowance for a referee to allow a penalty to go uncalled even if the violation is of no cosequence to the outcome.

You are referring to stroke play only.
In match play, an opponent is not required make a claim.
A player may disregard a breach of the Rules by his opponent, provided there is no agreement between the players.
The referee must also disregard the breach.

A referee is not allowed to intercede unless the player is unaware that his opponent has incurred a penalty.
In such a case, the referee would inform the player of the breach by his opponent, but no further action may be taken by the referee.

[jimrobin]

I've been watching this post and find it quite interesting.

Yes I feel sorry for Azinger, yes the scenario was cheesy, but the rule was broke and the officials do have to react. (Sorry Steve as cheesy as it was)

The point I want to make is on Reid's (Proforged) point, which I think is a great one. Either you have replay available on all golfers or you use none.

To me, by using TV coverage it is now an unfair competition. Only the leading/high profile groups are being videotaped. Thus, as we saw on Friday, rules can come into effect that players do not even realize they are breaking. The rule that was called in on Friday would not have been able to be called without video evidence (the timing was that close).
So either have everybody on a camera or no one.

[Gary Hill]

The rule that was called in on Friday would not have been able to be called without video evidence (the timing was that close).

I disagree. A ruling is going to be made with or without video evidence.

If the officials ask the players and caddies whether the ball was moving at the time the flagstick was removed and the players confirmed that fact, then no video evidence would be required or used (even if available).

[jimrobin]

I disagree. A ruling is going to be made with or without video evidence.

I disagree with you. This senario video evidence was needed and only by video replay was the penalty able to be called.
The pin was pulled within a second of the ball stopping.

And this is my point. If the PGA is going to use video evidence, then every group should be on camera. Make it a level playing field.

It was obvious on video replay because you are looking for it and we all saw it over & over. But at the time, the timing was WAY to close to call.

For all we know, this same senario may have happened numerous times on tour this year and nobody even noticed because a camera wasn't around to review it.

[Gary Hill]

This senario video evidence was needed and only by video replay was the penalty able to be called.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is a question of fact whether video evidence was needed or used in the actual ruling.

If the PGA is going to use video evidence, then every group should be on camera. Make it a level playing field.

Every single Toronto Maple Leaf game is televised with evidence available to the league to fine/suspend players for serious infractions that occur away from the play or the goal line.

Not all NHL teams have such complete video evidence available for every game.

Does this tilt the playing field when it comes to suspensions by the league?

[gbower]

Gary quoted:

"Not all NHL teams have such complete video evidence available for every game."

This is not true as every NHL team has had for a few years now video taped every game and does use it if necessary. Sometimes things happen where the camera doesn't pick it up but not that often.

Again this should be decided by the people playing this game of honour when it happens or every shot of every player should be taped and reviewed which just does not make sense.

In the tournaments all players have a rules official close by and if a question comes up they can ask one of them and get a very quick ruling but having this happen much later is just not right even though the rule is in black and white.

[jimrobin]

Every single Toronto Maple Leaf game is televised with evidence available to the league to fine/suspend players for serious infractions that occur away from the play or the goal line.

Not all NHL teams have such complete video evidence available for every game.

Does this tilt the playing field when it comes to suspensions by the league?

Even with cameras it does not guarantee you're going to catch everything but at least it’s an improvement then there is now. The NHL is doing what they can. Every game may not be on TV but cameras are there at the game and are rolling. So yes it is better than the PGA.

Hey, all I'm saying is if its not possible to have camera follow every group, or on every hole as groups go through, then cameras should not be used on just some groups as the competition will not be fair.

"Keep the competition as fair as possible and on a level playing field for all competitors."
Gary isn't this what you've been preaching all along.

[Gary Hill]

"Keep the competition as fair as possible and on a level playing field for all competitors."
Gary isn't this what you've been preaching all along.

I couldn't care less whether the competition is fair or the playing field is level. That is a matter for the Committee, not the Rules official.
I gave up preaching long ago when I realized: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[Gary Hill]

Again this should be decided by the people playing this game of honour

If players could always decide these "matters of honour" amongst themselves when millions of dollars are involved, there would be no need to suspend Vijay Singh for 2 years from the Asian Tour for altering his scorecard after his marker had signed it.

[Chris]

Some of these golf rulings are really anal...to the point of ridiculas!

IMO there should be a rule of honour amoungst the players. If there is clearly no intent to have an advantage then there should be no penalty! ... and to allow a viewer to call in a observed penalty??!!! Pleeassse~ I guess this is the next in the series Reality shows...

[Colby]

This was in a Score Golf email that I just received:

It appears that cooler heads (not to mention common sense) can prevail concerning perceived rules violations. Playing in the first-round of the Canadian PGA Women's Championship, Karin Mundinger clearly removed the flag from the hole before playing partner Carrie Vaughan's ball came to a stop on the fringe on the 18th. With the strange penalty incurred by Paul Azinger (called in by a television viewer) at last week's Bell Canadian Open still resonating in everyone's mind, Vaughan pointed out the indiscretion to Mundinger, not wanting her partner to sign an incorrect scorecard which would have meant disqualification. A rules official was consulted, and while acknowledging there was in all likelihood a violation, it was decided to let the issue pass without a penalty.

[1972Apex]

I agree with you 100% Jim... BTW On Monday Night Football the other night I clearly saw a holding penalty that the officials missed. Tried calling it in but no one seemed interested.... Might have cost one team the game too...

Even with cameras it does not guarantee you're going to catch everything but at least it’s an improvement then there is now. The NHL is doing what they can. Every game may not be on TV but cameras are there at the game and are rolling. So yes it is better than the PGA.

Hey, all I'm saying is if its not possible to have camera follow every group, or on every hole as groups go through, then cameras should not be used on just some groups as the competition will not be fair.

"Keep the competition as fair as possible and on a level playing field for all competitors."
Gary isn't this what you've been preaching all along.

[Gary Hill]

A rules official was consulted, and while acknowledging there was in all likelihood a violation, it was decided to let the issue pass without a penalty.

In the case of a "he said; she said" issue where the evidence is incomplete or not enough evidence can be obtained to prove a clear violation, the Rules official should give the player the benefit of the doubt in the ruling.

[Big_duck]

I seem to remember several occasions (not the details) where the NHL fined/suspended players for on ice incidents where the Ref didn't call a penalty at the time ... usually when there is a great hew and cry from the fans/media ... I guess it does happen in other sports.

[jimrobin]

In the case of a "he said; she said" issue where the evidence is incomplete or not enough evidence can be obtained to prove a clear violation, the Rules official should give the player the benefit of the doubt in the ruling.

Thank you Gary!
Thus proving my point. "The Azinger ruling" had to done because of the video evidence. If there were no video, that rule would not be called because it is a timing thing and how do you go back and check it with out video evidence.

Therefore only certain rules are being applied to certain groups (aka -the ones on camera). How do you fix this??? You're not going to get rid of TV coverage, so you go the other way and get everyone on camera.

[Gary Hill]

Under your proposal, would you REQUIRE cameras to follow players into areas of dense bush in case the player accidentally moved his ball?

[jimrobin]

Under your proposal, would you REQUIRE cameras to follow players into areas of dense bush in case the player accidentally moved his ball?

TV cameras already go, pretty much were the golfers go.

They should do what they can. Same as in hockey, football, etc. Look for the best camera angle to get the call/ruling correct. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.
Have you ever heard "After further review, blah, blah, blah, ........ Inconclusive evidence".

Yes, Gary I realize this may seem like overkill and ridiculous but how else do you level the playing field? Why should the guys on TV (and their caddies) be the only ones closely monitored for infractions with video replay evidence?

[Farzin]

By Gary Hill

Your logic for cheating is that there are no cameras following your round?

Gary:
The incident at Canadian open proves my point from last post " Honest Handicap" that PGA players benefit from cameras and inspectores following them. They hardly loose a ball. They hardly hit another ball by mistake. and they hardly have to look for their balls when they miss hit their ball. When a flag is removed before the ball comes to a full stop and only is detected by a camera and a viewer off the course. If the viewer wouldn't have detected the infraction, would you have questioned Paul Azinger's intend for cheating? All the rules are applied to PGA players, because they are pro and thousands of dollars are at stake. It's not a level field when I am out there playing a friendly game with my buddies. Do you understand now?

[spidey]

All the rules are applied to PGA players, because they are pro and thousands of dollars are at stake. It's not a level field when I am out there playing a friendly game with my buddies. Do you understand now?

Why do you try to insist that Gary doesn't understand?

The rules are not applied to anybody. Individuals are expected to apply the rules to themselves.

The rules were not invented for professionals. The rules were invented by amateurs playing a game for fun (and small wagers probably, but that's not the point of them).

Personally, even if I don't know all the rules, I expect to win or lose by them. If I'm not playing against somebody, then there's no winning or losing, it's just a game. I post my scores. I drink a beer. I go home.

Do I feel indignant that somebody else gets fewer penalties than I do merely because there were more witnesses... (or helpers)? Of course not. There's a lot more iniquity in the game from bad bounces and bad shots than there ever will be from having video replays.

...why do you need Gary to validate your sense of injustice? He's just explaining the rules. Do you expect him to give you permission to select your own rules for observing?

...the playing field will never be level. There will always be somebody who can hit the ball further, remember the rules better, play more skilfully, or be far luckier than you. Expecting the game of golf, or the rules of golf (or any other game for that matter) to vindicate your sense of justice is.... unlikely at best?

[Farzin]

Why do you try to insist that Gary doesn't understand?

spidy
Let the man speak for himself.

[Christian]

At the recently completed OVGA A Class Field Day , one of my FC called a penalty on himself not once but twice as his ball "supposedly" moved after he had addressed it before putting! On the 15th hole at the Royal, the same thing happened to me!

In all three cases, none of the other two FC actually saw the ball move. I know in my case (and I suspect in my FC's case as well), it is a matter of integrity to call the infraction. It has nothing to do with intent. I certainly did not intend for the ball to move after addressing it but it did and I had to replace it at its original location and call it (needless to say my score still stunk and I did not ground my putter on 16, 17 and 18).

What is the point? The rules are the rules regardless of intent. That's the beauty of golf. The is no "grey". Only black and white