Protectig from the sun-Legal or not.

[Big Johnny69]

When we equate officiating in golf with officiating in hockey, golf is doomed.

It is so simple to take a stance against the current process but a much greater challenge to see the negative implications for golf. Respect for the rules goes down the tubes if you take away the accountability that currently exits. Perhaps I am missing something obvious but I just cannot comprehend how 50,000,000 viewers on TV and perhaps thousands or hundreds of spectators in person, can see a player break a rule as in my example above, and some of you actually think that this is OK. Very strange indeed.

He never said its ok. He saying there should be a limitation on time allowed to call someone on an infraction. For instance, that reporter that followed Michelle Wie for a round and noticed she took an incorrect drop. Conveniently (as some said because I believe he was a "Wie hater" so to speak) didn't report the infraction until the next day once Michelle had already signed her card.

I believe the tour does have a time limit of after the tournament is complete no more violations can be reported. Which if you are going to allow someone to call in a day late you should be allowed to call in a day late after the tourney is over.

You can compare hockey and golf if you want to compare spectators calling in infractions. If people at home watching golf are allowed, why not people at home watching hockey. There is other competitors and rules officials watching at golf tournaments that miss infractions, and referees at hockey games that miss infractions. So let the hockey fans call in as well then.

Personally, they have enough cameras and people around a golf tourney, if they can't spot the infraction there's a problem and I don't think Joe Shmoo at home should be calling it in. What does that say abou the tour when their spectators have to call in the penalties on players???

But of course this is just my opinion, the Tour has its rules and probably won't be changing them anytime soon.

[dbleber]

Exactly Geoff, you said much better then I could have. I didn't say that is was ok or that the rule is not justified but they way it was reported and handled seems odd. I'd love to be able to phone in penalties I see while at home watching the playoffs, the Sens would be on a power play for 60 mins! I think it is good for golfers such as ourselves to have forums like this to talk about hat we see on TV and rules etc. but the tour should regulate themselves and not listen to Joe Blow.

[Big Johnny69]

I like spackler's idea of having constant rules officials with every group. I'm sure they're would be enough people wanting to volunteer to help. It would also help with the situations where the players have to wait for a ruling because no one was close by.

[mpare]

For my part I miss the point of comparing compliance with, and the enforcement of, the rules of the game in hockey and in golf. The two sports are fundamentally different in that regard. The honourable game of golf is predicated on full compliance with the rules, combined with the expectation that each player will self-report any rules violations that he/she or anyone else in the field may have committed. By contrast, there is no expectation in hockey that there will be complete compliance with the rules. Not only that, but no responsibility is placed on individual players to report their own transgressions. Enforcement in hockey is left solely to the referees. If the referee doesn’t call a penalty during the play, it effectively did not happen. It is not surprising then that the culture of hockey supports players in denying and obfuscating their own culpability for rules’ violations. By contrast, a golfer’s response to being made aware of having committed a penalty should be to say: “Thank you for pointing that out to me. I hadn’t realized it.”

This fundamental difference between the two games explains why golf welcomes being advised by anyone in a timely manner (the timing differences between stroke play and match play are significant in this regard, but that should be the matter of another thread) of a rules violation and hockey does not. One may not like “outsiders” calling in, but the rules of the game of golf and their interpretation have logically accepted such interventions, because they are consistent with the fundamental belief that golf is meant to be played in full compliance with the rules.

[Big Johnny69]

You make very good points Mike. But I was not comparing the rules of golf to the rules of hockey. What I was saying was that if you let people watching at home call in for one sport, why not the other??? In that regard its the same thing. And in contrast, when you lace them up for a game of hockey you are going out there with the intention to play within the rules just like golf. Only difference is, you are having someone else call the infractions on you instead of calling them on yourself.

And this is where I have a problem with golf, its the only sport (other than rugby down under apparently) that lets outsiders possibly decide the outcome of an event. Is it ok to let someone win an event after breaking the rules but wasn't reported, of course not? But that's mostly the fault of the tour. The players should be aware of all the rules (and we all know most don't even know half the rules) and they should have officials out there policing. There is nothing more I hate than watching a player have a great round only to find out they were disqualified the next day for signing and incorrect scorecard due to an infraction that Joe Public called in after the round was over. Some rules are pretty obscure (see Duffy Waldorf fixing a divot a couple of feet in front of his ball someone before him forgot to fix) and although its the player's responsibility to know them all, the PGA has enough cameras etc at each event that somone should notice these things and be able to report them to the player so they could correct their score so they are not disqualified.

I think that is the problem most people have with Joe Public calling in. They aren't saying its ok to cheat or break rules, they just don't like seeing someone who could be 2000 miles away determine the outcome of a tournament. The PGA should improve their inhouse rule enforcing to help correct these issues.

[AAA]

The rules of the game of golf and their interpretation have logically accepted such interventions, because they are consistent with the fundamental belief that golf is meant to be played in full compliance with the rules.

[mpare]

This is where we differ. Joe Public is not determining the outcome of the event. That individual is simply raising, presumably in a timely fashion, a rules question. The rules themselves dictate the manner in which the game is played and is scored. If there is a rules violation detected as a result of the call, then it is the rules themselves that dictate the outcome.

... I think that is the problem most people have with Joe Public calling in. They aren't saying its ok to cheat or break rules, they just don't like seeing someone who could be 2000 miles away determine the outcome of a tournament. The PGA should improve their inhouse rule enforcing to help correct these issues.

[jeffc]

The other reality is that there would be more infractions seen by spectators on site than there would be caught on camera. Ignore all of those, too? It would not take too long before some players would start dropping the ball more than 1 club length or finding the NICEST point of relief instead of the nearest. Think that this would not happen? Some marginal Tour players would have a field day. Does the solution of having 54 rules officials on site make sense. Actually, would you probably want to have two in each fairway because one could not cover both sides so the number would go up to 72.

[/I]

So I am confused. In one sentence, some of you are saying that golf is a game of honour and the next sentence that if we took the ability of the for fans to call in all heck would break loose. So which is it? Do you think that just because cameras are on them that they play by the rules? What about the Canadian tour, nationwide tour and about 50 other tours that don't get much if any TV coverage. If it's such a game of honour then why the need for allowing fans to call in and call rules? And if there is a need to allow people to call in then surely there is a need for rules officials (and several of them) on each hole.

[BC MIST]

For my part I miss the point of comparing compliance with, and the enforcement of, the rules of the game in hockey and in golf. The two sports are fundamentally different in that regard. The honourable game of golf is predicated on full compliance with the rules, combined with the expectation that each player will self-report any rules violations that he/she or anyone else in the field may have committed. By contrast, there is no expectation in hockey that there will be complete compliance with the rules. Not only that, but no responsibility is placed on individual players to report their own transgressions. Enforcement in hockey is left solely to the referees. If the referee doesn’t call a penalty during the play, it effectively did not happen. It is not surprising then that the culture of hockey supports players in denying and obfuscating their own culpability for rules’ violations. By contrast, a golfer’s response to being made aware of having committed a penalty should be to say: “Thank you for pointing that out to me. I hadn’t realized it.”

This fundamental difference between the two games explains why golf welcomes being advised by anyone in a timely manner (the timing differences between stroke play and match play are significant in this regard, but that should be the matter of another thread) of a rules violation and hockey does not. One may not like “outsiders” calling in, but the rules of the game of golf and their interpretation have logically accepted such interventions, because they are consistent with the fundamental belief that golf is meant to be played in full compliance with the rules.

If my honourable members of the opposition don't "get it" after reading your post Mike, they never will. This is probably the best post on the topic that I have ever seen.

In response to a couple of things Geoff said: "I believe the tour does have a time limit of after the tournament is complete no more violations can be reported. "It is not the Tour that makes this decision but it is the Rules of Golf. Rule 34-1(b) says that a competition is closed when the results have been announced.

Secondly, regarding the Michelle Wie incident, Michelle inadvertently broke a rule of golf and for that she was disqualified. While you can say that it is not OK by suggesting that because a reporter made officials aware of the infraction a day late, IS really saying that it is OK to break a rule. You can't have it both ways. The competition was not closed when she was "called" for her infraction.

While it certainly MAY sound snobbish, golf is an honourable game as described my Michael above, very different from hockey and stands far above hockey. However, if one equates golf and hockey, one may be missing some of the essence of the game.

As an aside to the above, over the years I have seen and called many golfers, and some of them very good ones, for breaking rules to gain an advantage. In some cases I have been berated, sworn at, threatened and ostracized for doing so. Without exception, they were all former football and/or hockey players who still retained the mindset of those games.

[Big Johnny69]

If my honourable members of the opposition don't "get it" after reading your post Mike, they never will. This is probably the best post on the topic that I have ever seen.

In response to a couple of things Geoff said: "I believe the tour does have a time limit of after the tournament is complete no more violations can be reported. "It is not the Tour that makes this decision but it is the Rules of Golf. Rule 34-1(b) says that a competition is closed when the results have been announced.


Regarding once the results have been announced, how is that fair for someone who gets disqualified on Sun because someone called in something from Sat, meanwhile if the tournament is over and someone calls in something Sun evening after the event the Tour can't do anything. If you can call in a day after during the event, you should be able to call in at least one day after the event is over. Results shouldn't be finalized until Tues morning, because by that logic its ok to break a rule on Sunday if you don't get caught before the tournament is over.

Secondly, regarding the Michelle Wie incident, Michelle inadvertently broke a rule of golf and for that she was disqualified. While you can say that it is not OK by suggesting that because a reporter made officials aware of the infraction a day late, IS really saying that it is OK to break a rule. You can't have it both ways. The competition was not closed when she was "called" for her infraction.

I'm not saying its ok to break a rule. What I'm implying is that at the time Michelle believed she took the correct drop. This reporter was questioning the drop, but instead of bringing it up in a timely manner (before Michelle signed her card) he waited until the next day and had her disqualified.

While it certainly MAY sound snobbish, golf is an honourable game as described my Michael above, very different from hockey and stands far above hockey. However, if one equates golf and hockey, one may be missing some of the essence of the game.

You say others don't get it, you aren't getting others points as well. I'm not comparing hockey to golf, I'm comparing spectators at home watching the sports. You know why hockey doesn't allow fans to call in infractions, because they police their own which I believe the Tour should do as well. And obviously if rule violations are being called in by couch potatoes they aren't doing a good job of either

A) Making sure their players are well aware of all the rules of golf

Or B) Do not have enough people watching these guys to make sure the rules are being abided by or to catch infractions. Lord knows they have enough cameras.

You were critical of Terry Clarke for his views on a subject and not seeing the other side of a discussion, the same could be said of you here. I can see where the likes of yourself and Mike are coming from but it doesn't look like you'd even consider the other side of the coin. Of course golf is an honourable game but I believe there is faults with it that if looked at by the Tour and its management could improve the game.

Basically I don't care if 300,000,000 people see it on tv, the Tour should have enough people at an event to catch things like that so people outside of the event don't have to have an outcome on the tourney.

Sorry for the bold type, needed to use it to differentiate my remarks and yours.

Once again I'm done on a subject, this has been beaten to death in threads before. Some have one opinion, others have another, its what makes it great here to have lively discussions.

[AAA]

if the tournament is over and someone calls in something Sun evening after the event the Tour can't do anything..

Not really to do with the topic, which I won't extend, but what you say above is not quite true.

Rule 34-1b has a number of exceptions
Exception: A penalty of disqualification must be imposed after the competition has closed if a competitor:
(i) was in breach of Rule 1-3 (Agreement to Waive Rules); or
(ii) returned a score card on which he had recorded a handicap that, before the competition closed, he knew was higher than that to which he was entitled, and this affected the number of strokes received (Rule 6-2b); or
(iii) returned a score for any hole lower than actually taken (Rule 6-6d) for any reason other than failure to include a penalty that, before the competition closed, he did not know he had incurred; or
(iv) knew, before the competition closed, that he had been in breach of any other Rulefor which the penalty is disqualification.

[Big Johnny69]

Not really to do with the topic, which I won't extend, but what you say above is not quite true.

Rule 34-1b has a number of exceptions
Exception: A penalty of disqualification must be imposed after the competition has closed if a competitor:
(i) was in breach of Rule 1-3 (Agreement to Waive Rules); or
(ii) returned a score card on which he had recorded a handicap that, before the competition closed, he knew was higher than that to which he was entitled, and this affected the number of strokes received (Rule 6-2b); or
(iii) returned a score for any hole lower than actually taken (Rule 6-6d) for any reason other than failure to include a penalty that, before the competition closed, he did not know he had incurred; or
(iv) knew, before the competition closed, that he had been in breach of any other Rulefor which the penalty is disqualification.

Thanks for the upate AAA. I can't recall someone calling in a rules infraction after an event was over on Sun, it will be interesting to see what happens if that ever occurs.

[BC MIST]

There is nothing more I hate than watching a player have a great round only to find out they were disqualified the next day for signing and incorrect scorecard due to an infraction that Joe Public called in after the round was over.

This is what I mean when I say that some don't "get it." On one hand the player had a "great round" but that "great round" included NOT being penalized for "an infraction," that occurred before he signed his card. So why do you hate it players have to accept responsibility for a broken rule? Joe Public did not cause the player to get disqualified, the player did? Remember Roberto Di Vicenzo. He lost The Masters because he signed an incorrect score card. He never whined about HIS mistake. He just called himself "stupid."

You say others don't get it, you aren't getting others points as well. I'm not comparing hockey to golf, I'm comparing spectators at home watching the sports. You know why hockey doesn't allow fans to call in infractions, because they police their own which I believe the Tour should do as well. And obviously if rule violations are being called in by couch potatoes they aren't doing a good job of either

It seems that you believe that rules officials in golf are POLICEMEN whose job it is to scour the golf course looking for players who may be breaking the rules. That's what they do in hockey. In golf, officials are available to ensure that when rulings are asked for, that the golfer puts the ball in play correctly, or whatever, in many cases to prevent them from being further penalized. I have had a couple of encounters with RCGA officials, the same ones who officiate at the Canadian Open, and this is exactly what they do. In one case the official asked me if I knew my options(lateral water hazard). I told him the five, he watched my procedure for the chosen one, and when done, he said, "Your ball is in play,. sir." and walked away. He was not there to penalize me but to help me. If I was going to drop the ball incorrectly, he would have said something before I made the mistake.

You were critical of Terry Clarke for his views on a subject and not seeing the other side of a discussion, the same could be said of you here. I can see where the likes of yourself and Mike are coming from but it doesn't look like you'd even consider the other side of the coin.

I fully understand your(plural) point of view but am vehemently opposed to it because it conflicts with the essence of the game. While on one hand you say, "I'm not comparing hockey to golf," but some wanting officials on every hole, IS policing, what they actually do in hockey and IYO, they are doing a lousy job, (if rule violations are being called in by couch potatoes they aren't doing a good job) at something that is NOT their job in the first place.

-Golfers are responsible for knowing the rules. Are hockey players?
-Golfers are responsible for playing by the rules. Do hockey players?
-Golfers call penalties on themselves. Do hockey players?
-Golfers are responsible for reporting rules infractions to their FC, opponent or to the committee. Do hockey players?
-Golfers who are unsure about a rule, get a ruling from someone who knows. Do hockey players? Golf IS very different and hopefully will stay that way. I'm done.

[Big Johnny69]

This is what I mean when I say that some don't "get it." On one hand the player had a "great round" but that "great round" included NOT being penalized for "an infraction," that occurred before he signed his card. So why do you hate it players have to accept responsibility for a broken rule? Joe Public did not cause the player to get disqualified, the player did? Remember Roberto Di Vicenzo. He lost The Masters because he signed an incorrect score card. He never whined about HIS mistake. He just called himself "stupid."

Once again you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying a player should get away with infractions. I'm saying the if the Tour allows spectators at home to call in infractions, why can't they set up a system to review play to see if any infractions occured that were missed. What does that say about the tour if someone at home has to call in an infraction when they are there watching the same thing?????

[/quote]It seems that you believe that rules officials in golf are POLICEMEN whose job it is to scour the golf course looking for players who may be breaking the rules. That's what they do in hockey. In golf, officials are available to ensure that when rulings are asked for, that the golfer puts the ball in play correctly, or whatever, in many cases to prevent them from being further penalized. I have had a couple of encounters with RCGA officials, the same ones who officiate at the Canadian Open, and this is exactly what they do. In one case the official asked me if I knew my options(lateral water hazard). I told him the five, he watched my procedure for the chosen one, and when done, he said, "Your ball is in play,. sir." and walked away. He was not there to penalize me but to help me. If I was going to drop the ball incorrectly, he would have said something before I made the mistake.[/quote]

I don't think they should be there scouring looking for rule breakers, but having more on hand wouldn't be a bad thing to point out things that might be missed. For instance in the Wie incident, having someone there might've prevented her from being DQ'd.

[/quote]I fully understand your(plural) point of view but am vehemently opposed to it because it conflicts with the essence of the game. While on one hand you say, "I'm not comparing hockey to golf," but some wanting officials on every hole, IS policing, what they actually do in hockey and IYO, they are doing a lousy job, (if rule violations are being called in by couch potatoes they aren't doing a good job) at something that is NOT their job in the first place.[/quote]

And how does my point of view conflict with the essence of the game? Players can still call infractions on themselves, I'm only suggesting there is someone else there to call ones that the players don't. Only reason this happens is because golf is televised. And like someone pointed out, you don't hear of the guys that went out early in a round being penalized like that. Why, because the coverage isn't even and fair. But maybe it should be there job. This is just something I don't like about the Tour. It happens and I accept it, doesn't mean I have to like it.

[/quote]-Golfers are responsible for knowing the rules. Are hockey players? Yes!
-Golfers are responsible for playing by the rules. Do hockey players? Yes!
-Golfers call penalties on themselves. Do hockey players? Of course not.
-Golfers are responsible for reporting rules infractions to their FC, opponent or to the committee. Do hockey players? No, officials do that.
-Golfers who are unsure about a rule, get a ruling from someone who knows. Do hockey players? Yes they do when something like that arises. Golf IS very different and hopefully will stay that way. Golf is very different and if all sports were alike it would be boring. But in every sport you can find faults, I'm just pointing a fault I find with the PGA Tour. I'm done.[/quote]

Seems like we could back and forth with this til no end. You have your opinion, I have mine. I'm going to call it quits as well.

[hoolio]

I'm not going to really chime in too much here, but the major flaw I see with allowing fans/spectators to call in, as a comparison to other sports as far as "officiating" goes is the lack of consistency this would provide. For example, during the Masters, it seemed that almost every shot Tiger hit was televised, whether he was directly in the hunt for the lead or not. How many shots did you see someone like Rich Beem hit?

My point is that in other sports you have a set number of officials who govern the rules for all the players and all the players to an extent have equal coverage if they are directly involved with the play. If 80% of Tiger's shots are being televised and you only see 5% of some lesser known players then does it not seem rather unfair? Sure, everyone is obliged to abide by the rules, but only a select number of players are under such scrutiny that any crotchety rules-nut sitting on their couch at home can keep an eye on most of their shots to ensure they are playing within the rules.

You can make any argument you wish with regards to their ability to win a tournament and thus have a major effect on the outcome, but as BC MIST has pointed out, breaking a rule is breaking a rule. What is the difference if its to win the tournament or to make the cut, Tiger doesn't need to break a rule to make a paycheck, but what about the guy 10 off the lead fighting for his card next year that you barely hear about? Which one of them would be more tempted to break the rule?

Should someone be watching that the players are abiding my the rules? Absolutely. Should that task fall to people at home who don't see every shot on every hole in every round? Hell no! The PGA Tour has enough money to keep an official in every group, I'm not saying they need to be policemen, but at a minimum there would be someone there to question possible infractions, for each group, on the spot, rather than over the phone 4,000 km away.

[AAA]

Geoff/hoolio

As a matter of interest, how many ROs do you believe there were at the Masters ?

[Big Johnny69]

I have no idea. How many were there?

[AAA]

Over 60

[Big Johnny69]

Interesting.....

[g8r]

Tiger leading by 1 playing from a hanging lie in the left rough on 18 at Augusta. The camera focuses in on the lie as Tiger addresses the ball and the ball moves downward 1/2 inch. Tiger hits the ball makes par and wins by one. Now, 50,000,000 people saw the ball move (Penalty 1 stroke) and the ball not replaced (Penalty 1 stroke) so Tiger really lost by 1 stroke. He accepts the green jacket, the million plus in prize money, all the accolades, for NOT winning The Masters. Can you imagine the hue and cry when this is replayed hundreds of times on TV? Please explain to us why this scenario is OK.

It's not "ok", but We're not usually talking about the blatant "foot wedges" here. There has to be some common sense applied to the enforcement of the rules.

For example, taking your same scenario....Lets say the camera focuses in on the ball during the swing and mere milliseconds before the clubhead strikes the ball it moves 1/8" of an inch. Now, with today's technology, Joe Golfwatcher can rewind this shot and examine it in slowmotion and he notices that the ball moved, ever so slightly....and Tiger should have been assessed a 2 stroke penalty. But how was Tiger to know that his ball moved, it was only upon review in slow-motion and examining the television coverage that this infraction was noticed.

If the PGA has concerns over rules not being properly enforced they should implement a video review of every event to ensure that rules were followed, not rely on people who only see 10% (or less) of the total shots in a tournament.

[gbower]

In your senario below if Tiger continued his swing there is no penalty.


For example, taking your same scenario....Lets say the camera focuses in on the ball during the swing and mere milliseconds before the clubhead strikes the ball it moves 1/8" of an inch. Now, with today's technology, Joe Golfwatcher can rewind this shot and examine it in slowmotion and he notices that the ball moved, ever so slightly....and Tiger should have been assessed a 2 stroke penalty. But how was Tiger to know that his ball moved, it was only upon review in slow-motion and examining the television coverage that this infraction was noticed.

[BC MIST]

In your scenario below if Tiger continued his swing there is no penalty.

One advantage of knowing the rules,eh? .

g8r said "It's not "ok", but We're not usually talking about the blatant "foot wedges" here. There has to be some common sense applied to the enforcement of the rules."
I agree 100%. If a rule is broken, the appropriate penalty MUST be applied. The Rules of Golf do not distinguish between a "foot wedge" and my kicking my ball accidently while looking for it, but I'd wager that some golfers rules do..

[Kiwi battler]

In your senario below if Tiger continued his swing there is no penalty.


For example, taking your same scenario....Lets say the camera focuses in on the ball during the swing and mere milliseconds before the clubhead strikes the ball it moves 1/8" of an inch. Now, with today's technology, Joe Golfwatcher can rewind this shot and examine it in slowmotion and he notices that the ball moved, ever so slightly....and Tiger should have been assessed a 2 stroke penalty. But how was Tiger to know that his ball moved, it was only upon review in slow-motion and examining the television coverage that this infraction was noticed.

1 shot penalty , the second shot penalty is avoided if the swing is continued ..at least thats my understanding of the rule

[gbower]

Kiwi check out Decision 14-5/1 or Rule 14-5 and you'll find the answer which isn't what you have

[Kiwi battler]

I didnt say under what rule the penalty stroke was for , your decision explains why he didnt cop 2 penalty strokes

its quite possible he did something to make it move , or , had adressed the ball before starting the stroke