"Golf's an honorable game" philosophy question

Not about my game, fortunately. Not worth talking about at the moment. Well, there was this one round a couple of weeks ago ....

Just kidding.

Anyway, Suzann Petterson is playing in the LPGA tournament today. Here's what happened, from AP:

Pettersen was penalized two strokes on the par-5 13th, the first for accidentally moving her ball while trying to remove a loose branch and the second for failing to play the ball from its original location. Pettersen and playing partner Hurst were taken to the TV compound after the round to watch the incident.

"I had a rules official right there with me and we were staring at the ball and it was three of us and none of us saw it move," Pettersen said. "We saw it could wobble but from our angle it was impossible to see that it had moved.

"From the TV view and how the camera was angled, you could see it moved. It hardly moved, but it moved enough for it to be penalized. That's fair enough. That's how the game should be played. It was just impossible for us to see it from our angle because three of us were staring at the ball."
The Norwegian star ended up with a double-bogey 7 on the hole.

"It definitely moved, but from her angle there is no way you can see it," Hurst said. "It moved on camera. I think to the naked eye it's tough to see unless you are at the right angle. The cameras were at the right angle.

"It's unfortunate that the TVs were on it at that time because nobody saw it. It's unfortunate, but it's just the way it is. You just got to deal with it."

----

OK, in the proud tradition of golf, she sucked it up and moved on.

I don't think it's fair.

Her, Hurst and a rules official were there. Nobody saw it move with the naked eye in real time.

So she hit her shot. Only a TV camera angle showed that it moved, and because this information wasn't hers in real time, it cost her a second shot.

I think if the naked eye doesn't see movement, and everybody's playing in good faith, I don't think it's right that technology is invoked after the fact. A) A human can only do as much as humans are capable of in a situation like this and B) It's not a level playing field. What about all the players in tournaments who do similar things, and do their best to get it right, but there are no cameras covering them at the time? (Added bonus: Only the best players are held to this standard because they merit the TV coverage.)

My opinion won't change anything, that's it.

 

It's like instant replay; if you have it, you'd better have it for everybody or else it's unfair. In team sports you can use it for one game to try it out because there's two teams. In golf, there's upwards of 50 "teams." Either you have 50 cameras following their every move or you should just trust the rules officials on the course.

 

Does anybody believe Tiger would have gotten the same punishment if the exact same thing happened to him?

 

You don't think, with a rules official standing right there, that Tiger wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt?

I think he would. And I think Petterson should as well. If there wasn't a rules official standing right over it, then I could see the penalty. But if the on-scene rules official says it's good to go, then she shouldn't be penalized twice for something you can only see thanks to the TV cameras.

 

Instant replay in golf is stupid. I agree with Gomer on this — hey buddy — Especially in this case with a rules official standing right over the ball giving her the thumbs up. Officials are representatives of the tournament rules, and if they give you the green light on something then it should be all good. If they are going to use instant replay, not only should it be used on every one, but it should also be, you know, instant. You should get told that the play is under review imediately so that you don't in good faith accidentally hit an illegal shot. Like Junkie pointed out, if she had not been pulled aside before she handed in her card she would have been disqualified. All because a camera just happened to have the exact angle needed to see the ball move. Not because she was trying to cheat.

 

I love the game of golf but this is where it is just ridiculous.

The three humans watching don't see it with their naked eyes. The rules official does not call it. That should be it end of story. But no, if a computer can decipher a violation, then its a violation. I'm sorry but they are humans playing a human game. If the humans cannot see the violation, it should not be a violation.

 

In the Rules of Golf, if an official gives a player an incorrect ruling, and the ball is then played, there's no penalty. So she shouldn't have been penalized later via a TV replay, because the official on the scene had already ruled, albeit incorrectly. By correcting from the replay, they screwed up.

 

True, but in the past, viewers have called in from their homes. I actually find it facinating that someone watching from home can change the outcome of an event.

http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news00/disqualifications.html

1998 NEC World Series of Golf

In the first round, Lee Janzen was another in violation of Rule 16-2, waiting too long for his putt to drop in the hole. On the 17th hole his birdie putt hung on the lip. Janzen walked up to the hole, then past it, bent down to survey the ball, and stared at it. He looked at his fellow competitor Vijay Singh, who also walked up and bent down to see the ball creeping toward the hole. About 20 seconds after Janzen arrived at the ball, he went to tap the ball in but it dropped into the hole. After the round he signed for a birdie 3 instead of a par 4. When the incident was later shown on television, viewers contacted PGA Tour officials, who in screening the tape realized that Janzen violated the Rules and disqualified him. At the time, it wasn?t a big deal, but at the end of the year the disqualifaction did cost him a spot on the Presidents Cup team. He luckily got to play on the squad only because Hal Sutton's father-in-law died, forcing Sutton to withdraw and give his spot to Janzen.

This is the one I remember the most...

1987 Andy Williams Open

After finishing the tournament at 270, Craig Stadler went to the scorer's tent feeling that he'd just finished in second place. Instead, he was informed that he was disqualified for a Rules infraction the previous day. On the 14th hole in the third round, Stadler's ball landed beneath a pine tree in a muddy lie. He needed to play the shot from a kneeling position and since he was wearing light-colored trousers he placed a towel on the wet ground and kneeled on it while making the shot. At the time nobody caught the mistake, but the next day while showing showing highlights of the prevouis day's play Rules zealots spotted the error and relayed it to PGA Tour officials. What Stadler had done was violate Rule 13-3, illegally building a stance, and since he didn't add two strokes to his third-round score, he was disqualified for turning in an incorrect scorecard. The disqualification cost Stadler $37,333, which would have been his share of second place.

 

If the worst thing you can say about professional golf and its competitors is that they bend too far backwards to enforce the rules, well, that sport's in pretty good shape. Say what you want about golf, but there are no Beli-cheats, no crooked refs with a bet down on the match, no sign-stealing and, in case you missed, the annoucement yesterday on specifics of the PGA Tour's new drug policy -- which will be recognized by all other governing bodies in golf. First offense: one year suspension. Second offense: five years. Third offense: Lifetime ban. Fines can be as high as $500,000. And there will be no escaping to the European Tour or Asian Tour if you're banned by the U.S. PGA Tour: all major professional tours have signed on to ban anyone found taking performance-enhancing drugs on the PGA Tour, and it will be the other way around.

 

by the way, funny line ... the commish of the European Tour said golf should save a lot of money and test one guy: Tiger. "If he's clean, who cares what the rest of them are on?"