PDA

View Full Version : Golfing the World - Play Through the Insanity!



mugaliens
2008-Jul-20, 02:41 PM
Can you imagine a world where some rules were absolute, and where they were followed, absolutely?

Such was the setting for one of the earlier episodes of Star Trek, The Next Generation, wherein Wesley Crusher inadvertantly (and unknowlingly) violated one of the world's rules. The sentence: Death.

Fortunately, Picard figured out a way out/around it.

Unfortunately, some people never watched that episode, of if they did watch it, they didn't learn a thing.

Enter Michelle Wie, who inadvertantly went just beyond a roped off area where golfers sign their scorecards before volunteers working the event chased her down within seconds. Wie signed her scorecard and finished the next round.

One Sue Witters, the LPGA's director of tournament of competitions disqualified Wie, saying, "I felt like I was telling somebody that there was no Santa Claus."

Oh, boo-hoo.

What Witters did was violate the reason that people are usually selected for such positions because of their judgement, their ability to weight the rules against the circumstances and determine the most just outcome.

Had Wie intentionally not signed her card (as way, way early in the game, like 100 years ago some players, in a huff because they lost first place, refused to sign their cards), then she should have been disqualified.

That is, after all, the reason behind the rule, which was never intended to be blindly applied in all situations.

Unfortunately, our society is full of similar rules. Far more importantly, however, is that our society is also full of people who:

1. Believe that rules are absolute and should be followed or enforced, absolutely, without deviation. These people are definately not the right people for the job.

2. If they are able to realize rules don't always apply in every situation, they're in a position requiring them to appropriate judge the situation and take the best course of action, but are unable to do so, meaning they're also not the right people for the job.

This post is NOT an attack on Witters. I do hope Wie appeals this, however, as Witters' application of that rule was very far off it's intended target.

This post IS an indictment of three areas within our society:

1. Those who believe rules are absolute and should be followed absolutely, without question, judgement, or common sense.

2. Those who appoint such people in positions where their expected to be able to use sound judgement but either because of their beliefs or their aptitudes, are unwilling or unable to do so.

3. Those who allow either or both of the first two to walk all over them without raising a stink.

4. The rest of us who stand idly by doing nothing more than muttering, "how sad."

This condition of our society is, by and large, responsible for nearly all the atrocities that we have visited upon ourselves over the last 7,000 years (if not much longer). What's sad is that there is no single culprit, or small group of responsible individuals, but that there is no me, you, we, us, they, or them. If the condition exists, then the responsible party is "everyone," for anyone can do at least something, and even a small minority can (almost always does) eradicate this condition within the sphere of their influence.

Back to golf: I hope the best for Michelle. I hope she appeals. I hope this creates enough of an outrage throughout the industry that the decision is overturned on appeal.

Back to the world: Well, you know what to do.

mike alexander
2008-Jul-20, 02:58 PM
Don't get me started.

geonuc
2008-Jul-20, 03:03 PM
I agree and disagree. Agree that there is way too much 'zero tolerance' attitude in the world today, particularly in the US. But I disagree about the situation with Ms. Wie.

Golf is a very rules-oriented game. For example, a golfer who, after addressing his ball, has the ball move on him, is assessed a stroke penalty even though the movement was through no action or fault of his own. Them's the rules. The scoring tent rule is similarly rigid and I think the LPGA (in the person of Ms. Witters) did the only thing they could, regrettable as it may seem. Golfers are also disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard, even if they cheat themselves. Where's the tolerance in that? Again, them's the rules.

As an aside, tolerance for rule-infraction sometimes requires examination of past behavior (BAUT rules, for example). But here again, Ms. Wie loses out. In her short career, she has demonstrated several times a lack of knowledge of the rules of golf and a very regrettable lack of respect for golf decorum while on the course. Both are unacceptable for a professional.

sarongsong
2008-Jul-20, 03:28 PM
Can you imagine a world where some rules were absolute, and where they were followed, absolutely?...Yes; it's called professional golf.

...This post IS an indictment of three areas within our society:
1...2...3...4..."Oops, I did it again!" http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

BigDon
2008-Jul-20, 03:42 PM
I am happy to report a situation where zero tolerance took a back seat to common sense.

My friend Mr. Happy's youngest boy was busted for bringing a large folding knife to school. Yep, one of those that would have gotten him a manditory five year sentence in Britain. (Who needs judges right?)

He pleaded he needed it for self defense and when one of the school officials tried to hand wave his reason away he presented two police reports from earlier THAT week were he had to file witness reports of gang members assaulting people on the route to school. (The bad guys were jumping out of cars and assaulting people.)

The final arbitor dismissed the expulsion procedings and just left the punishment at the suspension he already endured. (Time served)

Boy, how many ways could THAT have gone sour?

Bignose
2008-Jul-20, 07:13 PM
The Michelle Wie situation though I think is just karmic retribution for her abusing the rules last year.

Here's a brief recap: Last year, she was invited to play in the Ginn Invitational hosted by Annika Sorenstam. Michelle wasn't, and still isn't a LPGA tour member, so she only gets to play in LPGA events if she is invited to or qualifies (like the Women's U.S. Open). Well, this was when her wrist was still hurting. Anyway, she was putting together a really crummy round. She was at 14 over after the 16th hole of her round. And then consulted with her parents and agent and an LPGA rules official and withdrew, citing wrist pain. While never explicitly stated, the conference was really to discuss the LPGA's rule of 88. The rule of 88 says that if any non-tour member cards a round with a score of 88 or higher, that non-tour member is automatically ineligible to play in any LPGA event for 1 year, with or without sponsors exemptions. The real kicker was when Michelle was seen on the practice range the next day at the Women's Open course (which was the week after the Ginn) practicing away with no apparent wrist brace or pain. She WD rather than face the possibility of going bogey-bogey on 17 and 18 -- which was well in the range of possibilities considering how poorly she has already carded a quintuple bogey just a few holes prior. The WD meant that she wouldn't have carded an 88 or higher, allowing her to play in the tournaments she had sponsor's exemptions to and continue to collect her appearance fees.

I don't think that it is fair to have it both ways. She took advantage of a loophole in a rule the year prior in order not to be exposed to its consequences. I think that by breaking this rule, she has to pay the consequences.

The big thing is that this is only a sporting event -- something done just for entertainment value. Obviously when there is more on the line like BigDon's friend some discretion should be made.

But, I think that there are valid questions. 1) Everybody who has ever played a golf tournament knows to sign their scorecard. Really. There is a reason there are two lines on bottom of every card, for your signature and the signature of the other competitor to attest to the score. 2) Even though she had only been outside the scorers tent for a few seconds, where do you draw the line? Could she have gone to dinner and then signed the card? Waited until the next day? How long is too long, and what by what rationale did you come up with the "right" amount of time?

Ignorance of the rules or law is not excuse for breaking the rules or law. I posted this example on a golf forum last night, but if you are driving along on a highway at 65 mph in a 65 mph zone, and then the speed limit drops to 55, but you missed the sign(s), are you still guilty of speeding? Absolutely. Did you intend to speed? Probably not. But, even if there are no other cars on the road and it is perfectly safe for you to drive 65 or even faster, you are still going faster than the law allows. You are guilty. There is no wiggle room there.

If you send in your taxes on April 16th, the IRS (the 15th is the day the income taxes in the US are due) isn't going to ask if you intended to send them in late or not. They are late. Period. And you will have to pay the penalty.

This is part of the reason sports can be a good life lesson for people who play them. Sports pretty much have to define things in black in white to prevent such arguments. The baseball was either fair or foul -- there is no wiggle room. The soccer ball was either in the goal or it isn't. There is not such thing as a "sort of" goal. The end of the game occurs at 60 mins or 9 innings or 90 minutes or whatever. There is no wiggle room on when the clock expires. They don't extend the game is the team from behind has just scored 4 times but still needs more time to tie it up. The game is over. Period.

I think that learning that some things in life are indeed black and white is a valuable lesson. Obviously, there are many things in life that do indeed need some interpretation and need some wiggle room. There are both kinds of issues. And locking yourself into either mode can be woefully inefficient. For example, do you need a court case for every parking ticket to determine the magnitude of the illegal parking? No, that's silly. Your meter expires... you get a ticket. Period. There shouldn't be different tickets for 1 min over or 15 mins over. There are cases when black and white or absolute rules are much, much easier and make the most sense. Obviously, I think that it is valuable to have discussions over what rule should and shouldn't be absolute, but I don't think that decrying all absolutism is right.

I will say that in Wie's case it is a little silly that there wasn't a dedicated LPGA tour official right there in the scorer's tent to ensure that all the cards were acceptable before the player leaves. And it makes the LPGA look really, really bad that Michelle played the entire Saturday round before making their ruling. But, the rule is clear cut, and the consequences of the rule are clearly spelled out, and again, everybody who has every played a golf tournament knows that the scorecard has to be signed. The ultimate onus on making sure her scorecard is signed is on her.

Stuart van Onselen
2008-Jul-20, 07:18 PM
"Zero tolerance" is a synonym for "Zero Brains/Maximum Laziness". As mugaliens implied, it takes a deliberate mental effort to apply discretion in applying a rule. It takes no effort, and no brain-power, to rigidly apply laws. You also get to CYA, in case a higher-up thinks you made the wrong call. So add "Zero Accountability/Zero moral courage" to the list.

OTOH, if they had killed Wesley Crusher in that early episode, we would have had a better ST:TNG for it. In fact, Mr Wheaton's career might have done better for losing his job. He wouldn't have had to live down having been "The Kid Everyone Wants to Crush". :)

Bignose
2008-Jul-20, 08:50 PM
It's a sports game. The rules have to be black and white.

You can't start awarding goals because the kicker really, really wanted to put the ball in the net. Or take away goals because the keeper really, really wanted to block a shot. You can't start awarding the pitcher a strike because even though he threw the ball 6 inches outside, he really, really wanted to throw a strike. Similarly, you can't award the batter a ball because while the ball may have been a strike and he didn't swing at it -- he really, really wanted to. You can't award a runner a touchdown just because he really, really wanted to cross the end zone, or take touchdowns away because the tackler really, really wanted to tackle the runner. You don't award someone a hole-in-one even if the ball ends up half an inch from the cup just because the golfer really, really wanted to hit it in the cup. You don't give someone one less stroke even if they missed a 1 foot putt even if they really, really wanted to make the putt. You catch my drift?

It's sports. It is necessarily black and white. Wie broke a rule, and has to pay the consequences. It doesn't matter a lick whether she really, really wanted to sign the card or not. All that matters is what actually happened, not what the player intended to happen.

pzkpfw
2008-Jul-20, 09:06 PM
Ignorance of the rules or law is not excuse for breaking the rules or law. I posted this example on a golf forum last night, but if you are driving along on a highway at 65 mph in a 65 mph zone, and then the speed limit drops to 55, but you missed the sign(s), are you still guilty of speeding? Absolutely. Did you intend to speed? Probably not. But, even if there are no other cars on the road and it is perfectly safe for you to drive 65 or even faster, you are still going faster than the law allows. You are guilty. There is no wiggle room there.

But a cop (not a speed camera) will sometimes "let you off" with a warning. (Well, maybe not for 10mp/h over...).

And even speed cameras (here) have a "margin" under which you won't get a ticket.

Guilt is not the question. Penalty is.



If you send in your taxes on April 16th, the IRS (the 15th is the day the income taxes in the US are due) isn't going to ask if you intended to send them in late or not. They are late. Period. And you will have to pay the penalty.


I once sent in a tax return a month late. I sent my penalty charge on my cheque (I was due a $24.00 refund). They sent back my penalty charge with my tax refund.

(Here's the kick - at the same time I sent in the previous years tax return - and its' penalty too - and they "refunded" that too.)

[I don't know what my point here is. Maybe miracles or something.]

Neverfly
2008-Jul-21, 12:24 AM
The Michelle Wie situation though I think is just karmic retribution for her abusing the rules last year.

Here's a brief recap:[recap was here]

Ok so what? She withdrew rather than get a crummy score.
And you say it was when her wrist was hurting. You cannot prove or disprove that it was.

Basically, what you just described is not retribution- it is grudge holding, revenge and suspicion.




But, I think that there are valid questions. 1) Everybody who has ever played a golf tournament knows to sign their scorecard. Really. There is a reason there are two lines on bottom of every card, for your signature and the signature of the other competitor to attest to the score. 2) Even though she had only been outside the scorers tent for a few seconds,
Let's stay accurate- she was outside a ROPE a few seconds. Not a tent.

where do you draw the line? Could she have gone to dinner and then signed the card? Waited until the next day? How long is too long, and what by what rationale did you come up with the "right" amount of time?
A few seconds seems rational to me. See my statements to the quote above (Which seems to be exactly what you are saying- Revenge- even though you say it differently.)


Ignorance of the rules or law is not excuse for breaking the rules or law.
You know what? Sometimes it can be. Especially on the first offense.
Bignose, do you have every rule, every law, every penalty memorized for all situations around the world?
Sometimes there are crazy goofy rules and laws that make No Sense to you.
Sometimes ignorance to the law or rule is not an excuse. But sometimes it really IS an excuse too.
Like the girl who was detained and jailed in Russia for being ready to leave at the airport on a plane with a few Russian coins in her pocket.
They didn't just arrest her. They made her life hell over it.
My brother brought back coins from Russia. I wouldn't have considered that a major crime either.
In Russia's statement to the USA about her detention - guess what they said? "Ignorance is no excuse..."
That statement is used by law makers to hold their ground- and by citizens to justify their lack of desire to speak out against injustice.


I posted this example on a golf forum last night, but if you are driving along on a highway at 65 mph in a 65 mph zone, and then the speed limit drops to 55, but you missed the sign(s), are you still guilty of speeding? Absolutely. Did you intend to speed? Probably not. But, even if there are no other cars on the road and it is perfectly safe for you to drive 65 or even faster, you are still going faster than the law allows. You are guilty. There is no wiggle room there.
Officer discretion- there is wiggle room.
In fact- there is much more wiggle room than that.
You can contest it in court and have it Dropped. It's just that for the expense of contesting it in court, and getting a jury etc- it is Not Worth the nightmare they put you through to get it contested- so people plead "No Contest" and pay the fine.
That is another deeply disturbing problem I have with how misdemeanors are handled.


If you send in your taxes on April 16th, the IRS (the 15th is the day the income taxes in the US are due) isn't going to ask if you intended to send them in late or not. They are late. Period. And you will have to pay the penalty.
This is also not quite true. You can file for extension AND you can file for Grace Period. There is also a penalty for being late- but you can be late. It's not black and white.



I will say that in Wie's case it is a little silly that there wasn't a dedicated LPGA tour official right there in the scorer's tent
Rope.

to ensure that all the cards were acceptable before the player leaves. And it makes the LPGA look really, really bad that Michelle played the entire Saturday round before making their ruling.
Yep.

But, the rule is clear cut, and the consequences of the rule are clearly spelled out, and again, everybody who has every played a golf tournament knows that the scorecard has to be signed. The ultimate onus on making sure her scorecard is signed is on her.

She did sign the scorecard. It never went unsigned. Stick to the facts. Your implication- several times- is that she refused or forgot to sign the scorecard- That is not the truth nor is it the case.

sarongsong
2008-Jul-21, 01:55 AM
July 19, 2008
...Wie told reporters that after she finished her round Friday, she left the tent...She was chased down by volunteers working in the tent, who pointed out she hadn't signed. Wie returned to the tent and signed the card..."I don't know why or how it happened," Wie said...
AP (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiuU7xpk9vGc-apX4ROH0rPDiCzwD9218Q5G8):doh:

Neverfly
2008-Jul-21, 02:20 AM
:doh:

Actually, that same article you quoted from said "Roped off area" surrounding th tent, and that's the problem.

However, I have to apologize too- I was also going by what Mugaliens said, that she inadvertently left the roped off area. That's not true- she meant to leave the area- she did forget to sign her scorecard. It's a simple mistake- and they caught her in time- I don't really see what the big flap is over- but then I'm not a golfer either.

Secondly, it was described as "volunteers were on her in seconds" as if they Swooped down on their prey-- That too is wrong.
In fact, it's a GOOD thing they were on her in SECONDS instead of minutes- they were trying to help her out. If it had been Microseconds- they might have caught her before she left the roped off area. That may mean that she wouldn't have been disqualified- assuming that it wasn't based on revenge to begin with.

So Mugs- YOUR implications totally distracted from the facts here too.
I had to read three articles before I got a somewhat straight story.

Mugs version made it look like Wei went into a roped off area by accident and she wasn't allowed to be in that area. Volunteers swooped down on her within seconds and made her leave- and then the LPGA disqualified her for this Vagrant Activity.
Further reading demonstrates that is not what happened.
She was supposed to be in the roped off area.
The volunteers chased her within seconds hoping to help her out- not to be mean.

Bignose
2008-Jul-21, 02:28 AM
Neverfly, the card is considered unsigned because she left the tent/rope (whatever, does it really matter what it is!) without signing it.

Sure, I don't know that her wrist wasn't hurting when she WD, but she was practicing full shots the next day without any brace or apparent injury (i.e. wincing, holding it in pain, or icing it in public). Is that proof, certainly not. But, it sure seems suspicious. The little conferences with her agent, her parents, and an LPGA tour official -- where they were overhead talking about the rule of 88 -- out on the course before abruptly choosing to withdraw is awfully suspicious, too. Her fellow competitors in her group who played with her all day also said she never mentioned any pain or winced, as near as they could recall. Sure, nothing stone cold proof, but an awful lot of circumstantial evidence.

And maybe this is just a difference of opinion, but I personally think that respect for the game demands that you finish your round and take whatever lumps comes as a result. If she ends up shooting an 88, then so be it. She should have stepped up to the pressure and made sure she didn't finish the last two hole 2 over par.

While there is officer discretion to just give a warning or whatnot, it doesn't change the fact that you are breaking the law. It is not a "sort-of" situation. You are going faster than the law allows. And while you may try to contest it in court, hope that the officer's radar gun wasn't calibrated right, or the officer just doesn't show up, that doesn't change the fact that you were indeed going faster than the law allows. The fact that you can try to fight a ticket doesn't change the fact that you are indeed going faster than the speed limit and are deserving of a ticket.

Obviously, you can file an extension for your taxes, but if you file nothing, then they are late. I didn't think it was necessary to spell out every little detail in making my point. Obviously pz must have found the nicest IRS agent ever because they sent back the penalties, but pz also knew that they were late and that's why he submitted the appropriate penalty payment with the original money he owed.

No, of course I don't have every law memorized. And, as I said in my posts above, obviously when issues are more important than a sports game/entertainment/diversion, there should be some discretion applied. I'm not arguing for nothing but absolutism. I agree that the case of the girl who didn't know that taking Russian currency out of the country was blown way out of proportion. Did she break the law -- yes, obviously. But, did the punishment fit the crime in that case -- no, not really.

But, again, the main point here is that this is sports. The rules pretty much have to be black and white. Anyone who has played tournament golf knows that the scorecard has to be signed when it is turned in. She turned it in without it being signed. After turning it in (whether that be to a person, or in a box, or on a computer, whatever means are used) it is too late. You can't change your score, even if you want to assess yourself an additional penalty, and you can't go back and sign it if you didn't already. Those are the rules of the sport. When you are in the competition you can't change them anymore than can the referees decide to use the 5 yard line instead of the 0 yard line as the end zone in (American) football. Or the referees decide to allow two goalies in soccer or hockey instead of one. Or shrink the strike zone in baseball. Or... etc. etc.

Those are the rules of the sport, and they have to be followed. The rules make the sport what it is. Soccer wouldn't be soccer if you could use your hands all the time. Hockey wouldn't be hockey if you didn't have to use your stick. Basketball wouldn't be basketball without the dribbling. Sure, the new sports might be fun, too. But, they wouldn't be the original sport. In golf you sign the scorecard before submitting it. Or you get DQ'd. That's the rule, and that's the consequence for not following the rule. It really is that simple when it comes to sports.

That's why sports rules books are usually very large. Because they try to ensure that there are as few ambiguities as possible. The rules of golf is a very large book -- over 100 pages today. Especially for a game that at its base is exceptionally simple. Use a crooked stick to hit a ball into a hole and play it as it lies. The rules of baseball and soccer and football and hockey and many other sports are usually verbose as well. The rules try to spell out all the situations that can occur and what should be done when the situation occurs. The rules are what define the different games, and following the rules is what makes the games challenging and entertaining. Sometimes the rules are basic bookkeeping/secretarial, like how to properly submit your scorecard, or lineup card, or make substitutions, but those are in place to make sure everybody does it the same way to make things as easy as possible for the league or referees or umpires etc. That's part of the price of admission to the league. If you don't like the rules that league uses, then go start you own with different rules, and see if it works out. But, if you are Michelle Wie, and you want your chance to win the purse at an LPGA event, you follow the LPGA rules. Period.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-21, 02:51 AM
Bignose, I'm having to reassess this in light of my earlier misunderstanding.

However, further reassessment doesn't actually change my mind much.

Wei barely left the enclosure- and she had made a very minor, simple, dumb mistake. She forgot to sign.

How many times have I done that myself? Left the bank without signing or forgot to sign the credit card receipt? I usually don't forget- but it happens.
Wei was playing well- had a good game etc.
Not signing can be construed as her trying to fudge or change her score or something.
C'mon!
The whole thing is documented. It's not like the old days when there were no cameras and bunch of people watching and the score tallied up for viewers on T.V.

It's an outdated rule that is basically nonsense- and the 'black and white' enforcement of it is just as nonsensical.
She managed to get distracted and forgot maybe- but they called her back within SECONDS and she signed. It's so not a big deal.
It's perfectly clear that honesty was not an issue. That the INTENT was not present to fudge the score or anything else.

The argument is not abut Wei- or Wie's game. It is about this kind of behavior- this blanket smudge- this black and white that is in just about everything.
Mugaliens used Wei as an example- I think it's a good example- I wish Mugs had been clearer in citing the events, however.

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-21, 03:09 AM
The sad fact is that the LPGA was between a rock and a hard place! Suppose the let her slide and she won the tournament! Do you think for a minute that the second place finisher would have just said "Oh, well"?

Neverfly
2008-Jul-21, 03:18 AM
The sad fact is that the LPGA was between a rock and a hard place! Suppose the let her slide and she won the tournament! Do you think for a minute that the second place finisher would have just said "Oh, well"?

Actually, the articles I had read seemed to say that the (would be second place) finisher was not happy about the disqualification.

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-21, 03:30 AM
Actually, the articles I had read seemed to say that the (would be second place) finisher was not happy about the disqualification.

True, but that's easy to say after you've practically been handed the tournament.

mike alexander
2008-Jul-21, 03:33 AM
In 1968 Roberto DeVincenzo lost the Masters tournament when he signed a scorecard with an incorrect score (one more stroke than he actually took was recorded, so instead of tying he lost by a stroke).

I could argue that this situation is akin to scoring a home run in baseball. To do so you must a) hit the ball over the outfield fence within the foul poles and b) circle the diamond, touching each base in succession. While b) seems ritualistic, it is consistent with any other hit; if a batter hits a double but doesn't touch first base while running to second, he can be tagged out at any time.

But I still think the scorecard rule is a bit silly. Especially since in a tournament your partner actually keeps score, and you keep his.

sarongsong
2008-Jul-21, 08:30 AM
Actually, that same article you quoted from said "Roped off area" surrounding the tent, and that's the problem...volunteers chased her within seconds hoping to help her out...Yet the time lag from then [Friday afternoon] until:
...officials didn't learn about the mistake from volunteers until well after Wie teed off Saturday morning, so they let her finish the round...does seem a bit odd.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-21, 09:08 AM
Yet the time lag from then [Friday afternoon] until:does seem a bit odd.

I thought that too. Realistically, they have egg on their face for that reason, I think.

Most likely, because the volunteers knew that it was a simple thing, called her back immediately, she signed... They probably didn't think of it. Somehow it came up later, and Witters said, "Oh! Ok, well... we'll see about THAT..."

geonuc
2008-Jul-21, 09:25 AM
Yet the time lag from then [Friday afternoon] until:does seem a bit odd.
Why? The LPGA wanted to hear Wie's story before making a decision and she was on the course. Asking her while she was playing would be disruptive and if it turned out that no rule violation had actually occurred, could have unfairly affected her play. Seems reasonable to me.

Neverfly - no one is remotely accusing Wie of any dishonesty in this instance. It is regarded by all as an unfortunate error. However, her 'rule of 88' incident showed a serious lack of character, although I'm not sure if it broke any rules. I don't know if withdrawing from a tournament during play for reasons other than injury is allowed. I know other golfers have picked up their ball and gone home (most recently at the Open Championship this past week), but not in circumstances where they faced a possible penalty for continued poor play. And the Open is a different tour.

Mugalien's point is a good one, but his example is not. If you don't like what happened to Wie, you can argue that a rule change is needed. But while it is in force, the LPGA acted correctly.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-21, 09:37 AM
Why? The LPGA wanted to hear Wie's story before making a decision and she was on the course. Asking her while she was playing would be disruptive and if it turned out that no rule violation had actually occurred, could have unfairly affected her play. Seems reasonable to me.
No.
The LPGA LEARNED of it late, they didn't hold off Until they learned- they learned too late to begin with. Of course they weren't going to interupt the round... People were watching.
The time lag referred to is the time between the event at the roped off tent- and the time that the LPGA learned from volunteers that Wei had almost not signed. But she did sign.
And it was too late by the time they learned- which is just an addition to the argument in my case.


Neverfly - no one is remotely accusing Wie of any dishonesty in this instance.
Exactly! The rule exists because of honesty. Which in todays world- is a moot point anyway. So she didn't really break a rule- not only because she signed- but because the purpose of the rule is to prevent the intent.
Which is my basic problem with a lot of law enforcement. They penalize people no matter what a lot of the time, they punish the punished and they treat people who are not criminals like criminals.

It is regarded by all as an unfortunate error. However, her 'rule of 88' incident showed a serious lack of character, although I'm not sure if it broke any rules.
Which is irrelevent to this specific case.

I don't know if withdrawing from a tournament during play for reasons other than injury is allowed. I know other golfers have picked up their ball and gone home (most recently at the Open Championship this past week), but not in circumstances where they faced a possible penalty for continued poor play. And the Open is a different tour.
I'm swinging both ways on this one.
For one thing, she's 18. Not a very good excuse, I know. But she's still a kid.
Secondly, she was facing what could be the same as getting Kicked out.
She knew that she was flat out having an off day. Whether by wrist injury- or by biorhythms or something, I dunno...
Well, anybody can have an off day. And most the time, you just gotta buck up and keep going.
But in this case- she had Quite a Lot to Risk if she kept going!
I might admire her if she kept going even if she failed to score well enough. I'd be impressed.
But if she withdrew- I wouldn't necessarily consider that a lack of character either, considering the risk.
Now, I'm not a golfer, so maybe I'm missing so kind of "Golf Creed" or something.
Again, it's still irrelevant to this case.


Mugalien's point is a good one, but his example is not. If you don't like what happened to Wie, you can argue that a rule change is needed. But while it is in force, the LPGA acted correctly.

I still disagree. Technically, she didn't break a rule.
The rule is they must sign the scorecard.
And she did.

The rules do NOT say that the signature is invalid if she crosses a rope. They just used that as a reason to validate their decision. It's like a tack on.
Add to that that they were very late in enforcing it- and the whole thing looks even worse.
As I said after the bold "exactly!", Mugs example is a good example. A very good one, I think, because it got even better when the time lag was accounted too.

geonuc
2008-Jul-21, 09:50 AM
I still disagree. Technically, she didn't break a rule.
The rule is they must sign the scorecard.
And she did.
Do you think there is any remote chance that the LPGA got it wrong and the millions of golf enthusiasts and commentators haven't pointed it out yet?

SeanF
2008-Jul-21, 04:17 PM
I'm no fan of "zero tolerance" in general, but I don't think professional sports is the place to make the argument against it.

Neverfly, when asked where you'd draw the line, you said, "A few seconds seems rational to me." Okay, but what's "a few seconds"? Ten seconds? Twenty? A minute? Five minutes?

mugaliens
2008-Jul-21, 06:11 PM
"Zero tolerance" is a synonym for "Zero Brains/Maximum Laziness". As mugaliens implied, it takes a deliberate mental effort to apply discretion in applying a rule. It takes no effort, and no brain-power, to rigidly apply laws. You also get to CYA, in case a higher-up thinks you made the wrong call. So add "Zero Accountability/Zero moral courage" to the list.

Yeah! At last, a champion of truth, hard work, and justice (not to mention exercising a few brain cells).


OTOH, if they had killed Wesley Crusher in that early episode, we would have had a better ST:TNG for it. In fact, Mr Wheaton's career might have done better for losing his job. He wouldn't have had to live down having been "The Kid Everyone Wants to Crush". :)

I just checked his career on IMDB, and he seems to be doing ok. Perhaps he enjoys doing video game voiceovers.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-21, 06:21 PM
It's a sports game. The rules have to be black and white.

I'm sure the rules include what to do when a spectator darts onto the course and steals Tiger's ball before it rolls to a stop.

Now.

But that rule went into effect at one point probably because that happened, and the judges couldn't find a rule, and without a rule, they were apparently unable to use their judgement (what judges are supposed to do...), so, flustered at their next meeting, they created a rule.

Regardless, all rules have reasons behind them, and no rule is absolute.

BD, your story of your friend's son caught with the knife reminds me of another friend of mine who bent a jet but saved himself and his backseater. It was a near mid-air at the Nellis ranges, and if he hadn't given it all it had, he'd have hit the other jet with disasterous results. As it was, he thought he was going to rip it's wings off (which wouldn't have been any worse than hitting another jet at 1,000 kts closure).

Instead, he broke the rules which quite emphatically states "Do NOT over-G the taxpayers' aircraft!!!"

In so doing, he saved most of the aircraft (except for the wingbox and some key fuselage structures) for parts, himself, and his backseater. If he hadn't broken the rules, nothing from either his or the other aircraft would have been salvageable, and it's likely that none of the aircrew involved would have been salvageable, either.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-21, 06:28 PM
Do you think there is any remote chance that the LPGA got it wrong and the millions of golf enthusiasts and commentators haven't pointed it out yet?

I know enough golfers to know that they're overly polite to a fault, often to the point where they'd feel obliged to thank their mugger. "Oh, no, officer, I must say... Surely it must have been my fault for remaining stopped at the red light and not having sense enough to get out of his way..."

Ok. That was an overdramatization. So noted, and if those in the golf community (I golf, so I know the community) were to be wronged, they'd raise a stink, albeit politely.

But they'd never raise a stink for someone else. "Well, Alesia, I'm looking over the rules, here, and according to the rules..."

Rules make for a good defense. CYA (Neverfly is right!). But they make for a very poor offense.

Here's the amazing thing, folks - sports are derived from competitions used in lieu of war. It's an overdramatization of politeness with the rule that "to the victor go the spoils."

And golf is no exception.

I wonder what Alexander the Great or Ghengis Khan would think of golf...

sarongsong
2008-Jul-21, 07:02 PM
Why? The LPGA wanted to hear Wie's story before making a decision and she was on the course...Why, because it took only seconds for the volunteers to notify Wie, but ~18 hours to (presumably) notify officials, who had to have been all about on Friday afternoon.
...failure to sign her score card after Friday's second round, which is a violation of Rule 6-6 b. according to The Rules of Golf and confirmed by the USGA:
6-6 b. – Signing and Returning Score Card
After completion of the round, the competitor should check his score for each hole and settle any doubtful points with the Committee. He must ensure that the marker or markers have signed the score card, sign the score card himself and return it to the Committee as soon as possible.
Rule 6-6
(A player is deemed to have returned her score card to the Committee when she leaves the roped area of the scoring tent or leaves the scoring trailer).
...the boundary is the roped area...
LPGA (http://www.lpga.com/content_1.aspx?pid=16531&mid=1)But the best news of all is that Michelle seems to have gotten her 'golf groove' back! :)

mugaliens
2008-Jul-21, 07:30 PM
But the best news of all is that Michelle seems to have gotten her 'golf groove' back! :)

I hope so. And let this be egg on the mindless faces of those representatives of the game of golf who're apparently unable or unwilling to do anything but blindly follow the rules.

If mindlessly following the rules is the supreme advancement of golf, I'll go back to surfing, where the only two rules are have fun and don't hurt yourself more than you can live with.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-21, 08:27 PM
I'm no fan of "zero tolerance" in general, but I don't think professional sports is the place to make the argument against it.
:)


Neverfly, when asked where you'd draw the line, you said, "A few seconds seems rational to me." Okay, but what's "a few seconds"? Ten seconds? Twenty? A minute? Five minutes?

I think it depends on the situation.
If I set a time limit of 30 seconds, that, in itself, becomes just another blanket rule.


But the best news of all is that Michelle seems to have gotten her 'golf groove' back! :)

Not being a fan of Golf, I had never heard of Wei until Mugs started this thread.
I've heard of Tiger Woods...

So my arguments in the thread are not based on my being a defensive fan- Because I still have no idea who Wei is.
They are based on the principle of the thing.

That said, I do have a personal bias in Wei's favor. Because back in the day, (Believe it or not) my runt butt was a quarterback on the high school team.
That's right, I played football. I played well too. Coach thought I was great. Why?
Cuz for some inexplicable reason, I can lob a ball all the way across the field.
That's it.
That's All I can do:neutral:

If you asked me to discuss the rules to Football, I'd be totally clueless.
But man, I could throw that dumb ball.

So they covered for me.

geonuc
2008-Jul-21, 09:38 PM
I know enough golfers to know that they're overly polite to a fault, often to the point where they'd feel obliged to thank their mugger. "Oh, no, officer, I must say... Surely it must have been my fault for remaining stopped at the red light and not having sense enough to get out of his way..."

Ok. That was an overdramatization. So noted, and if those in the golf community (I golf, so I know the community) were to be wronged, they'd raise a stink, albeit politely.

But they'd never raise a stink for someone else. "Well, Alesia, I'm looking over the rules, here, and according to the rules..."
I wasn't referring to golfers ratting on each other; I said enthusiasts and commentators. In other words, those who are watching the game. If you golf, you know that these days a golfer or golf organization can't get away with anything if it's televised. The Wie controversy certainly was, and I watched some of it, being a golf enthusiast myself. If the LPGA had misinterpreted their own rule, you can be sure the switchboards would have lit up.

This is a bit off-topic, I know. I merely was responding the the 'fly's assertion that no rule was broken. Argue all you want about the pettiness or intolerance of the rule (the topic of this thread, after all), but it most definitely was broken.

I'm in favor of rigid application of sports rules. Outside sports, such as with the law, the matter is very different.

geonuc
2008-Jul-21, 09:42 PM
Why, because it took only seconds for the volunteers to notify Wie, but ~18 hours to (presumably) notify officials, who had to have been all about on Friday afternoon.
But when did the officials learn of what had happened? My take is that it was much later; after the third round had started, in fact. The volunteers, who knew about it right then, of course, apparently thought they had averted a problem and perhaps failed to mention it promptly (or possibly tried to cover for Wie). All speculation on my part. My point is that I see nothing wrong in the LPGA's action here. This is all on Wie and she will undoubtedly never do that again.

sarongsong
2008-Jul-21, 11:23 PM
...Not being a fan of Golf, I had never heard of Wei until Mugs started this thread...More: Michelle Mania (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/19371-michelle-mania.html?highlight=michelle+mania)

SeanF
2008-Jul-22, 01:28 PM
I think it depends on the situation.
If I set a time limit of 30 seconds, that, in itself, becomes just another blanket rule.
Blanket rules depend on the situation. :)

So, if in this case the judge had said, "Hey, the rule's not black and white, it's a judgment call on my part, and my judgment is that she violated the rule," you wouldn't have a problem with it?

What if it had been a longer time? What if it was several minutes? But then what if at the next tournament a different golfer does the exact same thing - exact - but the judge there goes the other way and lets them off? You'd be OK with that? You expect Wie to be OK with that?

That's really why the rules are absolute. Any vague concepts of "just" need to take a backseat to "fair" - in other words, I need to be assured that a rule which is applied against me today will be applied the same way against somebody else tomorrow.


I wasn't referring to golfers ratting on each other; I said enthusiasts and commentators. In other words, those who are watching the game. If you golf, you know that these days a golfer or golf organization can't get away with anything if it's televised. The Wie controversy certainly was, and I watched some of it, being a golf enthusiast myself. If the LPGA had misinterpreted their own rule, you can be sure the switchboards would have lit up.
This reminded me of something.

I seem to remember a case a couple of years ago where a golfer's putt stopped right on the lip of the cup. He waited, hoping it would fall in on its own, and it finally did. As it turns out, however, there's a rule in place about how long you can wait for the ball to drop, and he waited too long. Nobody right there noticed that he had violated the rule - but a lot of people watching the match on television did. They got quite a few calls, went back and checked the tape, and charged the player a penalty.

And that, I think, is the real problem I have with this Wie situation. Not that there's no wriggle room (in a sports-rule situation, there shouldn't be), but because it seems disproportionate. It was something that happened off the field of play, after play was completed, and it completely negates everything that happened on the field of play. Neither of those apply to any of the other analogies that have been presented in this thread.

pghnative
2008-Jul-22, 02:10 PM
An important point, alluded to by others in this thread already, is that golf is notorious for being a stickler for the rules.

Besides the examples listed earlier, I can think of the following:
- During the Open Championship a few years back, Jesper Parnevik and Sergio Garcia (I think) were given the wrong scorecards. Jesper recorded Sergio's scores on a card labeled "Parnevik", and vice versa. They never noticed the error, and were both disqualified
- In the same tournament, probably a different year, a golfer's caddie forgot to remove a 2nd driver from his bag, so he played the first hole with 15 clubs in the bag. When it was noticed, he had to assess himself a 2 stroke penalty
- In a senior's event a few years ago, a golfer tried to hit out of the sand trap, but flubbed the shot and the ball stayed in the trap. He turned (well away from his ball) and swung at the sand, disgusted with his effort. There's no rule against swinging (or throwing, or breaking) clubs in disgust, but there is a rule against touching your club to the sand in a trap before swinging at your ball. No intent to cheat here, but he was assessed a penalty

I could go on and on. The point here is that golf organizations are notoriously a stickler for the rules and Michelle knows it. Every professional golfer knows it. Heck, most hack golfers know it. There really is no excuse for a golfer to not immediately go to the scorer's area, check the scores, sign, and then go back to their life.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-22, 02:13 PM
An important point, alluded to by others in this thread already, is that golf is notorious for being a stickler for the rules.

Besides the examples listed earlier, I can think of the following:
- During the Open Championship a few years back, Jesper Parnevik and Sergio Garcia (I think) were given the wrong scorecards. Jesper recorded Sergio's scores on a card labeled "Parnevik", and vice versa. They never noticed the error, and were both disqualified
- In the same tournament, probably a different year, a golfer's caddie forgot to remove a 2nd driver from his bag, so he played the first hole with 15 clubs in the bag. When it was noticed, he had to assess himself a 2 stroke penalty
- In a senior's event a few years ago, a golfer tried to hit out of the sand trap, but flubbed the shot and the ball stayed in the trap. He turned (well away from his ball) and swung at the sand, disgusted with his effort. There's no rule against swinging (or throwing, or breaking) clubs in disgust, but there is a rule against touching your club to the sand in a trap before swinging at your ball. No intent to cheat here, but he was assessed a penalty

I could go on and on. The point here is that golf organizations are notoriously a stickler for the rules and Michelle knows it. Every professional golfer knows it. Heck, most hack golfers know it. There really is no excuse for a golfer to not immediately go to the scorer's area, check the scores, sign, and then go back to their life.

I disagree with this entire post on principle alone..
Basically, it says, "If so and so is always a jerk- you need to pander to his jerkiness instead of telling him off"

Maybe all this is why I never got into golf- At All.

I'd make Happy Gilmore look like Shirley Temple.

pghnative
2008-Jul-22, 02:14 PM
And that, I think, is the real problem I have with this Wie situation. Not that there's no wriggle room (in a sports-rule situation, there shouldn't be), but because it seems disproportionate. It was something that happened off the field of play, after play was completed, and it completely negates everything that happened on the field of play. Neither of those apply to any of the other analogies that have been presented in this thread.One could argue that in golf, the keeping of the scorecard and the signing of it after the fact are part of the field of play.

It may seem silly when there are 27 cameras recording each players every action, and rules officials left and right, but there are lots of tournaments where the only way to tell who scored what is to rely on the player and their opponent(s) recording the correct score on the card. heck, I'll bet that in many PGA events the cameras don't record every shot from every player.

pghnative
2008-Jul-22, 02:16 PM
Basically, it says, "If so and so is always a jerk- you need to pander to his jerkiness instead of telling him off"Quite the contrary. It says that if the rules are obvious to all, and if the consequences are obvious to all, then one shouldn't whine about the consequences when one violates the rules.

Not that Michelle whined --- she seemed reasonably contrite in the press conferences. But various commentators and posters seem to be whining for her...

Neverfly
2008-Jul-22, 02:20 PM
Quite the contrary. It says that if the rules are obvious to all, and if the consequences are obvious to all, then one shouldn't whine about the consequences when one violates the rules.


You know what?

I don't think standing up for yourself is always "Whining."

Wei may not have said anything. Mugaliens said it. And I agree.
I'm not whining. I am speaking out.

pghnative
2008-Jul-22, 02:36 PM
I don't think standing up for yourself is always "Whining."Fair enough.

Though I would stand by this statement as well:

If the rules are obvious to all, and if the consequences are obvious to all, then one shouldn't stand up and argue about the consequences when one violates the rules.

SeanF
2008-Jul-22, 02:37 PM
One could argue that in golf, the keeping of the scorecard and the signing of it after the fact are part of the field of play.
Fair enough. :)

A question for those who object to the treatment of Wie - Are you simply arguing that the rules should be changed, or are you actually arguing that even with the rules as written, Wie should not have been disqualified?

Neverfly
2008-Jul-22, 03:06 PM
Fair enough. :)

A question for those who object to the treatment of Wie - Are you simply arguing that the rules should be changed, or are you actually arguing that even with the rules as written, Wie should not have been disqualified?

Heck- go for both.
They aren't going to change either one anyway.
They're proven "Sticklers"

mugaliens
2008-Jul-22, 03:59 PM
:)Cuz for some inexplicable reason, I can lob a ball all the way across the field.
That's it.
That's All I can do.

I'd be willing to bet you could throw a wrench pretty far, too. And you know what they say - if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-22, 04:07 PM
I'd be willing to bet you could throw a wrench pretty far, too. And you know what they say - if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

Through some temper tantrums in my youth... I have found I can throw some pretty interesting things and still manage to get them aerodynamic...
This does not,however, include a Chrysler transmission- in spite of more than one attempt.

I've also found I can put my fist through some fairly Solid objects with only fractures in my knuckles as penance. Including a plate glass window, Hardibacker and fiberglass:neutral:

ETA: I do not know how far I can chuck a Golf Club.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-22, 04:18 PM
Argue all you want about the pettiness or intolerance of the rule (the topic of this thread, after all), but it most definitely was broken.

My principle arguement was that this rule was originally crafted to penalize poor losers who stormed off the field in second or third place (gives golf a bad name/reputation). In short, it was nearsighted. It was never intended to penalize someone who inadvertantly forgot to sign their scorecard.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-22, 04:31 PM
Fair enough. :)

A question for those who object to the treatment of Wie - Are you simply arguing that the rules should be changed, or are you actually arguing that even with the rules as written, Wie should not have been disqualified?

I'm glad you brought that up. Let's examine the rules as written, shall we?


b. Signing and Returning Score Card
After completion of the round, the competitor should check his score
for each hole and settle any doubtful points with the Committee.
He must ensure that the marker or markers have signed the score
card, sign the score card himself and return it to the Committee as
soon as possible. Source: Rules of Golf and the Rules of Amateur Status, 2008-2011, The R&A, St. Andrews, Scotland (http://www.randa.org/).

This is the ONLY place which mentions anything about a player or competitor signing their score card.

I do not see that it mentions anything about leaving a roped-off area...

Did Wie sign it "as soon as possible?" Perhaps. Perhaps not. Regardless, it's not a clear delineation, and is by no means a "hard and fast" rule. Rather, it's considerably open to interpretation, namely, by what "as possible" means, entails, includes, and/or excludes.

Michelle certainly signed it as soon as she could.

I'm with Neverfly on this one. It doesn't appear she broke the rule, at least not the rules used everywhere in the world except the United States.

So let's take a look at those rules, too:

Well! They're one and the same!


The USGA, in conjunction with The R&A in St. Andrews, Scotland, writes, interprets and maintains the Rules of Golf to guard the tradition and integrity of the game. The two organizations are joint authors and owners of The Rules of Golf and Decisions on the Rules of Golf. Through an agreement with The R&A, the Rules jurisdiction of the USGA includes only the United States, its possessions and Mexico. The latest version went into effect Jan. 1, 2008, with the next revision taking effect Jan. 1, 2012. Source: The United States Golf Association (http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/rules.html).

geonuc
2008-Jul-22, 05:43 PM
Did you check the 2008 LPGA Rules of Play?

"Rule 6-6, page 31. (A player is deemed to have returned her score card to the Committee when she leaves the roped area of the scoring tent or leaves the scoring trailer)."

http://www.lpga.com/content_1.aspx?mid=2&pid=16531

Hokie
2008-Jul-23, 04:06 PM
She should be disqualified, she knows the rules and did not follow them. How do pick who did or did not "intentionally" brake a rule in a fair manner? Golf it is as simply as follow the rules or be penalized.


I do not see that it mentions anything about leaving a roped-off area...

That is probable a local rule. The committee has the right to make rules that to not go again the main rules (like the PGA not allowing carts).

SeanF
2008-Jul-23, 04:52 PM
Fair enough. :)

A question for those who object to the treatment of Wie - Are you simply arguing that the rules should be changed, or are you actually arguing that even with the rules as written, Wie should not have been disqualified?
Heck- go for both.
They aren't going to change either one anyway.
They're proven "Sticklers"
Well, changing the rules is one thing. Not disqualifying her in the face of the existing rule would be a problem, though. Once you set that precedent, you've got every player who ever breaks any rule asking for the same special consideration Wie got.

That's why I said the most important thing is that rules be applied uniformly.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-23, 07:57 PM
Did you check the 2008 LPGA Rules of Play?

"Rule 6-6, page 31. (A player is deemed to have returned her score card to the Committee when she leaves the roped area of the scoring tent or leaves the scoring trailer)."

http://www.lpga.com/content_1.aspx?mid=2&pid=16531

Aha. The additonal rules to the rules to the rules of Golf: "Supplementary rules of play stipulate that the scoring area boundary may instead be defined by a white line, which has the effect of decreasing the size of the scoring area. The white line was not deemed necessary this week and was not put in place, and as a result the boundary is the roped area.

Prior to signing her card, Wie had left the defined scoring area according to item No. 3 resulting in her subsequent disqualification."

Whatever. I hope their income rots in red-line heck due to their short-sighted and obviously myopic adherence to their rules well above and beyond the aforementioned traditional and well-agreed-upon rules of golf.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-23, 08:04 PM
Your "Rule 6-6, page 31" has absolutely nothing to do with either USGA or Saint Andrew's rules of Golf.

It's a very minor subset rule of the Ladies Professional Golf Association. Neither the USGA nor S&A would ever allow such a rule.

I am by no means a professional golfer. I still score a third of my shots from the woods. But I do enjoy it. Being familiar with the USGA/S&A rules, I'm appalled that the LGPA would allow such a "busybody" rule into it's book, tolerate it, and disqualify Wie.

This casts serious doubts as to whether the LGPA can ever muster the objectivity and sense of fair play required for professional, world-wide golf.

To date, they're batting about 30 (out of a thousand).

geonuc
2008-Jul-23, 08:18 PM
Your "Rule 6-6, page 31" has absolutely nothing to do with either USGA or Saint Andrew's rules of Golf.
Not my rule, mugs.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the PGA has a similar rule.

Hokie
2008-Jul-23, 11:22 PM
It her fault and her fault only. Every player is given the rules (and there are officials on hand to settle rules questions) and knows the consequences of breaking them.


It's a very minor subset rule of the Ladies Professional Golf Association. Neither the USGA nor S&A would ever allow such a rule.

And how do you know what rules the USGA and R&A would or would not allow? If they did not like the rule they would put in a rule that kept the committee from doing it.


It's a very minor subset rule of the Ladies Professional Golf Association.
So it is OK to break a rule just because it is a minor one? Is it OK for me to kill you? I would not be breaking federal law but some silly state law so that must make it a minor rule right?

What is more fair then the rules apply to everyone equally?

Neverfly
2008-Jul-23, 11:56 PM
So it is OK to break a rule just because it is a minor one? Is it OK for me to kill you? I would not be breaking federal law but some silly state law so that must make it a minor rule right?

What is more fair then the rules apply to everyone equally?

Whatever. That is totally apples to oranges and you know it.

Like it or not, Hokie, citing "A rule's a rule!" never gets anyone anywhere. If people are not able to question stupid rules and stupid rulings, then we would be overrun by rules.

Which, if you look around, is exactly what is starting to happen.

I say that it IS ok to break a minor rule sometimes. I say it's important that people question the rules too. And that they question major rulings made over stupid rules.

Hokie
2008-Jul-24, 01:19 AM
The original post is apples to oranges, life and dealing with alien cultures is complicated signing your name on a card is not.

Changing the rule is fine but the rule was in effect at the time and anyone that violated it would face the same penalty. She should not get a free pass to break the rules just because she is Michelle Wie. Natalie Gulbis and many other golfers have been DQed for not signing there card why is Wie different?

Golf is not like other sports, you keep your own score assess penalties on your self part of that is attesting to your score by signing your card. What is the point of a rule that does not apply to anyone?

Neverfly
2008-Jul-24, 02:49 AM
The original post is apples to oranges, life and dealing with alien cultures is complicated signing your name on a card is not.
Not quite- the OP addressed problems with the absurdity of silly rules and their strict enforcement.


Changing the rule is fine but the rule was in effect at the time and anyone that violated it would face the same penalty. She should not get a free pass to break the rules just because she is Michelle Wie. Natalie Gulbis and many other golfers have been DQed for not signing there card why is Wie different?
I had never heard of Wei before this thread- and have clearly stated as such twice so far. The argument is not about favoritism- it is about the absurdity of it. It can apply to any golfer, any law, and rule.

Check out books on Funny Laws. There are many outmoded and outdated laws still on the books- all the while while law makers think up new ones.


Golf is not like other sports, you keep your own score assess penalties on your self part of that is attesting to your score by signing your card. What is the point of a rule that does not apply to anyone?
Golf may have 'used to been' not like other sports. This is no longer the case.
Also, you seem mistaken or I am... You don't keep your own score.

sarongsong
2008-Jul-24, 02:55 AM
...Agree that there is way too much 'zero tolerance' attitude in the world today, particularly in the US...Like their military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy:
June 17, 2008
...More than 12,000 gay service members have been dismissed since 1993 – typically with honorable discharges...Before “don't ask, don't tell,” gay service members often were jailed and routinely lost benefits because of their dishonorable discharges...
San Diego Union Tribune...while seemingly looking the other way when some hetero male members force themselves on female members, all the way from military colleges thru combat.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-24, 03:16 AM
while seemingly looking the other way when some hetero male members force themselves on female members, all the way from military colleges thru combat.

Not Hardly!
Such is what scandals are made of- or perhaps you don't read the news?
Today, it's way too hard for a man or a woman to "force" themselves on someone without totally getting caught.

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-24, 04:32 AM
Come on folks! The LPGA has a rule. It is not hidden deep in the fine print. Michelle has known of and abided by the rule since she started playing with the big girls when she was 14 (2004). She broke the rule and got caught. She wasn't the first and probably won't be the last.

Get over it!

If it bothers you so much, get off your duff and do something!

sarongsong
2008-Jul-24, 05:39 AM
"Poor Michelle!" :)
July 23, 2008
Highest-paid Female Athletes by Forbes magazine:
Maria Sharapova, $26 million;
Serena Williams, $14 million;
Venus Williams, $13 million;
Justine Henin, $12.5 million;
Michelle Wie, $12 million;
Annika Sorenstam, $11 million...
BizJournals (http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2008/07/21/daily29.html)

sarongsong
2008-Jul-24, 05:54 AM
Not Hardly!
Such is what scandals are made of- or perhaps you don't read the news?
Today, it's way too hard for a man or a woman to "force" themselves on someone without totally getting caught.Sure hope so:
July 23, 2008
...The Army labeled Johnson’s death a suicide...
http://www.lavenajohnson.com

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-24, 05:57 AM
"Poor Michelle!"
Quote:
July 23, 2008
Highest-paid Female Athletes by Forbes magazine:
Maria Sharapova, $26 million;
Serena Williams, $14 million;
Venus Williams, $13 million;
Justine Henin, $12.5 million;
Michelle Wie, $12 million;
Annika Sorenstam, $11 million...
BizJournals
And, technically, she's still an amateur! She can only play in LPGA events by "invitation" or in Open events - if she makes the cut in qualification.

Also, I think those numbers include endorsements.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-24, 09:43 AM
Come on folks! The LPGA has a rule. It is not hidden deep in the fine print. Michelle has known of and abided by the rule since she started playing with the big girls when she was 14 (2004). She broke the rule and got caught. She wasn't the first and probably won't be the last.

Get over it!

If it bothers you so much, get off your duff and do something!

We are.
We're whining.


It probably tells ya something though- that this "simple rule that she has known about four years and abided by four years" now comes down on her pretty hard- because it's so simple to forget to sign something, get distracted or get in a rush.
It's funny.
Kaptain K, you just gave the exact reason as to why that rule is so dumb:neutral:



"Poor Michelle!" :)

Wei's income is irrelevant to the discussion.
Her fame or status is also irrelevant.
Big or small money is not an excuse for silly or outdated rules. Nor is fame.

The discussion is about the silly rule. Wei- is just an example- it can be many other people. It can be many other situations.

I don't know how many times I have pointed out by now- I have Never Heard Of Michelle Wei until this thread.
Maybe if I put it in bold it will help.
I'm not a fan. I don't even like golf.
I don't truly care if Wei was Disqualified on her own merits. That's her problem.
The discussion here is that the rules are plain flat out stupid- and those of us that think so- spoke up about it.
That's what people do when they see enforcement that doesn't seem right.
And Kaptain K, I will never get over talking about unjust rules or rulings.
Not ever.
It's essential that people do it.

Calling it whining- calling it mad fans- calling it rebelliousness- all of these things does not counter argue anything Mugaliens or I said. It's fallacy usage and nothing more.
It's inaccurate.
And lastly, you may be perfectly happy to have a boot heel on your neck- I am not. I am the type who makes a noise- I grab that boot heel and give a memory to he that puts it on my neck.

It's my nature.

geonuc
2008-Jul-24, 09:45 AM
Now that's absurd - Wie above Sorenstam. Shows how screwed up the whole endorsement world is.

BTW - Hokie is right. Unlike in any other sport I can think of, professional golfers are responsible for their scores. Sure, they are also charged with keeping track of their playing partner's score, but when they enter the scoring area, it is their own card they present to the tournament officials.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-24, 09:50 AM
BTW - Hokie is right. Unlike in any other sport I can think of, professional golfers are responsible for their scores. Sure, they are also charged with keeping track of their playing partner's score, but when they enter the scoring area, it is their own card they present to the tournament officials.

Oh C'mon!
And signing the dumb thing is some Magical method of ensuring that the score is correct?
It's outmoded, outdated and still stupid.
Golfers need to get with the program.
Lastly, these days, Television makes the scoring available to viewers because everyone else is keeping score too.
The scorecard is a dinosaur.

sarongsong
2008-Jul-24, 09:51 AM
...
I don't know how many times I have pointed out by now- I have Never Heard Of Michelle Wei until this thread.
Maybe if I put it in bold it will help...No, spelling her name right might, tho.

geonuc
2008-Jul-24, 09:51 AM
The discussion here is that the rules are plain flat out stupid- and those of us that think so- spoke up about it.
That's part of the discussion raised by Mugaliens, but not all of it. For my part, I've objected to the argument that the LPGA acted improperly in enforcing their rule with Wie (not Wei). I too think the rule is a bit stupid, but it is on the books at the moment and thus must be enforced.

sarongsong
2008-Jul-24, 09:53 AM
...
I don't know how many times I have pointed out by now- I have Never Heard Of Michelle Wei until this thread....Well, that's pretty obvious...it's Wie.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-24, 09:55 AM
No, spelling her name right might, tho.
Well, that's pretty obvious...it's Wie.
heh...

OOps.http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/9.gif

I've probably used both variants by now. Hopefully, pro golfers never read BAUT...

geonuc
2008-Jul-24, 10:08 AM
Oh C'mon!
And signing the dumb thing is some Magical method of ensuring that the score is correct?
It's outmoded, outdated and still stupid.
Golfers need to get with the program.
Lastly, these days, Television makes the scoring available to viewers because everyone else is keeping score too.
The scorecard is a dinosaur.
The score card is not a dumb thing and I certainly haven't invoked any magical property to the act of signing. Unlike other sports, there are no officials keeping score. The golfers do it. Signing something you are attesting to, especially in weighty matters, which this certainly is for a professional, is not uncommon.

sarongsong
2008-Jul-24, 10:11 AM
And, technically, she's still an amateur!...2005
Wie turns pro — then donates for Katrina (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/9592351/site/21683474/) :)

Neverfly
2008-Jul-24, 10:28 AM
The score card is not a dumb thing and I certainly haven't invoked any magical property to the act of signing. Unlike other sports, there are no officials keeping score. The golfers do it. Signing something you are attesting to, especially in weighty matters, which this certainly is for a professional, is not uncommon.

If I forgot to sign my receipt after buying groceries at the store- and they ran out in the parking lot, took all my groceries back without a refund- I would raise some Cain.

If you say, "Oh but if that was the rule, and you knew it before leaving the store..."
Guess what?
It IS a rule.
Credit Card receipts are a sign of honesty and security. You have to sign it.

And that's just about a few hundred bucks on food. I can't imagine what I'd do if a million dollars was involved.
Probably lose my voice from all the yelling.

geonuc
2008-Jul-24, 11:00 AM
Sorry, your analogy escapes me. How is that like being disqualified for breaking a rule in golf?

.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-24, 11:11 AM
Sorry, your analogy escapes me. How is that like being disqualified for breaking a rule in golf?

.

Stupidity is still stupidity- even if one is made into a rule.

SeanF
2008-Jul-24, 01:29 PM
I say that it IS ok to break a minor rule sometimes. I say it's important that people question the rules too. And that they question major rulings made over stupid rules.
Sure, it's OK to break the rules sometimes - but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be punished for it. And, by all means, question stupid rules. But that doesn't mean you change the rules retroactively.


If I forgot to sign my receipt after buying groceries at the store- and they ran out in the parking lot, took all my groceries back without a refund- I would raise some Cain.

If you say, "Oh but if that was the rule, and you knew it before leaving the store..."
Guess what?
It IS a rule.
Credit Card receipts are a sign of honesty and security. You have to sign it.

And that's just about a few hundred bucks on food. I can't imagine what I'd do if a million dollars was involved.
Probably lose my voice from all the yelling.
Now, that's apples and oranges.

First - the rule is, "The transaction isn't valid unless the receipt is signed." The rule is not, "The transaction isn't valid unless the receipt is signed before you leave the store." So if they catch you in the parking lot, you can sign the receipt then and you haven't broken the rule. They caught Wie in the parking lot and had her sign the scorecard, but by that point she'd already broken the rule. :)

Second - and more importantly - there are not other people whose groceries are dependent on whether or not you signed your receipt. It's just between you and the store. But you can bet that if you were taking part in a "shopping spree" contest, and signing the receipt before you leave the store were one of the rules of the contest, you would not be the winner. To allow you to be would be unfair to the person who came in second but did sign their receipt.

Hokie
2008-Jul-24, 04:06 PM
Oh C'mon!
And signing the dumb thing is some Magical method of ensuring that the score is correct?
It's outmoded, outdated and still stupid.
Golfers need to get with the program.
Lastly, these days, Television makes the scoring available to viewers because everyone else is keeping score too.
The scorecard is a dinosaur.

If you sign for a score that is Higher (more stroke the you actual take) then you are stuck with that score as you signed it. If you sign for a better score then you are DQed. The fact that others are keeping track of your score does not matter you are responsible for recording your score correctly. I do not see being responsible for your actions as outdated and stupid. Golf is more then just hitting a ball into a hole. It is about character.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-24, 05:09 PM
Golf is not like other sports, you keep your own score assess penalties on your self part of that is attesting to your score by signing your card. What is the point of a rule that does not apply to anyone?

Rules are rules are rules, huh?

Fine. Let's rewind the clock a couple hundred years and punish our Founding Fathers for breaking the King's rules.

Again, I'm with Neverfly on this. There are times when situations call for breaking the rules.

That doesn't apply in Wie's case.

What does apply is that there are also times when inadvertant breaking of a rule should not be penalized, particularly when she broke none of the Rules of Golf.

Hokie
2008-Jul-24, 05:46 PM
She did break the rules of golf a local rule is no different then a normal rule. I could understand your point if there was some emergence that caused her to not sign her card and she was DQed for it but there was none she just simply did not do her job correctly.

MAPNUT
2008-Jul-24, 06:45 PM
Boy, I'm impressed with how the people on this thread have been able to keep up the argument for 4+ days now without anyone changing their minds. I'll withold my opinion since it obviously won't make any difference.

It's amazing how you folks keep finding new ways to make the same points, well into the next week, despite any sign of progress. You don't need to know what I think.

I'm tempted to make a chart of which participants fall into which camp, and how many times they've posted, and maybe make a bar chart out of it. If there was a poll, I might consider voting.

There, I've made all my contributions in one post. I'm done. :D

SeanF
2008-Jul-24, 06:59 PM
What does apply is that there are also times when inadvertant breaking of a rule should not be penalized, particularly when she broke none of the Rules of Golf.
First, as Hokie pointed out, she did break one of the Rules of Golf.

Secondly, please elaborate. Staying within the boundaries of professional sports, what other rules do you think should not be applied when the breaking of them is "inadvertent"? In general, how do you make the distinction?

For example, baseball has a rule about a player not taking first base on a walk. If he leaves the field of play, he's out. So - let's say the batter "inadvertently" thought that last pitch was strike three instead of ball four and headed for the dugout. If he left the field of play but immediately was made aware of his mistake and returned, is he still out?

Hokie
2008-Jul-24, 11:25 PM
To put it another way if this is so minor of a rule why is the penalty a DQ and not X number of strokes?

Neverfly
2008-Jul-25, 12:52 AM
Boy, I'm impressed with how the people on this thread have been able to keep up the argument for 4+ days now without anyone changing their minds. I'll withold my opinion since it obviously won't make any difference.

It's amazing how you folks keep finding new ways to make the same points, well into the next week, despite any sign of progress. You don't need to know what I think.

I'm tempted to make a chart of which participants fall into which camp, and how many times they've posted, and maybe make a bar chart out of it. If there was a poll, I might consider voting.

There, I've made all my contributions in one post. I'm done. :D

Spoilsport.

Whirlpool
2008-Jul-25, 05:00 AM
Boy, I'm impressed with how the people on this thread have been able to keep up the argument for 4+ days now without anyone changing their minds. I'll withold my opinion since it obviously won't make any difference.

It's amazing how you folks keep finding new ways to make the same points, well into the next week, despite any sign of progress. You don't need to know what I think.

I'm tempted to make a chart of which participants fall into which camp, and how many times they've posted, and maybe make a bar chart out of it. If there was a poll, I might consider voting.

There, I've made all my contributions in one post. I'm done. :D

Well.. this is BAUT .

:D

HenrikOlsen
2008-Jul-25, 05:57 PM
I've seen a golfer switch his weight from foot to foot and move a pebble half an inch with one foot before hitting the ball.
Had it been a bottlecap he'd have been ok, but he got penalized because the rules clearly forbids moving natural obstacles.

Golf is a sport which seems to be half playing the game, half abiding to the gazillion obscure rules.
It has a long history of people getting penalized for breaking apparently silly rules, it's a fundamental part of the game and what happened to Wie was how golf is done, it's something she signed on to when she decided to play the game at that level.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-26, 01:30 PM
She did break the rules of golf a local rule is no different then a normal rule.

No. They are very different.

The Rules of Golf are codified by the USGA and Saint Andrews. Those are the only rules, and the preempt all other rules which may be imposed on players from various sources.

While local clubs or various tournaments may impose additional rules, they are not rules of golf. Rather, they're "tournament rules," or "course rules."

mugaliens
2008-Jul-26, 01:31 PM
Boy, I'm impressed with how the people on this thread have been able to keep up the argument for 4+ days now without anyone changing their minds.

:lol:


I'm tempted to make a chart of which participants fall into which camp, and how many times they've posted, and maybe make a bar chart out of it.

Go for it!

mugaliens
2008-Jul-26, 01:38 PM
First, as Hokie pointed out, she did break one of the Rules of Golf.

No. Re-read the rulebook and review the applicable rule cited earlier in this thread.


Staying within the boundaries of professional sports, what other rules do you think should not be applied when the breaking of them is "inadvertent"? In general, how do you make the distinction?

Ahhhh! Now we're getting somewhere.

It's a judgement call, which is precisely why professional sports have "judges," not "rule-mongers."

Consider two race-car drivers who inadvertantly collide which causes both to crash. It's fairly certain that the collision is inadvertant because any collisions usually do enough serious damage to the car to preclude it's winning, or even finishing the race.

Similarly, if one of the drivers gets out and delivers a right cross to the other, that's as blatently a conscious action as their collision was inadvertant.

However, if a tennis player slings their racket into the stands, was it intentional, which would earn the player various penalties from the judge (as John Macenroe discovered), or was it inadvertant, as when a player's backhand swing results in a lost grip and a flying tennis raquet?

That's why there's a judge. The judge determines intent.


For example, baseball has a rule about a player not taking first base on a walk. If he leaves the field of play, he's out. So - let's say the batter "inadvertently" thought that last pitch was strike three instead of ball four and headed for the dugout. If he left the field of play but immediately was made aware of his mistake and returned, is he still out?

Good point! And that's covered by the rules of baseball.

The only thing the Rules of Golf say is "as soon as possible." It says nothing of leaving a field of play, much less a roped-off area.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-26, 01:48 PM
Golf is a sport which seems to be half playing the game, half abiding to the gazillion obscure rules.
It has a long history of people getting penalized for breaking apparently silly rules, it's a fundamental part of the game and what happened to Wie was how golf is done, it's something she signed on to when she decided to play the game at that level.

"Obscure?" "Silly?"

I couldn't agree with you more. Furthermore, the game of golf has evolved, and continues to evolve. It hasn't arrived.

My original points remain:

1. The rule Wie broke is not one of the Rules of Golf. It was an additional rule of the tournament.

2. The rule was originally intended to penalize poor losers who strode off in a huff, not disqualified properly-behaved individuals who'd successfully completed a round of play.

3. If Wie would appeal to the USGA and/or St. Andrews, they would overturn the ruling, as they're well aware of the nature and history of their own rule, and they would relize that the judge's lack of judgement and blind adherence to a lesser rule violates the intent of the over-arching rule and the spirit of fair play of golf itself.

SeanF
2008-Jul-27, 04:09 AM
1. The rule Wie broke is not one of the Rules of Golf. It was an additional rule of the tournament.
Actually, I think it was.

Rule 6-6b requires her to sign the card, and Rule 6-6c says that there can be no alterations made to the scorecard after she's returned it to the Committee. So if she returned it to the Committee without having signed it, she's out of luck, isn't she?

EDIT: By the way, I'm pretty sure the rule was not intended "to penalize poor losers who strode off in a huff," but rather to prevent players from turning in an incorrect scorecard and then denying responsibility for the errors.

Hokie
2008-Jul-27, 04:38 PM
No. Re-read the rulebook and review the applicable rule cited earlier in this thread. It was an additional rule of the tournament.

The the rules of golf give the Committee the ability to create local rules so how are they not valid? They are just as valid and well known to all the golfers as any other rule. You agree to play by the rules of golf including the local rules you should not be surprised when they are enforced.


2. The rule was originally intended to penalize poor losers who strode off in a huff, not disqualified properly-behaved individuals who'd successfully completed a round of play.

3. If Wie would appeal to the USGA and/or St. Andrews, they would overturn the ruling, as they're well aware of the nature and history of their own rule, and they would relize that the judge's lack of judgment and blind adherence to a lesser rule violates the intent of the over-arching rule and the spirit of fair play of golf itself.

And I would like to see your prove that the R&A would overturn anything. First off The USGA not the R&A would rule. Second if the players did not like the rule they would tell the tour and would get it changed.


33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion

A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.

Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.

If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.

IF there was some exceptional case (If there had been a bomb threat that caused everyone to leave the area before the scorecard was signed) they could waive the penalty. But there was no exceptional case she simple did not sign her card as is part of her job duties.


The only thing the Rules of Golf say is "as soon as possible." It says nothing of leaving a field of play, much less a roped-off area.

The scoring tent where you hand in your card is in the roped-off area and is your first stop after the round ends. If you leave the roped-off the you obviously did not do it as soon as possible as that would be before you left the area.

SeanF
2008-Jul-28, 01:16 PM
Something else that occurred to me that hasn't been mentioned before:

One thing you're not likely to see in any other professional sport is for an official to actually stop and warn a player before they break a rule. To keep with our baseball analogy of missing first base, the umpire is never going to tell the hitter, "Hey, you missed first base - better get back there before I have to call you out!" But that's exactly what happened here. I'd have a little more sympathy for Wie if she herself had realized she forgot to sign the card and gone back.

(Now, that being said, the other thing you're not going to see in that baseball situation is for the umpire, on his own, to say, "He missed first base, he's out." It is the responsibility of the other team to notice what happened and actually request a ruling on whether or not he touched the base. So, in that respect at least, the analogy would tend to favor Wie. :) )

But, really, what if the officials had not noticed that she didn't sign her card until much later? Or, for that matter, if they did notice right away but didn't run out and chase her down? Would she still be allowed to sign it after the fact? I mean, there's really no difference from the perspective of what Wie did/intended to do, so I'm not sure why she ought to get "saved" from her own mistake by people who are supposed to be impartial...

Hokie
2008-Jul-29, 02:43 AM
The funny thing in all this is golf is the one sport (I do not know of any other sport that does this) that realized it can not have a rule for every thing so to avoid what the OP is talking about there is rule 1-4


1-4. Points Not Covered by Rules
If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules, the decision should be made in accordance with equity.

this and letting the committee make local rules for local conditions prevents gray areas as much as possible. Wie did break the rules and what she did is covered by the rules so there is no gray area or judgment call.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-29, 05:01 PM
The the rules of golf give the Committee the ability to create local rules so how are they not valid?

Local rules are not The Rules of Golf (which are published...)

They're "local rules," also commonly referred to as "course rules," or "clubhouse rules." In addition, you have "tournement rules," which are also not a part of the published The Rules of Golf (which are published...)


They are just as valid and well known to all the golfers as any other rule.

No. They're not. Most of the women who're competing members in the LPGA know the LPGA rules, which are (you guessed it) The Rules of Golf. I would hazard a guess that most of them do not know all of the various course/clubhouse rules, or the various non-LPGA tournement rules.


You agree to play by the rules of golf including the local rules you should not be surprised when they are enforced.

Actually, The Rules of Golf preempt local rules.

Always.


And I would like to see your prove that the R&A would overturn anything. First off The USGA not the R&A would rule.

Uh... Both the USGA and the R&A use the same rulebook. It's called The Rules of Golf.


Second if the players did not like the rule they would tell the tour and would get it changed.

Are you kidding me? In a pig's eye! There is far, far more prestige, mis-placed pride, one-upmanship, and power-mongering among those who officiate than among any of the players.

uncommonsense
2008-Jul-29, 05:41 PM
It seems much of the debate centers around an improper comparison between public rules and/or laws - the violation of which can lead to the deprivation of life, liberty (or property), and pursuit of happiness thru a governmental system of due process; and voluntary rules, by which the volunteer agrees to be bound, the breaking of which may lead to detrimental consequences and unfair results, without a mandatory appeals process, but will never result in deprivation of an individual’s “entitlements”. The voluntary rules themselves may be inherently unfair. So what? Decide not to play.

I believe there is a logical fallacy (even if not in the classical sense) at play here.

I can go further, but that seems unnecessary

SeanF
2008-Jul-29, 06:25 PM
Local rules are not The Rules of Golf (which are published...)

They're "local rules," also commonly referred to as "course rules," or "clubhouse rules." In addition, you have "tournement rules," which are also not a part of the published The Rules of Golf (which are published...)
The distinction being drawn here is a red herring. Rule 6-6b of The Rules of Golf require Wie to return a signed scorecard to the Committee.

Now, either one of two things happened, depending on when, exactly, she is considered to have "returned the scorecard to the Committee":

1) She did return an unsigned scorecard to the Committee, in which case she violated Rule 6-6b of The Rules of Golf and is subject to disqualification; or

2) She was in the act of returning an unsigned scorecard to the Committee, but tournament officials noticed the imminent error and took it upon themselves to preemptively correct the violation.

Either way, I'm afraid she's toast. And either way, it's a Rule of Golf.

And as far as the definition of "returning the scorecard to the Committee," The Rules of Golf (apparently intentionally) leave that undefined, which is why the local rules explicitly define it - and by those local rules, it's option 1.


Actually, The Rules of Golf preempt local rules.
Tell Nick Faldo (http://www.augusta.com/masters2004/review1996/0406before96/notes1996.shtml) that.


Nick Faldo of England had a six-stroke lead with six holes to play in the final round of the 1994 Alfred Dunhill Masters when he was disqualified for removing a stone from a bunker the previous day, something allowed on the European tour but not on the Asian tour.
What? Something that's legal in one golf tournament but illegal in another?

mugaliens
2008-Jul-29, 06:37 PM
The distinction being drawn here is a red herring. Rule 6-6b of The Rules of Golf require Wie to return a signed scorecard to the Committee.

Now, either one of two things happened, depending on when, exactly, she is considered to have "returned the scorecard to the Committee":

1) She did return an unsigned scorecard to the Committee, in which case she violated Rule 6-6b of The Rules of Golf and is subject to disqualification...

She never returned an insigned scorecard to the Committee.


2) She was in the act of returning an unsigned scorecard to the Committee, but tournament officials noticed the imminent error and took it upon themselves to preemptively correct the violation.

After a quick reminder by some of the events volunteers (not the Committee), she returned a signed scorecard to the Committee.


...either way, it's a Rule of Golf.

Yes it is! And she adhered to the Rule.


And as far as the definition of "returning the scorecard to the Committee," The Rules of Golf (apparently intentionally) leave that undefined, which is why the local rules explicitly define it - and by those local rules, it's option 1.

I disagree, for no other reason than the fact that I looked up the history behind the rule, and it was expressly enacted to prevent poor loosers from walking off the field in a huff while getting to keep a 2nd or 3rd place trophy/prize.

Which did not apply to Wie.

Which the judges were inexcusably unaware, or negligent in their blind application of their own rule which violates the spirite of "fair play" which another poster recently brought up that's also covered in The Rules of Golf.

Noticeably absent was any sense of "fair play" on the part of the other players.

"Fair play" would have entailed one or more of the other players stepping forth to protest the ruling.

Instead, a spirit of timidity, and possibly "nah-nah!" was at play, in which the other players kept their mouths shut and capitalized on every unfair advantage.

That's not "fair play." That violently opposes the spirt of fair play in the game of golf. It's not a cutthroat sport. It's a gentleman's (or lady's) sport.

This point will, of course, be lost on anyone who supports the cutthroat approach and blind rule-mongering of what occurred.

SeanF
2008-Jul-29, 07:08 PM
She never returned an insigned scorecard to the Committee.
...
After a quick reminder by some of the events volunteers (not the Committee), she returned a signed scorecard to the Committee.
So the volunteers aren't the Committee when she gives them an unsigned card but they are the Committee when she gives them a signed card.

Pretty ephemeral entity, this Committee, isn't it? :)


Yes it is! And she adhered to the Rule.
"As soon as possible" means the second time she takes her card to the Committ....er, volunteers?


I disagree, for no other reason than the fact that I looked up the history behind the rule, and it was expressly enacted to prevent poor loosers from walking off the field in a huff while getting to keep a 2nd or 3rd place trophy/prize.
I'll take your word for it.


Which did not apply to Wie.
Didn't apply to Doug Sanders in the '66 Pensacola open or Kim Young in the '93 Shell Houston Open, either, but they were both disqualified for inadvertently forgetting to sign their cards (in fact, Young's case is even more understandable than Wie's - weather interrupted his first round and he had to finish it the next day immediately before starting his second round. In his haste to make his second-round tee-off, he neglected to sign his first-round card, which was discovered before he even finished the first hole of the second round. Too bad.)


Which the judges were inexcusably unaware, or negligent in their blind application of their own rule which violates the spirite of "fair play" which another poster recently brought up that's also covered in The Rules of Golf.
"Fair play," in a professional sports context, means - I've said this in this thread before - applying the rules equally all the time. To make the rules subjective, to however a particular judge is feeling at a particular time, would not be in the spirit of "fair play."

pghnative
2008-Jul-29, 07:32 PM
I suspect that you'll need to agree to disagree.

I will say, however, that if I had a choice to compete in either SeanF's golf tournament or in mugaliens's golf tournament, I'd choose Sean's in a heartbeat.

Hokie
2008-Jul-30, 02:24 AM
Local rules are not The Rules of Golf (which are published...)

They're "local rules," also commonly referred to as "course rules," or "clubhouse rules." In addition, you have "tournement rules," which are also not a part of the published The Rules of Golf (which are published...)

No. They're not. Most of the women who're competing members in the LPGA know the LPGA rules, which are (you guessed it) The Rules of Golf. I would hazard a guess that most of them do not know all of the various course/clubhouse rules, or the various non-LPGA tournement rules.

They know the rules including the local rules. Do you thing that the committee just goes around making rules with out telling anyone? As a Professional do you not think knowing that tournaments have local rules that you would find out what they are? This rule is the same at all the tournaments (LPGA and PGA) so that is moot as it is not an obscure or unknown rule.



Actually, The Rules of Golf preempt local rules.

Always.

Uh... Both the USGA and the R&A use the same rulebook. It's called The Rules of Golf.

By rule a local rule can not violate a rule of Golf (unless the local condition is such that the normal rules can not work and then the committee has to get permission to modify the rule). Think of it as state laws, States can make laws but can not violate the Constitution .The fact that this has happened before and will happen again and has never been overturned by the USGA or caused the USGA to stop the locale rule would indicate that it is a OK.


Are you kidding me? In a pig's eye! There is far, far more prestige, mis-placed pride, one-upmanship, and power-mongering among those who officiate than among any of the players.

The players do not have to play there are plenty of tournaments around the world. It is the players that make the tournament not the committee. As long as they stand together they can make tournament change a local rule. I have never heard "We have got to watch the Bad Astronomy Open I heard that SeanF is on the committee" !!


And you total ignored the part where she clearly did not sign the card ASAP. So even if you discount the local rule about area of play she still violated rule 6-6b. She turned in her card that would have the when she would have signed it. The fact that she did not sign it means she did not sign it ASAP. Everyone else was able to sign it there and know about to do it before handing the card in. You really want me to believe that Wie did not know she was suppose to sign her card like she has countless times before.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-30, 02:43 AM
And you total ignored the part where she clearly did not sign the card ASAP. So even if you discount the local rule about area of play she still violated rule 6-6b. She turned in her card that would have the when she would have signed it. The fact that she did not sign it means she did not sign it ASAP. Everyone else was able to sign it there and know about to do it before handing the card in. You really want me to believe that Wie did not know she was suppose to sign her card like she has countless times before.

The Point, Hokie...

Is that the rule was first brought up- long ago, because of how the scoring is done and for the sake of honesty.

The point is that people react when they see rules used almost as weapons.
Laws and rules exist to punish and prevent criminal activity and intent.
Wie's case is just an example of that being used even when there is no intent or activity.
It was a dumb mistake.

Wie's case is just an example of how these things go.
We can bring up other examples that are totally non-golf related.

What it comes down to is that it's
a.) Absurd
b.) Ridiculous
c.) Silliness

Citing that "A rule's a rule" is the oldest cop out in the book for not having to deal with nor confront injustice.
It's called "blanketing."

And people such as Mugaliens, myself and others- discourage and disagree with blanketing very, very strongly.

The reason for it is because it:
1.) Punishes the innocent
2.) Causes more problems than it prevents
3.) Disrupts livelihoods
4.) Encourages corruption
5.) Does not deal with criminals- but treats everyone as a criminal

Well, as far as golf is concerned- many folks have posted that Golf is just 'that way.'

So maybe Wie's particular case is not a good example.
But the principle remains the same.
And you can argue the point all you want- it will make no difference.

To folks like Mugs and I, Justice and Freedom and Innocence are a matter of passion.
And you just cannot compete with that.:neutral:
I, literally, have taken several oaths under that passion, codes to live by for it, to represent it- to defend it- to fight for it- to lay down my life for it.

To anyone that understands the value of freedom, justice and Honor to law- they cannot help but speak out, they MUST speak out, it's almost a moral duty to speak out when they see injustice, blanketing, and law or rule slamming in action.

And they will Hold Their Ground.

Hokie
2008-Jul-30, 11:50 AM
Being responsible for your actions is absurd, ridiculous, and silliness? It was her actions and her actions only that cause the problem.

6-6b exists because your score card is the official score. So it is absurd, ridiculous, silliness to want the office score to be correct and to have the other competitors know where they stand? It does not matter how many people are tracking the score your score card is the office score. How is it fair for someone to loose because they though they only need boggy or better on the 18th to win but turns out they needed a birdie. Once your round is over you mush post a score so that everyone knows where they stand.

What would you say if a team left the stadium in the middle of a Super Bowl and went to Hooters for some wings? Should the game be stopped until they get back? That is basically what happened, her round was not complete (she did not turn in a signed score card) and she left.

SeanF
2008-Jul-30, 01:27 PM
The point is that people react when they see rules used almost as weapons.
Laws and rules exist to punish and prevent criminal activity and intent.
Um...no, there's a difference between laws and sports rules. Sports rule are intended to provide a "level playing field," if you will - to make sure that each and every player is required to do the exact same thing as each and every other player in order to defeat those other players.


Wie's case is just an example of that being used even when there is no intent or activity.
So? Some rules require intent and activity - "The player is required to do such-and-such." That was the case here. The lack of intent and activity on Wie's part was the violation.


It was a dumb mistake.
You can say that again. :)


To anyone that understands the value of freedom, justice and Honor to law
"Freedom, justice and honor"?!?! It's a freakin' game!

Neverfly
2008-Jul-30, 03:42 PM
Being responsible for your actions is absurd, ridiculous, and silliness? It was her actions and her actions only that cause the problem.
This sounds a lot like "A Rule is a Rule" to me....:think:
There are varying degrees of intensity.


6-6b exists because your score card is the official score. So it is absurd, ridiculous, silliness to want the office score to be correct and to have the other competitors know where they stand? It does not matter how many people are tracking the score your score card is the office score. How is it fair for someone to loose
You mean "lose." "Loose" is the opposite of tight.

because they thought they only need boggy or better on the 18th to win but turns out they needed a birdie. Once your round is over you mush post a score so that everyone knows where they stand.
Definitely outdated...


What would you say if a team left the stadium in the middle of a Super Bowl and went to Hooters for some wings? Should the game be stopped until they get back?
Now you're ust being silly.
If the team left but came back in time, such is their business.
If they were 80 seconds late- I wouldn't care at all.
If they were an hour late, I'd be a bit mad at them. That whole "varying degrees" thing in action.

If a guy Tried to stab you with a knife, would you press charges for assault?
If he accidentally bumped into you at the bus stop, would you press charges for assault?

That is basically what happened, her round was not complete (she did not turn in a signed score card) and she left.
Actually, she signed the card.


"Freedom, justice and honor"?!?! It's a freakin' game!

Did Ya Miss The Part Where I Said Wie's Case Was Just An Example?
You have seen me post on other threads about actual Laws by now...

Sheesh...

SeanF, you kinda have to have ignored Most of what my post actually said- to make the statement you just made.:neutral:

Hokie
2008-Jul-30, 04:27 PM
Wie is suppose to be a professional. Expecting a professional to do there job in a professional way is outdated and wrong?

Once again if this rule was so horrible and unfair why do the players put up with it? Where is the outcry over it form the players that have to live with it?

Neverfly
2008-Jul-30, 04:32 PM
If a professional driver fails to change out a blown bulb on his vehicle ASAP, should his license be suspended?

pghnative
2008-Jul-30, 04:54 PM
If a professional driver fails to change out a blown bulb on his vehicle ASAP, should his license be suspended?If the rule was put in place before hand, if the rule was enfoced consistently in the past, then "yes".

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-30, 06:16 PM
Come on! It's been a week and a half. Everybody involved has moved on Wie's moved on. The LPGA has moved on. But you guys are still pickin' nits and splittin' hairs!

In the words of Don Henley:
GET OVER IT!

SeanF
2008-Jul-30, 06:47 PM
Did Ya Miss The Part Where I Said Wie's Case Was Just An Example?
You have seen me post on other threads about actual Laws by now...

Sheesh...

SeanF, you kinda have to have ignored Most of what my post actually said- to make the statement you just made.:neutral:
I explicitly quoted and responded to the part where you said Wie's case was just an example. Seems like you ignored more of my post than I ignored of yours.


If a professional driver fails to change out a blown bulb on his vehicle ASAP, should his license be suspended?
Not enough information. What do you mean by a "professional" driver - like a NASCAR driver, like a UPS truck driver, or like a Pizza Hut delivery driver? Are you talking about NASCAR suspending his racing license, the state suspending his personal drivers license (or maybe his CDL), or his employer pulling his route?

Of course, Wie didn't get her "golfing license" suspended, she just got disqualified from that one tournament...

(Hey, Kaptain K, you can just ignore the thread, you know... :) )

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-30, 08:41 PM
What's the fun in that?

Neverfly
2008-Jul-30, 10:48 PM
If the rule was put in place before hand, if the rule was enfoced consistently in the past, then "yes".

Then NO

Just because some Lawmaker throws a ridiculous Law out there- Does Not Mean it's "OK"?!?!
Anyone that blindly follows whatever those in charge decree deserve oppression.

We are not Pawns, Servants nor Serfs to the Government.

They Report To Us.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-30, 10:51 PM
I explicitly quoted and responded to the part where you said Wie's case was just an example. Seems like you ignored more of my post than I ignored of yours.

No.
Actually you quoted most my entire post and treated the entire thing as if it was totally in relation to sports.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-31, 12:38 AM
So the volunteers aren't the Committee when she gives them an unsigned card but they are the Committee when she gives them a signed card.

You may be right - let's review the text from the articles:

"She failed to sign her scorecard before leaving the scoring area."


"Sue Witters, the LPGA's director of tournament competitions, disqualified Wie in a small office in an LPGA trailer at the course after asking her what had happened."

"Wie told reporters that after she finished her round Friday, she left the tent just above the ninth green where players sign their scorecards. She was chased down by volunteers working in the tent, who pointed out she hadn't signed. Wie returned to the tent and signed the card, and "I thought it would be OK," she said.

"But Wie, according to Witters, had already walked outside the roped-off area around the tent. At that point, the mistake was final, Witters said."

"Witters said she and other tour officials didn't learn about the mistake from volunteers until well after Wie teed off Saturday morning, so they let her finish the round."

Nope. It's clear she handed an unsigned scorecard to volunteers, who chased her down. She then handed a signed scorecard back into the volunteers. The "committee" (aka "Witters and other tour officials") were separate from the volunteers.


"As soon as possible" means the second time she takes her card to the Committ....er, volunteers? I'll take your word for it.

Technically speaking, if they were to strictly (aka, "blindly") enforce that rule the players would be required to sprint to the scoring area.

Since they obviously don't do that, the term "as soon as possible" clearly does not mean at the earliest possible second, but rather, in it's more normative form, "without undue delay." Thus, stopping for a cheesburger would be considered an "undue delay." Stopping for a drink of water, however, would not.

Since Wie didn't cause any "undue delay," I maintain that she did not break any of The Rules of Golf, and that the judgement on Witters part was poor, at best.


...Doug Sanders... ...Kim Young...

Not familiar with them as it was long before I became interested in golf.

"Fair play," in a professional sports context, means - I've said this in this thread before - applying the rules equally all the time. To make the rules subjective, to however a particular judge is feeling at a particular time, would not be in the spirit of "fair play."[/QUOTE]

Fair play includes equally applying the rules, yes. But it doesn't stop there. It also includes objectivity and common sense, such as the legal term, "reasonable man," a litmus test used in many decisions where the nature of an event falls into either gray areas, or where the rule appears to apply as written, but in so doing violates either common sense, or the spirit of the law in which it was intended.

As in Wie's case.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-31, 12:47 AM
And you total ignored the part where she clearly did not sign the card ASAP.

Hokie, Hokie, Hokie High
Tech, Tech, VPI
Solarex, Solarah
Polytech Virginia
Ray, Rah, VPI
Team, Team, Team.

Don't get me wrong - I graduated Tech in '88.

Back to golf... (which I never played at VPI; but the golf course was great for tubing on in the winter...)

Yes, I've addressed the asap issue several times, including in my post immediately preceeding this one.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-31, 12:52 AM
Being responsible for your actions is absurd, ridiculous, and silliness? It was her actions and her actions only that cause the problem.

No. It was also the blind injustice done when common sense was thrown out the window and the rules were followed blindly as they disregarded:

1. The rule's original intent
2. The difference between the literal meaning of asap (dead run) and the accepted and commonly practiced meaning of asap (without undue delay).


If the rule was put in place before hand, if the rule was enfoced consistently in the past, then "yes".

Just because the rule was abused twice before is no excuse. Doing so simply perpetuates the cop-out.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Nor do three. In fact, when it continues to occur, unchecked, when common sense dictates otherwise, it's a trend, a symptom of an underlying problem.

Neverfly and I have been trying to open some eyes to the nature of the underlying problem, including blind adherence to the rules without any regard whatsoever for the original intent of the rules nor the circumstances surrounding them.

SeanF
2008-Jul-31, 01:32 AM
No.
Actually you quoted most my entire post and treated the entire thing as if it was totally in relation to sports.
Anything which does not apply within the context of professional sports is irrelevant to Michelle Wie's disqualification. So, yes, if any part of your post had no application to the Wie situation, then I ignored that part.


Nope. It's clear she handed an unsigned scorecard to volunteers, who chased her down. She then handed a signed scorecard back into the volunteers. The "committee" (aka "Witters and other tour officials") were separate from the volunteers.
So she never turned her scorecard in to the Committee at all?


Since they obviously don't do that, the term "as soon as possible" clearly does not mean at the earliest possible second, but rather, in it's more normative form, "without undue delay." Thus, stopping for a cheesburger would be considered an "undue delay." Stopping for a drink of water, however, would not.

Since Wie didn't cause any "undue delay," I maintain that she did not break any of The Rules of Golf, and that the judgement on Witters part was poor, at best.
I would argue it was "undue," and other golfers have been disqualified in similar situations. This was nothing unique, nor nothing new.



"Fair play," in a professional sports context, means - I've said this in this thread before - applying the rules equally all the time. To make the rules subjective, to however a particular judge is feeling at a particular time, would not be in the spirit of "fair play."
Fair play includes equally applying the rules, yes. But it doesn't stop there. It also includes objectivity and common sense, such as the legal term, "reasonable man," a litmus test used in many decisions where the nature of an event falls into either gray areas, or where the rule appears to apply as written, but in so doing violates either common sense, or the spirit of the law in which it was intended.
Again, this is not a legal situation. It's a sports situation, a professional sports situation. Despite your and Neverfly's attempts to paint this as some kind of shortcoming of society in general, it's not.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-31, 06:13 AM
Despite your and Neverfly's attempts to paint this as some kind of shortcoming of society in general, it's not.

Actually, I do think this is a shortcoming in society.

It's just that the golf example is a bad example.

SeanF
2008-Jul-31, 01:23 PM
Despite your and Neverfly's attempts to paint this as some kind of shortcoming of society in general, it's not.
Actually, I do think this is a shortcoming in society.

It's just that the golf example is a bad example.
Well, that's what I meant - "this" in my post referred to the Wie situation. I'm not saying there's not a problem with the application of zero tolerance in society in general, only that Wie's disqualification is neither an example of nor proof of that problem.

Sports is one area where zero tolerance is not only acceptable, but actually preferable.

pghnative
2008-Jul-31, 05:28 PM
Just because the rule was abused twice before is no excuse. Doing so simply perpetuates the cop-out. That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that because the rule was enforced twice (or more) before is an indication that it is a good rule and that golfers are OK with the rule as-is.


Anyone that blindly follows whatever those in charge decree deserve oppression. I hardly think golfers are oppressed.

Mugs One question that Sean asked that I haven't seen answered, is how would you re-write the rule in the future? Or are you proposing that the wording be kept the same, but instead it should be enforced differently?

Neverfly
2008-Jul-31, 09:18 PM
Well, that's what I meant - "this" in my post referred to the Wie situation. I'm not saying there's not a problem with the application of zero tolerance in society in general, only that Wie's disqualification is neither an example of nor proof of that problem.
True, and this is partly my fault for taking Mugaliens OP and running with it in a new direction.
However, on topic, I also find Wie's (and others previously) disqualification over such silliness to be absurd.

I can tolerate that it happens in sports much easier than I could in the legal system.

mugaliens
2008-Aug-02, 10:01 AM
So she never turned her scorecard in to the Committee at all?

Tell you what, SeanF, rather than you asking me questions like that, to which I review the article and respond, why don't you extricate the two back pockets of your jeans from your couch or chair, and read the article for yourself.

That way, I'll save time (I'll save it anyway, as from here on out, you'll have to do your own research), and you might just learn something without appearing all confused as you do when you ask these types of questions.

Ok?


Again, this is not a legal situation. It's a sports situation, a professional sports situation. Despite your and Neverfly's attempts to paint this as some kind of shortcoming of society in general, it's not.

First, why do you keep making this point? Of course it's a sport situation. In all the years I've watched and played golf, I've yet to see an individual clad in full-length black robes climb to the bench, bang a gavel, and say, "This court is now in session."

Nevertheless, the similarities between sports and court are astounding.

In most field sports, after the national anthem is played, the game begins. In baseball, a hearty Play Ball! preceeds the play, whereas in golf it's usually someone who rings a large bell, and in yachting, it's the firing of a cannon.

And then there are the judges! In many sports, including tennis (line judge), golf, and others they're actually called "judges." In other sports, such as football, they're called "referees," while in baseball, they're called "umpires."

And just like our legal system, things begin with a set of rules (in our legal system they're called "laws"). If the people/players abide by the rules, usually nothing happens. Bad calls by those who police the players have been made, at which point the questionable call is elevated to a higher judge who may either sustain the ruling, or overturn it. In tennis, if a line judge (who has no power to punish a player, such as throwing them out of the game) makes a bad call, it's elevated to the guy who sits on a raised platform mid-court under an umbrella. Since he also has a pretty clear view, and a line judge's view is better than either the player's or their coach's view, it's sustained. But it can be overturned. If the player/coach still disagrees, they can appeal the ruling to a higher power, usually a body charged with the responsibility for creating the rules, or at least overseeing the conduct of all lesser judges.

Throughout, both in our civilian legal system as well as in all sports, there is judgement. It is not just "nice to have." It is a requirement for the game. Without judgement, every batter who tossed a bat towareds the bat boy, every golfer who's club slipped our of their hands, every football player who spiked a football, would, blindly, be penalized for unsportsman-like conduct.

They're not. And do you know why that is, SeanF?

Judgement.

Something that was severely lacking in the "judge" which DQ'd Wie.

mugaliens
2008-Aug-02, 10:25 AM
I'm not saying there's not a problem with the application of zero tolerance in society in general, only that Wie's disqualification is neither an example of nor proof of that problem.

You're joking, of course - right?


Sports is one area where zero tolerance is not only acceptable, but actually preferable.

Again, every time batter slings a bat towards the bat boy, every time a club slips from the hands of a golfer during a swing or a racquet escapes the grip of a tennis player, every time a football player spikes the ball after a touchdown, every time a sailboat tacked and stalled it's pursuer's sails, every time basketball or soccer players collide...

Without judgement, zero tolerance aka "blind adherence to the rules without consideration of reality" would ruin all sports.

I'm very grateful that zero tolerance and the lack of sound judgement throughout all sports is the exception, rather than the rule.

Just think of how many more golf champions would have been DQ'd in the last fifty years if all the judges were as blindly unjust with zero tolerance as the one who DQ'd Wie?

And no, I'll never believe that in tens of thousand of games only three people forgot to sign their score cards...

pghnative
2008-Aug-02, 03:29 PM
Mugs One question that Sean asked that I haven't seen answered, is how would you re-write the rule in the future? Or are you proposing that the wording be kept the same, but instead it should be enforced differently? ...

Neverfly
2008-Aug-02, 03:55 PM
I'll take a stab at that question, since Mug's has answered it by now- just not directly.
Enforcement should use logic and circumstances. How it's written can never really cover all the bases.
That's what we have brains for.

pghnative
2008-Aug-03, 12:57 AM
I'm reminded of the infamous definition of pornography. In this case it would be something like "I don't know how to describe a fair rule, but I'll know a fair interpretation of it when I see it".

Personally, I like a sport (and a world) where people pay the consequences for their actions instead of trying to shift blame ("it wasn't my fault, the rule should be interpreted differently"). But that's just me, I guess...

pghnative
2008-Aug-03, 01:08 AM
I'm reminded of the infamous definition of pornography. In this case it would be something like "I don't know how to describe a fair rule, but I'll know a fair interpretation of it when I see it".

Personally, I like a sport (and a world) where people pay the consequences for their actions instead of trying to shift blame ("it wasn't my fault, the rule should be interpreted differently"). But that's just me, I guess...

Neverfly
2008-Aug-03, 01:30 AM
Personally, I like a sport (and a world) where people pay the consequences for their actions instead of trying to shift blame ("it wasn't my fault, the rule should be interpreted differently"). But that's just me, I guess...

I remember reading a book in which an old man offers a service for payment. What he offers is the answer to any question, the payment is often a years service, but other payments can be made, if applicable.
One visitor had come to trade a solution to a problem the old man was having in return for an answer to his question.

Having provided the solution, he was given the answer to his question but was unsatisfied with the answer and asked a clarifying question. The old man asked him if that was another question for which payment would have to be made.
The questioner got angry and said, "Look old man, I just handed you a solution to one of your biggest problems!"
The old man said, "Yes, but what have you done for me lately?"

Never try to collect additional service for a debt already paid.

In todays society, we have become too content with accepting additional payments for debts already paid. We have become to content with additional payment on paid debts being demanded.
This is dishonorable.
You may want to live in a world where debts are paid - I want to live in one where debts are paid without excess and debts are honored.

SeanF
2008-Aug-03, 03:07 PM
Tell you what, SeanF, rather than you asking me questions like that, to which I review the article and respond, why don't you extricate the two back pockets of your jeans from your couch or chair, and read the article for yourself.

That way, I'll save time (I'll save it anyway, as from here on out, you'll have to do your own research), and you might just learn something without appearing all confused as you do when you ask these types of questions.

Ok?
I know the answer to the question, mugs - and I was also quite sure you would prefer not to talk about it.


First, why do you keep making this point? Of course it's a sport situation. In all the years I've watched and played golf, I've yet to see an individual clad in full-length black robes climb to the bench, bang a gavel, and say, "This court is now in session."

Nevertheless, the similarities between sports and court are astounding.
The differences are even more astounding.


In most field sports, after the national anthem is played, the game begins. In baseball, a hearty Play Ball! preceeds the play, whereas in golf it's usually someone who rings a large bell, and in yachting, it's the firing of a cannon.
Is that a similarity or a difference?


And then there are the judges! In many sports, including tennis (line judge), golf, and others they're actually called "judges." In other sports, such as football, they're called "referees," while in baseball, they're called "umpires."

And just like our legal system, things begin with a set of rules (in our legal system they're called "laws"). If the people/players abide by the rules, usually nothing happens. Bad calls by those who police the players have been made, at which point the questionable call is elevated to a higher judge who may either sustain the ruling, or overturn it. In tennis, if a line judge (who has no power to punish a player, such as throwing them out of the game) makes a bad call, it's elevated to the guy who sits on a raised platform mid-court under an umbrella. Since he also has a pretty clear view, and a line judge's view is better than either the player's or their coach's view, it's sustained. But it can be overturned. If the player/coach still disagrees, they can appeal the ruling to a higher power, usually a body charged with the responsibility for creating the rules, or at least overseeing the conduct of all lesser judges.
Yes, and Wie has the right to appeal the decision to a higher power - you pointed that out yourself. She hasn't.


Throughout, both in our civilian legal system as well as in all sports, there is judgement. It is not just "nice to have." It is a requirement for the game. Without judgement, every batter who tossed a bat towareds the bat boy, every golfer who's club slipped our of their hands, every football player who spiked a football, would, blindly, be penalized for unsportsman-like conduct.

They're not. And do you know why that is, SeanF?
Because it's not explicitly in the rules? Unsportsmanlike conduct is apples-to-oranges. It is something that cannot be defined in a rulebook since the possibilities are almost infinite.

And so the line judge isn't authorized to disqualify a tennis player. The person who DQ'd Wie was authorized to do so.


Just think of how many more golf champions would have been DQ'd in the last fifty years if all the judges were as blindly unjust with zero tolerance as the one who DQ'd Wie?
How many?


And no, I'll never believe that in tens of thousand of games only three people forgot to sign their score cards...
I believe it. The scorecard is fundamental to golf. It was an incredibly basic error on Wie's part. If you'd like to, you know, actually find people who failed to sign their scorecards and didn't get disqualified I'd be happy to read about 'em (I'm not going to do your research for you, though. ;) ). But what you'll "never believe" doesn't really interest me.


How it's written can never really cover all the bases.
Depending on the rule, maybe. But in this case, the rules as written sure seem to cover Wie's case pretty specifically.

sarongsong
2008-Aug-04, 04:32 AM
...I could argue that this situation is akin to scoring...in baseball...if a batter hits a double but doesn't touch first base while running to second, he can be tagged out at any time...Hmmh...reminds me of the time... http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
...in 1908, on September 23, the Cubs and Giants were tied in the bottom of the ninth inning in a crucial game at the Polo Grounds. The Giants had runners of first and third and two outs when Al Bridwell hit a single to center field, scoring Moose McCormick from third with the Giants’ apparent winning run, but as was the custom, the runner on first base, Fred Merkle, went half way to second and then turned around to go to the clubhouse after McCormick touched home plate...Cubs’ second base man Johnny Evers had seen that Merkle never had touched second...called over the umpires, and implored any one of them to call Merkle out. Hank O’Day did just that...[and] declared the game a tie to be replayed at the end of the season. On October 5, the National League’s Board of Directors upheld O’Day’s call. The Cubs and Giants ended the season tied, necessitating replaying the September 23 game on October 8. The Cubs won and went on to win their last World Championship...
suite101 (http://baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_cubs_fred_merkle_curse)

SeanF
2008-Aug-04, 03:27 PM
Hmmh...reminds me of the time... http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Exactly. That runner going to second was a technicality - he probably could've walked there before they got the ball back in. But he didn't, and that means he's out. And since he was forced, for the third out of the inning, the run doesn't score. (Called it a tie game to be replayed, though?! Nowadays it'd just be extra innings. But that "as was the custom" is kind of interesting. First time a runner was called out for doing that?)

Zero tolerance, baby! ;)

Hokie
2008-Aug-04, 04:02 PM
I'll take a stab at that question, since Mug's has answered it by now- just not directly.
Enforcement should use logic and circumstances. How it's written can never really cover all the bases.
That's what we have brains for.

as previously posted


33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion

A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.

Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.

If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.

There is nothing exceptional in this case to Warrant the waving of the DQ

mugaliens
2008-Aug-04, 07:06 PM
I'll take a stab at that question, since Mug's has answered it by now- just not directly.
Enforcement should use logic and circumstances. How it's written can never really cover all the bases.
That's what we have brains for.

I thought I answered this yesterday... ?

"All players will return their signed scorecards to the judges table as soon as practical, not to exceed one hour after completing the game. The judges may extend this restriction as required in the event of natural phenomenon, such as dangerous weather, flooding, and other "acts of God.""

Hey, it's in most insurance contracts...

SeanF
2008-Aug-05, 01:56 PM
I thought I answered this yesterday... ?

"All players will return their signed scorecards to the judges table as soon as practical, not to exceed one hour after completing the game. The judges may extend this restriction as required in the event of natural phenomenon, such as dangerous weather, flooding, and other "acts of God.""

Hey, it's in most insurance contracts...
Not bad.

Does your hypothetical second-place finisher who stormed off in a huff still have an hour to come back and turn in his card, or is that de facto not "as soon as practical"? Is the "as soon as practical" up to the judgment of the Committee? That is, would it be possible for two players to turn their cards in in the exact same amount of time, but for one's delay to be ruled "impractical" and the other's not?

And is the "not to exceed one hour" a hard limit? One hour and five minutes? One hour and one minute? Does the one hour start as soon as the ball drops in the hole on the eighteenth green, or as soon as the golfer picks up the ball afterwards, or at some other point?

Also, what about errors on the card? There have been numerous disqualifications not because the scorecard was unsigned, but because the player forgot to take a penalty stroke they were supposed to take. If they discover the error within an hour, can they correct their card after they turn it in? After all, that's really what Wie got disqualified for - it wasn't that she turned in her card late, it was that she turned in her card incomplete.

And who's responsible for making sure the card is correct? Let's take Wie's case, where the volunteers noticed her mistake and chased her down - under your rule, presumably, she's okay. If at the next tournament, Annika Sorenstam turns in an unsigned card but the volunteers don't care enough to bother chasing her down to correct it, is she out of luck?

The question is, I guess, are you going to require the volunteers or whoever to check the players cards and call them back if they find an error? And if you're not going to require it, are you going to allow it, knowing that those volunteers may "play favorites"? Is a player who gets disqualified because of a mistake supposed to be okay with some other player who made the exact same mistake not getting DQ'd because the volunteers caught his mistake and pointed it out to him?

Oh, what if the volunteers discover an error within the hour but the player is not able to get back to correct it until after the hour has passed?

I'm sure I'll think of more... :)

Hokie
2008-Aug-05, 04:56 PM
I thought I answered this yesterday... ?

"All players will return their signed scorecards to the judges table as soon as practical, not to exceed one hour after completing the game. The judges may extend this restriction as required in the event of natural phenomenon, such as dangerous weather, flooding, and other "acts of God.""

Hey, it's in most insurance contracts...

One hour? You finish your round walk over to the tent that is right there, check your card to make sure your recorded everything correctly (many people have their caddy look over it as a double check) then sign it. It is not brain surgery.

There is no need for the rest as rule 33-7 already covers that.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-05, 05:26 PM
Not bad.

Does your hypothetical second-place finisher who stormed off in a huff still have an hour to come back and turn in his card, or is that de facto not "as soon as practical"? Is the "as soon as practical" up to the judgment of the Committee? That is, would it be possible for two players to turn their cards in in the exact same amount of time, but for one's delay to be ruled "impractical" and the other's not?

And is the "not to exceed one hour" a hard limit? One hour and five minutes? One hour and one minute? Does the one hour start as soon as the ball drops in the hole on the eighteenth green, or as soon as the golfer picks up the ball afterwards, or at some other point?

Also, what about errors on the card? There have been numerous disqualifications not because the scorecard was unsigned, but because the player forgot to take a penalty stroke they were supposed to take. If they discover the error within an hour, can they correct their card after they turn it in? After all, that's really what Wie got disqualified for - it wasn't that she turned in her card late, it was that she turned in her card incomplete.

And who's responsible for making sure the card is correct? Let's take Wie's case, where the volunteers noticed her mistake and chased her down - under your rule, presumably, she's okay. If at the next tournament, Annika Sorenstam turns in an unsigned card but the volunteers don't care enough to bother chasing her down to correct it, is she out of luck?

The question is, I guess, are you going to require the volunteers or whoever to check the players cards and call them back if they find an error? And if you're not going to require it, are you going to allow it, knowing that those volunteers may "play favorites"? Is a player who gets disqualified because of a mistake supposed to be okay with some other player who made the exact same mistake not getting DQ'd because the volunteers caught his mistake and pointed it out to him?

Oh, what if the volunteers discover an error within the hour but the player is not able to get back to correct it until after the hour has passed?

I'm sure I'll think of more... :)

You're absolutely correct.
Micro-management, extremely strict rules that cover a broad blanket and nitpick at everything followed up with some zero-tolerance are absolutely the way to go.

cosmocrazy
2008-Aug-05, 08:39 PM
Well i have just spent the best part of 2 hours reading through this thread. It interests me because a similar situation occurred to me during a major amateur tournament that i was playing in. I have been playing golf for about twenty years now and somehow have managed to get to a decent standard. I had entered my first major amateur tournament and found my self leading the competition after the day's play. So excited i returned my card unsigned and 10mins later realized my mistake, returned to the committee hoping i could rectify the error. Unfortunately i was disqualified. It was a sharp kick in the *** and at the time i was very angry with the "stupid" rule that i felt had stole away my glory! Since then i have come to realize that this rule is enforced so that the soul responsibility is on the player to confirm that they have played in full accordance with all the rules, USGA & R&A (including local ones) and returned a correct score. Unsigned a player could make a claim that the card is invalid for any reason... and so on... What i find remarkable about professional tournament golf in this particular case, is the fact that the ruling was not implemented there and then. Michelle knows the rules and was made aware that she had broken the rule, regardless how pathetic the situation was. Thats why she accepted it and nothing more is said or done about it.
I do believe though that the rule needs re-interpreting so that you are given a reasonable amount of time to rectify a simple error (Michelle's case as an e.g). In modern Pro tournaments i can't see why an official can't check over each card and then ask for a player to return to the scoring tent to rectify any error within a reasonable time. All the scores are well documented by the organizers anyway. And the professional players are still available to the committee, certainly within say a 10 minute time set, upon leaving the scoring tent. Signing your card is a definite requirement in the game of golf. I can see why the call was made to disqualify Michelle and I'm sure so does she, but i do believe that the situation could be avoided in the future by the implementation of a reasonable time period to rectify any un-intentional mistake. The sectioned (roped ) of scoring area is a local rule and in my opinion not needed. ( i must admit some organizers/committee's take great delight in enforcing such rules, i have certainly come across it in my experience).

mugaliens
2008-Aug-05, 09:08 PM
Not bad.

Does your hypothetical second-place finisher who stormed off in a huff still have an hour to come back and turn in his card, or is that de facto not "as soon as practical"?

I'd say that falls into a different category - unsportsmanlike conduct. If that's not in the rule book, it should be.


Is the "as soon as practical" up to the judgment of the Committee? That is, would it be possible for two players to turn their cards in in the exact same amount of time, but for one's delay to be ruled "impractical" and the other's not?

And is the "not to exceed one hour" a hard limit? One hour and five minutes? One hour and one minute? Does the one hour start as soon as the ball drops in the hole on the eighteenth green, or as soon as the golfer picks up the ball afterwards, or at some other point?

I think the "as soon as practical" part is an impetus to the players to turn their cards in without any appreciable delay. The "one hour" part is for the committee members to hold their feet to the fire.


Also, what about errors on the card? There have been numerous disqualifications not because the scorecard was unsigned, but because the player forgot to take a penalty stroke they were supposed to take. If they discover the error within an hour, can they correct their card after they turn it in? After all, that's really what Wie got disqualified for - it wasn't that she turned in her card late, it was that she turned in her card incomplete.

The way things appeared to me from the articles I read was that Wie turned her card into a person or people other than the ones who chased her down. It may have been the same - can anyone clarify?

You do bring up some good points, though, but I propose that the 1 hour would be wisely used by the players to check and recheck their cards. Thus, there shouldn't be any excuse whatsoever, after than, for an incorrect or incomplete score card.


And who's responsible for making sure the card is correct?

Both the golfers as well as their opponents.

As to the rest of your points, well, the further I read, the further out into the rough I found myself! :lol:

cosmocrazy
2008-Aug-05, 09:21 PM
You do bring up some good points, though, but I propose that the 1 hour would be wisely used by the players to check and recheck their cards. Thus, there shouldn't be any excuse whatsoever, after than, for an incorrect or incomplete score card.

This is a good idea although 1 hour would not be required if the card was checked by the player, then checked by an official then signed by the player in the presence of that official to confirm the scored card to be complete and true. This would take less than ten minutes. The ruling official could assist the player to rectify any mistakes made, and remind the player about full completion of the card. The returned card would still be the responsibility of the player. This would be a simple way to resolve these rare occurring mistakes in pro golf tournaments, where distraction is very frequent and the stakes are very high! :)

SeanF
2008-Aug-05, 09:42 PM
As to the rest of your points, well, the further I read, the further out into the rough I found myself! :lol:
Which is why the rules are - and should be - both specific and explicit. Those golfers don't want their multi-thousand dollar paychecks subject to the whims of a judge who finds the rules have left him out in the rough. :)

geonuc
2008-Aug-06, 10:57 AM
The way things appeared to me from the articles I read was that Wie turned her card into a person or people other than the ones who chased her down. It may have been the same - can anyone clarify?
I don't know whether it was turned in to the 'volunteers' who chased her down or not, but she turned her card in to the person or persons designated by the tournament to receive the cards. At that point, because by that act she was attesting to its accuracy and completeness, the rule was violated. Does it matter if it was the same volunteers who chased her down as those who were acting as the designated scorecard officials?

If it was them, I'd say SeanF's concern that all participants might not receive the same consideration is relevant.

mugaliens
2008-Aug-06, 06:03 PM
This is a good idea although 1 hour would not be required if the card was checked by the player, then checked by an official then signed by the player in the presence of that official to confirm the scored card to be complete and true. This would take less than ten minutes.

And in so doing, would violate the "as soon as possible" clause in the current wording of the rule.


The ruling official could assist the player to rectify any mistakes made, and remind the player about full completion of the card. The returned card would still be the responsibility of the player. This would be a simple way to resolve these rare occurring mistakes in pro golf tournaments, where distraction is very frequent and the stakes are very high! :)

I agree this would be nice, but we are talking about professional golf, where the golfers are expected to be adults. I don't think it's the official's role to aid a player in any way, any more than it's their role to hinder them. Rather, they should remain apart from the actions and simply apply the rules with sound judgement.


Which is why the rules are - and should be - both specific and explicit. Those golfers don't want their multi-thousand dollar paychecks subject to the whims of a judge who finds the rules have left him out in the rough. :)

I agree! As it currently stands, the literal interpretation of the rule would have the player and their opponent checking one another's cards furiously then take off on a dead run to the judge's table. That's what "as soon as possible" means. Otherwise, you could have a judge say, "You walked. You could have run. Therefore, you didn't get this to me 'as soon as possible.'"

Of course, that would probably be the last tournement at which he/she officiated...

Rules should be clear and concise. They don't need to be overly wordy, merely explicite. As with all rule books, there's always room for improvement.

cosmocrazy
2008-Aug-06, 08:07 PM
I agree this would be nice, but we are talking about professional golf, where the golfers are expected to be adults. I don't think it's the official's role to aid a player in any way, any more than it's their role to hinder them. Rather, they should remain apart from the actions and simply apply the rules with sound judgment.

Yes this is true but players are aided regularly in pro tournament play when there is a question about the rules during their rounds. Aiding a player to check and complete their card in no way gives that player an advantage over their rivals other than ensuring no disqualification based on a simple mistake or technicality. No pro player wants to be handed a win because their opponents have been disqualified for a very minor error that has no reflection on the round they have played. Also it would be totally across the board so every player receives the same treatment.:)



Rules should be clear and concise. They don't need to be overly wordy, merely explicit. As with all rule books, there's always room for improvement.

Exactly! "as soon as possible" or "without due delay" are not entirely clear and concise. some of the old rules in golf need to be re-addressed so that people can interpret them better and thus apply them consistently.
I think this is a rule that desperately needs addressing. Disqualification for a very minor technical error which had absolutely no baring on the day's play, for me takes away the sportsmanship from the competition.:(

I fully agree that the officials had to apply the ruling because they are bound by the current rules, in Michelle's case it would have simply opened a can of worms not to do so. But!! i don't agree with the delay in making the judgment.:mad:

SeanF
2008-Aug-07, 02:05 PM
I agree! As it currently stands, the literal interpretation of the rule would have the player and their opponent checking one another's cards furiously then take off on a dead run to the judge's table. That's what "as soon as possible" means. Otherwise, you could have a judge say, "You walked. You could have run. Therefore, you didn't get this to me 'as soon as possible.'"
That's true. But, as far as I'm aware, no player has ever been disqualified because they turned their card in too late. The apparent time limit imposed by "as soon as possible" has never (again, to my knowledge) been an issue. And it wasn't the issue in Wie's case.

She met the time limit just fine, but her card was incomplete.

cosmocrazy
2008-Aug-07, 07:33 PM
That's true. But, as far as I'm aware, no player has ever been disqualified because they turned their card in too late. The apparent time limit imposed by "as soon as possible" has never (again, to my knowledge) been an issue. And it wasn't the issue in Wie's case.

She met the time limit just fine, but her card was incomplete.

This is correct but my argument would be that some of the rules and certainly local rulings may need to be addressed for future consistency.
In Michelle's case the incomplete card was her own responsibility and she made an unfortunate error that we all know is easy done if you are distracted.
I believe that in tournaments where the stakes are so high it would be no problem for an official to check over each of the competitors cards prior to them leaving the scoring tent to ensure that to best of their knowledge everything is in order. The responsibility would still be on the player to ensure the card returned is correct and true. But simple errors like Michelle's could then be avoided in the future.:)

Neverfly
2008-Aug-07, 11:30 PM
This is correct but my argument would be that some of the rules and certainly local rulings may need to be addressed for future consistency.
In Michelle's case the incomplete card was her own responsibility and she made an unfortunate error that we all know is easy done if you are distracted.
I believe that in tournaments where the stakes are so high it would be no problem for an official to check over each of the competitors cards prior to them leaving the scoring tent to ensure that to best of their knowledge everything is in order. The responsibility would still be on the player to ensure the card returned is correct and true. But simple errors like Michelle's could then be avoided in the future.:)

See, this is a logical stance- and basically what happened in Wie's case.

mugaliens
2008-Aug-08, 08:47 PM
She met the time limit just fine, but her card was incomplete.

So, apparently, it's ok to violate the "as soon as possible" rule, take one's sweet time about it, chat for a while, perhaps socialize at the clubhouse, pull the scorecard from your breast pocket and say, "Woah! Hang tight for a few minutes, guys! Be right back..."

But it's not ok to turn in a scorecard on time with an error of ommission.

The difference between the two? The first is also an error of omission - one where the player omitted the entire scorecard, and all the information it contained, before correcting it hours later.

The latter where the player (Wie) omitted one item on the scorecard, then corrected it within just a few minutes.

Hmm...

"Well, them there's the rules!"

(sigh)

mugaliens
2008-Nov-20, 06:02 PM
Hayes rose above both those temptations, putting all the blame on himself and asserting that everybody else on the PGA in his shoes would have done the exact same thing.

Source (http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/blog/devil_ball_golf/post/J-P-Hayes-is-as-honest-as-we-like-to-think-we-a?urn=golf,123304)

Definately food for thought!

sarongsong
2009-Jan-08, 02:24 AM
...And then there are the judges! In many sports, including tennis (line judge), golf, and others they're actually called "judges."...football, they're called "referees,"...baseball, they're called "umpires."...and skiing's federation officials... http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
January 6, 2008
Bode Miller...the New Hampshire skier was disqualified for wearing boots a mere one-hundredth of an inch too high in a World Cup slalom won by France's Jean-Baptiste Grange on Tuesday night...The rules limit the height of ski boots to 1.35 inches because knee injuries often occur when boot soles are higher. Miller's boots were 1.36 inches...
kansascity.com (http://www.kansascity.com/449/story/967009.html)