End to viewer call-ins

[Tashyboy]

Can you put this in the Footy thread please?

:rofl:
Another dozen Tena pants added to shopping list.

 

[Hobbit]

I think its disappointing.

What's wrong with stopping someone winning unfairly? And its not just winning. A player doesn't call a penalty on himself, and keeps his tour card by one shot whilst another player loses because of it.

Set a time limit on a call in, i.e. 20 mins after the last putt is sank.

Have stronger refs who review TV evidence.

There isn't a ref with every group, so why not use video evidence. Backward step in my opinion.

 

[upsidedown]

I think its disappointing.

What's wrong with stopping someone winning unfairly? And its not just winning. A player doesn't call a penalty on himself, and keeps his tour card by one shot whilst another player loses because of it.

Set a time limit on a call in, i.e. 20 mins after the last putt is sank.

Have stronger refs who review TV evidence.

There isn't a ref with every group, so why not use video evidence. Backward step in my opinion.

I understood that there are going to be refs viewing the video output

 

[HomerJSimpson]

If anything it should not have been allowed as not every shot is televised, therefore some players would naturally be at an advantage / disadvantage.

Exactly. Unless someone will watch every player on every hole on camera it's not a level playing field

 

[NWJocko]

I think its disappointing.

What's wrong with stopping someone winning unfairly? And its not just winning. A player doesn't call a penalty on himself, and keeps his tour card by one shot whilst another player loses because of it.

Set a time limit on a call in, i.e. 20 mins after the last putt is sank.

Have stronger refs who review TV evidence.

There isn't a ref with every group, so why not use video evidence. Backward step in my opinion.

But playing devil's advocate for a minute, does anyone know if another competitor in the Lexi Thompson tournament didn't misplace their ball but weren't on TV.....?

How much did they earn and did it cost someone their card at the end of the season?

I'm not sure whether this is right or wrong however not as cut and dried as some seem to think going by some comments on here.

 

[Slab]

We all want to see a rule breach treated as its described in the rules but we’re totally dependent on those rules being written so that they make sense for the game as its played today but because of the current logic and zero tolerance approach, the rule-makers at the time it changed from DQ to penalty, thought that the 1st breach & 2-shot pen, absolutely warranted the 2nd two-shot penalty (for an incorrect card) and was the right thing to do under any and all circumstances

I find it strange that in such a short space of time they have changed their minds on this (even though I didn’t agree with applying the 2nd breach & penalty) I just don’t get how that scenario wasn’t considered (and if it was, how can they reverse their thinking already)

And we’ve seen more and more examples with rules concerning balls moving in the wind, touching grains of sand, etc (& now TV call ins) which are all a kind of precursor to next years (potentially) biggest shake-up & change in the rules for many generations

It does seem a little like the rules are moving from protecting the field from a breach with a potential advantage to penalizing an player for an actual advantage (& that’s a good thing) and I hope that the simplification and reduction of the rules leads to all players enjoying actually playing the game more and worrying a little less about drop procedures, tiny amounts of sand and other such things while still respecting/complying with the rules as they're written

As for TV call ins, no it isn't fair (but because fairness is subjective it has nothing to do with the rules at the moment)

So we'll need to trust in the refs viewing the live feeds in future and count on them to pick up her first breach, but inevitably they will miss something at some point that a tv viewer spots and takes to social media, so if that was Lexi's case then yes she would've probably won with no penalty (but also likely she would've won with just a 2-shot penalty too) and we need to be OK with that because we're ok with all the other breaches over the last couple hundred years that doubtless happened, but just because no one recorded/broadcast them in sufficient clarity it doesn't mean they didn't happen

 

[duncan mackie]

We all want to see a rule breach treated as its described in the rules but we’re totally dependent on those rules being written so that they make sense for the game as its played today but because of the current logic and zero tolerance approach, the rule-makers at the time it changed from DQ to penalty, thought that the 1st breach & 2-shot pen, absolutely warranted the 2nd two-shot penalty (for an incorrect card) and was the right thing to do under any and all circumstances

I find it strange that in such a short space of time they have changed their minds on this (even though I didn’t agree with applying the 2nd breach & penalty) I just don’t get how that scenario wasn’t considered (and if it was, how can they reverse their thinking already)

And we’ve seen more and more examples with rules concerning balls moving in the wind, touching grains of sand, etc (& now TV call ins) which are all a kind of precursor to next years (potentially) biggest shake-up & change in the rules for many generations

It does seem a little like the rules are moving from protecting the field from a breach with a potential advantage to penalizing an player for an actual advantage (& that’s a good thing) and I hope that the simplification and reduction of the rules leads to all players enjoying actually playing the game more and worrying a little less about drop procedures, tiny amounts of sand and other such things while still respecting/complying with the rules as they're written

As for TV call ins, no it isn't fair (but because fairness is subjective it has nothing to do with the rules at the moment)

So we'll need to trust in the refs viewing the live feeds in future and count on them to pick up her first breach, but inevitably they will miss something at some point that a tv viewer spots and takes to social media, so if that was Lexi's case then yes she would've probably won with no penalty (but also likely she would've won with just a 2-shot penalty too) and we need to be OK with that because we're ok with all the other breaches over the last couple hundred years that doubtless happened, but just because no one recorded/broadcast them in sufficient clarity it doesn't mean they didn't happen

Excellent post.

It's as if the penalty was originally there to try and ensure that players really really made sure they had got it right, but has now been removed because they will make sure they get it right; won't they?

Either way, failure to follow the spirit of the rules and game is ultimately punished outside individual event.

 

[Spear-Chucker]

Glad it's gone. I'm all for ensuring rules are sensible, understood, adhered to and enforced but allowing armchair-based weirdo's at home to do it was quite ridiculous. The changes should start to address this but there must be better options out there.

 

[drdel]

I agree.

Golfers are supposed to be honourable and self regulating - a basic principle of the game.

With the level of scrutiny and the potential for a player to be filmed/broadcast/observed I doubt that any pro-golfer would be stupid enough to break a rule deliberately.

There are plenty of people 'inside the ropes' able to notify an official and any necessary decisions can be taken at the time with due allowance for the context/potential advantage etc.

TV broadcasts are selective so any 'arm chair' observer based decisions are inequitable.

 

[Sweep]

Should never of been allowed in the first place. Glad common sense has prevailed and it's been dropped.

+1 on this 👍

 

[jim8flog]

The comments from the Pros themselves would seem appropriate.

"It is not a level playing field, the cameras are virtually always focused on the leading groups, the referees are virtually always with the leading groups so those down the field rarely get penalised for slow play"

The only way to make it a level playing field is a referee with every group. I am sure that there area lot of qualified refs who would jump at the chance of being there.

 

[*TQ*]

The comments from the Pros themselves would seem appropriate.

"It is not a level playing field, the cameras are virtually always focused on the leading groups, the referees are virtually always with the leading groups so those down the field rarely get penalised for slow play"

The only way to make it a level playing field is a referee with every group. I am sure that there area lot of qualified refs who would jump at the chance of being there.

The only way to make it a level playing field is a referee with every player other wise you run the risk of a rules infraction when the referee is on the other side of the fairway.

 

[Tommo21]

Glad it's gone. I'm all for ensuring rules are sensible, understood, adhered to and enforced but allowing armchair-based weirdo's at home to do it was quite ridiculous. The changes should start to address this but there must be better options out there.

An armchair weirdo who spotted a top world class pro breaking the rules...EH. Whoever it was, was spot on.

All this will still carry on without the officials taking action. SKY pundits will still be pointing out blatant or mistaken rule breaches. The debate will only turn back on it's self, especially if someone should have had a penalty and won or taken a higher place.

Its coming......

 

[Spear-Chucker]

An armchair weirdo who spotted a top world class pro breaking the rules...EH. Whoever it was, was spot on.

All this will still carry on without the officials taking action. SKY pundits will still be pointing out blatant or mistaken rule breaches. The debate will only turn back on it's self, especially if someone should have had a penalty and won or taken a higher place.

Its coming......

Nothing wrong with punditry and any of us for that matter debating the issues. Probably a good thing all said!

In a tournament however, the onus is on the players and officials present to manage the issues. I reckon educating these groups of their responsibilities is the immediate priority and if we have to use technology then that should be controlled by recognised officials on site. Just can't condone Herbert sat there, choking on his Pringles and then excitedly phoning in to point out that someone in the marquee group may have breached the rules sending the whole show into farce. It's just peculiar.

 

[cliveb]

Something that seems to have been missed by all the analogies with things like football is that golf is somewhat unique in that it's played on a spread out area. Other sports have an obvious focus of activity that a referee/umpire can observe.

Golfers are supposed to be honourable and referee themselves. Once they know that technology is keeping an eye on them, they will start abrogating their responsibility to do so. Think about cricket - batsmen used to walk when they knew they'd nicked an edge, but nowadays they stand their ground and hope the opposition has doubts and don't invoke DRS.

Eliminating the extra 2 shot penalty for signing for a wrong score will just make it more tempting to push the boundaries. What's needed is that flagrant cheating must be punished with DQs and bans. And quite frankly whether a cheat is caught by an official or a spectator seems irrelevant.

 

[Reemul]

Something that seems to have been missed by all the analogies with things like football is that golf is somewhat unique in that it's played on a spread out area. Other sports have an obvious focus of activity that a referee/umpire can observe.

Golfers are supposed to be honourable and referee themselves. Once they know that technology is keeping an eye on them, they will start abrogating their responsibility to do so. Think about cricket - batsmen used to walk when they knew they'd nicked an edge, but nowadays they stand their ground and hope the opposition has doubts and don't invoke DRS.

Eliminating the extra 2 shot penalty for signing for a wrong score will just make it more tempting to push the boundaries. What's needed is that flagrant cheating must be punished with DQs and bans. And quite frankly whether a cheat is caught by an official or a spectator seems irrelevant.

But what people seem to miss it's not an even playing field, some groups will not have a camera on them so cannot be monitored by the home viewer. So it is not a even for all teams. A bit like the top 6 premier league teams have a referee and 2 linesman but lower down teams only get a referee with no linesman.

Now if we could ensure every group in the tournament was being shown on TV so said viewer can check everyone then it's a level playing field. If we are so worried about widespread cheating etc lets have referees with every group in the tournament as well as having cameras on them and get them reviewed at the end of the days play if we are that worried. IF not at least have a level playing field for everyone.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The argument about not every group has a camera on them was the same argument used by Sepp Blatter for not using goal line technology. If it could not be used by everyone.............................

I think it is hugely naïve for people to believe that all golfers are honourable. They are clearly not. I don't mind the phone in, I'm in a minority I accept, as long as it is done by the close of play that day and no extra penalty is added, the penalty for signing a wrong score which would have been the right score had eagle eyed Nigel had not spotted an infringement. People will be saying this is great until the next Lexi moment when someone wins despite a pretty significant rule bend at which point golf will go into a meltdown of outrage.

 

[Reemul]

The argument about not every group has a camera on them was the same argument used by Sepp Blatter for not using goal line technology. If it could not be used by everyone.............................

I think it is hugely naïve for people to believe that all golfers are honourable. They are clearly not. I don't mind the phone in, I'm in a minority I accept, as long as it is done by the close of play that day and no extra penalty is added, the penalty for signing a wrong score which would have been the right score had eagle eyed Nigel had not spotted an infringement. People will be saying this is great until the next Lexi moment when someone wins despite a pretty significant rule bend at which point golf will go into a meltdown of outrage.

But why not just put refs with each group instead. A much easier and simpler solution that makes it fair for everyone.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

But why not just put refs with each group instead. A much easier and simpler solution that makes it fair for everyone.

No argument from me. I guess the point is that these phone ins tend to be about infringements that are hard to pick up. A zoomed in camera picks up everything. I always hated the oscillating calls, blimey what was that about, but the Lexi move was worthy of a phone call. As someone has said though, the ref will have to be fit, zig zagging across the fairways and greens to watch everyone in the group.

Maybe golf is just going to have to accept the controversies that other sports have. That is the realistic situation.

 

[cliveb]

But what people seem to miss it's not an even playing field, some groups will not have a camera on them so cannot be monitored by the home viewer. So it is not a even for all teams.

While I understand that point of view, what in effect you are saying is that because it's not possible to catch EVERY instance of cheating, we shouldn't bother to act on those we DO notice. To me that just seems like a cop-out.