THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Golf likes to say it is the only sport where players call fouls on themselves.  If the PGA Tour expects teh player to, and the player doesn’t, it’s only fair to the other players that someone do.

I have never liked the home viewer calling in.  I would say the PGA should employ replay officials, then they can catch everything the home viewer does, or at least gives them the chance to, where they can ignore call-ins.

I agree with Chris. How can Villegas and his caddy not call that? That was f’ing blatant.

I’m not sure what you mean by “blatant,” but as as avid golfer, and one who follows the PGA religiously, there are many, many rules trangressions that can easily occur unnoticed to even professionals, this one included.  It didn’t look like he did it with any malice intent, even though it was fairly obvious.  Rules in golf are not like rules in other sports, which are generally quite easy to recognize in action.

In any case, the only way we can judge what is reasonable or not as far as a pro or his caddy catching a breach of the rules is to know often this rule or something similar is broken and how often it is caught by the pro or his caddy (or by another nearby golfer or official).  Harry, do you know this?  If not, then your statement is out of your a**.  What makes something unreasonable or unusual or atypical is defined by what people do.  If most people don’t see something that you think is obvious, then guess what?  It is not obvious (to the masses at least - it might legitimately be obvious to you or some other minority).

As a golfer and a caddy (retired, both), that was blatant.

Call me an ass to my face sometime, buddy.

Person1:

Harry, do you know this?  If not, then your statement is out of your a**.

Person2:

Call me an ass to my face sometime, buddy.

This is why I am not a fan of the “if x, then out-of-character y”.

For example, let’s say I am talking about the circumference of the Earth, or the axis of the Earth.  And then someone says: “Uh, you don’t believe the Earth is flat, do you?  Because if you do, you are a moron.”

So, what happened there?  Well, I never said anything moronic, and instead just started talking about measurements.  But the other person wants to cast me in a certain light, and, he does so by making a truthful conditional statement.  He precedes it by an “if”, and therefore, everything after that is qualified.  But if I don’t look at the condition, then I can take the reply as intent to insult.

So, what starts as potentially a fair disagreement escalates into something.  Therefore, rather than the “if x, then crazy y”, it’s better to do a “did you mean to say x?”.  Let the guy respond, and then you are in a position to come back with a “crazy y”.

It’s the equivalent of an unearned run!  Whatever the pitcher does after a two-out error has now been conditionaled (conditionalized? conditioned?).

My statement was not even that.  It was only the word a** that inflamed Harry (who, BTW, is banned with no warning.  NO ONE threatens someone on this blog and remains on this blog).  I didn’t call him an a** or even say, “If you say this, you are an a**,” which is essentially the same thing.  I said...well, you can read what I said.  Then I explained my point, which is that however PGA golfers respond to similar rules infractions defines whether it was ‘blatant’ or not (for them).

If that same infraction were to happen 100 times and only 3 times did the player or his caddy catch it, then no matter what Harry or anyone else thinks, it is by definition a normal and typical response to ignore the infraction.  It may not be to Harry and people like him.  Of course Harry has NO IDEA how he would respond if he were in Camillos’s situation.  I highly doubt that he would respond any differently than your average PGA golfer.

Now, if you were to say that that particular rule infraction appeared more obvious and blatant than, say, the Dustin Johnson situation, I think that would be a reasonable statement.

Again, just my belief, and as always, I could be wrong.  I do not nearly have a monopoly on certitude.

A threat is not a challenge, one which I think you’re not up to. You find it easy to get on a high horse and swipe at people but you don’t seem to being willing to take accountability for doing so. Hence my position that you are probably not so sharped tongue in person. If you are, well, never mind.

And, while I do stand by what I said in 7, I do realize my response to MGL’s thinly veiled insult was over the top. I’m offended by he’s presumption of (a) my ignorance and (b) the flexibility of the rules of golf whilst declaring himself a close follower of the game (more so the former, obviously), but his remarks didn’t deserve to elicit such a response. I should call his rhetoric out without taking things lower. And I think we’d all appreciate it if I had. My bad.

I did not take Harry’s response as a threat.  I took it to mean that he’d prefer that if someone is going to make a strong challenging remark (or Harry took what MGL said as strong and challenging) that it’d be more real if it was actually done face-to-face.

I think it’s a big miscommunication as to perception of intent of all parties here.

Harry is a highly-valued commenter here, and MGL is obviously a driving-force of this blog.  This place is better with both of them here.

I think it would behoove us all to try to restate the point in more clear terms rather than letting this escalate, the very thing I said that we shouldn’t let happen.  Or, try to resolve the differences in private.

Thanks, Tom. I’m glad I didn’t completely whiff. That said, I do understand how MGL did take it that way. It failed the “how would I read that in this context” test and I know better.

OK, so, back to the point at hand.
Say Golfer A hits a shot from the fairway, throwing a divot a few yards out front. As his shot goes towards the green, Golfer A begins his walk to the green and nudges his divot back towards his spot so his caddy can replace it.
BAM. Ball hits a branch 10 yards from the green, bounces back towards the player and rolls past him
In that situation, you can rule that the player had no way to know he’d be moving an impediment from the path of a ball in motion.
In this case, the ball is rolling down the hill right at him, he drops his head and flicks the divot. Uh oh.
For the past 25 years, I’ve observed something in golf: a lack of rules knowledge by the players. I’m talking touring pros. I agree with something implicit in MGL’s comments, that the players may not normally call this rule.
That does not make it OK. Far, far from it. If anything it says something, again implicitly, about the state of golf and the growing failure of competitors at the highest levels to know the rules.
I haven’t played since my back went out on 12.27.03, but I’m sure the latest USGA Rules of Golf are in my scorecard pocket to this day. I was known as a rules nag in my teens. I guess I’m still uptight about the failure of players to call penalties on something that obvious. No malice on his part, but part of the beauty of golf is the player and his/her relationship to the rules. That’s missing.

My issue is with the fans being referees.

Aside from that issue, I’m not even sure that him moving the grass away did anything.  If you follow the roll of the ball down, it would not have touched the grass he cleaned off.  It went an inch or two to the right.

T/12 - to the 2nd point, you agree the collision wasn’t likely to actually occur. But it could’ve been a divot four feet away and it would’ve been a violation. This was close enough the likely path of the ball to be “f’ing blatant” in my vernacular.

I really don’t believe he did anything malicious, nor did he intend to sign an incorrect card. I just think he did something out of the obvious frustration of the moment. But it was still against the rules and seems easy enough to take note of, given the circumstances of his proximity to the ball and awareness of its likely course.

The failure of anyone, Villegas, his caddy, the announcers et al. to make note is stunning to me. This wasn’t a nick of sand on the backswing in a hazard, hardly perceptible to anyone but a slow-mo viewer. I dunno, maybe the game has long moved on from where it was when I was picking it up. Perhaps I’m a dinosaur.

As far as fans as referees, without stating an opinion on it, it may be a direct outcome of the rules of the game. I can’t find the relevant section, but IIRC the rules state any observer may report an infraction; or a ruling that reports from observers are enforceable.

oops “I agree the ....”

gotta run…

"Call me an ass to my face sometime, buddy.”

I thought this comment was absolutely brilliant. Not so much the threat aspect of it. But, because your username is Harry (Get it? Get it?).

Maybe I’ve been hanging out with my 9yo son and his buddies too often.

"Call me an ass to my face sometime, buddy.”

Let’s be realistic here. If that is not a threat, I don’t know what is, other than, “Call me an ass to my face, and I’ll kick the...”

And most of you know exactly how much of a stickler for words I am.  So not only did I read that as a very clear threat, but it was also a lie about what I said, since in no way shape or form did I even come close to calling him an ass.

In any case, he apologized and the apology is accepted.

I am not going to mince any more words with him on this subject, as we are talking about two completely different things and are speaking about a mile past one another…

Presumably, when they say “observer” in the original rules of golf, they did not intend to mean that if ten million viewers are watching, that the administrators are supposed to accept the phone calls of any single one of them in case somebody spotted something and that they can accept such observations days, weeks, or months later.

Tango, in professional golf, any person can notify a rule official of a possible rules infraction.  The rules official then investigates. They don’t take the word of the person calling it in.  If the official determines that there has been a breach, then the appropriate penalty is levied. That is the way it works.  That is the way it has always worked.  It is really quite simple and reasonable.  There are rules, or at least “advisories,” about when an infraction can be called.  There are always grey areas in anything in life, right?  At least anything of value.

But the rules of golf must precede TV telecasts no?  Surely the original intent was not to have ten million referees and then have them investigate any crackpot statement is it? 

If you have a million-dollar tournament, PAY referees, and let them follow the golfers and make the call on the spot.

If you don’t have a million-dollar tournament, the match won’t be broadcast on TV, and we’ll let the observers on the course do what was originally intended of them.

This is a story where one should not be.  We’re treating Stadler like Bill Buckner…

Question: what do they do in the Olympics?  I’m going to go out on a limb and say they have rules officials walk with the golfers.

Let me go check it out… brb

Looks like golf is not in the Olympics.  Could have sworn it was. 

What do they do for the Ryder Cup?  With such a limited number of participants, surely they’ve got rules officials all over each player like a hawk, no?  Or is the expectation that the American viewer is going to call in all rules infractions on the British golfers, and vice versa?

The thing about the Ryder Cup is interesting. It is different that a ~150 player field with possibly foursomes all over the course. Still, the rules official with each group can’t possible be in position for each player. You’d need a referee per player.

There are infractions that are next to impossible to see unless you are in the perfect position. Swiping the sand on the back stroke in a hazard is a penalty but very hard to see or notice (even as the offending player).