THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

The crease rule sucked because it was possible to violate it accidentally, even while you were trying not to violate it, as just part of the flow of the game.  And the results are often disproportionate.

The golf rules don’t suck as bad because they are not possible to violate when you are trying not to violate them.  The results may still be disproportionate, but the disproportionality doesn’t occur unless you make a major gaffe or are unaware of the rule.

I suppose you could make a case that the penalty for using a donut on your club should be one stroke, or two strokes, instead of disqualification.  Tango, is that what you had in mind?  Or do you think Inkster should just have been forgiven her violation?  Or do you think the rule should be removed? 

I think all of us feel it’s unfortunate that Inkster got disqualified for what looks like a minor violation that probably gave her no advantage.  The question is: what can be done where the benefits of a change outweigh the costs?

McSorely’s stick in Game 2 in 1993 was more aggregious, wasn’t it?

***

Stadler bending on a towel?

***

I have no idea why a fan is now an umpire.

***

There have been far worse things that have been given far less punishment that the disproportionality here is evident.

But the learned behaviour of golfers is that of zero-tolerance policy.  That if all NFL penalties were 5 yards, then holding and face masking would occur more often, so you have to make them all 15 yards automatic 1st downs, even for things such as offsides.

***

As to what should have happened: enforce the rules as written.  And make sure everyone says: that rule sucks.

That rule sucks.  How should it be changed?

Before we can talk about rule change, I’d like to know why fan involvement on TV is allowed in calling infractions.  Clearly when the rules of golf were written, they didn’t suspect that there’d be ten million referees did they?  Especially since TV is going to focus disproportionately on the heavy players.

Phil wrote “The golf rules don’t suck as bad because they are not possible to violate when you are trying not to violate them.”

But that was Dustin Johnson’s entire issue - he violated the rule unknowingly because he (and most other people who weighed in on the matter) thought it wasn’t a bunker. He certainly wasn’t trying to violate the rule - he just thought that it didn’t apply because it appeared evident to him that it did not.

I think that Tango touched on the real problem in #4. Every shot that Tiger Woods takes is on TV, lesser players may go their entire round without appearing on TV. Letting TV viewers mail in infractions punishes the best/most popular players.

Neil S/4: Dustin Johnson violated the rule unknowingly BECAUSE HE DIDN’T KNOW THE RULE.  I was referring to situations where the player knows the rule, but can’t avoid breaking it in the normal course of play.

In hockey, nothing is a violation unless an official sees it and calls it.  In golf, a violation is a violation, even if it happens in the woods with nobody watching, and you are expected to call it even if you’re the only one who knows it happened.  So the fact that someone had to e-mail it in is irrelevant—Inkster should have called it on herself anyway.

It’s like accidentally running into a stranger’s parked car.  Just because nobody sees it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be responsible.  And, yes, if Tiger Woods runs into a car and drives off, it’s more likely that he’ll get caught than if I run into a car and drive off.  It doesn’t mean it’s unfair when Tiger has to face charges because someone e-mailed a video of the accident to the cops.

If Inkster realized what she was doing, she would have called it on herself.  That’s one of the good thing about golf, that golfers call things on themselves.  They do this out of honor.

Ballplayers don’t do this, because it’s understood that refs make the call.

In either case, involving fans is no good.  These are spectator sports.

Phil wrote: “Dustin Johnson violated the rule unknowingly BECAUSE HE DIDN’T KNOW THE RULE.  I was referring to situations where the player knows the rule, but can’t avoid breaking it in the normal course of play.”

Ah, okay, I see what distinction you’re making.

But I don’t think Johnson’s example is a good one, in any case, because Johnson *did* know the rule. What he didn’t know was that one part of the gallery, which looked like most every other part of the gallery because it all gets trampled over the course of the four days, constituted a ‘bunker’ while other parts that looked the same did not. So it’s a weak example of what you’re saying, if it’s an example at all.

Golf’s venue really does pose special problems.  Especially historically, there were places where an official couldn’t be brought to watch for violations.  I guess now they could all watch monitors, but even then some violations wouldn’t be noticeable.  And that option isn’t available for anything but the Tour level.

Tango wrote: “Ballplayers don’t do this, because it’s understood that refs make the call.”

More than that - a ruling on a play in baseball can’t be overturned once a new play has started. If someone bats out of turn, and then a pitch is thrown to the subsequent batter, the guy who just batted illegally is now turned into a legal runner; if a runner misses a base and the next batter takes a pitch, the defense can no longer appeal the missed base and the runner is treated like he had touched every based. Once the play is done, it’s done. So not only do the umps make the call, but it’s agreed that if no call is made in the moment, then no call will ever be made.

Is there even a statute of limitations on golf misplays? If someone can be DQed days later for an infraction that only just came to light, can he be DQed weeks later? Months?

(Sorry for breaking my responses into two posts.)

The statute of limitations ought to depend on the players’ reliance interests on the initial decision.  In golf, it’s not that big a deal, because most people are going to play the same regardless of what any other particular player may be doing. 

In team sports, tons of decisions are made on the basis that the original ruling will stand. 
---
I don’t mind involving fans if it means that you can correct rules violations without affecting competition.  You’ve got to apply the rules to everyone as best as you can.  That includes replay in baseball, if it can done be reliably and quickly.
---
If I break into Tango’s house and get caught on tape, I can’t argue that it’s not fair to punish me when several other thiefs got away scott-free by breaking into houses without security cameras.

If I break into Tango’s house and get caught on tape, I can’t argue that it’s not fair to punish me when several other thiefs got away scott-free by breaking into houses without security cameras.

We’re talking about someone inadvertently doing it.  So, it would be more like an E! crew stalking Jessica Alba 24/7, and they catch her spitting on the sidewalk, while everyone else who is doing that is not being caught, and charges get brought up against Alba only because she’s got Big Brother and everyone else doesn’t.

***

In any case, those are security cameras, not papparazzi, which is really what a spectator-turned-emailer has become.  The spectator has introduced himself into the game.

I believe the statute of limitations in golf is when the scorecards are all submitted and the winner is announced.  After that, no changes are allowed, no matter what evidence comes up later.

If I can find my golf rules, I’ll verify that.  The PGA or RCGA rule book is very interesting reading, BTW.  Amazing what kinds of things are covered in there.

You’re right Phil - Rule 34-1 (RCGA rules, though I don’t think there is any difference for the PGA).

“In stroke play, a penalty must not be rescinded, modified or imposed after the competition has closed. A competition is closed when the result has been officially announced”