THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

That is a ridiculous penalty.  Legitimately it could be an advantage (even if you don’t use the extra club having an extra choice of clubs is an advantage) but I would be surprised if this was even worth 1 shot per 18 holes advantage. 
They could have covered it up.  They didn’t so they kill them.  This is a very stupid set of rules.
Stupid.

It’s two strokes per hole to a maximum of four strokes per round.  He got DQ’d for reporting an incorrect score (since he discovered his offense after handing in the card without having added the four strokes).

The too many clubs penalty is fine. 2 strokes per hole with a max of 4 strokes isn’t outrageous (Having an extra club could legitimately give you an advantage over other golfers). Even if it was a mistake, the penalty is fine.

The scorecard rule is a ridiculous one. I know I’ve heard of situations where players were DQd for forgetting to sign a completely correct scorecard (this happened to Michelle Wie, didn’t it?). That’s just asinine. For all those who subscribe to the “well, rules are rules” rhetoric: It’s not that they shouldn’t enforce the rule in those situations. It’s that the rule should not exist in the first place.

Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense for this kid to just take the 4 stroke penalty retroactively? If he still ends up in first, fine. If he drops because he had too many clubs, that’s fair.

There’s nothing logical are sensible or just about the scorecard signing rule. It’s just another example of golf trying to be better than everybody.

Perhaps the idea with the scorecard is to give you a strong incentive to call penalties on yourself when appropriate.

If you could take the four-stroke penalty retroactively, and you weren’t totally honest, you’d ignore the infraction.  Then, if someone else points it out later, you say, oops, and take the penalty.

Or, you wait to make sure you win by more than four strokes.  Then you “discover” the infraction and take the penalty, since it won’t cost you.

The way the rule really is, if you wait for someone else to point out your violation, it’s too late for you to take the four strokes, and you’re disqualified.  So, basically, report it yourself or risk a worse penalty later.

Maybe I’m alone on this, but why isn’t counting/checking clubs the job of the officials? In virtually every other sport, if one player fouls another and the official missed it, we don’t retroactively penalize the player - we rightly castigate the official for failing to do his job.

I know, I know - gentleman’s sport and all that. Right.

Again, as an avid golfer, I just don’t see any issues with these rules.  Golf rules, including the penalties, are meant to be sensible.  The reason there are so many “self-reporting” rules is that there are no “referees” in golf.  Obviously in PGA matches, there are officials on the course, but they do not watch every shot of every player. They are not supposed to and can’t obviously unless you put 2 or 3 officials on every hole.  In most other sports, there are referees on the field of play whose job it is to make sure that the rules are enforced and to make decisions about the game.  Not so with golf.  No officials are actually needed on the course.  The price you pay for that is that sometimes the penalties are not proportionate to the infractions.  It doesn’t have to be that way, but in my opinion, it is better than having more complicated rules and exceptions, etc.  The rules of golf are complicated enough as it is.

I really don’t see eye to eye with Tango on these golf things and I don’t think that many (if any) PGA players or fans do either, which is the only thing that really matters.

That’s just a bonehead move by the kid. Sorry, that’s all there is to it. Everyone I played golf with growing up checked their bags before a tournament or team match, and if you play enough, you should be able to notice how crowded your clubs are in your bag. If the kid couldn’t realize that, then tough for him.

Also, for those who don’t know already, golfers keep track of both their own (and their partner’s, if applicable) scores and their opponent’s (or opponents’ scores. The scorecard signing at the end of the match signifies that all parties agree that these are the official scores for the match and all penalties have been addressed. How is this a terrible thing? It’s a bit frustrating that some people on this site would speak from their ignorance because I do not expect it at all from this crowd.

What about my analogy of Lou Piniella not submitting a signed Game 7 scorecard even though it was standard operating procedure in our new world of baseball, just like Tiger not submitting a signed scoredcard?  And even though the whole world was watching so we know how many strokes they took and runs they scored?

Do you see a distinction?

Tango, the question is whether the rules of golf should be different for Tiger Woods, as opposed to the kid in Wisconsin, or even just other pros on the PGA Tour. As pointed out, in most tournaments played around the world, there are not officials following each player and keeping an official score. For that reason, the signed scorecard means something beyond just the arbitrary imposition of a rule.

The PGA could have a local rule, exempting pros from the responsibility of signing their card, but it is obviously not a priority for them. If they don’t care, why should we?

I’ve played in several state level golf tournaments.  In every single one, on the first tee, as the Officials are going over the rules for the day, I’ve been asked “14 clubs in the bag???” I’ll agree that the signing the scorecard rule is a bit old fashioned (especially in PGA events where there is an official scorer walking with every group), but the rest of the rules are appropriate.

I’d say it’s more like signing a cheque (or contract) than like signing a lineup card.

If you send the gas company a cheque but forget to sign it, they’re still going to charge you late fees as if you didn’t send anything at all. 

Is it “fair” that, just because you innocently forgot to sign the cheque, you have to pay an extra $20 in fees?  From a “cosmic justice” standpoint, no.  But the rule is that the bank can’t cash an unsigned cheque, so that’s the way it goes.

Just because there might be logic to the rules doesn’t mean they aren’t terribly draconian.

It’s like golf is just looking to disqualify as many people as possible for the smallest of infractions. I’m all for stroke penalties (which, to me, is akin to an extra out or losing a down in football). But some golf rules are like making a team forfeit a game because one guy batted out of order by mistake.

If the rules have to be so harsh for people to honestly penalize themselves, then the sport isn’t even close to as “gentlemanly” as fans and players would have you believe.

I play quarter-skins and even I count my clubs before getting to the 1st tee.

Golf rules strongly favor self-reporting because it is so easy to cheat. Often, the player is the only witness to his shot. I don’t see what is so confusing about it.

It’s sort of silly to require a player to sign a card in a major since there are tons of witnesses....but otherwise it makes sense.

What I don’t understand is why there is a *special* PGA rule that requires the card to be signed before the player leaves the scorer’s tent.

Of all tournaments, a PGA event is the one where there are the most witnesses, and the one where there’s an official scorer during the event.  So it would seem like the card signing is LEAST important in those cases.

So why did the PGA add a rule to make it MORE important?  It’s not like “a rule is a rule so we’ll let it be.” It’s like, “we need to make the rule even MORE insane in the case where circumstances demand it least.”

The Lou Pinella thing doesn’t really work, because Lou’s also not keeping official score. That’s an apples to oranges comparison IMO.

I still fail to see what the brouhaha is about signing one’s scorecard, even if it’s a nationally-televised event. You know, TV scorekeepers are not infallible either, and neither is an official scorer.

Lou IS keeping official score, because in the new world order of baseball, that’s the rule. 

The rule is the rule is the rule, and the rule is that each team’s manager will report the score prior to leaving the stadium.

This rule would have been followed from Little League, and it’s been built-in to the pysche of all managers and players.  They are very serious about it.  They all know it, and they know it’s a cardinal sin of baseball to not report the official runs scored, and signing that scorecard.

So, exactly how is it NOT like Tiger leaving the tent without signing a scorecard?

MGL, what you say in golf threads always flummoxes me.

Again, as an avid golfer, I just don’t see any issues with these rules.  Golf rules, including the penalties, are meant to be sensible.

You actively speak out against baseball people who put their experience ahead of common sense. You don’t agree with a commentator who thinks the hit and run was a great call just because the commentator was a major league player for 10 years. So why are you doing it for yourself with golf? What possible credibility should we give your opinion solely because you are an avid golfer?

Any chance we can get you to step out of the ‘avid golfer’ shoes for a minute, and explain to those of us who aren’t as enlightened exactly how these rules are sensible, and how the entire fabric of golf would collapse were we to lighten the penalties and/or make enforcement of minutiae a little more lax?

"the entire fabric of golf would collapse were we to lighten the penalties and/or make enforcement of minutiae a little more lax?”

Never said that or implied it.  If they changed some of the golf rules, I would have no issue with that whatsoever.  I am not even claiming that if I had to write the rules of golf myself for the first time, that I wouldn’t do it differently. I’m sure I would. Many of them are pretty arbitrary - not due to any fault of the original crafters, but because there are not necessarily any right or wrong answers to how much someone should be penalized for each infraction or even what the infractions should be.

The analogy to the baseball commentators is ridiculous.  You are talking about things that they say that are or are not factually correct. I am merely discussing whether or not certain rules appear appropriate or not, which is clearly not a black and white issue.

If you want to create an analogy to baseball it would be something like discussing whether or not replay should be expanded or whether there should be a penalty other than first base for hitting a batter or whether there should be 3,4, or 5 balls for a walk.  Not whether or not a hit and run is “correct” or not.

And yes, I think that one needs to be an avid golfer to even discuss these things intelligently. Is that such a ridiculous assertion?  Do you think someone could intelligently discuss the use of replay in baseball without being an avid baseball person? I don’t.

mgl wrote: “And yes, I think that one needs to be an avid golfer to even discuss these things intelligently. Is that such a ridiculous assertion?  Do you think someone could intelligently discuss the use of replay in baseball without being an avid baseball person? I don’t.”

You’re cheating, and I think you know it - ‘avid golfer’ requires that one players, while ‘avid baseball person’ is purposely ambiguous about whether one actually plays the game.

If someone who played a bit of little league in their youth and is merely a spectator in adulthood can intelligently discuss the rules of baseball, why can’t the same be said for a mere spectator who wants to discuss golf?

There’s a difference between being an avid golfer and an avid baseball person, in that the avid baseball person may not actually play baseball.  I see that Neil already picked up on this.

I think rules like this one are fine, to be honest, because golfers need to discourage cheating as much as they possibly can.  For the most part golf is a self-policing game, one that is fairly easy to cheat in.  So there has to be some disincentive to not cheat.  The breakeven point of cheating cannot be too low.  Penalties need to be stiff to compensate for the relative ease with which one can cheat.  Here’s a sport where you can just nudge the ball out of a bad lie when your opponent, who’s thirty feet away, is trying to untangle his clubs.  Here’s a sport where in a competitive threesome you “forgot” a stroke on the 14th, and no one’s paying as much attention to you as they were on the first hole.  Maybe this reason is not WHY many of these penalties are so heavy, but it’s a nice byproduct nonetheless.

JD, you’re correct: golf is no more a “gentleman’s game” than any other sport.  I played varsity golf in high school, and the amount of cheating that went on was outrageous.  We kind of sucked, so our opponents did not need to cheat to beat us, but during practices - when we were supposed to “fight” for the top 8 spots on the team - almost everyone cheated.  I’d get a 5 on a Par 3, and I’d finish last in the foursome: scores went 3/3/4.  Amazing.  A kid would be in the woods for 10 minutes and finagle a par save.  And of course come competition, these kids who were 5 handicaps suddenly became god awful, leading to the conjecture of our dimwitted coach that they we were not mentally tough.

For the most part golf is a self-policing game, one that is fairly easy to cheat in.

But this does not apply to major tournaments.  Indeed, given that TV viewers call in on the most arcane of things, it is fairly impossible to cheat in.  It’s way easier to cheat (or officials to get wrong) on calls and plays in baseball than in golf.

So, why in the world do we need Tiger Woods or Lou Piniella to sign their names to know how many runs are scored or strokes are taken, when everyone in the world knows their scores?

And, yes, different rules for different tournaments.

So many of the arguments here do the exact opposite of what we insist on every other discussion: start with the objectives and questions, and then argue for an answer.  Instead, people are starting with the answer (golf rules are da bomb), and then justifying it.  You can justify anything and you can indict a ham sandwich.

Personally, I have taken the stance of ignoring essentially all of golf’s scoring rules, and I’ve never played better or been happier. Frankly, I’m the nicest gentleman on the course. No cussing, club throwing, gambling, etc. *grin*

--------------------------------

“If someone who played a bit of little league in their youth and is merely a spectator in adulthood can intelligently discuss the rules of baseball, why can’t the same be said for a mere spectator who wants to discuss golf? “

--------------------------------

As one that played a lot of baseball past Little League, and one that often has to hear the opinion’s of someone that stopped at Little League, I feel comfortable in saying that, IMO, those people’s perspectives and opinions are nowhere near as intelligent or insightful as they might think.

I 100% support the situation of [1] everyone having an opinion, and [2] the right to voice it. But, I often say, “but that does not mean all opinions are equally valid.”

Quite frankly, I’m more irritated by someone who never had to follow the rules of golf, or the etiquette of soccer, or the code of conduct or unwritten rules of a sport commenting on them, than I am about what they ar actually saying.

From what position are they viewing their comments as valuable? What do they really know?

Quite frankly, I’m more irritated by someone who never had to follow the rules of golf, or the etiquette of soccer, or the code of conduct or unwritten rules of a sport commenting on them, than I am about what they ar actually saying.

From what position are they viewing their comments as valuable? What do they really know?

I view my comments as valuable because I have never had to follow the rules of golf and can’t understand why these rules would be the best for the sport. I think that because I know very little, I can be more objective and rational about what should be, rather than about what is.

I think that if there were a really good reason for rules like this, than the “avid golfers” out there would be able to explain, really clearly, what that reason is. I think that I am able to ask questions like “why is there a limit on the number of clubs people can carry?” because of my distance from the sport.

If those aren’t valuable, I’d love to know why.

Two issues:

1. severity of offense
2. proportionality of penalty

I’m ok with having a limit to number of clubs, as it’s arbitrary as anything else. The question is how severe is the offense, and how do you make it right.

In hockey, you are limited to the curvature of your stick.  The penalty is not forfeit, but a 2-minute penalty.

The argument that golfers give is that rather than having individualized penalties, they prefer a one-size-fits-all kind of solution.  This is what they want, which, again, is fine.

But that doesn’t make it right, nor does it prevent it from being silly.  Indeed, it’s hard for a zero-tolerance policy to not be silly at some point, in any sport, or life, or country.

The Cubs losing Game 7 on a technicality, while it would be applauded by all baseball lifers, would nonetheless be scorned by the casual fan.  That doesn’t make the baseballers any more right about this issue.

Indeed, that no one yet has chosen to agree that having the Cubs forfeit Game 7 because Piniella did not attest that they scored 5 runs is a good and just punishment shows how much the rule is dependent on the “this is how we’ve been brought up” rather than “this remedy makes total sense”.

If the golfers would simply say: “This is indeed a silly rule, but this is how we have decided to establish order, and we’re all good with it”, then fine.  However, they don’t do this. 

At the same time, one can say that it is silly that Thierry Henry’s play was allowed to stand, that HR calls that were actually outs were allowed to stand, and so on.  Those are all silly.  We should acknowledge it first, and then simply say that this is how we’ve decided to maintain order.

Tango, we already gave you the original reason for signing your scorecard in golf. I’m sure that most people agree that it is not needed anymore in this day and age, but frankly, I don’t think too many people care enough to change it.

There is also good reason not to start changing the rules of golf so that in one circumstance X is allowed, but in another it is not.  Signing a score card is a perfect example.  You would have to make an exception for “televised golf.” You cannot simply get rid of the rule.  If I play in a local tournament with no TV and no officials on the course, there has to be a way to attest to my score so that I cannot say later that the score on my card is incorrect (often your opponent keeps your score and then you sign it).

If you are advocating that we should have 28 different exceptions to the rules of golf because once every 2,481 PGA tournaments someone forgets to sign his scorecard and gets DQ’d, that is just ridiculous.  If you are advocating that the penalty for too many clubs in your bag is too harsh, you are in the minority, and as you are not a professional or even a serious golfer, no one cares what you think about the rules of golf, and why should they?

This is an insanely ridiculous discussion.  To me it illustrates how really smart people in one area can be monumentally stupid in other areas.  Many people have said that to me over the years, and I have always (begrudgingly) agreed with them.  Even my mother used to occasionally say to me, “For a really smart guy, Mitchel, you are...”

I haven’t golfed in about 40 years, and really don’t care.  But reading the article, the thing that bothered me was the timing of when the penalty was assessed.  The tournament was over.  The kid was off celebrating, and someone counted the clubs in his bag. At the PGA, the offense was noted after the hole and before the playoff would have begun, i.e., when the tournament was still on.  This isn’t all that different from someone using an old photograph to prove Bobby Jones shouldn’t have won the Grand Slam in 1930 because his mashie appears to have been illegal.

If you are advocating that we should have 28 different exceptions to the rules of golf because once every 2,481 PGA tournaments someone forgets to sign his scorecard and gets DQ’d, that is just ridiculous.  If you are advocating that the penalty for too many clubs in your bag is too harsh, you are in the minority, and as you are not a professional or even a serious golfer, no one cares what you think about the rules of golf, and why should they?

This is an insanely ridiculous discussion.  To me it illustrates how really smart people in one area can be monumentally stupid in other areas.  Many people have said that to me over the years, and I have always (begrudgingly) agreed with them.  Even my mother used to occasionally say to me, “For a really smart guy, Mitchel, you are...”

Switch around a few words in this rant to change it to a rant against sabermetric-oriented baseball analysts like yourself, and you would rail against it just as fiercely.

I fear you’re wearing blinders.

Being in a minority does not make me wrong. Not being a professional does not make me wrong. You not caring does not make me wrong. You can tell me that you want to ignore my opinion for those reasons, but that’s all you’re doing—ignoring my opinion.

There are plenty of intelligent people here who are plenty willing to listen to your reasoning behind why it has to be done this way/should be done this way. That would be preferable to calling people who disagree stupid and irrelevant because they don’t play the sport.

"I fear you’re wearing blinders.”

Perhaps. But I also think you are missing my point.  Again, I am not saying that any of these particular rules or penalties are the best ones if one had to re-invent them.  Only that they are reasonable given the history and nature of the game and the fact that no one (in the PGA) cares enough to change them.

I’m really not sure of your point.  If it is that some of these rules could be re-written to make them fairer, there is not disagreement there. Isn’t that true of any sport?  Or anything else in life that has rules and penalties?

Post #25 is spot on.

/end thread

Thanks, but threads remain open.

***

Right, the players could change the rules if they cared.  The NHL actively seeks out the players input.  And we see rule changes there all the time.

MLB?  Not so much, plus I get the feeling that they don’t care to do anything really.  They’d rather let others decide for them.

NFL and NBA I don’t know much about.

Golf?  I have no idea whether the players are apathetic like MLB or somewhat involved like NHL.  And if they players are happy with the rules, so be it.

***

My point about Lou Piniella still stands as equivalent to the scorecard signing rule, that the Cubs could forfeit Game 7 and the World Series is Piniella forgets to attest to the number of runs they scored.  It’s the same rule.

Geez Tango, it is not the same thing (Piniella and golf).

Golf has that rule for sensible and obvious reasons. Sure, it is not needed nowadays for televised events.  But, it would be silly to constantly make exceptions to every rule or to change every rule, especially when it is no big deal to sign a scorecard and 99.99% of the time, every PGA player does.

Baseball never had any reason to have that rule, so how can you compare the two, even though the effect is the same simply because in golf it is a vestige of when it was necessary (and still is for ALL tournaments other than televised PGA events)?

Do you want every rule in every facet of life to be abolished or changed because circumstances make them no longer necessary in SOME situations, even though leaving the rule as is is NO big deal?  Is that what you are saying?  If you are saying that the rule is not needed anymore in televised PGA events, who is disagreeing with that?  That is obvious.

I second #29 above.  You are being ridiculous about this.  In another life some golfer must have done something really bad to you..

Perhaps. But I also think you are missing my point.  Again, I am not saying that any of these particular rules or penalties are the best ones if one had to re-invent them.  Only that they are reasonable given the history and nature of the game and the fact that no one (in the PGA) cares enough to change them.

I’m really not sure of your point.  If it is that some of these rules could be re-written to make them fairer, there is not disagreement there. Isn’t that true of any sport?  Or anything else in life that has rules and penalties?

You’re right, I didn’t understand what you were saying. I’m sorry about that.

You came off sounding like you agreed wholeheartedly with the rules both in degree and direction. It also sounded like you were saying that people who played golf could say nothing on the degree or the direction.

My point was what you said in the second paragraph. It could be better. The rule doesn’t seem ideal in degree, if not in direction as well.

If your point is the second paragraph, than the “avid golfer” comment is pretty irrelevant, and half of what you said seems a little off topic.

MGL wrote: “Tango, we already gave you the original reason for signing your scorecard in golf. I’m sure that most people agree that it is not needed anymore in this day and age, but frankly, I don’t think too many people care enough to change it.”

That is, until it happens to someone who’s won/winning a major tournament. Or Tiger Woods.

Really, I think this is more like the instant-replay issue in baseball or the head-shot rule in hockey - the traditionalist minority that actually makes the rules vs. the casual majority that butter their bread. The traditionalists will always hold-serve, so long as a big star or big event isn’t compromised by their strict adherence to a rule that the casuals don’t really understand but won’t waste their time arguing about.

Galarraga’s lost perfect game bid might be enough to push the issue in baseball, but we’re probably going to need a higher-profile golfer (and maybe in combination with a higher-profile event) to get DQed in order to determine what the people who pay to watch/sponsor the PGA actually think.

The rules of golf aren’t changing for the special case of the PGA. The USGA,RCGA (Canada), and R&A (the rest of the world) are the bodies that write golf rules. They write those rules in such a way that all the little tournaments, or competitive rounds can be playI know of thated in a vaguely fair way - with golfers keeping their own score, and calling penalties on themselves.

If the PGA Tour wants to put in a local rule, which they do all the time, then it is easy. And the players are involved in their competition committee (or whatever they call it), so the players do have lots of input.

A key difference in baseball is that, to my understanding, MLB defines the rules for MLB. Others can choose to follow them if they want, or they can choose not to. So it makes no sense for the MLB to have rules that don’t make sense given a televised game. But the same isn’t true for golf.

Most of this discussion is irrelevant in the case of the junior player, because the penalty there was for submitting an incorrect scorecard (signed or unsigned is irrelevant). It doesn’t matter whether that was a one-shot penalty, or a 50-shot penalty - the player submitted an incorrect scorecard and is therefore disqualified. I don’t see what else you can do, because the rules would get ridiculous if you had to differentiate between honest mistakes, and dishonest “mistakes”.

Should the PGA just go away from the notion that players count their own score, and are responsible for calling penalties on themselves? Maybe, but that is asking for a significant rethink of the mentality behind the sport - that I can’t see happening.

Part of the problem might be that, if I’m not mistaken, the rules explicitly say that no “committee” has the authority to change any of the Rules of Golf.  The guys who run Augusta can’t say, “hey, that’s a dumb rule, we’re going to change it for the Masters next year.”

So the change has to come from the top.