|
Post by don on Apr 25, 2017 1:43:33 GMT
If feels like Russian Auto-Bot social media accounts were backing Lexi and trashing the LPGA online and have all disappeared in the last week. USGA and R&A are changing policy to please people that may have never existed.
|
|
|
Post by fourwaymiss on Apr 25, 2017 7:25:37 GMT
With the golf channel monitors, why didn't they notice the infraction. They may have but chose to not report it. However: They just jumped right on the Anna infraction. Just saying. ...and what's stopping the technicians in the production trailer from using a bit of digital editing to manufacture a rules violation? I suspect that's what may have happened at CordeVale, as Fake (formerly Fox) Sports was so desperate to have an American win the USWO that the same hi-def camera operator that was zeroing in on Anna's bunker shot could have digitally inserted a few extra grains of sand that the Swede just so happened to "touch" with her club face.
Kevin All that work , for LANG ?? I have never seen a player who hovers the club head so close to the sand surface as Anna did. As good in controlling the club as the pros, they usually leave a good quarter to half inch or so above the surface. I am not calling Anna a cheater, but I won't be surprised if that was not the first time she had done it. It was just the first time that Anna had an HD camera zoomed in the club face of her bunker shot.
|
|
|
Post by fourwaymiss on Apr 25, 2017 8:05:28 GMT
Not completely disagreeing with you here. But golf is unique in this way that an outsider can affect the outcome. The fans has the right to know what stake does that person hold in the outcome of the event. In Ana Norquist case, it was a Fox camera man, who had an responsibility to report to his boss anything of interest that he captures. My future wife was once DQed after being called out by Sports Illustrated's Micheal Bamberger. Show me one place in the rules where it prevents a person who has a stake in the result of a competition from calling a rules infraction. Heck, it clearly allows the *competitors* to police each other, and they certainly have a big stake in the outcome. So if Inbee could call an infraction on Thompson, when she will directly benefit, why can't some gambler? Or Ryu's grandmother? Or Bamberger? It's just a dodge to change the topic from the real issue, which is that Thompson broke the rules and (seemingly) refuses to graciously accept that. Big difference, Inbee is part of the competition where the gambler is not. Of course it is perfectly within the rules for gambler or Ryu's grandma to call in. To illustrate my point in another way. Let's say the caller/emailer was the newly wedded husband of Suzann Petersen ( the closest player behind Lexi ), Christian. He wants to score some brownie points by helping out his wife. Let me give you two scenarios. 1, He watched the recording on Sunday and spotted the infraction, and right away he sent out the email, in the middle of the final round.2, He watched it live on Saturday , spotted the infraction but then waited until Sunday afternoon to send the email, in order to inflict the maximum damage. I have no problem with scenario 1, he nailed Lexi red handed and tried to give her a fair shake the best way he could. Good eye Christian . However , with scenario 2, I doubt Christian will dare to be anywhere near an LPGA event in the foreseeable future. Under the current rules, both scenarios are perfectly within the rules. But there is just something intrinsically wrong with scenario 2. I am not saying that's what happened at ANA. That's why I am asking for a complete disclosure. And hopefully the truth may finally push the governing bodies to no longer drag their feet.
|
|
|
Post by legitimategolf on Apr 25, 2017 14:27:55 GMT
My outlook for humanity has darkened as a result of this Lexi Thompson uproar. She is now being basically canonized by the American golf establishment. Rules are being re-written. Lexi herself, seizing on a huge opportunity for publicity, has now gladly taken up the victim role, posting a bunch of "what doesn't kill you make you stronger" type platitudes on social media.
Somewhat consoled by the fact that none of this chest-beating is going to actually improve 1) american women's golf or b) the LPGA's bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by 18majors on Apr 25, 2017 15:36:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 18majors on Apr 25, 2017 15:37:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 18majors on Apr 25, 2017 15:38:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 18majors on Apr 25, 2017 15:41:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 18majors on Apr 25, 2017 15:50:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 18majors on Apr 25, 2017 15:52:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 18majors on Apr 25, 2017 16:36:12 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 16:55:01 GMT
I don't understand the new rules. Will this make it easier or more difficult for Lexi to cheat in Irving?
|
|
|
Post by HappyFan on Apr 25, 2017 17:19:16 GMT
Show me one place in the rules where it prevents a person who has a stake in the result of a competition from calling a rules infraction. Heck, it clearly allows the *competitors* to police each other, and they certainly have a big stake in the outcome. So if Inbee could call an infraction on Thompson, when she will directly benefit, why can't some gambler? Or Ryu's grandmother? Or Bamberger? It's just a dodge to change the topic from the real issue, which is that Thompson broke the rules and (seemingly) refuses to graciously accept that. Big difference, Inbee is part of the competition where the gambler is not. Of course it is perfectly within the rules for gambler or Ryu's grandma to call in. To illustrate my point in another way. Let's say the caller/emailer was the newly wedded husband of Suzann Petersen ( the closest player behind Lexi ), Christian. He wants to score some brownie points by helping out his wife. Let me give you two scenarios. 1, He watched the recording on Sunday and spotted the infraction, and right away he sent out the email, in the middle of the final round.2, He watched it live on Saturday , spotted the infraction but then waited until Sunday afternoon to send the email, in order to inflict the maximum damage. I have no problem with scenario 1, he nailed Lexi red handed and tried to give her a fair shake the best way he could. Good eye Christian . However , with scenario 2, I doubt Christian will dare to be anywhere near an LPGA event in the foreseeable future. Under the current rules, both scenarios are perfectly within the rules. But there is just something intrinsically wrong with scenario 2. I am not saying that's what happened at ANA. That's why I am asking for a complete disclosure. And hopefully the truth may finally push the governing bodies to no longer drag their feet. Sorry, in the end it all comes down to one thing: Thompson broke the rule. How that info got out is immaterial. I have no problem with changing the rule, but you don't change them mid-tournament. Look at it this way. What if the LPGA had known about this situation and chosen not to talk about it. THEN, a week later, it became public that Thompson had broken this rule and the LPGA gave her a pass? You want an asterisk next to a Major win? There's your asterisk. And Thompson would probably never live down the label of cheat who was gifted a Major. Getting this penalty called on her is in some ways the luckiest thing that ever happened to her. Now and forevermore she gets to be the victimized shoulda-winner instead of the entitled shoulda-loser.
|
|
|
Post by HappyFan on Apr 25, 2017 17:21:53 GMT
I don't understand the new rules. Will this make it easier or more difficult for Lexi to cheat in Irving? Easier if the broadcast is on tape delay, right? And the LPGA tournaments often are.
|
|
|
Post by HappyFan on Apr 25, 2017 17:24:20 GMT
If she is going to make a big brouhaha about this, then yes, she has to answer some tough questions about her own behavior. Surprised Mell had the guts to write this article, to be honest.
|
|