Michelle Wie in training for politics.

heddwyn · 09-02-2010, 05:12 PM

Xman, go look at the other video that's on Wei's site of the same incident. She was not struggling for footing, after she hit the shot she slowly put the club on the ground, then she used to club to look at something on her left shoe, with the sole of the club still on he ground. She then calmly returns to the fairway. I don't think the officials are calling her a liar. They asked for her explanation, which did not fit what happened.

I presume you feel there should be no penalties added or DQ's even when the evidence clearly shows there is an infringement, simply because you'd be calling any player a liar if they said 'I didn't do it'.

cleo · 09-02-2010, 05:19 PM

If one thinks something is true does that make it true even though evidence clearly indicates to a reasonable person that it is not true?

Wie said "you don't know what I'm thinking" or feeling for that matter. Does that trump visual evidence or common sense? I think not.

There's no evidence Wie was falling or in reasonable danger of falling. It was her opinion she was falling.

JJ said she didn't double hit, Kerr said she didn't ground the club. As I recall, I thought Sophie did, indeed, ground the club.

xman5 · 09-02-2010, 05:34 PM

I agree with how you describe the video. As I said it does not show her off balance or falling and there is a delay to when she actually puts down the club.

My first reaction when I watched it live was 'I can't belive that she just did that, she is going to be get penalized.

I could appear to be standing perfectly and not moving, but at the same time I could think that I am about to fall.

My point is that the officials have no way of knowing what the player felt her balance was at the time. They left the opening in the rules for this condition. If this exception did not exist then there is no debate. But the exception does exist.

It is not possible for the officials determine what she felt her internal balance to be. So they are discounting what the player is saying, they have no other way to prove otherwise. The player is the only one that can know the truth. Therefore they are calling her a liar by their ruling.

The point is that because of the vagueness of the exception it is only the player that can possible make the determination if the are going to fall or not.

LoJo · 09-02-2010, 05:50 PM

xman.... Your points are well taken and some RO's actually do agree with what you've said.

In this case, I think the video 'evidence' did not show enough to make it likely Wie was off balance enough to require using her club to stop from falling. Yes, that is a judgment call. I don't think they were calling her a liar as such.

Perhaps next time a golfer feels off balance in a hazard, they should exaggerate their moves like a high wire walker about to fall off. You know....arms flailing about in circles and yelling out...."Whoaaaaaaa!" That ought to convince any skeptical RO's. haha

gxer · 09-03-2010, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by xman5

Her point is that she placed it down for that reason. The official disagrees, so he is basially calling her a liar in ruling against her.

It's not just the officials that are calling her a liar, people on this board are calling her a liar as well, even those that I call Wieners.

ctmurray · 09-03-2010, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by gxer

It's not just the officials that are calling her a liar, people on this board are calling her a liar as well, even those that I call Wieners.

Every video call by the officials is them making a judgment. If the player disagrees with their call you are saying they are calling that player a liar. I disagree, they are making a judgment based on some evidence that might not agree with the player's version of events. So the recent PGA "grounding the club in the bunker" incident is all video based. We don't know what the player said to the officials in this case. Maybe he said "I don't think I was in a bunker" - or said "I did not ground my club"; the official says no, we have video evidence of you grounding your club, and we know that location is a bunker thus a penalty and was not saying "your a liar".

So there is video evidence that Wei grounded her club. The location was in a hazard. There is no video evidence that she needed to do this to keep her balance, in fact the opposite the video shows her never having a balance issue. She was told of the ruling and disagreed and signed a card with the score on the hole reflecting the penalty.

gxer · 09-04-2010, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by ctmurray

Every video call by the officials is them making a judgment. If the player disagrees with their call you are saying they are calling that player a liar. I disagree, they are making a judgment based on some evidence that might not agree with the player's version of events. So the recent PGA "grounding the club in the bunker" incident is all video based. We don't know what the player said to the officials in this case. Maybe he said "I don't think I was in a bunker" - or said "I did not ground my club"; the official says no, we have video evidence of you grounding your club, and we know that location is a bunker thus a penalty and was not saying "your a liar".

So there is video evidence that Wei grounded her club. The location was in a hazard. There is no video evidence that she needed to do this to keep her balance, in fact the opposite the video shows her never having a balance issue. She was told of the ruling and disagreed and signed a card with the score on the hole reflecting the penalty.

If you don't believe what a player tells you then you are in fact accusing them of lying. Dustin Johnson said he didn't believe he was in a bunker until later, then he agreed he was in a bunker and took the penalty.

Wiesy never agreed that she didn't have a balance issue but she was over-ruled, so she had no choice but to take the penalty or be DQ'd.

So, there is no other way to say it, Wiesy, according to the officials, was lying to them about her having a balance issue.

You Wieners can't have it both ways.

ctmurray · 09-04-2010, 11:40 PM

I am not a Wiener (whatever insult you are slinging).

Ziti0 · 09-10-2010, 05:27 PM

i recall that at some point during or just before the grounding her eyes were closed (maybe from water splashing), with her eyes closed it is no great stretch to believe she would think she was off balance.

Buzzer · 09-10-2010, 08:21 PM

Welcome to the forum ZitiO...........

09-02-2010, 05:19 PM	#32
cleo Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: PA Posts: 1,494	If one thinks something is true does that make it true even though evidence clearly indicates to a reasonable person that it is not true? Wie said "you don't know what I'm thinking" or feeling for that matter. Does that trump visual evidence or common sense? I think not. There's no evidence Wie was falling or in reasonable danger of falling. It was her opinion she was falling. JJ said she didn't double hit, Kerr said she didn't ground the club. As I recall, I thought Sophie did, indeed, ground the club. __________________ "There's no use arguing with a fool. He only rages and scoffs, and tempers flare."

09-03-2010, 01:37 PM	#35
gxer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,050	Originally Posted by xman5 Her point is that she placed it down for that reason. The official disagrees, so he is basially calling her a liar in ruling against her. It's not just the officials that are calling her a liar, people on this board are calling her a liar as well, even those that I call Wieners. __________________ *My "dream" girl: LPGA seasonal tour stats <=65.50 & >=270*

09-03-2010, 09:28 PM	#36
ctmurray Donating Member Contests: Joint 3rd place overall winner 2010. Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,176	Originally Posted by gxer It's not just the officials that are calling her a liar, people on this board are calling her a liar as well, even those that I call Wieners. Every video call by the officials is them making a judgment. If the player disagrees with their call you are saying they are calling that player a liar. I disagree, they are making a judgment based on some evidence that might not agree with the player's version of events. So the recent PGA "grounding the club in the bunker" incident is all video based. We don't know what the player said to the officials in this case. Maybe he said "I don't think I was in a bunker" - or said "I did not ground my club"; the official says no, we have video evidence of you grounding your club, and we know that location is a bunker thus a penalty and was not saying "your a liar". So there is video evidence that Wei grounded her club. The location was in a hazard. There is no video evidence that she needed to do this to keep her balance, in fact the opposite the video shows her never having a balance issue. She was told of the ruling and disagreed and signed a card with the score on the hole reflecting the penalty.

09-04-2010, 02:36 PM	#37
gxer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,050	Originally Posted by ctmurray Every video call by the officials is them making a judgment. If the player disagrees with their call you are saying they are calling that player a liar. I disagree, they are making a judgment based on some evidence that might not agree with the player's version of events. So the recent PGA "grounding the club in the bunker" incident is all video based. We don't know what the player said to the officials in this case. Maybe he said "I don't think I was in a bunker" - or said "I did not ground my club"; the official says no, we have video evidence of you grounding your club, and we know that location is a bunker thus a penalty and was not saying "your a liar". So there is video evidence that Wei grounded her club. The location was in a hazard. There is no video evidence that she needed to do this to keep her balance, in fact the opposite the video shows her never having a balance issue. She was told of the ruling and disagreed and signed a card with the score on the hole reflecting the penalty. If you don't believe what a player tells you then you are in fact accusing them of lying. Dustin Johnson said he didn't believe he was in a bunker until later, then he agreed he was in a bunker and took the penalty. Wiesy never agreed that she didn't have a balance issue but she was over-ruled, so she had no choice but to take the penalty or be DQ'd. So, there is no other way to say it, Wiesy, according to the officials, was lying to them about her having a balance issue. You Wieners can't have it both ways. __________________ *My "dream" girl: LPGA seasonal tour stats <=65.50 & >=270*

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-02-2010, 05:12 PM	#31
heddwyn Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,380	Xman, go look at the other video that's on Wei's site of the same incident. She was not struggling for footing, after she hit the shot she slowly put the club on the ground, then she used to club to look at something on her left shoe, with the sole of the club still on he ground. She then calmly returns to the fairway. I don't think the officials are calling her a liar. They asked for her explanation, which did not fit what happened. I presume you feel there should be no penalties added or DQ's even when the evidence clearly shows there is an infringement, simply because you'd be calling any player a liar if they said 'I didn't do it'.

09-02-2010, 05:34 PM	#33
xman5 Contest Statistician Join Date: May 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 3,903	I agree with how you describe the video. As I said it does not show her off balance or falling and there is a delay to when she actually puts down the club. My first reaction when I watched it live was 'I can't belive that she just did that, she is going to be get penalized. I could appear to be standing perfectly and not moving, but at the same time I could think that I am about to fall. My point is that the officials have no way of knowing what the player felt her balance was at the time. They left the opening in the rules for this condition. If this exception did not exist then there is no debate. But the exception does exist. It is not possible for the officials determine what she felt her internal balance to be. So they are discounting what the player is saying, they have no other way to prove otherwise. The player is the only one that can know the truth. Therefore they are calling her a liar by their ruling. The point is that because of the vagueness of the exception it is only the player that can possible make the determination if the are going to fall or not.

09-02-2010, 05:50 PM	#34
LoJo Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The Golf Course Posts: 2,217 Images: 1	xman.... Your points are well taken and some RO's actually do agree with what you've said. In this case, I think the video 'evidence' did not show enough to make it likely Wie was off balance enough to require using her club to stop from falling. Yes, that is a judgment call. I don't think they were calling her a liar as such. Perhaps next time a golfer feels off balance in a hazard, they should exaggerate their moves like a high wire walker about to fall off. You know....arms flailing about in circles and yelling out...."Whoaaaaaaa!" That ought to convince any skeptical RO's. haha

09-04-2010, 11:40 PM	#38
ctmurray Donating Member Contests: Joint 3rd place overall winner 2010. Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,176	I am not a Wiener (whatever insult you are slinging).

09-10-2010, 05:27 PM	#39
Ziti0 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: new york Posts: 21	i recall that at some point during or just before the grounding her eyes were closed (maybe from water splashing), with her eyes closed it is no great stretch to believe she would think she was off balance.

09-10-2010, 08:21 PM	#40
Buzzer Moderator Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Hilton Head, SC Posts: 2,831 Images: 13	Welcome to the forum ZitiO...........