Add Category
Updated
Feel sorry for Lexi Thompson?
Sure, but spare a thought for Sue Witters, the LPGA official given the rather unpleasant task of turning the first women's major of the year on its head.
During an uncomfortable exchange broadcast across the globe Witters informed the then leader that she had broken the rules the previous day for incorrectly marking her ball on the 17th green.
The infraction was identified by a keen-eyed viewer who emailed the observation to the LPGA.
As history now shows Thompson received a four-shot penalty and eventually settled for second place in a playoff.
The American gained no discernible advantage from her costly mistake but the arcane and archaic rules of the game currently don't allow for any discretion on the part of rules officials.
In fact, according to Golf Australia's director of rules and handicapping, Simon Magdulski, the LPGA was compelled to act.
"If tournament officials become aware of something that they believe is a breach of the rules no matter how that information came to light as things stand the tournament officials are bound to act on that information," Magdulski said.
The groundswell of discontent over Thompson's fate has been led by fellow players, including a three time winner on the PGA tour, Justin Thomas.
"She deserved to win and just because someone is sitting at home, gets behind a computer and decides to send an email to this mysterious email address and can change an outcome is bizarre to me," Thomas said.
2016 PGA champion Jimmy Walker was equally perturbed.
"There's no other sport where anybody can call in and say 'oh that was a foul'," Walker said.
And that's a conundrum for golf's administrators. Other sports have embraced technology, changing the rules to accommodate video review, for example.
Golf's authorities have been slow to respond and there are factors which complicate the process.
The elongated nature of a golf event and the equal importance of every hole of a 72 hole tournament, together with blanket television coverage has opened a Pandora's box and allowed armchair critics a disproportionate say in the outcome.
Is there any other sporting event where a retrospective decision made about play on one day can have such an impact on the next?
Perhaps the answer is to ignore the observations of the television audience but, as Magdulski points out, it may not be that simple.
"It's pretty common for me to have spectators come up and ask questions about things that players have done, and often they're not challenging what the player has done they just want to know information — why something has happened — and sometimes that can lead to things being followed up," Magdulski said.
"You can be stripping TV viewers out of the equation but should you also be stripping questions from spectators out of consideration?
"I think all of these things need to be looked at. I certainly don't think it's a cut and dried, black and white issue."
The two international governing bodies of golf, the R&A and the USGA, have announced a series of proposed rule changes to modernise the game, but that process won't result in any significant changes until at least 2019.
Let's hope when the Green Jacket is handed out on Monday morning, eagle-eyed viewers will have been transfixed by a great performance rather than focused on a minor faux pas.
Topics: golf, sport, united-states
First posted