A delayed start to blogging today, which is probably a good thing considering the extent of my irritation with the state of golf journalism. Let's see if I can get this rant posted before I have to leave for that great land called New Jersey...
Suzann Pettersen has emerged from hibernation and gave Tim Rosaforte an extended interview,
and...well, let's just say that Tim seems to be a nice guy... but this is journalistic malpractice of the first degree.
I've not yet mastered the art of embedding Golf Channel video, so please go listen to the interview here. Go on, I'll be here when you get back. I said it at the time and I'm more convinced of it today, but the lady simply doesn't know for what an apology is required.
Didn't you love the little bit about match play strategy and how you might give the putts early but later on, whoa Nellie! Really, these crazy kids today...that's only been accepted practice for centuries, but thanks for sharing, Suzann. But am I wrong to conclude that she thinks it's about not giving an 18" putt?
But does Rosaforte not get it as well? The funny thing is that he trips over the issue, noting that Charley Hull was marching off the green, but moves on to m ore important things such as Suzann's interpretations of the rules or a bad experience she had in the third grade.
Again I urge you to watch the video of the incident and note that Suzann is nowhere to be found. Perhaps we need to footage from the blimp to ascertain her location, but I'd guess it was closer to the 18th tee than the 17th hole pin. I'm certainly not saying that mine is the only way of handling it, but this is the question that needed to be asked:
Suzann, you've seen the video of Allison missing the putt. How did you and how should Allison have interpreted Charley Hull moving vigorously to the next tee?
And the obvious follow-up is to ask her whether she thinks it's appropriate to leave the green before her opponents have holed out. Because she's been doing this for years and it's incredibly rude behavior, the more so when you're representing the home team (because of the likelihood of triggering crowd noise). I'd like to hear Suzann's answer to that, because not only was she long gone in this instance, but she did the same thing several times in her singles match with Angela Stanford.
I did learn something new from Tim, though, that the match official had called the hole halved before the Euros objected. So we know how he interpreted the actions of the European women, to wit, that the hole was over.
The roundtable following the interview was equally bad, which unfortunately includes our Shackelford. I believe it was Rex Hoggard who placed the blame solely on Allison, not even acknowledging that Hull's movement should legitimately be seen as a concession. Here's Geoff's thoughts from his blog afterwards:
Anyway, in the interview, which didn't satisfy Karen Stupples in her Golf Central opportunity to react, Pettersen is maintaining her guarded apology and the more I believe the modern misunderstanding of match play dynamics by Lee isn't fully understood, the less I find Pettersen's behavior to be as awful as portrayed. And while I pointed this out before, I'll do it again: imagine how the modern game would react to a stymie situation if they demonize Suzann over this? As someone who would love to see the stymie come back, I perish the thought!
Stupples did indeed harsh the Petterson narrative, with which I agree, but she failed to explain the simple lack of basic courtesy involved. But Geoff has been riding this lack of familiarity with match play point since that Sunday, and I find it both factually challenged and utterly irrelevant. I couldn't agree more that the begging for putts to be conceded has become more than a bit unseemly, but that's hardly the issue here.
The fact that Allison Lee made a mistake under a strict interpretation of the rules is unarguable. But the question for Shack, rex and Suzann is simple: The one opponent sufficiently courteous to watch your birdie putt is in third gear on her way to the next tee, isn't it:
- Incredibly rude;
- Incredibly distracting;
- An implication that the hole is over, leading you to scoop up your ball; or
- All of the above.
The obvious question of motivation is therefore not addressed. Is she, as perhaps Shack is moving towards, unaware of the breach of etiquette involved, or is this Suzann channeling her inner Seve? I assume the latter but would have liked to see her answer that question under the harsh lights. Alas, Tim couldn't be bothered enough to do his job...
Amen!
ReplyDelete