after further review...lexi thompson penalized 4 strokes

[rocket surgeon]

   anyone else catch this?  happened to be watching the LPGA while working out-was that some kind of joke?

       the ana inspiration held in rancho mirage, ca.  is one of the woman's majors.  lexi thompson was leading the event by 2 strokes.  she bogies hole #12 to fall to -16.  as she is walking to hole #13, rule officials tell her of a penalty she committed on hole #17...the previous day as they were notified by E-MAIL from a "fan" who noted it while watching a replay.  lexi almost pulled off thevictory despite the ruling but overwhelmingly won over the fans and social media

   http://golfweek.com/2017/04/02/lexi-thompson-loses-lead-4-stroke-penalty-day-later-ana-inspiration/

this is where golf is losing the common people.  how many sports allow input from their "fans" with regards to the rules?  what if player x violated a rule on thursday or friday, wasn't notified, makes the cut because of it and then is notified on saturday or sunday?  if a player doesn't call themselves out over it, which is usually the "gentlemen's" part of the game or a ruling official doesn't observe a violation from all the video taken, or said rule violation isn't picked up within a certain time frame following the match-fugetaboutit.

  http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/19060843/ana-inspiration-lexi-thompson-penalty-another-major-blunder-golf?addata=espn:golf:golf

this is going to be debated for some time between the cooler heads and the stuffed shirts/"country club" elites-as judged by the reaction of public opinion-golf has some decisions to make.  why just the other day, i called the NCAA over a traveling call they missed in the waning seconds of the unc-oregon game, but they told me to go "f" myself...just trying to be a fan and help, ehyn'a?  in this case-at least put a statute of limitations on the thing.  what's next?  a full review of john daly's major wins?

[tower912]

I am following it.   The letter of the law as it is currently written was followed.  Which means that the rules are going to need to be addressed.   The idea that someone watching a DVR of Saturday's round after Sunday's round is well underway can notice a quarter inch mistake from Saturday, send an e-mail and fundamentally alter the course of a major is absurd.   Look for a rules change to stop this crap in the future.

[jsglow]

It's ridiculous.

[brewcity77]

Rules change should come today. I'm sorry, but that's crap. Can you imagine if the day after our OT win at Seton Hall, some SHU fan appealed an incorrectly called three that was called a two in regulation and we lost the game? Or a week after the Cubs won the World Series, the result was overturned and parades cancelled because some idiot at home noticed a two-run homer nicked the foul pole?

I've seen plenty of terrible officiating, but this is some Earl Hebner level BS.

[tower912]

Lexi carelessly did not return her ball to the original spot.    That IS a penalty.     If it had been noticed by a rules official in real time, had been discussed with her at the end of the round, and a penalty assessed then, I would have zero issue with it.    My issue is with timing.   Somebody watching Saturday's round while Sunday's round is in progress should not have the ability to change what happened on Saturday with an e-mail.    It's over.   The score from Saturday should be final.     Interestingly, this rule has already been changed once.  Two years ago, if this had occurred, Lexi would have been disqualified and had to walk in after 12 holes.   
And finally, nobody knows whether or not Mo Martin replaced her ball correctly on the third hole on Thursday.   There is no television coverage of that.   Having viewers, who are only seeing what the editors are showing, be able to alter the outcome is wrong.    If the director in the truck, after Lexi missed her first putt, had cut away to anything else, Lexi wins this major.   

[rocket surgeon]

Lexi carelessly did not return her ball to the original spot.    That IS a penalty.     If it had been noticed by a rules official in real time, had been discussed with her at the end of the round, and a penalty assessed then, I would have zero issue with it.    My issue is with timing.   Somebody watching Saturday's round while Sunday's round is in progress should not have the ability to change what happened on Saturday with an e-mail.    It's over.   The score from Saturday should be final.     Interestingly, this rule has already been changed once.  Two years ago, if this had occurred, Lexi would have been disqualified and had to walk in after 12 holes.   
And finally, nobody knows whether or not Mo Martin replaced her ball correctly on the third hole on Thursday.   There is no television coverage of that.   Having viewers, who are only seeing what the editors are showing, be able to alter the outcome is wrong.    If the director in the truck, after Lexi missed her first putt, had cut away to anything else, Lexi wins this major.

  well summarized and stated.  this kind of thing, a rules thing continues to erode at the popularity of golf at a time they are struggling.  participation rates have dropped by 20% over the last 13-14 years.  during this time, they take away the PGA title from d. johnson after they claim he grounded his club in a "sand trap".  said trap was indistinguishable from a path the spectators had worn into the landscape over the course of the week.  then, mr johnson once again ALMOST lost another major-2016 us open.  the greens had a stimp meter # 15 where a coin would almost roll off the green.  his ball moved as he addressed the ball from the side.  the golf gods didn't make a ruling until after the round, but it didn't matter as he built a 4 shot lead, cut to 3 with the eventual penalty ruling. 

     the moving ball controversy initiated, and rightly so, a rule change

i'm sure there have many other questionable issues that have hurt golf's p.r.  problem is, golf has rules that interpret therules, rules that contradict the rules and on and on.  and they aren't making it any more friendly for joe 6-pak of which golf will need in order for the sport to be re-popularized

[tower912]

These rules aren't the reason that the number of golf rounds is off by 20%.      Time it takes, cost, access, the fact that it is not an instant gratification game (i.e. damn hard) in an instant gratification society are all larger reasons than obscure and persnicketty rules that most don't follow in their fun game anyway. 

[nyg]

Ladies tour is notorious for slow play.  If Lexi had just tapped in the 18 inch putt, then nothing.  But watch the ladies, they mark, clean ball, replace, then putt the majority of their less than two footers.

The call in one day later was terrible and changes will be made. Probably to include possible rule violations only on day of play, otherwise too bad.  If this happened in yesterday's play and call came in today, not an issue, since competition is over. 

[MU82]

Rules change should come today. I'm sorry, but that's crap. Can you imagine if the day after our OT win at Seton Hall, some SHU fan appealed an incorrectly called three that was called a two in regulation and we lost the game? Or a week after the Cubs won the World Series, the result was overturned and parades cancelled because some idiot at home noticed a two-run homer nicked the foul pole?

I've seen plenty of terrible officiating, but this is some Earl Hebner level BS.

Agree with what you're saying with one minor nit ...

If the ball nicked the foul pole, it would still be a home run.

[brewcity77]

Agree with what you're saying with one minor nit ...

If the ball nicked the foul pole, it would still be a home run.

That's fair...

[rocket surgeon]

These rules aren't the reason that the number of golf rounds is off by 20%.      Time it takes, cost, access, the fact that it is not an instant gratification game (i.e. damn hard) in an instant gratification society are all larger reasons than obscure and persnicketty rules that most don't follow in their fun game anyway.

yes to all of these, but the "hoity-toity" aspect and pr that follows doesn't help.  high school golf coach approaches some yutes about considering joining the golf team or a park rec organization is doing the same, what is the most recent thing they've heard?  i ain't gonna chase no stupid ball around and get pants'ed if i move my ball a mm, etc etc

[jsglow]

Lexi carelessly did not return her ball to the original spot.    That IS a penalty.     If it had been noticed by a rules official in real time, had been discussed with her at the end of the round, and a penalty assessed then, I would have zero issue with it.    My issue is with timing.   Somebody watching Saturday's round while Sunday's round is in progress should not have the ability to change what happened on Saturday with an e-mail.    It's over.   The score from Saturday should be final.     Interestingly, this rule has already been changed once.  Two years ago, if this had occurred, Lexi would have been disqualified and had to walk in after 12 holes.   
And finally, nobody knows whether or not Mo Martin replaced her ball correctly on the third hole on Thursday.   There is no television coverage of that.   Having viewers, who are only seeing what the editors are showing, be able to alter the outcome is wrong.    If the director in the truck, after Lexi missed her first putt, had cut away to anything else, Lexi wins this major.

That's how I see it too.

[Herman Cain]

Lexi is sexy

[warriorchick]

Lexi is sexy

Did you come up with that yourself?

[tower912]

Lexi is sexy

Irrelevant and demeaning for this conversation

[jesmu84]

Irrelevant and demeaning for this conversation

Par for the course for his board contributions

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Par for the course for his board contributions

I see what you did there.

[tower912]

If the NCAA was like the PGA/LPGA tours, we could send in an e-mail showing Meek's hand out of bounds with 50 second  left and get the outcome of the game changed.

[wadesworld]

If the NCAA was like the PGA/LPGA tours, we could send in an e-mail showing Meek's hand out of bounds with 50 second  left and get the outcome of the game changed.

Or the un-tipped 3 point shot by Matthews that got correctly ruled UNC ball but then got incorrectly overturned and then we could take 3 points off the board for Gonzaga.

Those things typically even out.

[brewcity77]

I see what you did there.

And yet everyone missed this...

That's fair...

All my work for naught.

[Herman Cain]

Did you come up with that yourself?

Yes. Original content.

[warriorchick]

Yes. Original content.

[B. McBannerson]

Lexi is sexy

Driver beware

[#UnleashSean]

Or the un-tipped 3 point shot by Matthews that got correctly ruled UNC ball but then got incorrectly overturned and then we could take 3 points off the board for Gonzaga.

Those things typically even out.

But then Gonzaga would have shot 3 points over the missed four on the same play. That play balanced itself.

[wadesworld]

But then Gonzaga would have shot 3 points over the missed four on the same play. That play balanced itself.

Huh?  I'm not sure I understand.  With Gonzaga down 2 with 5 minutes left in the game Matthews air balled a 3 pointer out of bounds that was contested by Pinson.  The ref correctly called the ball out of bounds to UNC, but then a different ref reversed the call, saying Pinson blocked the shot when he clearly didn't.  UNC should have been inbounding the ball up 2 with 5 minutes to play but instead Gonzaga got the ball back with time on the shot clock and Williams-Goss hit a 3 pointer to go up by 1.  They should not have had those 3 points.

[tower912]

It should have been a foul

[MU82]

Huh?  I'm not sure I understand.  With Gonzaga down 2 with 5 minutes left in the game Matthews air balled a 3 pointer out of bounds that was contested by Pinson.  The ref correctly called the ball out of bounds to UNC, but then a different ref reversed the call, saying Pinson blocked the shot when he clearly didn't.  UNC should have been inbounding the ball up 2 with 5 minutes to play but instead Gonzaga got the ball back with time on the shot clock and Williams-Goss hit a 3 pointer to go up by 1.  They should not have had those 3 points.

The difference is that, with 5 minutes to go, that call is not reviewable. The Meeks-hand-on-line call was absolutely reviewable and it absolutely should have been reviewed.

You use the rules you can to make the right calls. The refs did not do that, magnifying their very poor performance.

EDIT:

Actually, I just quickly read that the NCAA said the play wasn't reviewable. I have yet to read an explanation why. If this is true, that is absolutely ridiculous and should be changed.

Just got a good look at the play. The one ref is standing right there, a few feet away, and he's looking down at the players. A much easier call to see than the shot that might or might not have been deflected.

[wadesworld]

The difference is that, with 5 minutes to go, that call is not reviewable. The Meeks-hand-on-line call was absolutely reviewable and it absolutely should have been reviewed.

You use the rules you can to make the right calls. The refs did not do that, magnifying their very poor performance.

EDIT:

Actually, I just quickly read that the NCAA said the play wasn't reviewable. I have yet to read an explanation why. If this is true, that is absolutely ridiculous and should be changed.

Just got a good look at the play. The one ref is standing right there, a few feet away, and he's looking down at the players. A much easier call to see than the shot that might or might not have been deflected.

It was a jump ball not an out of bounds call. You can't review a jump ball.

I definitely did not notice a foul on Pinson. I'll rewatch it on the DVR in an hour.

[wadesworld]

It should have been a foul

If you're talking about Pinson's contest, I just rewatched it and we're simply going to strongly disagree with each other here. If that's a foul then the way the refs called the second half of last night's game was beyond loose, and I don't think anybody will ever accuse the refs of calling a loose second half. Heck, Matthews himself was begging for a deflection call (which it clearly wasn't), not a foul.

[tower912]

OK, we saw it differently.   Meh. 

[wadesworld]

OK, we saw it differently.   Meh.

And the shooter felt it differently.

[MU82]

It was a jump ball not an out of bounds call. You can't review a jump ball.

That's stupid. It SHOULD have been an OOB call.

Fix mistakes you can easily fix. Or don't have replay at all.

[wadesworld]

That's stupid. It SHOULD have been an OOB call.

Fix mistakes you can easily fix. Or don't have replay at all.

Ehh.  You have to set the line somewhere.  If you're going to allow a live ball situation be replayed because someone may or may not have been out of bounds we'll be stopping the game constantly.  Other than it taking too long, I think the replay system in college basketball is about as good of a blend of making sure things are right in the most critical times of the game while also not extending the time of the game and interrupting the flow of the game for the entire game.

[Benny B]

Changing a call in a basketball game retroactively is patently unfair because it has a direct effect on the other team.  Changing a call in an individual sport only affects that player... so why is that wrong?

[StillAWarrior]

Changing a call in a basketball game retroactively is patently unfair because it has a direct effect on the other team.  Changing a call in an individual sport only affects that player... so why is that wrong?

Because that golfer and other golfers alter the way they play based upon their knowledge of the standings.  If I think I'm one stroke behind you, I might make a very different play than I would if I thought I was three strokes ahead.  I might play a risky shot going for a birdie, when otherwise I might lay up and take an easy par.  Or, vice versa.  Not to mention that the golfer in question who thinks she is four shots better off than where she will later be placed may very well play very differently.  What if the scoreboard operator in a basketball game screwed up and in the final 10 seconds the score that everyone saw didn't reflect the true score.  If your team dribbled out the clock because the board said you had a one point lead, don't you think it would kind of suck if after doing that someone said to you, "Hey, the scoreboard was wrong.  You were actually one point behind.  Our bad.  You lose."

I really don't like the retroactive penalty aspect.  I think at the very latest, it should be at the end of the then current round.  I realize that doesn't completely address the problem above, but it does make things better.  It also avoids the absolutely absurd result where the penalty is effectively doubled because the golfer unknowingly signs an incorrect scorecard.  If they rule were that it had to be addressed by the end of the round, then we could have the golfer penalized for the infraction, but still sign a correct card and avoid an additional two stroke penalty.  I think it's ridiculous to penalize a golfer for signing an incorrect card when she thought it was correct when signing it.

[GGGG]

It's really simple.  Once the player signs their scorecard, and a rules official signs off on that card, it is official.  Period. 

[Benny B]

Because that golfer and other golfers alter the way they play based upon their knowledge of the standings.  If I think I'm one stroke behind you, I might make a very different play than I would if I thought I was three strokes ahead.  I might play a risky shot going for a birdie, when otherwise I might lay up and take an easy par.  Or, vice versa.  Not to mention that the golfer in question who thinks she is four shots better off than where she will later be placed may very well play very differently.  What if the scoreboard operator in a basketball game screwed up and in the final 10 seconds the score that everyone saw didn't reflect the true score.  If your team dribbled out the clock because the board said you had a one point lead, don't you think it would kind of suck if after doing that someone said to you, "Hey, the scoreboard was wrong.  You were actually one point behind.  Our bad.  You lose."

I really don't like the retroactive penalty aspect.  I think at the very latest, it should be at the end of the then current round.  I realize that doesn't completely address the problem above, but it does make things better.  It also avoids the absolutely absurd result where the penalty is effectively doubled because the golfer unknowingly signs an incorrect scorecard.  If they rule were that it had to be addressed by the end of the round, then we could have the golfer penalized for the infraction, but still sign a correct card and avoid an additional two stroke penalty.  I think it's ridiculous to penalize a golfer for signing an incorrect card when she thought it was correct when signing it.

I understand the logic behind the argument you're making... after all, we see examples all the time about teams altering their style of play based on the score: the hail mary, intentional fouls, a fifth infielder, pulling the goalie.  But this is because in most games, there are two outcomes - win and lose - and if you're losing, you're going to take risks that you normally wouldn't when you're winning (and vice versa).

Perhaps there's validity to your argument in golf during skins play; however, in stroke play, the dichotomy of win/lose doesn't exist... there's 2nd place, 3rd place, 4th place, etc., each with a different prize awarded.  If you went to Q-school, I think you'd be surprised to learn that very few professional golfers alter their play based on the scoreboard.  This isn't Tin Cup where guys will attempt a nearly impossible shot just to pull off a win.  When's the last time you saw a professional golfer attempt a Happy Gilmore on the final tee because they're 3 shots off the lead?  That's right - never... because it doesn't happen.  Unlike football, basketball, baseball, hockey, etc. (where the consequence of doing something different when you're already losing can't make things worse), in golf, someone sitting in 2nd place could go for broke on the final holes trying to overtake the leader only to end up in a 14-way tie for 33rd place.

Listen, I'm a big fan of chaos theory, but I'm telling you that the only people concerned with the butterfly effect in golf is the guy on the grounds crew who sprays for caterpillars.

It's really simple.  Once the player signs their scorecard, and a rules official signs off on that card, it is official.  Period. 

So by your logic, USC should get their vacated 2004 championship back?  Because I'm pretty sure the referee signed the scorecard after that game.  They played the game.  It's over.  The path to victory is cheat until you get away with it, right?

On that note, Lexi signed an incorrect scorecard, which by the rules used to be a disqualification.  But those rules were relaxed last year so that a player would not be disqualified if the incorrect scorecard is the result of penalty strokes they didn't know about when they finished their rounds.  (Speculation... most of you arguing in Lexi's defense had no idea about this rule or the change.)

Nevertheless, I checked with Benny Z a couple of dimensions over where the rules weren't relaxed and Lexi was in fact disqualified.... not surprisingly (to me, at least) every one of you here saying that Lexi shouldn't have been penalized are lamenting her disqualification and arguing that she should have been given a four-stroke penalty instead.

In other words, had Lexi been disqualified, all y'all be arguing for a compromise.  Guess what... reality gave you a compromise, and yet you're still bitching about it.

[StillAWarrior]

I understand the logic behind the argument you're making... after all, we see examples all the time about teams altering their style of play based on the score: the hail mary, intentional fouls, a fifth infielder, pulling the goalie.  But this is because in most games, there are two outcomes - win and lose - and if you're losing, you're going to take risks that you normally wouldn't when you're winning (and vice versa).

Perhaps there's validity to your argument in golf during skins play; however, in stroke play, the dichotomy of win/lose doesn't exist... there's 2nd place, 3rd place, 4th place, etc., each with a different prize awarded.  If you went to Q-school, I think you'd be surprised to learn that very few professional golfers alter their play based on the scoreboard.  This isn't Tin Cup where guys will attempt a nearly impossible shot just to pull off a win.  When's the last time you saw a professional golfer attempt a Happy Gilmore on the final tee because they're 3 shots off the lead?  That's right - never... because it doesn't happen.  Unlike football, basketball, baseball, hockey, etc. (where the consequence of doing something different when you're already losing can't make things worse), in golf, someone sitting in 2nd place could go for broke on the final holes trying to overtake the leader only to end up in a 14-way tie for 33rd place.

Listen, I'm a big fan of chaos theory, but I'm telling you that the only people concerned with the butterfly effect in golf is the guy on the grounds crew who sprays for caterpillars.

So by your logic, USC should get their vacated 2004 championship back?  Because I'm pretty sure the referee signed the scorecard after that game.  They played the game.  It's over.  The path to victory is cheat until you get away with it, right?

On that note, Lexi signed an incorrect scorecard, which by the rules used to be a disqualification.  But those rules were relaxed last year so that a player would not be disqualified if the incorrect scorecard is the result of penalty strokes they didn't know about when they finished their rounds.  (Speculation... most of you arguing in Lexi's defense had no idea about this rule or the change.)

Nevertheless, I checked with Benny Z a couple of dimensions over where the rules weren't relaxed and Lexi was in fact disqualified.... not surprisingly (to me, at least) every one of you here saying that Lexi shouldn't have been penalized are lamenting her disqualification and arguing that she should have been given a four-stroke penalty instead.

In other words, had Lexi been disqualified, all y'all be arguing for a compromise.  Guess what... reality gave you a compromise, and yet you're still bitching about it.

We'll agree to disagree.  I have seen players with a lead play a safe shot.  I've seen players shoot for the pin instead of safely on the green.  If you're arguing it never happens, I don't really know what to say.  Also, I'm very well aware that they changed the rule from a DQ to a four stroke penalty.  I think it's stupid.  You obviously disagree.  I'm OK with that.

[Benny B]

We'll agree to disagree.  I have seen players with a lead play a safe shot.  I've seen players shoot for the pin instead of safely on the green.  If you're arguing it never happens, I don't really know what to say.  Also, I'm very well aware that they changed the rule from a DQ to a four stroke penalty.  I think it's stupid.  You obviously disagree.  I'm OK with that.

I'm not talking about "safe shots" here, I'm talking about making a move.  The distinction is in the alternative... what's the alternative to a safe shot?  Another safe shot?  Hell, there are some situations where there might be five different ways to play a stroke and all of them are safe shots.  On the margin, these shots have minimal effect on a professional player's score. 

Example: #15 at Augusta National.  To an amateur, laying up from 180 yards out might seem like a safe shot, but a pro is going to grab his 5-iron, carry the pond and drop it on the green everytime without a single thought of laying up.  To you and me, the decision probably nets out to a stroke one way or the other because we're not going to carry the pond every time, but to a professional, it has no effect on his score because he will.

What I'm talking about is making a move, i.e. something where ... trying to reach #15 in two shots.  Sure, someone who is in danger of not making the cut on the second day may give it a shot.  Someone might try it on Sunday.  But someone who's in a three-way tie for third place and two shots off the lead isn't focused on the leader - or any other scores for that matter - at that point.  She is going to play her game the same way she would regardless.

[wadesworld]

As said, these things even themselves out.

https://twitter.com/abcnews4dean/status/849109824893849601/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fthecomeback.com%2Fncaa%2Fgonzaga-north-carolina-officiating-mistakes-meeks-out-of-bounds-fouls-video.html

https://twitter.com/barstooltweetss/status/849090710280261636?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fthecomeback.com%2Fncaa%2Fgonzaga-north-carolina-officiating-mistakes-meeks-out-of-bounds-fouls-video.html

[rocket surgeon]

I understand the logic behind the argument you're making... after all, we see examples all the time about teams altering their style of play based on the score: the hail mary, intentional fouls, a fifth infielder, pulling the goalie.  But this is because in most games, there are two outcomes - win and lose - and if you're losing, you're going to take risks that you normally wouldn't when you're winning (and vice versa).

Perhaps there's validity to your argument in golf during skins play; however, in stroke play, the dichotomy of win/lose doesn't exist... there's 2nd place, 3rd place, 4th place, etc., each with a different prize awarded.  If you went to Q-school, I think you'd be surprised to learn that very few professional golfers alter their play based on the scoreboard.  This isn't Tin Cup where guys will attempt a nearly impossible shot just to pull off a win.  When's the last time you saw a professional golfer attempt a Happy Gilmore on the final tee because they're 3 shots off the lead?  That's right - never... because it doesn't happen.  Unlike football, basketball, baseball, hockey, etc. (where the consequence of doing something different when you're already losing can't make things worse), in golf, someone sitting in 2nd place could go for broke on the final holes trying to overtake the leader only to end up in a 14-way tie for 33rd place.

Listen, I'm a big fan of chaos theory, but I'm telling you that the only people concerned with the butterfly effect in golf is the guy on the grounds crew who sprays for caterpillars.

So by your logic, USC should get their vacated 2004 championship back?  Because I'm pretty sure the referee signed the scorecard after that game.  They played the game.  It's over.  The path to victory is cheat until you get away with it, right?

On that note, Lexi signed an incorrect scorecard, which by the rules used to be a disqualification.  But those rules were relaxed last year so that a player would not be disqualified if the incorrect scorecard is the result of penalty strokes they didn't know about when they finished their rounds.  (Speculation... most of you arguing in Lexi's defense had no idea about this rule or the change.)

Nevertheless, I checked with Benny Z a couple of dimensions over where the rules weren't relaxed and Lexi was in fact disqualified.... not surprisingly (to me, at least) every one of you here saying that Lexi shouldn't have been penalized are lamenting her disqualification and arguing that she should have been given a four-stroke penalty instead.

In other words, had Lexi been disqualified, all y'all be arguing for a compromise.  Guess what... reality gave you a compromise, and yet you're still bitching about it.

but but but, we are commingling the rules, instant replay and fans calling in what they observed, watching a replay the next day.  when that "fan" called in their observation and the rules officials concurred, it was an automatic 4 stroker as her card was obviously signed almost 24 hours prior.  yes, the old rule had her dq'd, but so what.  much of what b-ball players do today with the ball is like...umm, sir, you'll need a passport for that move.  and palming?