PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The headline asks a question that only someone preoccupied with golf rules detail ever would consider.

That’s me.

For some reason, I like to focus on the rules, which are both complex and difficult to understand. And I write that even though the rules, effective as of January 1, 2019, have been updated, which means the number of rules has been reduced and the language has been brought into more current lingo.

Still, the rules are complex, if only because the game is played outdoors on acres of land in contrast to other sports played in a stadium or pavilion.

So, backstopping? What is it?

It is when one player hits a ball near the hole, then, upon agreement with the next player to hit, leaves the ball in its place to help the second player.

This appeared to occur a week or so ago in a women’s professional golf tournament in Thailand when Ariya Jutanugarn hit a chip shot near the hole, then the next player, Amy Olson, motioned Jutanugaran to leave her ball in place.

Olson then hit her chip and her golf ball hit the first ball and stopped about three from the hole when, on its own, it would have gone an estimated 15 feet farther.

GolfWeek writer Geoff Shackelford published a piece a few days ago under this headline:

Rise of ‘backstopping’ drives at integrity of golf

He went on:

“Golf has an integrity problem and doesn’t even know it.

“Look at the blissful ignorance of fist-bumpers Amy Olson and Ariya Jutanugarn after colluding at the Honda LPGA Thailand.

“Jutanugarn pitched close to the hole from just off the 18^th green, prepared to go mark or tap in, but looked at Olson. The world No. 1 put on the brakes upon getting a signal of some sort from Olson that she was ready to play with Jutanugarn’s ball resting by the hole and she agreed to leave it there.

“You know, because it’s the last green and Olson’s got things to do and places to be.

“The balls collided and Olson’s lousy chip went from 15-20 feet by, to three feet from the hole. Birdie.

“As past backstopping incidents have all made clear, pro golfers are rarely in a hurry except when one of their peers leaves a shiny white ball somewhere around the hole. After all, they’re just trying to grow the game by playing faster. When it suits their needs.”

Some other writers have not been as harsh as Shackelford. They have reported that at least Olson did not even know about the rule – it is #15.3a in the official golf rule book – and she was only trying to speed up place of play.

LPGA rules officials consulted with Olson and Jutanugarn after the incident and agreed not to penalize them.

Shackelford demures:

“The incident is a breach of rule 15.3a, where beefed up language in golf’s new rules addressed backstopping with a two-stroke penalty option.

“The key language appears written for just the LPGA duo:

In stroke play, under Rule 15.3a, if two or more players agree to leave a ball in place on the putting green to help any player, and the stroke is made with the helping ball left in place, each player who made the agreement gets two penalty strokes. A breach of Rule 15.3a does not depend on whether the players know that such an agreement is not allowed.

For example, in stroke play, before playing from just off the putting green, a player asks another player to leave his or her ball that is near the hole, in order to use it as a backstop. Without knowing this is not allowed, the other player agrees to leave his or her ball by the hole to help the other player. Once the stroke is made with the ball in place, both players get the penalty under Rule 15.3a.

Backstopping, Shackelford reports, started many years ago at Riviera Country Club’s par-4 10th hole. The tiny green had its fringes lowered and players found themselves playing from greenside bunker to bunker. Out of empathy or time concerns, PGA Tour players started leaving balls in the vicinity of, but never in front of, the hole.

The practice, Shackelford continues, eventually started happening on other holes with a few high-profile examples, most notably Tony Finau rushing to hit a buried lie bunker shot that successfully hit a ball, stopped closer to the hole and saved him a stroke that cost Chesson Hadley and Phil Mickelson six figures in the 2017 Safeway Open.

“The practice should have come to an end in June, 2018 when 2017 PGA Champion Jimmy Walker admitted to leaving his ball down as a backstop for players he likes and thinking nothing was untoward about that.”

Interesting background, but, for me, the bottom line is this: Unless the players themselves admit to “backstopping,” there is no way to prove intent.

That was the case with Olson and Jutanugarn and, for a game where players often call penalties on themselves (in contrast to sports like basketball and football where players do not demonstrate that kind of class), you have to rely on the honesty of players.

If not, then do away with all golf rules and let the players continue as they choose.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Opinion writers are going to both ways on former Donald Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s testimony this week before a congressional committee.

Some say he painted President Donald Trump further into a corner as he, Cohen, relayed information that could constitute high crimes by Trump.

Others say Cohen’s testimony was supposed to be “bombshell,” but bombed in the sense of not providing new, clear-cut evidence Trump’s crimes, though the cancelled check showing a hush-money payment to a call girl could rank as a campaign contribution violation, and, thus, a crime.

For me, the most telling moment was when Cohen said Trump never expected to win the presidency and was treating all of the campaign as “another infomercial,” one that would elevate his Trump brand.

If true – and it strikes me that it is – no wonder Trump doesn’t know what to do in office. When he arrived against all odds in the Oval Office, he was ill-prepared to take on the most powerful political position in the world. Nor, while occupying the office, he is not known for trying to increase the level of his preparation, preferring to fly by the seat of his pants

Here’s the way opinion writer Petty Noonan put it this morning in the Wall Street Journal:

“Cohen implied the president’s Russian policies are not and never have been on the up-and-up: ‘Trump knew of and directed the Trump-Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign, and lied about it. He lied because he never expected to win the election. He also lied about it because he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the Moscow real-estate project.’

“Cohen said he came to see the president’s true character: ‘Since taking office he has become the worst version of himself. . . . Donald Trump is a man who ran for office to make his brand great, not to make our country great. He had no desire or intention to lead this nation—only to market himself and to build his wealth and power. Trump would often say, the campaign is going to be the greatest infomercial in political history. He never expected to win the primary. He never expected to win the general election. The campaign—for him—was always a marketing opportunity.’”

Or, this from Washington Post writer Karen Tumulty who makes the same point:

“Of all the things that President Trump’s former personal lawyer revealed in his remarkable day of congressional testimony Wednesday, the one that shed the greatest light was this: Trump never expected — or even really wanted — to win the 2016 election.

“Donald Trump is a man who ran for office to make his brand great, not to make our country great. He had no desire or intention to lead this nation — only to market himself and to build his wealth and power. Trump would often say, this campaign was going to be the ‘greatest infomercial in political history.”

Those who watched Cohen’s seven-and-one-half hours of testimony could come to a conclusion that Trump is guilty of various crimes. I agree.

But, without coming to a conclusion on those alleged crimes, what was very clear was Trump is an idiot. He treated the presidential campaign as an “infomercial,” not a process designed to put someone in the White House with the character to perform well, regardless of political party affiliation.

For me, character matters for “our” president.

And, guess what? All of us lost as Trump continues to star in his own infomercial. Cohen made that point very well this week and I hope Cohen’s comments will continue to resonate as we head toward the 2020 elections…unless impeachment arrives first.