[Kalen Braley]

I'm surprised this didn't have its own thread by now given all the anti-Sergio sentiment on this site.

For those who watched the playoff, have you ever seen a scenario like that where someone took a drop because there damage from burrowing animals close by?  Clearly there was some messed up turf 15-20 feet away, but his ball appeared to be fine.  And certainly that he was stymied by the tree, made the whole even look a little suspect. I've taken drops when my ball is literally down in a gopher hole, but not when it was sitting up like yesterday where I could get a club on it.

Or was Serg just getting tired of taking a back seat to all his "bad breaks" and decided to grab fate by the horns??

[Kalen Braley]

Shivas,

Thats fine, but perhaps I just missed something, because the area they dug up looked to be a good ways away from his ball that would not affect any of those 3.

[Phil_the_Author]

I don't blame Sergio one bit for asking for relief. It is allowable under the rules...

I blame the PGA rules official who i believe choked on this one and didn't want to deny it and have to undergo a barrage of negative questionings and/or accusations.

The most absurd moment was when the rules official & Sergio pointed at the ground and claimed that it was actually moving up and down as if an animal was underneath it.

Even if that was the case, it was far away from where Sergio would have been standing and where his ball lay.

Where is Carl when one really needs him...

All of a sudden I can't stop singing, "I'm all right..."

[Ronald Montesano]

It's similar to the free drop Ernie received at Oakmont in 1994.  The burrowing animal defense is quite liberal, especially when the grass is so long that you cannot determine where the burrows begin and end.  Vijay his own self even admitted that the grass was moving but they couldn't see the animal.  Whatevuh!  Sergio is becoming the Greg Norman of his generation, little by little.

[Chris Cupit]

It's similar to the free drop Ernie received at Oakmont in 1994.  The burrowing animal defense is quite liberal, especially when the grass is so long that you cannot determine where the burrows begin and end.  Vijay his own self even admitted that the grass was moving but they couldn't see the animal.  Whatevuh!  Sergio is becoming the Greg Norman of his generation, little by little.

I am not sure how it was similar.  It seems that some are saying Sergio should not have been entitled to relief under Rule 25.  I didn't see it so I have no idea.  But in the Els case he was clearly entitled to relief.

With Ernie Els his ball was clearly interfered with by an obstruction-- aTV crane.  The mistake Dr. Holland made was in assuming the crane was immoveable instead of moveable which resulted in Ernie being able to drop on trampled down grass versus simply moving the crane and playing the ball as it lay.  A break for sure due to an honest mistake.  I think Els went on to bogey the hole despite the good break.

[Mark Smolens]

John V made an excellent point on his blog about the drop, and the relief having been given based upon Sergio's line to the green -- a line he could not have played a shot due to the tree.  Even with that ruling, he didn't get it done. . .

[Pete_Pittock]

In digging up that area a few feet away it looked like they were trying to examine a bulge or run similar to that by Sergio's ball. That way, if relief was denied, his lie stance and area of swing would have remained intact.

[Craig Sweet]

I can't speak to this particular situation, but the burrowing animals I have encountered here in Montana disrupt a large area with their tunnels, far from the mounds of dirt and exit holes you see. Thus, you can be quite some distance from the obvious burrowing, and have a very uneven, "squishy" area where you stand.  Perhaps that was Sergio's concern?

[Bill_McBride]

I can't speak to this particular situation, but the burrowing animals I have encountered here in Montana disrupt a large area with their tunnels, far from the mounds of dirt and exit holes you see. Thus, you can be quite some distance from the obvious burrowing, and have a very uneven, "squishy" area where you stand.  Perhaps that was Sergio's concern?

Craig, I think "Sergio's concern" was the fact that he was stymied by that tree and Vijay was putting for eagle!

[rboyce]

umm, the topics is Sergio's taking drops right? Ok, then.

Sergio pitched out of the bunker and just into the deep rough off of the fifth green the other day. There was a sprinkler head or something near his ball or stance. So, he got to drop onto the short rough or fringe of the green. I'm sure this is probably all fine under the rules, but it seems odd that a player can take a free drop and go from very challenging lie in the rough to a clean lie that vastly increases the possibility of a chip in. Btw, he almost chipped in and went on to make par.

  hmm, [patiently waits for rules types to chime]

[John Kavanaugh]

I was at first offended by his request until a close up of his ball showed it to be wedged in between two furrows.  I thought he was being foolish sticking his finger in the hole as it seemed likely he might get bit.

My favorite quote of the tournament was from the guy who got third when he said that after the round he might just go out and try his up and down on 18 again.  Turns out he got his wish in the playoff.

Sergio also showed great maturity and class in the way he cheered for VJ when VJ made the putt to top him on the first playoff hole.  As a poor putter myself it brought me much happiness to see two of the poorest putters on tour both make terrific bombs during a playoff.

[Chris Cupit]

It's similar to the free drop Ernie received at Oakmont in 1994.  The burrowing animal defense is quite liberal, especially when the grass is so long that you cannot determine where the burrows begin and end.  Vijay his own self even admitted that the grass was moving but they couldn't see the animal.  Whatevuh!  Sergio is becoming the Greg Norman of his generation, little by little.

I am not sure how it was similar.  It seems that some are saying Sergio should not have been entitled to relief under Rule 25.  I didn't see it so I have no idea.  But in the Els case he was clearly entitled to relief.

With Ernie Els his ball was clearly interfered with by an obstruction-- aTV crane.  The mistake Dr. Holland made was in assuming the crane was immoveable instead of moveable which resulted in Ernie being able to drop on trampled down grass versus simply moving the crane and playing the ball as it lay.  A break for sure due to an honest mistake.  I think Els went on to bogey the hole despite the good break.

Whoops.  Els's relief did involve a crane but it was an issue of being an immoveable or moveable TIO not exactly as I had described above

[David Stamm]

The rules are there to help you.

[Matt_Cohn]

The rules are almost too helpful. Ex., if you have a good lie in GUR, you can leave it where it is; or, if you have a bad lie, you can drop it. Your choice. Same thing with the tree.

[Matt_Ward]

I had the opportunity to examine quite closely the area that's being discussed on this thread after the circumstances played out.

The long and short of it is that Sergio was grasping for straws and the official on scene -- believe it was Slugger White -- caved in. Sergio had literally no shot and given the fact that Veej was on the green in two his goose was cooked -- literally and figuratively. The ball and his stance were not by any stretch related to a burrowing animal hole -- soft turf is not a logical extension to burrowing animal.

The drop given Sergio reminded me of the drop Els got from Will Nicholson a few Masters back when he claimed that broken tree branches at least 25 yards dead left of #11 fairway were really piled there for removal. It was a big time stretch and credit the official on scene and then another PGA Tour official for saying no relief could be granted. Nicholson provided the sympathetic ear the South African was looking for.

p.s. Before anyone assumes an anti-Sergio stance here -- quite the contrary -- he played superbly yesterday and his putt at the 72nd hole was nothing short of sensational stuff. Veej simply outplayed him when it counted.

[Pat Brockwell]

Matt Ward,
Omnipotent AND omnipresent, I bow down. I expect to see you in the crowd right behind Michelle Obama tonight at the convention.

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

I am a democrat but my golf plate is full with different mountain time zone courses for me to play.

I might change my schedule is Barack were to need me.

[JohnV]

John V made an excellent point on his blog about the drop, and the relief having been given based upon Sergio's line to the green -- a line he could not have played a shot due to the tree.  Even with that ruling, he didn't get it done. . .

Mark,

I'm not saying he didn't deserve relief, but the way the calculated his nearest point of relief might have been slightly off.  If he would be playing at an angle away from the hole, the same angle should have been used to determine the NPR, not straight at the hole which was impossible given where he was relative to the tree.

I think the discussion about the ground moving and the hole that was a few feet away from his ball was simply a way of showing that the bare areas that might have been in his stance were "runways" made by a burrowing animal which would entitle him to relief and not just bare areas.  I think the USGA should somehow reword that definition to better state what a runway is as it can be overused by a player wanting relief.  It tends to get interpreted as any trail leading to a hole.  I'm not sure that is what they really mean sometimes.

Unfortunately I was watching on a cheap TV at my hotel and couldn't see the ground well.  I wish I had recorded at home, but I didn't.

[Mark Smolens]

I recognize that John, but based upon the eyewitness account from Mr. Ward, it would appear that even the grant of relief in the first instance was perhaps tenuous at best?  Perhaps the Gods of golf decided that Sergio would be given his relief, but that he would miss the chip shot.

[Kalen Braley]

Thanks for your takes guys....

It was just very interesting to see him get relief in that situation.  Alas JK has it right that Sergio was indeed a very gracious loser and a gamer in taking Veej to 74 holes.

[Kalen Braley]

JVB,

On a related note, I had a scenario that happened to me a couple of years ago.  Pardon me if I've asked you this before, but here goes.

My buddy and I are playing a friendly weekend game when I hit the ball under some trees.  When I get up there, my ball is in what appears to be a previously filled in gopher hole where the dirt had settled down after some watering.  It was sitting down far enough where there was no way to play it, so I claimed its a hole made by a burrowing animal but he disputed it saying, no the hole had been filled in so by definition its not anymore.

The area was not marked as ground under repair which would have been nice to just get a drop.  So i was wondering what the ruling on this would be?  Hole made by burrowing animal and entitled to relief?  Or was I SOL due to sloppy hole fixing by grounds crew?

Thanks in advance.

kalen

[TEPaul]

I saw the whole thing and I watched it all unfold very carefully (why did I know there would be a thread on here questioning the decision to grant Garcia relief? ) and it looked to me like the granting of relief was well within the wording and interpretation of Rule 25-1 and well within the definition of "Abnormal Ground Condition."

[Jason McNamara]

The long and short of it is that Sergio was grasping for straws and the official on scene -- believe it was Slugger White -- caved in.

Don't know what your exact observation point was at the time of the ruling (press tent, corporate villa, or on the course with 5.000 of your closest friends?), but those of us watching on TV got a front-row view of Slugger White digging at the earth with what looked like a divot tool.  So clarification as to how Mr. White "caved in" (intransitively speaking) would be welcome.  Did you sit in on any press availability afterwards?

Not a huge Sergio fan, but it seemed he had a reasonable point of order here.

[JLahrman]

I don't know what implications it would have had on the drop, but as I understand it the issue wasn't just the furrows.  Apparently there was an animal digging in the area while Sergio was there.

Vijay's quote...“I wasn’t really concerned about [Garcia],” Singh said. “I just wanted to know why he got a drop, there was obviously a mole there and he was burrowing at that moment, you could see him popping out. … I was really focused on what I was doing.”

So even according to Vijay the animal was clearly visible at the time.

[TEPaul]

I think the close in TV coverage was pretty amazing as to the condition of burrowing animal holes ("Abnormal Ground Condition") in and around the area of Garcia's ball, swing and stance. It doesn't have to be some visible or active mole just the condition of their burrowing.

As usual, I feel Matt Ward overstates the situation in implying that Slugger White caved in on the ruling. I think I can guarantee anyone that Slugger White both knows and applies the Rules of Golf a whole lot better than Matt Ward states and I can't say I saw Matt Ward as close to the situation and observing the nature of the situation as well Slugger White was.

Frankly, I think a lot of people on here, probably including Matt Ward just have some sense that the Rules and their interpretation and application when done correctly let some players in some situations off the hook, and they philosophically resist that and criticize it. I think this is a basic misunderstanding of both the nature and application of the Rules of Golf. The fact is that the Rules of Golf when applied correctly and impartially probably tend to hurt a golfer as often as they help him and that is the philosophy and the beauty of the Rules of Golf if used and viewed correctly.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()