[John Kavanaugh]

I can live with the burrowing animal ruling if it is in place to protect the animal and not the golfer.  Otherwise I see it as no more than rub of the green as even injury is less likely than if you are against a root.

[Ian_L]

I think the golfer should be given relief from the open hole itself, since the player could potentially incur a stroke penalty (unplayable lie) from the fairway or just off of it.  However, just because the ground is soft shouldn't be an excuse not to play it as it lies.  I'm not debating the application of the rule in Garcia's situation here, I'm arguing against the rule itself.

[Sean_A]

I didn't see the incident, but I have witnessed this ruling in action many, many times.  There is no question that with this particular rule the player is often helped because much of the time it allows the player to drop away from a tree root area/base of tree.  Often times its just a bit of rabbit crap or something which is evidence of a burrowing animal and hence the relief.  It can seem harsh, but dems da breaks.  The thing to watch out for is NPoR.  I often see guys dropping on the same side of the tree and well away to allow for stance etc. and leaving an open shot.  When in fact the NPoR is often the other side of the tree and really no better off than.  As Tom P states, often times the rules can penalize a golfer.  It all works out in the end. 

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

I didn't see the incident, but I have witnessed this ruling in action many, many times.  There is no question that with this particular rule the player is often helped because much of the time it allows the player to drop away from a tree root area/base of tree.  Often times its just a bit of rabbit crap or something which is evidence of a burrowing animal and hence the relief.  It can seem harsh, but dems da breaks.  The thing to watch out for is NPoR.  I often see guys dropping on the same side of the tree and well away to allow for stance etc. and leaving an open shot.  When in fact the NPoR is often the other side of the tree and really no better off than.  As Tom P states, often times the rules can penalize a golfer.  It all works out in the end. 

Ciao

Here in NW Florida we are big on fire ants and ant hills.  It's amazing how often a player in trouble can find an ant hill.

[Dave_Miller]

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."

Tommy:
What about the exception under Rule 25-1 which states " A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an abnormal ground condition or (b)............".
Seems to me Sergio wanted relief from the tree.
Best
Dave

[Bill Shamleffer]

I am really surprised at the lack of positive comments towards Sergio on this matter.  Professional golfers are often (properly) criticized for their ignorance per some parts of the rules of golf.  However, in this case, Sergio was clearly very aware of the rule per "abnormal ground conditions" and "burrowing animals".

This can be a subjective interpretation, so he properly called in the rules official and made his case.  The whole exchange appeared on TV, and both parties appeared to quickly be in agreement.  I know nothing about the employees of the PGA Tour, but I have heard the name Slugger White for many years and seen him on TV before making rules calls.  I doubt a person of his experience was intimidated by a request for a rule decision from Sergio Garcia.

The rules can be a penalty, but the rules can also be of assistance.  If Sergio can be a victim to the rules he can also be a beneficiary.  There are circumstances where players have :pushed the envelope too far" in requesting relief under the rules, but this case seemed reasonable when watching on TV.

Finally the drop he obtained while helpful, still left a challenging shot and the result indicates that the relief did not remove all of the difficulty he was in before the relief was granted.

Of course I was not there, and it is possible that 8 out 10 (or only 2 out of 10) rules officials would have made a different call.  Of course these could extend from no relief to choosing a different point of nearest relief.  But, Sergio knew the rule, used it to his advantage fairly, properly allowed the rules official to make the final call, and Sergio appeared on TV to be very civil and reasonable with Slugger White during the entire encounter.

So what this the problem with this?

[Kalen Braley]

Bill,

I would direct you to the post made just before you by The Big Show Dave_Miller.  I had no idea this was even in the rules, and makes the suspicion at least reasonable in this case.

It'd be nice to hear audio of the exchange and see if Slugger even mentioned this exception to Serg.

[Bill Shamleffer]

Bill,

I would direct you to the post made just before you by The Big Show Dave_Miller.  I had no idea this was even in the rules, and makes the suspicion at least reasonable in this case.

It'd be nice to hear audio of the exchange and see if Slugger even mentioned this exception to Serg.

Just watching on TV it appeared that the tree only interfered with his line of flight directly towards the green, but the tree did not appear to interfere with his swing.

As I understand the rules, if interference only occurs for a shot that the golfer will not reasonably be able to play before relief is granted, then the relief should not be taken.  But in this case no matter what shot Sergio attempted, even a chip out sideways, it appeared the abnormal ground condition could still be an issue.  However, once proper relief is granted, there is not problem with the golfer than playing a different type of shot.

I would expect that the PGA Rules officials have encountered many "unreasonable" requests for relief and are very aware to take that into consideration.  I have heard of more questionable (but innocent) rule decisions in the majors than I have in PGA Tour events.  It still seems difficult for me to believe that Slugger White was hoodwinked by Sergio.

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

I observed the situation firsthand and then after the players had moved on to the green re-examined AGAIN the area. Sergio was reaching for straws -- the location of the tree was his main focal point. I don't blame players for asking for the moon but it's the responsibility of the officials to protect the individual player and the rights of the entire field as well.

I was in the press tent afterwards and Sergio was adamant that his interpretation of the area being a "gopher" hole in his words entitled him to relief.

I don't equate soft turf as a burrowing animal hole or its equivalent.

Bill S:

The issue is not about what I or others think of Sergio. I applauded his play during the final round and clearly saluted his superb put at the 72nd hole. The issue is that the extension of the rules that govern burrowing animal holes was stretched a good bit by Sergio and Slugger White eventually caved and gave him relief. I don't see why the relief was granted.

The issue was Sergio trying someway somehow to get the ball as far away from the tree as possible. I don't consider "soft turf" to be within the meaning of the relief that Sergio was claiming.

TEPaul:

Always appreciate your take when your only source of info is what the TV camera attempted to show. I saw the same situation and frankly Slugger White extended the meaning beyond what the rules should allow. The area in question was nothing more than soft turf. Hey Tom -- guess what good buddy -- I actually saw the situation with my eyes -- I didn't have to depend on CBS giving me the view you received. To take conditions of soft turf and then extend that to a burrowing animal hole or its equivalent for free relief was a major league stretch.

No different than Els using the pile for removal argument that Will Nicholson bought hook, line and sinker during the Masters a few years back when Els wacked it dead left at 11. What's ironic, is that two (2) PGA Tour officials had the correct ruling (in my mind) in that particular situation.

[RJ_Daley]

While the thread is on the question of application of that rule, to me the reality was that Sergio lost the playoff in his decision to try and get too much yardage out of the 4 iron he hit on his second.  Had he punching it less hard, and let it come out in the FW with perhaps 20-30 yards more distance to make the next shot, he would have given himself a chance.  Maybe that is the obvious in 20/20 hindsight.  But, the commentator implied that just before and when he hit the shot to go too far and get into more trouble.

I'll go with Matt's take being on the scene and all, I felt the same way when they started probing the turf around the ball.  That wasn't a bad lie in the rough turf, it was a bad lie in the tree obstruction, which is tough cookie as I saw it.  His only option after hitting the poor choice 2nd was to hit a chip out and hope for a miracle hole-out of some 135 yards from the chip out location.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

If you believe that -- I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you too !

[Jason McNamara]

I observed the situation firsthand and then after the players had moved on to the green re-examined AGAIN the area. Sergio was reaching for straws -- the location of the tree was his main focal point. I don't blame players for asking for the moon but it's the responsibility of the officials to protect the individual player and the rights of the entire field as well.

As mentioned above, Vijay didn't have any problem, so I don't think the field was harmed in this case.

And since I don't know, are you allowed inside the ropes?  ("Firsthand" = how far away?)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()