[Philip Gawith]

I agree with Tim re McIlroy, and I have seen it on TV a few times. It is true they do not show the full sequence from him playing the first shot to then kicking the sand, but I would agree that the motion you observe appears to be a frustrated one - indeed something that would dispatch a ball quite a few yards. It was obviously a fine call based on his word and they gave him the benefit of the doubt. I wonder if a known temper player like, say, (Rory) Sabbatini, would have enjoyed the same ruling??!!

And while I now understand the Harrington ruling better - that it falls within principle of a golfer not taking due care - I also agree with Tim that it feels like a situation ripe for a rules revision, especially if those making the rules are mindful of speed of play (one of JVDB's answers suggests this may be so - but maybe this is just a personal opinion as opposed to wearing his rule-official hat!) In this case he stood back from the ball and then readdressed it quite quickly. Had he marked the ball it is difficult to believe he would have hit it again within 45 seconds.

[TEPaul]

Bill Shamleffer:

You make an excellent point in #2 on Post #46. That potential occurence really is sort of unfair (and could be very costly to a professional---ie Wie and Stadler as pretty famous incidents) as the way the Rules are written and interpreted at the moment it can potentially sort of trap a tournament player into something of a nether-world timespan of unawareness and potential penalty from which they are basically helpless. It could potentially last anywhere from over three days (in a 72 hole tournament) to almost a few seconds.

Once a player has returned his card and actually left the "scoring area" he could be liable to this kind of thing until the "Competition Closes" at which point his exposure is over unless the "Committee" determines he knowingly violated a Rule of Golf.

I know the Rulesmakers are more than aware of this and the new and modern technolgical dangers with and exposure to it and I would bet they will address the issue soon and find some more equitable solution.

[John Moore II]

Tom, what you bring up adds in another thing that I think is unfair about the situation. Had Rory done that same thing on Sunday instead of Friday, it would be a non-issue. The competition would be closed and he would, at worst, (assuming he did indeed breach the rule as opposed to what really happened) be admonished and told he might not want to do it like that again. Now, of course I understand that this could happen with spectators and the like, what I doubt that a spectator would wait until after the close of play to tell an offical; if a spectator say a breach I would think that person would inform the nearest offical and the player accused of the infraction would be told and the situation dealt with no later than completion of the next hole.

The camera makes it to where the rules are not applied with equity and that is one of the deciding factors in rulings in certain cases.

[TEPaul]

"Common sense would dictate that backing off a stance, and the address, would mean that the ball is no longer addressed. I'll bet that even those who have read the Decisions book would have gotten this one wrong in a quiz or on the course. Maybe this is this year's candidate for changing the rule in mid-year, the way one was last year."


TimC:

While I completely understand your logic in what you say there, I don't agree with your opinion that this should require a Rules change. And I doubt any competent Rules Official would get that one wrong on a quiz or on the course. The Rule and the procedures involved in those situations are remarkably cut and dried as they probably should be for some very fundamental and pretty obvious reasons. Any good tournament player, particularly a professional like Harrington, should be completely familiar with the procedure available to him in a circumstance like his. If a top flight professional tournament player does not even bother to become thoroughly familiar with and conversant in the Rules of his game and profession something is lacking in his preparation. This is precisely why after an interesting incident Annika Sorenstam actually went to Rules School and became far more knowledgeable with all the ramifications of the Rules of her sport and profession.

Harrington's Rules incident at the Masters is just another great example of why the unique Rules of Golf principle "like situations shall be treated alike" really do work in golf. I realize most all golfers don't really understand that principle or the basic intent of it but if and when they do I don't think many would deny it is  pretty beautiful and definitely "uniquely golf."  

[John Moore II]

"Common sense would dictate that backing off a stance, and the address, would mean that the ball is no longer addressed. I'll bet that even those who have read the Decisions book would have gotten this one wrong in a quiz or on the course. Maybe this is this year's candidate for changing the rule in mid-year, the way one was last year."


TimC:

While I completely understand your logic in what you say there, I don't agree with your opinion that this should require a Rules change. And I doubt any competent Rules Official would get that one wrong on a quiz or on the course. The Rule and the procedures involved in those situations are remarkably cut and dried as they probably should be for some very fundamental and pretty obvious reasons. Any good tournament player, particularly a professional like Harrington, should be completely familiar with the procedure available to him in a circumstance like his. If a top flight professional tournament player does not even bother to become thoroughly familiar with and conversant in the Rules of his game and profession something is lacking in his preparation. This is precisely why after an interesting incident Annika Sorenstam actually went to Rules School and became far more knowledgeable with all the ramifications of the Rules of her sport and profession.

Harrington's Rules incident at the Masters is just another great example of why the unique Rules of Golf principle "like situations shall be treated alike" really do work in golf. I realize most all golfers don't really understand that principle or the basic intent of it but if and when they do I don't think many would deny it is  pretty beautiful and definitely "uniquely golf."   

Indeed, I would have gotten that question right on a quiz, and I am not certain I fall into the category of a 'competent Rules Offical.' Its a simple decision, by addressing the ball, the player is deemed to have moved it, whether he/she backs away or not. Its very simple, unlike some of the other questions we have talked about on here within the last 2 days.

[TEPaul]

John K:

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with what R. McIlroy did. But if it were to have something to do in some way with Rule 34-1, it is pretty interesting how it can work in practice. It can also be applied to that same interesting "Equity Principle" of "like situations shall be treated alike."

If you're not completely familiar with it here it is explained as clearly as it ever has been by Richard Tufts in his little Rules principles bible, "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf." That book is something the Rulesmakers still very much tend to revert to for logic in some situations, as they should:

       "Golf like life itself, leads those who play it into many situations that appear to be unfair. The successful golfer rises to the occasion and refuses to give way to fate or frustration. As can be seen, the so-called equity rule will lead to difficulty if applied with the idea of seeking a just solution in the light of the circumstances surrounding the individual case. The penalty for a Rule of golf is not adjusted to fit the attendent circumstances. The answer lies rather in defining analagous situations and according them all the same treatment.
         The approach is not whether "this particular situation is unfair to me," but rather whether "others in a similar situation and I in mine are treated alike under the Rules."


This is essentially golf's "equity principle" within the Rules of Golf known as "like situations shall be treated alike" and it really is a pretty beautiful and unique thing to golf. It seems to me when golfers come to truly understand what it is and what it does they tend to truly appreciate it, and perhaps even generally tend to relax somewhat in frustrating rules situations and probably also come to appreciate even more the uniqueness of golf itself via its Rules!  

I really do believe coming to truly appreciate this principle, what it really means, and how it works in practice, serves to make golfers less self-centered or even less selfish as they realize that they in their game and others out there with them in theirs are all in the same boat this way in that over time all golfers are going to get some good breaks via the Rules and all golfers are going to get some tough breaks via the Rules and in the end it probably all works out equitable or even about equally, if you will.  

[Tim_Cronin]

TE: I'm a big fan of equity, not to mention competent rules officials, and I'm not sure the Harrington situation was equitable. But that's just me. I do think that "deemed" has to be taken out of the Rules. Make the player responsible only if he touches the ball and you get rid of 10-minute conversations on the greens in the middle of a major.

By the way, you'd be surprised at how many pros don't know the rules. In the era when the Decisions were issued annually (or biennially) and placed in a binder, only Jack Nicklaus subscribed to the USGA service. Other pros would simply say to an official, "I get relief here, right?" and hope for the best. Kudos to Annika. I'd say most high level amateurs and club pros, who deal with the Rules every day, are far more informed. Right, John?

[TEPaul]

"TE: I'm a big fan of equity, not to mention competent rules officials, and I'm not sure the Harrington situation was equitable."


TimC:

It think Harrington's recent situation was equitable simply because it was handled just as anyone else in his situation would have been. That's basically the entire point of "equity" in principle in the Rules of Golf under the philosophy that "like situations shall be treated alike."

It's when the Rules of Golf try to get into analyzing every individual situation to determine whether a player caused his ball to move or not after addressing it and stepping away that things will begin to get inequitable. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()