The late Peter Dobereiner on Tiger's infamous drop

[Dan Kelly]

Peter Dobereiner died a year before Tiger Woods's first Masters victory -- but even so, I have recently learned that he had something to say about Tiger's infamous drop at the 2013 Masters. (N.B. I can't explain the screwy Rule numbers. Someone else probably can.)

[Garland Bayley]

Now that's funny, and worth reading, which is more than I can say about the thread that has been going on forever on the topic.

[Thomas Dai]

Agree with GJB. Thanks for posting this Dan. Made me laugh. I wonder if Peter Dobereiner ever wrote about dear antler spray?!

All the best

[Rich Goodale]

Fantastic find, Dan, and the best send up of the blue blazers that I have ever seen.

If he weren't so damned practical and full of common sense, I would have sworn that TE Paul was the Rules offical in that piece....

All the best

Rich

[ChipRoyce]

What a great story.

Also a great illustration that the rules of golf are unnecessarily complex and a potential obstacle to the growth of the game.

[Pat Burke]

Dan,
Thank you for posting this.
I remember reading it as a kid, thinking it was brilliant.

[Chris Cupit]

That was very funny.

On a separate note I know anytime there is a rules controversy there are those that complain about the needless complexity of the rules of the game.  At one time I, too, called for a simpler set of Rules and was challenged (years ago) to quit complaining about it and write or propose a solution.

So I will issue the same challenge--Those who complain about the Rules please propose your suggestions on how to improve upon the rules by making them more simple.  

Actually, I will start and list "my game" (on a separate thread of course so as to not threadjack this one) and its rules which I humbly think embodies the spirit of the game--you play the ball as it lies and the course as you find it AND my game is faster and I think would be less expensive.  But it's not "Golf".

[Rick Shefchik]

What this story tells me is the rule should simply require the golfer to place the ball, rather than drop it. That's certainly where the rules official was heading all along.

[Chris Cupit]

What this story tells me is the rule should simply require the golfer to place the ball, rather than drop it. That's certainly where the rules official was heading all along.

Count me among those that thinks this would be a good Rules change

[Rich Goodale]

Great idea, Rick, but it is so logical that it will never be adopted by the USGA/R&A troglodytes....

[Colin Macqueen]

Dan,
Great find, made me laugh and wince at the same time … Dobereiner had such prescience!
As a golfer and the reader I was damn sure where this was going but like a moth to the flame was drawn in!
Terrific caricature of the official ….  just a stick in the mud!

Cheers Colin

[Jason Topp]

In my experience officials do everything to help the player avoid infractions instead of the opposite. 

The article entertainingly illustrates the difficulty of intuiting rules.  I have probably taken those quizzes on the USGA rules site 40 times and would at best get a "D" in the aggregate.  I think I know the rules better than 98% of the people that play the game. 

Several years ago I bought the book by Richard Tufts Tom Paul was always recommending.  It provides a great framework for thinking about the rules -which I summarize as  "Play the ball as it lies and the course as you find it - unless there is a good reason not to do so."  The last part is the tricky part.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan,

Great find.

I think I stated words to the same effect and stated that there was latitude inherent in the rule.

[William_G]

Great post Dan!!!!!!

[Dan Kelly]

I see that the Tiger DQ thread has lurched up to the top of the line again.

Bumping solely to put this one atop it!

[Doug Siebert]

This reminds me of a tale told by Tommy Armour about Walter Hagen.  He was playing a match in the rain and hit his ball into the rough, where it plugged.  There was no relief from such a thing, so he instead announced he wanted to lift the ball to identify it and make certain it was his.  He carefully marked the location, lifted his ball and made a big show of squinting at it from every angle for about 10 minutes.  He finally announced it was his, and was careful to replace his ball in exactly the same location.  By this time the rain had softened his plug mark, leaving him a much more playable shot, and he won the hole.

[Dan Herrmann]

I love that article!

Reminds me of when I was learning how to officiate American football.  There are many references in the rulebook to "the spot".  I fondly remember my instructor telling the class that there were "an infinite number of spots on the field", and sometimes, 'close' is close enough.

Golf may be the only sport where rules are supposed to be applied without judgement.   It's like the Napoleonic Code of sports      (I'm not an attorney, so be kind if I messed up my metaphors)

[Ally Mcintosh]

Finally....

[Jason Topp]

I could be looking at past golf writing through rose colored glasses but it seems that the best writers of years gone by were vastly better than those of today.

Now the focus seems to be on reporting rather than writing.  I enjoy good reporting but ultimately the "inside scoop" on the game is far less interesting than a well crafted piece of writing on any subject.

[Dan Kelly]

I could be looking at past golf writing through rose colored glasses but it seems that the best writers of years gone by were vastly better than those of today.

Now the focus seems to be on reporting rather than writing.  I enjoy good reporting but ultimately the "inside scoop" on the game is far less interesting than a well crafted piece of writing on any subject.

Couldn't agree with you more, Jason.

Unfortunately, though we are clearly not, in this case, parties of one, I think the editors of the golf publications are pretty certain we're parties of not enough. Who has time for literature, in the Twitter age? That's the way editors think, anyway. I think they're wrong, but what can I do about it?

I'm certain there are quite a few writers out there who, given the space and the encouragement, could be the rightful heirs of Wind and Dobereiner and Price. But they are given neither; there's insufficient demand for it.

Golf was more "literary" in years past. It's more "commercial," now. So, instead of Peter Dobereiner, what do we get? Brandel Chamblee?

Gee, our old La Salle ran great....

[Colin Macqueen]

Jason,
How write you are!! I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments and Dan has parlayed my thoughts into words which I cannot improve on.  See, there you are, writing talent is as rare as hens teeth nowadays!
In this day and age it would seem that time is of the essence. Writers are not given the time to craft a piece and the readers, in their frenetic world, believe they do not have the time to digest any such offering.

I asked, on a thread some months ago, who could be considered heir to the likes of Darwin, Dobereiner, Wind, Longhurst, Wodehouse and Updike. There was only one reply (by one of the Brits I think) and that answer was our venerable Ran himself. Ran does write well but not in the same vein as the icons above. I pose the question once more as I do not know the American writers but I fear the golf essayists time has come, as Dan suggests, and we will not see their likes again.

Cheers Colin

[Rick Shefchik]

The one contemporary writer who comes to mind is Tom Callahan, whose work primarily appears in Golf Digest. Callahan's stuff is primarily profiles, but when you read one of his pieces you know he is trying to uphold the tradition of the literate golf essay. In my opinion he tries too hard, but it could be that I have become the enemy: the reader who does not allow the writer time to clear his throat, set the mood and establish his chops before he actually tells you something you don't know.

[Dan Kelly]

David Owen has the talent -- but I'm not sure he has the soul, or the desire, or the need.

As I said, I think there are any number of writers who could pull it off, if they had the soul and the desire and the need. But they aren't golf writers.

And they aren't golf writers, I'd guess, because there's little contemporary demand for golf literature.

I wish David Remnick were a golfer.

[Thomas Dai]

There's a magazine called Golf International with a regular feature concerning "The Major", the Secretary at a fictitious UK Royal golf club. Not sure who writes the articles but whoever it is regularly hits the absurdities and politics within private members golf clubs right on the nose. Some splendid mickey taking and mockery, although maybe not always to all tastes.

I also recall articles by Peter Alliss with characters such as St John Pharte, Reilly Fowle etc that were pretty amusing. Wayne Riley can be pretty chucklesome as well.

Peter Dobereiner was terrific though.

All the best.