Collusion - Yes, I'm a Broken Record

[noonan]

Tiger would have marked had Sergio been chipping

[Brent Hutto]

I agree with the saving time argument. And again, if literally every Tour player always leaves balls unmarked whenever possible there's no protection of the field issue. The only things in need of "protecting" are the feelings of a few viewers wedded to their own rather extreme personal interpretations of the Rules.

I'm surprised you guys aren't up in arms over the change to dropping balls in front of you instead of over your shoulder. How did the game ever survive that sellout of the Rules? The opportunities for abuse are obvious.

[Jon Wiggett]

The important word in rule 22 is 'MAY'. for there to be collusion there has to be an agreement between the players which in this case I do not believe there was.

[Jim_Coleman]

Jon:  You believe it was a coincidence that a ball was left 3 feet from the pin to protect against Sergio's down hill putt?  I don't.

[SL_Solow]

Jim,  did you ever read anything by Guy De Maupassant?  His continuing theme is characters who become gripped by an idee fixe  which takes over their lives.  Let this go.  Much better things to talk about, particularly on an architecture site.

[Brent Hutto]

A players reason for marking or not marking isn't part of the rule. May means may, it doesn't mean anything other than it says.

[Bruce Katona]

This made thre Yahoo front page, so perhaps "calling in violations" will go the way of the dod bird.  How many of us think the umpires in baseball or football games miss a call and are proven correct by replay?  One challaenge a tourney like one challenge a game in football.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf-fans-playing-referee-needs-to-stop-164618877.html

[Jim_Coleman]

Agree.  Never again.

[danielfaleman]

I always mark my ball on the green without being asked when I judge that my ball might interfere with an opponent's shot. And, I always ask an opponent to mark his ball if I judge that his ball might interfere with my shot.

As far as time of play: if I'm paying $150 for 18 holes, I'm gonna' play it right-- the marshals be damned.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon:  You believe it was a coincidence that a ball was left 3 feet from the pin to protect against Sergio's down hill putt?  I don't.

Jim,

the rule is about collusion not coincidence. You seem to make the assumption that if a ball on the green that might be in an advantageous position for a player is not marked then this is collusion. What you need to provide is evidence of when the two players agreed to leave the ball on the green unmarked because it 'SPECIFICALLY HELPED GARCIA'! Find this conversation on the footage and your case is proven 

Jon

[Kevin_Reilly]

As far as time of play: if I'm paying $150 for 18 holes, I'm gonna' play it right-- the marshals be damned.

Is that really the way you feel?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The rules have evolved, carefully and thoughtfully, over the centuries, for the betterment of the game.

What rules need to be changed ?

And, how will that improve play and competitions ?

[Jim_Coleman]

    My vote for dumbest rule in golf (which I have discussed here before) is having to declare a provisional.  It is ALWAYS a provisional, and one shouldn't be penalized for forgetting to say so (usually out of frustration or anger).

[Patrick_Mucci]

    My vote for dumbest rule in golf (which I have discussed here before) is having to declare a provisional.  It is ALWAYS a provisional, and one shouldn't be penalized for forgetting to say so (usually out of frustration or anger).

Jim,

Without the "declaration" how would you identify your first ball from your provisional ball ?
That's at the core of the "declaration"

Now, I"ve seen guys "find" their second ball and then "declare" that it was their first ball.

[Jon Wiggett]

    My vote for dumbest rule in golf (which I have discussed here before) is having to declare a provisional.  It is ALWAYS a provisional, and one shouldn't be penalized for forgetting to say so (usually out of frustration or anger).

Player 'A' hits his ball and thinks he is OOB but is not sure so after the rest have played he then hits a second off the tee which is in perfect position. One of the others in his group finds his first ball in bounds but in a really awful position. What is the status of his second ball? In your version it is a provisional and must be picked up thus not giving a player the chance on the tee to say I am playing 3 off the tee. If we now counter this by saying player A could declare he is abandoning his first tee shot and playing a second off the tee all that has been done is switch what you have to declare. The rule as it is, is not stupid but rather brings clarity to the situation which has to be a good thing in a game where we trust the players to referee themselves.

Jon

[Jim_Coleman]

   If the first balls found, the provisional doesn't count.  The second ball is always a provisional.  Give me one hypothetical when it wouldn't be.  I say you can't. 

[SL_Solow]

Jim;  there are times when a player doesn't want to find the first ball.  All you are doing is reversing the duty.  Under your prposal, he would have to declare, "this is not a provisional, this ball is in play". The current rule is not dissimilar from a player putting a "second ball" in play when he is in doubt as to a rule. Rule 3-3 establishes a procedure and there the player declares which ball will count if he is permitted under the rules to utilize that ball.  Not that far from declaring a ball to be a provisional, the player is merely selecting the ball he wishes to count if he has the option to proceed.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Jim;  there are times when a player doesn't want to find the first ball. 

This calls to mind Phil Mickelson at the Buick Invitational in 2001:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/12/sports/golf-in-playoff-a-double-bogey-beats-a-triple-bogey.html

[Jon Wiggett]

   If the first balls found, the provisional doesn't count.  The second ball is always a provisional.  Give me one hypothetical when it wouldn't be.  I say you can't. 

Read my post again there is one in there which was pointed out by SL_Solow as well.

[Pete_Pittock]

   If the first balls found, the provisional doesn't count.  The second ball is always a provisional.  Give me one hypothetical when it wouldn't be.  I say you can't. 

Jim,
Intent. Intent. Intent. The requirement for announcing a provisional ball is to make it clear how the player wishes to proceed.

Hypothetical: Player hits it wide right. Says "it's outta here". Hits another ball. Original ball found in bounds. Opponent says when you said "it's outta here" and didn't say provisional I understood that you knew the ball was OB and the second ball is in play, lying three. Now you say I'm lying one. You are a cheater.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Why would you abandon a ball BEFORE you hit a provisional.  You might as well go check to see if a miracle happened and you have a shot.  You only abandon a ball after the provisional.  That's why it's ALWAYS a provisional.

[Jason Topp]

   Why would you abandon a ball BEFORE you hit a provisional.  You might as well go check to see if a miracle happened and you have a shot.  You only abandon a ball after the provisional.  That's why it's ALWAYS a provisional.

Jim - I am no rules expert like others commenting here, but the Mickelson/Lickletter playoff situation linked above is one in which a player might decide to play a second ball from the tee rather than play a provisional and certainly would have preferred to not find his original ball once he knew Lickletter's original ball was unplayable. 

I agree such situations are rare, but it is also important to let everyone know your intentions when a water hazard is involved (because you cannot play a provisional when a ball might be lost in a water hazard - the results of your provisional might influence your decision about what to do with your first shot).

[Jim_Coleman]

    Phil had hit a provisional. There is no reason to abandon a ball before hitting a provisional.  Now, the rules presume an intenet not to hit a provisional if nothing is said.  That is a stupid presumption.  Why not presume the player is hitting a provisional, which he always is.

[Will MacEwen]

    Phil had hit a provisional. There is no reason to abandon a ball before hitting a provisional.  Now, the rules presume an intenet not to hit a provisional if nothing is said.  That is a stupid presumption.  Why not presume the player is hitting a provisional, which he always is.

I've hit non-provisional reloads many times.  If you bomb one into a thick wood, finding your ball is the worst possible option.  Reload and get a new ball in play.

[Jim_Coleman]

Will:  Why.  At least take a look.  Maybe it hit a tree and ended up playable.  What's the downside?  If you're right and it's lost or unplayable, you can go back.  OR, you could have hit a provisional. Abandoning without looking or hitting a provisional is NEVER correct strategy.