Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Rob Marshall on April 07, 2023, 11:25:49 AM
-
How can these guys be so dumb and then lie about it?
-
How can these guys be so dumb and then lie about it?
Rob-
The piece I watched on GC last night provided overwhelming evidence that a violation occurred. Paul McGinley said it was "obvious" that there was a breach but the Rules Committe @ The Masters for whatever reason did not see it that way. Why? I have no idea although Paul did go on to say that it "happens all the time" in professional golf. Seems like they just decided to look the other way.
-
Before we accuse anyone of impacting any rules, do we know where the on-course TV announcer walking with the group or the behind-the-player TV cameraman assigned to the hole were located?
It's pretty common practice to have the caddy signal to the tower pundits what club their guy hit.
-
Wait till he blows a 54 hole lead. It’s all about the LIV.
-
Interesting - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4nohnoFJuxI (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4nohnoFJuxI)
‘Rules’ for some but not for others? I guess best not mention Woods drop on the 15th a few years ago nor the Palmer/Venturi plugged ball nor De Vincenzo’s scorecard. Maybe a few others over the years too?
Atb
-
For those of us who didn't catch this, anyone want to explain what happened?
-
Before we accuse anyone of impacting any rules, do we know where the on-course TV announcer walking with the group or the behind-the-player TV cameraman assigned to the hole were located?
It's pretty common practice to have the caddy signal to the tower pundits what club their guy hit.
Highly unlikely that he was talking to an-course reporter or camaraman. That communication is almost universally done by fingers, not voice. The clip I saw (in the link below) it appears that Ricky Elliot was talking directly to Brennan Little.
Good read here:
https://firepitcollective.com/rules-are-rules/?_kx=CRiCTk92TaxhVuvmDsEMAPgTcyzSTaOmBCSliuiBTBU%3D.TCCK3s
-
nor De Vincenzo’s scorecard
What about it?
-
The fire pit collective is the Fox News of golf. Fighting LIV is their brand.
-
Here is what happened:
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/masters-brooks-caddie-augusta-rule-2023?utm_medium=email&utm_source=040723&utm_campaign=breakingnewsam&utm_content=DM38096&uuid=9861c6da148243648f1aa92679fb32a0
-
Has anyone written the story that the load management of a 54 holes schedule is a modern better way to prep for Majors? Similar to what the NBA does as they prepare for the playoffs.
-
Here is what happened:
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/masters-brooks-caddie-augusta-rule-2023?utm_medium=email&utm_source=040723&utm_campaign=breakingnewsam&utm_content=DM38096&uuid=9861c6da148243648f1aa92679fb32a0 (https://www.golfdigest.com/story/masters-brooks-caddie-augusta-rule-2023?utm_medium=email&utm_source=040723&utm_campaign=breakingnewsam&utm_content=DM38096&uuid=9861c6da148243648f1aa92679fb32a0)
They were apparently brought in today, too, to go over it all again, in part because Brooks is shown showing "five" as a hand signal, too.
As long as they stick to their stories, the Masters apparently feels there's nothing they can do. Shame, really.
-
A video recently posted by Golf Digest - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hDtOjsn8ZlA (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hDtOjsn8ZlA)
Atb
-
It feels like much ado about nothing to me. He very well might not have even been giving club information, but additionally, the information is worse than useless. I vaguely recall reading an article long ago that it doesn't really help the pros much because everyone is so in their own world and has custom specs on their clubs, not to mention that they likely don't hit their clubs exactly the same distance.
-
It feels like much ado about nothing to me. He very well might not have even been giving club information, but additionally, the information is worse than useless. I vaguely recall reading an article long ago that it doesn't really help the pros much because everyone is so in their own world and has custom specs on their clubs, not to mention that they likely don't hit their clubs exactly the same distance.
It's against the rules and it was obvious. Then to lie about it just makes it worse.
-
Will golf jump the shark when an LIV player wins the Masters because he cheated? Will Gary Player be the only honorary starter who doesn’t boycott next years tournament? Will tee times become abundant and greens chairmen’s budgets cut? Will golf be great again?
-
I watched the early part of the first round and on the 12th tee saw two caddies having a conversation after one of the players had played their tee shot and with another player looking on and listening in to the conversation on what club was hit. It struck me at the time that it was a breach of the rules but as I don't have Fred Ridleys mobile number there was nothing I could do about it. :(
Niall
-
I find this mighty flimsy.
For one, sharing the club you hit doesn't constitute advice in my opinion.
For two, what's next, are we going to start penalizing guys who don't hide or protect what they hit on the tee of a par 3 now? I mean, geez, it's not hard to look over and see what your playing companion is holding.
Should players start looking at the ground when on the tee of a one shot hole?
Woodland is a pretty long player. Brooks 5 iron might also be his 5 iron, but c'mon.
I'm far more concerned about Patrick Reed's behavior. When the talking head was going through Reed's bag on the range this morning I was half expecting a bottle of HGH to fall out.
-
If Mickelson hadn’t lost so much weight would he be leading instead of only being 4 under. Who was antifatshaming him a few days back?
When you start giving your villains shit for being thin you might want to skip dessert.
-
I find this mighty flimsy.
For one, sharing the club you hit doesn't constitute advice in my opinion.
It does according to the USGA and R&A and they are the ones that matter. Don't know why the ANGC rules committee didn't penalize Koepka.
-
The fire pit collective is the Fox News of golf. Fighting LIV is their brand.
It's not like Bamberger knows anything about this. Like I mean, it isn't as if he caddied on the European tour for half a season or so.
-
The fire pit collective is the Fox News of golf. Fighting LIV is their brand.
It's not like Bamberger knows anything about this. Like I mean, it isn't as if he caddied on the European tour for half a season or so.
He is my age. I owe him congrats on a serious life. Becoming a writer in the late 70’s is something I could not to have even aspired.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bamberger (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bamberger)
-
It feels like much ado about nothing to me. He very well might not have even been giving club information, but additionally, the information is worse than useless. I vaguely recall reading an article long ago that it doesn't really help the pros much because everyone is so in their own world and has custom specs on their clubs, not to mention that they likely don't hit their clubs exactly the same distance.
It's against the rules and it was obvious. Then to lie about it just makes it worse.
I know advice is against the rules, but the article I read only said that he was observed making the “5” gesture with his hand. There are innumerable questions to which the answer is “five”. Is there audio of Woodland asking what club he hit?
-
Comrade Trumpsky, Saudi's and LIV golfers lie? ::)
-
For one, sharing the club you hit doesn't constitute advice in my opinion.
Your opinion doesn't really matter here. By definition, it's advice. It's literally, well, here:
Advice
Any verbal comment or action (such as showing what club was just used to make a stroke) that is intended to influence a player in:
I know advice is against the rules, but the article I read only said that he was observed making the “5” gesture with his hand. There are innumerable questions to which the answer is “five”. Is there audio of Woodland asking what club he hit?
Brooks' caddie also said (fairly clearly, IMO) the word "five" loudly and twice in the direction of Gary Woodland's caddie.
-
I’d rather be a man who believes a liar on faith than one who questions a man on conjecture.
-
So there is no audio of Woodland asking what club he hit. Then there’s really nothing to be done about it, he could have been saying what time they were heading to the bar afterwards or countless other things. I don’t even like Brooks and hope LIV goes down in flames, but it feels overblown without any additional evidence.
-
Just another rules controversy/dubious rule which makes golf look to be a stupid game. I am all for it because our courses are too crowded. Shrink the game.
Ciao
-
So there is no audio of Woodland asking what club he hit. Then there’s really nothing to be done about it, he could have been saying what time they were heading to the bar afterwards or countless other things. I don’t even like Brooks and hope LIV goes down in flames, but it feels overblown without any additional evidence.
No one is saying Woodland asked for advice. He doesn’t need to ask for anything for it be a penalty on Keopka. Do you understand the rule? They have all the evidence they need.
-
Before we accuse anyone of impacting any rules, do we know where the on-course TV announcer walking with the group or the behind-the-player TV cameraman assigned to the hole were located?
It's pretty common practice to have the caddy signal to the tower pundits what club their guy hit.
Bruce,
Brook's caddy, with explicit vocalization, notified Woodland's caddy what club Kopeka used. He spoke it not once, but twice! It was quickly ascertained that he was facing straight down the fairway and looking straight at Woodland's caddy (who was strategizing his next shot). Do you think he was talking to the submarine tower mike in the pond?
This was absolutely not an example of a subtle finger-count of club (played) signaled to any TV reporter or tower. There really is no gray area here. Both blatant and indefensible if we are to adhere to USGA-R&A rules (premise of ANGC Rules Committee). Claiming that "its done all the time" is such a BS standard. Relying on player honesty in the age of up-close video, is equally insane. Professional golf is riddled with superstars who have openly lied (Player, Singh, Reed, et.al.) when questioned about rules violations.
Why is it that we now so quickly and easily absolve people of dishonesty and deceit? It is bad enough this has become so prevalent throughout the world of politics, businesses and other less decent sports....its now common practice at one of our favorite golf majors.
-
So there is no audio of Woodland asking what club he hit. Then there’s really nothing to be done about it
Asking is a penalty, answering (or just giving) is a penalty.
-
;D
I was caddying in a Philadelphia PGA Event as a 15 year old when one of the other players in the group hit his ball in a large hazard at Woodcrest CC In NJ (Flynn 1929). It was a large red staked area and we were all looking for the ball as you sometime could hit it from the creek bank. My player Tim DeBaufre looked over way to the left and saw I had left his bag in a dry spot in the hazard (note he hadn't hit it in there) He looked at me pointed and said , you know that's a one shot penalty for me.
They have since changed that silly rule but man did I feel like a loser. To his credit he patted me on the back on the next hole and said no worries , now you know!
Great guy ....never forget him
-
;D
I was caddying in a Philadelphia PGA Event as a 15 year old when one of the other players in the group hit his ball in a large hazard at Woodcrest CC In NJ (Flynn 1929). It was a large red staked area and we were all looking for the ball as you sometime could hit it from the creek bank. My player Tim DeBaufre looked over way to the left and saw I had left his bag in a dry spot in the hazard (note he hadn't hit it in there) He looked at me pointed and said , you know that's a one shot penalty for me.
They have since changed that silly rule but man did I feel like a loser. To his credit he patted me on the back on the next hole and said no worries , now you know!
Great guy ....never forget him
Thanks Archie for that story, life lessons don't have to come with tongue lashings. Kudos to Mr. DeBaufre.
-
It happens all the time at any level, but especially the pro tours where most people generally hit it the same number (someone might be a club long or a club short, but very rarely is anyone 2 on either side). Usually, though, you just look in the bag without touching. Some players ask what floor their room in the hotel is at or how many apples they pick up at once or something, which I like less. I'm surprised these caddies would be so blatantly obvious. The above is not cheating (mostly the first, the second is for sure questionable), but what Koepka's caddie did is clearly in violation of the rules of golf
-
So there is no audio of Woodland asking what club he hit. Then there’s really nothing to be done about it, he could have been saying what time they were heading to the bar afterwards or countless other things. I don’t even like Brooks and hope LIV goes down in flames, but it feels overblown without any additional evidence.
No one is saying Woodland asked for advice. He doesn’t need to ask for anything for it be a penalty on Keopka. Do you understand the rule? They have all the evidence they need.
I am aware he doesn’t need to have been asked, my point is that (according to what I’ve seen) only the word/gesture “5” was expressed. That could have been referring to anything. I agree the most likely thing was a club, but do we want to be DQing someone on something that is “most likely”?
I also agree with Sean that the advice rule is dumb. My high school coach was a stickler about those things, and at that level there were often no practice rounds, which often led to a weird form of legalese when trying to navigate a course for the first time. I would only ask factual questions, but answers were often given in violation of the language of the advice rule. I could have called quite a few penalties on people who had no idea of the advice rule. I never did because I didn’t want to end up tossed into the nearest water hazard.
-
So there is no audio of Woodland asking what club he hit. Then there’s really nothing to be done about it, he could have been saying what time they were heading to the bar afterwards or countless other things. I don’t even like Brooks and hope LIV goes down in flames, but it feels overblown without any additional evidence.
No one is saying Woodland asked for advice. He doesn’t need to ask for anything for it be a penalty on Keopka. Do you understand the rule? They have all the evidence they need.
I am aware he doesn’t need to have been asked, my point is that (according to what I’ve seen) only the word/gesture “5” was expressed. That could have been referring to anything. I agree the most likely thing was a club, but do we want to be DQing someone on something that is “most likely”?
I also agree with Sean that the advice rule is dumb. My high school coach was a stickler about those things, and at that level there were often no practice rounds, which often led to a weird form of legalese when trying to navigate a course for the first time. I would only ask factual questions, but answers were often given in violation of the language of the advice rule. I could have called quite a few penalties on people who had no idea of the advice rule. I never did because I didn’t want to end up tossed into the nearest water hazard.
You clearly do not understand the rule. Did you know that the caddy is an extensiion of the player? So, if the caddy of Brooks Koepka looks directly at the caddy of Gary Woodland and says "five" it is a 2-shot penalty on Koepka for giving advice.
This was a no-brainer violation and shame on AGNC for letting it slide.
-
Given the fairly recent discussions about pros "backstopping" for their bros, does this surprise anyone?
Nevertheless, just when my opinion of tour pros couldn't get much lower...is has.
I play three times a week with a bunch of old guys like me and on my first day, the leader said, "We play by the rules-all of them, we play the ball down and no gimmees."
That afternoon I told my wife, "I have met my people."
-
So there is no audio of Woodland asking what club he hit. Then there’s really nothing to be done about it, he could have been saying what time they were heading to the bar afterwards or countless other things. I don’t even like Brooks and hope LIV goes down in flames, but it feels overblown without any additional evidence.
No one is saying Woodland asked for advice. He doesn’t need to ask for anything for it be a penalty on Keopka. Do you understand the rule? They have all the evidence they need.
I am aware he doesn’t need to have been asked, my point is that (according to what I’ve seen) only the word/gesture “5” was expressed. That could have been referring to anything. I agree the most likely thing was a club, but do we want to be DQing someone on something that is “most likely”?
I also agree with Sean that the advice rule is dumb. My high school coach was a stickler about those things, and at that level there were often no practice rounds, which often led to a weird form of legalese when trying to navigate a course for the first time. I would only ask factual questions, but answers were often given in violation of the language of the advice rule. I could have called quite a few penalties on people who had no idea of the advice rule. I never did because I didn’t want to end up tossed into the nearest water hazard.
You clearly do not understand the rule. Did you know that the caddy is an extensiion of the player? So, if the caddy of Brooks Koepka looks directly at the caddy of Gary Woodland and says "five" it is a 2-shot penalty on Koepka for giving advice.
This was a no-brainer violation and shame on AGNC for letting it slide.
I’m aware of that as well. The word “five” can refer to things other than club numbers, such as the number of bathrooms in Brooks’ house rental this week. My only point is we can’t be sure it was advice without more evidence than has been given thus far.
-
It’s almost a given that, unless the player confesses, he “gets the benefit of the doubt.” This may work on the tour, it wouldn’t work in a courtroom, where only “reasonable doubt” exonerates. How many bathrooms in Koepka’s house isn’t reasonable. Reed has benefited from this standard (embedded ball) as has Tiger (where ball crossed hazard at Players).
-
The rules a built to help the player.
-
It’s almost a given that, unless the player confesses, he “gets the benefit of the doubt.” This may work on the tour, it wouldn’t work in a courtroom, where only “reasonable doubt” exonerates. How many bathrooms in Koepka’s house isn’t reasonable. Reed has benefited from this standard (embedded ball) as has Tiger (where ball crossed hazard at Players).
Thanks Jim, that’s well-put. It’s just the way it is in the game, and it’s not a court of law. And I doubt we would want it to be. Unfortunately some people take advantage of it as you mentioned.
-
Here’s something I’m curious about. Why on earth are players helping out the people they’re competing against? If it’s as prevalent as many are saying (and I believe it) it’s extremely confusing to me.
-
Here’s something I’m curious about. Why on earth are players helping out the people they’re competing against? If it’s as prevalent as many are saying (and I believe it) it’s extremely confusing to me.
Gentlemen at the highest level always help their opponents. You fight like a man.
-
At this point, the only thing I'd find interesting..
Is what was said when the Masters officials spoke with Brooks and his caddie. What possible explanation could they have given? And how in the hell could the green coats have bought it given they have direct video evidence, with only one plausible context that fits.
P.S Hard to imagine in the heat of the moment Brooks caddie felt compelled to blurt out the number of bathrooms in Brooks VRBO not once... but twice. ::)
-
At this point, the only thing I'd find interesting..
Is what was said when the Masters officials spoke with Brooks and his caddie. What possible explanation could they have given? And how in the hell could the green coats have bought it given they have direct video evidence, with only one plausible context that fits.
P.S Hard to imagine in the heat of the moment Brooks caddie felt compelled to blurt out the number of bathrooms in Brooks VRBO not once... but twice. ::)
Brooks probably didn’t have to give much of an explanation at all. This is the way the rules are set up. If we want to set it up like the legal system, we might be able to adjudicate these issues more to your liking, but it’s not the system we have.
-
Protecting the field. All of the field.
And in the pro game, money. Guys down the field and their families losing out on prize money and other potential financial benefits coz someone gained an inappropriate advantage.
Atb
-
Here’s something I’m curious about. Why on earth are players helping out the people they’re competing against? If it’s as prevalent as many are saying (and I believe it) it’s extremely confusing to me.
I must admit, this is the part that throws me as well.
I KNOW these guys are deeply competitive, or they wouldn't have made it to where they are. And yet they are doing things that are not only against the Rules, but that I wouldn't do with my closest friends in a $6 Nassau. Nor would they ask or answer; ALL of us know better, and want to win. Really, it's that simple.
If I'm a Tour player and I find out that my caddie has done this without my knowledge or approval, he won't do it twice or he'll be looking for another bag that night.
-
They help each other out all the time - professional courtesy I suppose. How about when they leave balls near the hole while a competitor is chipping or hitting a sand shot - backstopping?
-
They help each other out all the time - professional courtesy I suppose. How about when they leave balls near the hole while a competitor is chipping or hitting a sand shot - backstopping?
In an attempt to play promptly a considerate golfer is ready to chip up as soon as his opponents ball comes to rest. Nothing worse than having to back off and wait as some petulant dude scurries to mark his ball.
-
Here’s something I’m curious about. Why on earth are players helping out the people they’re competing against? If it’s as prevalent as many are saying (and I believe it) it’s extremely confusing to me.
If I'm a Tour player and I find out that my caddie has done this without my knowledge or approval, he won't do it twice or he'll be looking for another bag that night.
There is no chance that a caddie doesn’t know where his player stands on the issue.
-
They have since changed that silly rule but man did I feel like a loser. To his credit he patted me on the back on the next hole and said no worries , now you know!
It's OT, but I'm curious: what rule was that (and what year)?
-
8)
Eric ...I'm guessing year 1972 or 73....rule was you could not put your equipment in hazard..1 shot penalty, at the time they considered it tantamount to grounding your club. Truthfully I was shocked, made no sense in that no advantage could possibly have been gained .
-
...I'm guessing year 1972 or 73....rule was you could not put your equipment in hazard..1 shot penalty, at the time they considered it tantamount to grounding your club. Truthfully I was shocked, made no sense in that no advantage could possibly have been gained .
Yeah… I'm not sure you (your player) were deserving of a penalty.
Rule 33: http://ruleshistory.com/rules1972.html (http://ruleshistory.com/rules1972.html)
f. Placing Clubs in Hazard
The player may, without penalty, place his clubs in the hazard prior to making a stroke, provided nothing is done which may improve the lie of the ball or constitute testing the soil.
That's specifically called out, and that's for when your ball is actually in the hazard.
-
8)
Well , he definitely called a penalty on himself and Skee Riegel was on site. At the time he was considered the "don" of rules mavens in the Philly PGA....today he would be Tom Carpus
This being said , I was moved by the honesty and quality of one Edward "Tim" Debaufre that day! :-*
-
8)
Eric ...I'm guessing year 1972 or 73....rule was you could not put your equipment in hazard..1 shot penalty, at the time they considered it tantamount to grounding your club. Truthfully I was shocked, made no sense in that no advantage could possibly have been gained .
Didn't D Johnson get a penalty for this at the Whistling Straits Open?
Ciao
-
Didn't D Johnson get a penalty for this at the Whistling Straits Open?
No. He grounded his club behind his ball in a bunker. That's still not allowed. 12.2b
-
Nance just said Keopka is on the CW. LIV reference?
-
Nance just said Keopka is on the CW. LIV reference?
Clearly.
-
Keopka just pointed at Rahm while holding up five fingers. He is trolling you guys.
-
Keopka obviously needed 18 more holes in Peoria to hone his tournament skills.
-
Karma is a bitch! 8)
-
Karma is a bitch! 8)
LIV saved the 23 Masters. Good vs Evil is the best!!!
-
Keopka just pointed at Rahm while holding up five fingers. He is trolling you guys.
Thank goodness for Butch Harmon on Sky: Much ado about nothing, happens all the time, he may have done it, he may not, who cares? It counts for nothing, all that matters is the here and now.
-
Ally
Yes, noticed that. Faldo actually claimed to not having seen the incident until he was shown it on air last night. Both played it down but then neither are involved with the DT World Tour. Not that I'm pointing the finger, or indeed five fingers, at their fellow Sky commentator ;)
Niall
-
What really annoyed me about it was Koepka and Woodland not coming clean. I understand (not condone) their caddies making up stories and sticking to them; they will do anything to protect their player. But how 2 grown men, playing golf for a living and knowing the rules, the traditions behind them (self-policing) could look at that video and, straight faced, in front of a Masters committee, bullshit their way through it is beyond me. Just ignore rules and rationalize it's ok because we agreed to do it, or everyone does it, or because we think the rules are dumb; don't come clean because you know the Committee is too honorable and dignfied to not accept your word and won't punish you. I wonder how much $ their lies cost the other competitors?
-
The biggest problem is people commenting on the rules without ever reading the rule. (That includes Brandel Chamblee, and it's not his first time misrepresenting the rules.) The rule clearly states that it is directed at the intent to influence another player. As Charlie observes, these elite players are so tuned into their equipment, shaft flex, carry distance, ball flight, ability to change ball flight, etc., that having the knowledge of what another guy hits is of no benefit. And apparently the practice is ignored on the tour level, probably for that reason. It would be unfair to all of sudden start enforcing now just because we saw it on tv.
Why the caddies do it is unknown to me. You have to factor in that most caddies are idiots, and these idiots shouldn't cost a player.
Also, most people seem to feel the penalty is only on Koepka, but it's a stretch to think he just all of a sudden offered this wisdom up unsolicited.
The caddies are sharing information. It's useless. It's stupid. No one is influenced by any of it, and nobody cares.
-
You have to factor in that most caddies are idiots, and these idiots shouldn't cost a player.
To be clear, you're calling most of the PGA Tour caddies idiots? Do you know this for a fact?
The irony here is that in a post talking about people offering opinions without having a base of knowledge to do so, you appear to have done the same thing.
-
Aren't a lot of the caddies very good golfers in their own right, often having played pro tours but never being quite good enough to make a living at it? I would guess that they are no smarter or dumber than your average tour player.
-
You have to factor in that most caddies are idiots, and these idiots shouldn't cost a player.
To be clear, you're calling most of the PGA Tour caddies idiots? Do you know this for a fact?
The irony here is that in a post talking about people offering opinions without having a base of knowledge to do so, you appear to have done the same thing.
Excellent job at ignoring the point
-
Aren't a lot of the caddies very good golfers in their own right, often having played pro tours but never being quite good enough to make a living at it? I would guess that they are no smarter or dumber than your average tour player.
I'm not disagreeing
-
You have to factor in that most caddies are idiots, and these idiots shouldn't cost a player.
To be clear, you're calling most of the PGA Tour caddies idiots? Do you know this for a fact?
The irony here is that in a post talking about people offering opinions without having a base of knowledge to do so, you appear to have done the same thing.
Excellent job at ignoring the point
I really don't care about the overall point. I do care about your broad-brushing of a group of people as idiots.
If that wasn't what you meant to say, perhaps you should delete it. Or do you have have personal knowledge that most PGA Tour caddies are idiots? I happen to know four of them, none of whom I'd classify as an idiot.
-
I'll stand by my prior statement
-
The biggest problem is people commenting on the rules without ever reading the rule. The rule clearly states that it is directed at the intent to influence another player.
Why else would one caddie share this information with another caddie? If the players are so tuned in to their own equipment such that another player's shot is irrelevant, then why are they sharing the information? I know you said you don't know, but there has to be a reason. Is there any other possible reason besides the caddie wants to know, so he can factor that into his recommendation for his own player's upcoming shot?
I
-
The biggest problem is people commenting on the rules without ever reading the rule. The rule clearly states that it is directed at the intent to influence another player.
Why else would one caddie share this information with another caddie? If the players are so tuned in to their own equipment such that another player's shot is irrelevant, then why are they sharing the information? I know you said you don't know, but there has to be a reason. Is there any other possible reason besides the caddie wants to know, so he can factor that into his recommendation for his own player's upcoming shot?
I
So the other caddie can give the information to the roving reporter in a less invasive manner.
-
The biggest problem is people commenting on the rules without ever reading the rule. The rule clearly states that it is directed at the intent to influence another player.
Why else would one caddie share this information with another caddie? If the players are so tuned in to their own equipment such that another player's shot is irrelevant, then why are they sharing the information? I know you said you don't know, but there has to be a reason. Is there any other possible reason besides the caddie wants to know, so he can factor that into his recommendation for his own player's upcoming shot?
I
So the other caddie can give the information to the roving reporter in a less invasive manner.
Ok, noted. Is that what the players and caddies said happened?
-
John VDB is on the road at the moment, but he communicated a couple of things and one of those is that the way advice is ruled on was liberalized in 2019 in order to protect players from being penalized because of comments made in passing. He didn't have time for a full explanation, but I wanted to bring it up. So if you think things were done differently in the past, you would be right. It's not clear that this liberalization would have had any effect on this situation, but it may well have.
-
Ok, noted. Is that what the players and caddies said happened?
I have never heard an explanation or statement regarding the post round discussion
-
Ok, noted. Is that what the players and caddies said happened?
I have never heard an explanation or statement regarding the post round discussion
I'm sure we're unlikely to ever find out that information.
-
Ok, noted. Is that what the players and caddies said happened?
I have never heard an explanation or statement regarding the post round discussion
I'm sure we're unlikely to ever find out that information.
And what does that tell you?
-
could look at that video and, straight faced, in front of a Masters committee, bullshit their way through it is beyond me.
Woodland and Koepka are in a small category now of liars. It's not "cheating" per se (particularly since the benefactor in this specific case is not even the one penalized), but it's against the rules, and then the lying about it is the worst part.
The biggest problem is people commenting on the rules without ever reading the rule. (That includes Brandel Chamblee, and it's not his first time misrepresenting the rules.) The rule clearly states that it is directed at the intent to influence another player. As Charlie observes, these elite players are so tuned into their equipment, shaft flex, carry distance, ball flight, ability to change ball flight, etc., that having the knowledge of what another guy hits is of no benefit.
This is so incredibly wrong. Knowing what another guy hit is an advantage. That's why they do it. And it's against the rules because of that.
-
I'm guessing that they decided that defending the field against Woodland just wasn't worth the effort. If Koepka had gotten the advice maybe the response would have been different. ;)
-
I'm guessing that they decided that defending the field against Woodland just wasn't worth the effort. If Koepka had gotten the advice maybe the response would have been different. ;)
Koepka would have been the one penalized, though. So, and maybe you knew that and I misread what you said, but penalizing the player in that case would have been "protecting the field against Koepka."
-
Ok, noted. Is that what the players and caddies said happened?
I have never heard an explanation or statement regarding the post round discussion
I'm sure we're unlikely to ever find out that information.
And what does that tell you?
1/2 week later is certainly tells me it won't be shared, but I'm still wondering how in the hell the masters committee could let it slide.
Relating to the other post about lee-way for players over-hearing things, certainly doesn't seem to apply in this case, as the video showed him yelling it out to the other caddy. I don't see how it could be more explicit...
-
Relating to the other post about lee-way for players over-hearing things, certainly doesn't seem to apply in this case, as the video showed him yelling it out to the other caddy. I don't see how it could be more explicit...
I think the takeaway is really that they already weren't penalizing people for this before and now (from 2019) they've liberalized it even further. To expect a penalty at this point might be too far outside the realm of possibility.
If this type of advice is as common as many have said, the fact that there aren't frequent penalties probably says all that needs saying (i.e. the rules people and pros really don't care about it). My only gripe is that if that's the case, why even have the rule anymore.
-
Relating to the other post about lee-way for players over-hearing things, certainly doesn't seem to apply in this case, as the video showed him yelling it out to the other caddy. I don't see how it could be more explicit...
I think the takeaway is really that they already weren't penalizing people for this before and now (from 2019) they've liberalized it even further. To expect a penalty at this point might be too far outside the realm of possibility.
If this type of advice is as common as many have said, the fact that there aren't frequent penalties probably says all that needs saying (i.e. the rules people and pros really don't care about it). My only gripe is that if that's the case, why even have the rule anymore.
Sounds reasonable Charlie,
If its as common as they say, seems there would be plenty of other damning video footage out there, unless most tour caddies are better at establishing a more subtle communication system in the locker room. Or perhaps the video was released by someone with a grudge against Brooks??
Either way its not a good look as it certainly seemed to violate the spirit and intent of the rule especially given its allegedly one of the most intimidating shots on the course...
-
If this type of advice is as common as many have said, the fact that there aren't frequent penalties probably says all that needs saying (i.e. the rules people and pros really don't care about it). My only gripe is that if that's the case, why even have the rule anymore.
Various players have commented on this. Harry Higgs thinks it should have been a penalty on the NLU podcast. He said that even though most of the players (like with backstopping) participate in this "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" thing here, they do it in a legal way mostly: they clean the club while the number is showing to the other player or caddie, or they'll talk a bit louder to their caddie on the tee box so the others over-hear, or they will not cover up the bag with a towel so the other players can look… etc.
This was blatant.
I'm a bit sad that, again like backstopping, this goes on in pro golf. Though they all seem to think it is "sporting" or something, it's the opposite, as it doesn't keep the playing field level. If you're playing with a guy who doesn't believe in this "mutual back scratching" you're disadvantaged. If you play with a guy who clubs himself pretty similarly, who shares, you're given an advantaged. Etc.
-
Relating to the other post about lee-way for players over-hearing things, certainly doesn't seem to apply in this case, as the video showed him yelling it out to the other caddy. I don't see how it could be more explicit...
I think the takeaway is really that they already weren't penalizing people for this before and now (from 2019) they've liberalized it even further. To expect a penalty at this point might be too far outside the realm of possibility.
If this type of advice is as common as many have said, the fact that there aren't frequent penalties probably says all that needs saying (i.e. the rules people and pros really don't care about it). My only gripe is that if that's the case, why even have the rule anymore.
Exactly
-
Relating to the other post about lee-way for players over-hearing things, certainly doesn't seem to apply in this case, as the video showed him yelling it out to the other caddy. I don't see how it could be more explicit...
I think the takeaway is really that they already weren't penalizing people for this before and now (from 2019) they've liberalized it even further. To expect a penalty at this point might be too far outside the realm of possibility.
If this type of advice is as common as many have said, the fact that there aren't frequent penalties probably says all that needs saying (i.e. the rules people and pros really don't care about it). My only gripe is that if that's the case, why even have the rule anymore.
Exactly
Two girls were DQ'd from LPGA Q school when Kristina Kim blew them in for the exact same thing. I think it was two years ago at the most. Don't have a rule if you aren't going to enforce it.
-
They weren't DQ'd, but assessed two-stroke penalties.
https://www.golfchannel.com/news/christina-kim-calls-penalty-playing-competitors-lpga-q-series (https://www.golfchannel.com/news/christina-kim-calls-penalty-playing-competitors-lpga-q-series)
-
I will say that even though I don't really like the rule, I do find it disappointing that the pros seem to act the way they do about it. I always hated the way it made me talk around various occurrences to fellow competitors, but I always followed the rules.
But it put me in a mind as to the motivation behind the rule and why the pros seem to disregard it so often. Thus far there has been some disagreement as to how useful the information is, but the discussion has always come from the idea that the information is helpful (or at least believed to be helpful) and the rule sought to keep players from helping one another. But the language of the rule points mainly to influence and influence can be help or hurt. Now this is a bit of a psychological leap, but if the players at the top levels of the game have gotten it in their heads that the true purpose of the rule is to keep people from using bad advice to trick competitors into mistakes, then they might have convinced themselves that helpful/truthful advice is fine or at most neutral and not worth worrying about.
Then comes the question of why such an anachronistic sort of tradition would continue. If those of us who think the information is all but useless are right, why bother saying anything? In reality that's a valid point, but these kinds of professional courtesies or traditions are fairly common. I remember seeing multiple tall buildings under construction with pine trees on top. Are those serving any real purpose? Or smashing a bottle of champagne on a new ship hull, or any number of other things in this vein.
I'm happy to have these ideas shot down, now I find I just want to understand a little better why this stuff happens, because it doesn't make much sense from where I sit.
-
;D
I was caddying in a Philadelphia PGA Event as a 15 year old when one of the other players in the group hit his ball in a large hazard at Woodcrest CC In NJ (Flynn 1929). It was a large red staked area and we were all looking for the ball as you sometime could hit it from the creek bank. My player Tim DeBaufre looked over way to the left and saw I had left his bag in a dry spot in the hazard (note he hadn't hit it in there) He looked at me pointed and said , you know that's a one shot penalty for me.
They have since changed that silly rule but man did I feel like a loser. To his credit he patted me on the back on the next hole and said no worries , now you know!
Great guy ....never forget him
Thanks Archie for that story, life lessons don't have to come with tongue lashings. Kudos to Mr. DeBaufre.
Ibid.
Fantastic story. First class of DeBaufre.
-
I'd much rather they gave Cantlay and Bennett (maybe others) a penalty for slow play -- that's an area that The Master's could/should lead in.
-
I'd much rather they gave Cantlay and Bennett (maybe others) a penalty for slow play -- that's an area that The Master's could/should lead in.
Why?
-
This article mentions turmoil in the rules ranks, and else-where.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/a-penalty-that-seems-to-have-been-disregarded-chatter-continues-on-masters-ruling-with-brooks-koepka-and-caddie/ar-AA19H2en?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=03dc3d04195f4cf9a5a2e0d081404e91&ei=14
-
This article mentions turmoil in the rules ranks, and else-where.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/a-penalty-that-seems-to-have-been-disregarded-chatter-continues-on-masters-ruling-with-brooks-koepka-and-caddie/ar-AA19H2en?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=03dc3d04195f4cf9a5a2e0d081404e91&ei=14 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/a-penalty-that-seems-to-have-been-disregarded-chatter-continues-on-masters-ruling-with-brooks-koepka-and-caddie/ar-AA19H2en?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=03dc3d04195f4cf9a5a2e0d081404e91&ei=14)
I feel like that's a pretty one-sided article (I'm glad to have read it though). Again, if it's as common and well-known as everyone (including the pro-penalty people in the article) says it is, that's more an argument to get rid of the rule than it is to have penalized Brooks. The previous example of the penalty being enforced was 2007, and that player called it on himself!
Still leaves me curious about the psychology of the situation as I asked previously. Definitely weird.
-
Was I the only one who noticed that in Brooks's media interview on Sunday evening, someone asked a question about his shot over the green on #6, and he referred to the 7-iron Jon Rahm had just hit and come up short with, and yet he went over the green trying to hit a 3/4 seven iron.
Thankfully, no one asked how he knew! :-X
Maybe Rahm deliberately took something off his shot to deke Brooks, although doing so and missing way short was at best an overcorrection. Or maybe they were sharing info [quietly] most of the day, and the swirling wind just fooled them. They certainly had plenty of time to share. There was hardly a hole where they didn't wait on Cantlay.
I know there are quite a few of you who are going to cry "rules are rules" until we're all in our graves, and I understand why. But this is a bullshit rule, because it is routinely violated, and indeed never enforced except when they want to. That's the way authoritarian countries work . . . there are rules against everything, and they are selectively enforced only to punish whom the authorities wish to punish. And unfortunately, I do notice many things in America starting to go in that direction.
It reminds me of the Pine Tar rule in baseball, which was in the rule book but seldom enforced, until it was deemed unfair to enforce it against George Brett hitting a game-winning HR, at which point it was rescinded for good. Was that a good thing? Probably yes . . . you don't want the results on the field overturned by the officials. Was it right by the rules of the day? Absolutely not, but few complained because of whom it was enforced against.
-
Was I the only one who noticed that in Brooks's media interview on Sunday evening, someone asked a question about his shot over the green on #6, and he referred to the 7-iron Jon Rahm had just hit and come up short with, and yet he went over the green trying to hit a 3/4 seven iron.
He probably just looked in his bag, or otherwise saw the club Jon was using. Which is completely legal, as you're getting the information for yourself by observation, and not doing anything to another player's equipment (moving a towel) to gather it.
But this is a bullshit rule, because it is routinely violated
So is speeding a bullshit law because it is routinely violated? Or whatever people do to cheat on their taxes? Or countless other rules that are violated… just throw them out because they're routinely violated? And… this rule is about giving advice, so is the whole rule about giving advice "bullshit" or just the part about saying "Hey, buddy, I hit a 5I there if that helps you?"
That's the way authoritarian countries work
Or, you know, rules of a sport… :)
-
I would argue that slow play is not a bullshit rule that is almost always ignored and it was enforced once by ANGC in a bullshit way.
-
TD has a point, in the fact that speed limits are usually set by opening a road and observing how fast the first day of cars goes. IF most golfers ignore the rule, then it should probably change. As the (adapted to golf) old saying goes, "Golfers ignore rules that ignore golfers." (It is an old design mantra really, that goes, "Golfers ignore designs that ignore golfers.....In building architecture it could be, "People ignore buildings that ignore people."
If they wanted to they could change the advice rule. As TD's example shows, there is no guarantee that knowing your opponent used a 7 iron will result in you making a perfect swing and choosing the right club. In fact, it could also reintroduce some gamesmanship that might spice things up, although the tour was moving away from that kind of stuff to a more "gentlemen's game."
-
I know it’s legal to look into another player’s bag to determine what club they hit but it seems at odds with the spirit of the rule. A glance is different than blatantly gawking.
-
As TD's example shows, there is no guarantee that knowing your opponent used a 7 iron will result in you making a perfect swing and choosing the right club.
There's no guarantee, but it's still going to potentially "influence" their play. Positively or negatively (which is why gamesmanship isn't legal either).
I know it’s legal to look into another player’s bag to determine what club they hit but it seems at odds with the spirit of the rule.
It's simply observation. If you observe a player hitting a driver off the tee instead of a 3W… is that against the "spirit" of the rule? Turns out there really isn't any such thing as "spirit of the rules."
There's the "spirit of the game," which includes obeying the rules. But no "spirit of the rules."
-
As TD's example shows, there is no guarantee that knowing your opponent used a 7 iron will result in you making a perfect swing and choosing the right club.
There's no guarantee, but it's still going to potentially "influence" their play. Positively or negatively (which is why gamesmanship isn't legal either).
I know it’s legal to look into another player’s bag to determine what club they hit but it seems at odds with the spirit of the rule.
It's simply observation. If you observe a player hitting a driver off the tee instead of a 3W… is that against the "spirit" of the rule? Turns out there really isn't any such thing as "spirit of the rules."
There's the "spirit of the game," which includes obeying the rules. But no "spirit of the rules."
Thanks for that invaluable insight DE!
-
I understand Toms point,
But then who is going to decide which rules shall be followed and which ones ignored? I thought golf was supposed to be a game of honor and integrity not one of "well everyone is doing it" or "I can get away with it".
All the more reason to address it by either scratching the rule or enforcing it, not just burying the head in the sand and looking the other way..
-
As TD's example shows, there is no guarantee that knowing your opponent used a 7 iron will result in you making a perfect swing and choosing the right club.
There's no guarantee, but it's still going to potentially "influence" their play. Positively or negatively (which is why gamesmanship isn't legal either).
I know it’s legal to look into another player’s bag to determine what club they hit but it seems at odds with the spirit of the rule.
It's simply observation. If you observe a player hitting a driver off the tee instead of a 3W… is that against the "spirit" of the rule? Turns out there really isn't any such thing as "spirit of the rules."
There's the "spirit of the game," which includes obeying the rules. But no "spirit of the rules."
Gamesmanship isn't legal? What?
-
That's the way authoritarian countries work
Or, you know, rules of a sport… :)
Yes, I know, rules of a sport . . .
Just like that pass interference call in the last minute of the Super Bowl.
-
I understand Toms point,
But then who is going to decide which rules shall be followed and which ones ignored? I thought golf was supposed to be a game of honor and integrity not one of "well everyone is doing it" or "I can get away with it".
All the more reason to address it by either scratching the rule or enforcing it, not just burying the head in the sand and looking the other way..
Kalen:
There is a committee for that.
As George Carlin used to say, it's a big club, and you [we] aren't in it.
-
As TD's example shows, there is no guarantee that knowing your opponent used a 7 iron will result in you making a perfect swing and choosing the right club.
There's no guarantee, but it's still going to potentially "influence" their play. Positively or negatively (which is why gamesmanship isn't legal either).
I know it’s legal to look into another player’s bag to determine what club they hit but it seems at odds with the spirit of the rule.
It's simply observation. If you observe a player hitting a driver off the tee instead of a 3W… is that against the "spirit" of the rule? Turns out there really isn't any such thing as "spirit of the rules."
There's the "spirit of the game," which includes obeying the rules. But no "spirit of the rules."
Gamesmanship isn't legal? What?
Rob-Websters Dictionary says gamesmanship “Is the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules.” That’s code for legal.
-
Gamesmanship isn't legal? What?
Giving someone the wrong information (like "I hit 6 there" when you hit a 7-iron) is illegal yes. I was playing off Jeff's post where he seemed to call this kind of misleading info as "gamesmanship." And if that's not exactly what he was saying, that's how I was using it.
Just like that pass interference call in the last minute of the Super Bowl.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/eagles/2023/02/12/james-bradberry-holding-penalty-super-bowl-57/11246373002/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/eagles/2023/02/12/james-bradberry-holding-penalty-super-bowl-57/11246373002/) - The one the player who committed the penalty admitted it was a penalty?
-
That's the problem with just letting stuff go, because for every tight call like this years super bowl, you get a ton more blatant non-calls like this that robbed the Saints from locking down a Super Bowl appearance a few years back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x66DzCsNfEU
-
That's the problem with just letting stuff go, because for every tight call like this years super bowl, you get a ton more blatant non-calls like this that robbed the Saints from locking down a Super Bowl appearance a few years back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x66DzCsNfEU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x66DzCsNfEU)
Kalen hopes all of you only remember that PI call, and not the missed call when the Saints grabbed Goff's facemask that would have given the Rams a first down and probably a game sealing touchdown. Don't click this if you want to stay in Kalen's fantasy world.
https://twitter.com/camdasilva/status/1087120351098781697?lang=en
-
Giving someone the wrong information (like "I hit 6 there" when you hit a 7-iron) is illegal yes. I was playing off Jeff's post where he seemed to call this kind of misleading info as "gamesmanship." And if that's not exactly what he was saying, that's how I was using it.
Yes, and I believe it would also be covered by the advice rule. I would say that when it comes to the advice rule, the legal analogue wouldn't be speed limit laws, but maybe more like the prohibition laws. If nobody wants to follow them (and they give inordinate power to bad actors), better to do away with them altogether.
-
Giving someone the wrong information (like "I hit 6 there" when you hit a 7-iron) is illegal yes. I was playing off Jeff's post where he seemed to call this kind of misleading info as "gamesmanship." And if that's not exactly what he was saying, that's how I was using it.
Yes, and I believe it would also be covered by the advice rule. I would say that when it comes to the advice rule, the legal analogue wouldn't be speed limit laws, but maybe more like the prohibition laws. If nobody wants to follow them (and they give inordinate power to bad actors), better to do away with them altogether.
Charlie,
Though I take your point about laws that nobody wishes to follow, is that a correct assessment of the asking or giving advice rule in golf? I can ONLY speak for myself, but I just can't imagine a scenario where I'd give a player I'm competing with advice that MIGHT help them beat me. Nor would I think badly of them for feeling the same way about helping me. I'll wait for a survey of Tour players to decide if this really is something that happens all the time or not; I just find that VERY hard to believe; that would make golfers different from athletes in any other sport that I know of, and I just don't accept that without proof.
And there is at least a bit of a slippery slope here, isn't there? Writing workable rules for any sport is difficult, and the rule against giving advice is fairly simple and workable. Would telling a fellow competitor what club you just hit, or are going to hit, or asking him the same, be an exception to the advice rule, or would advice of ANY sort become permissible under the Rules? What about advice concerning a target line? Or how much a putt might break? Or what shot to play out of the rough or a bunker?
Going back a few posts, I also don't accept the premise that this doesn't matter because the player still has to make a good swing, etc. If it wasn't helpful information, it wouldn't be asked for, would it? And the idea that not everybody uses the same club for the same distance doesn't hold water either, at least for me. It doesn't take long to figure out that a guy you are playing with is a club longer or shorter than you are, so variations don't matter much if you know what they are hitting from 150, etc.
-
Giving someone the wrong information (like "I hit 6 there" when you hit a 7-iron) is illegal yes. I was playing off Jeff's post where he seemed to call this kind of misleading info as "gamesmanship." And if that's not exactly what he was saying, that's how I was using it.
Yes, and I believe it would also be covered by the advice rule. I would say that when it comes to the advice rule, the legal analogue wouldn't be speed limit laws, but maybe more like the prohibition laws. If nobody wants to follow them (and they give inordinate power to bad actors), better to do away with them altogether.
Charlie,
Though I take your point about laws that nobody wishes to follow, is that a correct assessment of the asking or giving advice rule in golf? I can ONLY speak for myself, but I just can't imagine a scenario where I'd give a player I'm competing with advice that MIGHT help them beat me. Nor would I think badly of them for feeling the same way about helping me. I'll wait for a survey of Tour players to decide if this really is something that happens all the time or not; I just find that VERY hard to believe; that would make golfers different from athletes in any other sport that I know of, and I just don't accept that without proof.
And there is at least a bit of a slippery slope here, isn't there? Writing workable rules for any sport is difficult, and the rule against giving advice is fairly simple and workable. Would telling a fellow competitor what club you just hit, or are going to hit, or asking him the same, be an exception to the advice rule, or would advice of ANY sort become permissible under the Rules? What about advice concerning a target line? Or how much a putt might break? Or what shot to play out of the rough or a bunker?
Going back a few posts, I also don't accept the premise that this doesn't matter because the player still has to make a good swing, etc. If it wasn't helpful information, it wouldn't be asked for, would it? And the idea that not everybody uses the same club for the same distance doesn't hold water either, at least for me. It doesn't take long to figure out that a guy you are playing with is a club longer or shorter than you are, so variations don't matter much if you know what they are hitting from 150, etc.
A.G., I can't really disagree with much of anything you say here. I, too, am surprised at the apparent extent to which this type of sharing occurs. I could even also accept that the information may have more usefulness than I've given it credit for (I still think it would be of very limited value though). But it's clear that the players and the rules committees don't really care much about this, which leads to lax enforcement and it would have been pretty unfair to have penalized Brooks for this just because it was caught on live TV. To me they either need to fully enforce the rule or get rid of it.
My own disdain for the rule stems from my high school golf career because it felt like it needlessly complicated my life as far as I was concerned (we're talking things like lines and distances and locations of blind hazards, doglegs and the like).
I imagine ditching the advice rule would seem to open up the things you mention, and no I don't want that information being shared either, but some of it, like putting breaks, they seem to already understand not to share it now. Honestly, it's a mess, I'm not certain about anything other than lax, spotty enforcement isn't acceptable.
-
My own disdain for the rule stems from my high school golf career because it felt like it needlessly complicated my life as far as I was concerned (we're talking things like lines and distances and locations of blind hazards, doglegs and the like).
Distances to things, the locations of things (whether hidden or not), etc. are not advice.
I can tell you "there's a creek that crosses this hole at 255." I cannot tell you "hit a 3W so you stay short of the creek on this hole."
-
It’s almost a given that, unless the player confesses, he “gets the benefit of the doubt.” This may work on the tour, it wouldn’t work in a courtroom, where only “reasonable doubt” exonerates. How many bathrooms in Koepka’s house isn’t reasonable. Reed has benefited from this standard (embedded ball) as has Tiger (where ball crossed hazard at Players).
But, in any courtroom in this courntry, there has already been...
"[an] Alice in Wonderland determination that there are judicially determinable "essential" and "nonessential" rules of a made up game..."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/661/ (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/661/)
[PGA Tour Inc. vs Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001)
So, maybe it is a nonessential rule?
-
That's the problem with just letting stuff go, because for every tight call like this years super bowl, you get a ton more blatant non-calls like this that robbed the Saints from locking down a Super Bowl appearance a few years back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x66DzCsNfEU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x66DzCsNfEU)
Kalen hopes all of you only remember that PI call, and not the missed call when the Saints grabbed Goff's facemask that would have given the Rams a first down and probably a game sealing touchdown. Don't click this if you want to stay in Kalen's fantasy world.
https://twitter.com/camdasilva/status/1087120351098781697?lang=en (https://twitter.com/camdasilva/status/1087120351098781697?lang=en)
Bill,
I'm not a Saints fan, so I don't have a dog in the fight.
You're post does basically hits the nail on the head thou, that everyone has a list of grievances a mile high as it pertains to feeling "cheated". But I don't think the solution to that is letting stuff slide and not calling it because "everyone does it". You call em as you see em as best you can, or you implement a review process to get it right, or you get rid of the rule. Doing nothing and/or letting stuff slide only leads to MORE frustration not less.
And in this case I don't see any other conclusion than the Masters Committee had direct video evidence and chose to ignore it.
-
My own disdain for the rule stems from my high school golf career because it felt like it needlessly complicated my life as far as I was concerned (we're talking things like lines and distances and locations of blind hazards, doglegs and the like).
Distances to things, the locations of things (whether hidden or not), etc. are not advice.
I can tell you "there's a creek that crosses this hole at 255." I cannot tell you "hit a 3W so you stay short of the creek on this hole."
Indeed, and that is always how I explained those things, but it would have sometimes been easier to have been able to say: "Hit it at that tree" or something to that effect rather than walk over and explain how many yards in from the right the hazard comes, the fact that the fairway slopes toward the hazard, it's X yards to reach and X yards to carry etc. I realize its not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
-
Bill,
I'm not a Saints fan, so I don't have a dog in the fight.
You're post does basically hits the nail on the head thou, that everyone has a list of grievances a mile high as it pertains to feeling "cheated". But I don't think the solution to that is letting stuff slide and not calling it because "everyone does it". You call em as you see em as best you can, or you implement a review process to get it right, or you get rid of the rule. Doing nothing and/or letting stuff slide only leads to MORE frustration not less.
And in this case I don't see any other conclusion than the Masters Committee had direct video evidence and chose to ignore it.
I'm not necessarily saying they should have let the PI slide because of the earlier missed call, and I don't think that's what happened. I bring up the facemask only to remind butthurt Saints fans (which does not include you) who seem to forget that it happened whenever they want to feel victimized by the missed PI call.
Agree with your take on the Masters committee. And the lies that the players and caddies told in their defense are really insulting to everyone's intelligence.
-
Agree with your take on the Masters committee. And the lies that the players and caddies told in their defense are really insulting to everyone's intelligence.
I'm just going to push back on this a little. If the committee questioned Brooks along the lines of "did you intend to influence play" or something to that effect, he might have honestly answered no. I realize that that doesn't hold up in a court of law, but the rules of golf aren't a court of law. They often say about racing drivers that they are "blessed with a certain lack of imagination". It might really apply to any high-level athlete. But really even all of that shouldn't really matter in this case. If the general culture has been permissive of this for decades at this point and all of a sudden called this penalty now, they would be been acting extremely unfairly.
-
Agree with your take on the Masters committee. And the lies that the players and caddies told in their defense are really insulting to everyone's intelligence.
I'm just going to push back on this a little. If the committee questioned Brooks along the lines of "did you intend to influence play" or something to that effect, he might have honestly answered no. I realize that that doesn't hold up in a court of law, but the rules of golf aren't a court of law. They often say about racing drivers that they are "blessed with a certain lack of imagination". It might really apply to any high-level athlete. But really even all of that shouldn't really matter in this case. If the general culture has been permissive of this for decades at this point and all of a sudden called this penalty now, they would be been acting extremely unfairly.
You can't defend it. It was obvious and intentional on his part and his caddie. They knowingly breached the rules and then lied about it. If it was the US open they would have been penalized. Augusta has a long history of not following the rules. If he was still alive Ken Venturi would tell you how they stole his championship and gave it to Arnie.
-
"Why are you penalizing me when you didn't penalize Brooks Koepka?"
-
How would a story that Adam Scott has told numerous times about Tiger factor into this discussion?
Scott said Tiger would loudly talk to his caddie about his club selection on a par 3, then intentionally pull and hit a club that was two clubs too long for the stock/needed shot, only to pull Scott into doing the same, which he did and flew the green to make bogey.
-
How would a story that Adam Scott has told numerous times about Tiger factor into this discussion?
What's the question? Nothing in there sounds against the Rules.
-
How would a story that Adam Scott has told numerous times about Tiger factor into this discussion?
What's the question? Nothing in there sounds against the Rules.
The language of the rule is intent to influence, if he intended to influence, he broke the rule. It’s essentially unprovable in a situation like this, which to me is a weakness of the rule. Of course by that criteria, Scott might have also broken it.
-
How would a story that Adam Scott has told numerous times about Tiger factor into this discussion?
What's the question? Nothing in there sounds against the Rules.
The language of the rule is intent to influence, if he intended to influence, he broke the rule. It’s essentially unprovable in a situation like this, which to me is a weakness of the rule. Of course by that criteria, Scott might have also broken it.
You do know it's not against the rules to walk over and look in another players bag right? It's also not against the rules to hear what someone else says. What rule did Scott may have broken?
-
I am far from a Rules expert, but I see nothing about intent in the Advice Rule (10.2 I believe).
But regardless, let me offer a hypothetical that builds on A.G.'s post:
Koepka is playing with a buddy--let's say Woodland--in the last group in the last round of the Houston Memorial (yes, I know that he is not eligible as a LIV member), and he blows up on the front nine. Some player--let's say Cantlay--is in the group in front and is tied with Woodland.
Is is okay for Koepka or his caddie to club Woodland or otherwise offer advice about how to play holes given Koepka's knowledge of the course as a consultant in its design? Or should the Advice Rule be ignored in the breach?
It seems like a sensible rule that should be enforced.
Ira
-
How would a story that Adam Scott has told numerous times about Tiger factor into this discussion?
Scott said Tiger would loudly talk to his caddie about his club selection on a par 3, then intentionally pull and hit a club that was two clubs too long for the stock/needed shot, only to pull Scott into doing the same, which he did and flew the green to make bogey.
Sounds like Scott got “gamed” by Tiger. Not against the rules.
-
I am far from a Rules expert, but I see nothing about intent in the Advice Rule (10.2 I believe).
You’re right, either I imagined it, or it might have come from the decisions.
-
I am far from a Rules expert, but I see nothing about intent in the Advice Rule (10.2 I believe).
But regardless, let me offer a hypothetical that builds on A.G.'s post:
Koepka is playing with a buddy--let's say Woodland--in the last group in the last round of the Houston Memorial (yes, I know that he is not eligible as a LIV member), and he blows up on the front nine. Some player--let's say Cantlay--is in the group in front and is tied with Woodland.
Is is okay for Koepka or his caddie to club Woodland or otherwise offer advice about how to play holes given Koepka's knowledge of the course as a consultant in its design? Or should the Advice Rule be ignored in the breach?
It seems like a sensible rule that should be enforced.
Ira
Please, please, please read the goddamned rules
before posting
-
I am far from a Rules expert, but I see nothing about intent in the Advice Rule (10.2 I believe).
As is often the case, you have to look at the Definitions. Look up "Advice" in the definitions.
That said, if Tiger's not giving the info to Scott (or vice versa), it's not advice. Just as Harry Vardon putting his hand on his driver to tempt Francis in the movie to hit driver also was not advice.
-
I am far from a Rules expert, but I see nothing about intent in the Advice Rule (10.2 I believe).
As is often the case, you have to look at the Definitions. Look up "Advice" in the definitions.
That said, if Tiger's not giving the info to Scott (or vice versa), it's not advice. Just as Harry Vardon putting his hand on his driver to tempt Francis in the movie to hit driver also was not advice.
Wrong. The rules clearly prevent such
-
I am far from a Rules expert, but I see nothing about intent in the Advice Rule (10.2 I believe).
But regardless, let me offer a hypothetical that builds on A.G.'s post:
Koepka is playing with a buddy--let's say Woodland--in the last group in the last round of the Houston Memorial (yes, I know that he is not eligible as a LIV member), and he blows up on the front nine. Some player--let's say Cantlay--is in the group in front and is tied with Woodland.
Is is okay for Koepka or his caddie to club Woodland or otherwise offer advice about how to play holes given Koepka's knowledge of the course as a consultant in its design? Or should the Advice Rule be ignored in the breach?
It seems like a sensible rule that should be enforced.
Ira
Please, please, please read the goddamned rules
before posting
I did, but failed to check the definitions. My bad. But the intent aspect of the definition of Advice does not affect the hypothetical unless Koepka was clubbing Woodland just for the fun of it.
Indeed, the definition makes the rule even more sensible.
Ira
-
Wrong. The rules clearly prevent such.
No, sorry. Tiger is allowed to talk to his caddie. He's not giving advice to Adam Scott, he's simply making misleading comments to his caddie. Good luck proving otherwise.
-
This was the exact debate I was talking about.
Is the advice from a position of "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" standpoint.
Or is the advice from a sportsmanship Seve/Tiger/Azinger "opps, sorry about that" standpoint
Again, going to this weird golf rules position of "intent"
-
My experience was similar happened all the time. I was actually a little surprised at how much guys looked in your bag to see what club is being hit or how after a shot the club would “linger” a bit showing the number for anyone who would want to peak.
I trended to hit a lot of different shots so I had to be difficult to club off of. I didn’t do much looking either, it confused me sometimes, which was a short trip most days
-
My experience was similar happened all the time. I was actually a little surprised at how much guys looked in your bag to see what club is being hit or how after a shot the club would “linger” a bit showing the number for anyone who would want to peak.
I trended to hit a lot of different shots so I had to be difficult to club off of. I didn’t do much looking either, it confused me sometimes, which was a short trip most days
Indeed I find this phenomenon way more difficult to understand than the ruling by the committee or any other thing about this whole situation. Pat, do you know why the guys are so free with this information but yet many are sticklers about really most of the other rules?
-
My experience was similar happened all the time. I was actually a little surprised at how much guys looked in your bag to see what club is being hit or how after a shot the club would “linger” a bit showing the number for anyone who would want to peak.
I trended to hit a lot of different shots so I had to be difficult to club off of. I didn’t do much looking either, it confused me sometimes, which was a short trip most days
Indeed I find this phenomenon way more difficult to understand than the ruling by the committee or any other thing about this whole situation. Pat, do you know why the guys are so free with this information but yet many are sticklers about really most of the other rules?
Possibly because this has been going on for a long time? Pre-dating the use of rangefinders and officially provided yardages?
For anything that happens on Tour today I also think about whether it's been a part of college golf, because nearly all of the players go through that portal on their way to the PGA TOUR. I would imagine that teammates often share info in practice and [maybe?] on course . . . can the coach tell his third player what the first two players through hit to the green on a par-3?
By the same token, college coaches are so competitive that I doubt players are ever encouraged to watch what their opponents are hitting, and certainly not to share information from their own experience.
-
My experience was similar happened all the time. I was actually a little surprised at how much guys looked in your bag to see what club is being hit or how after a shot the club would “linger” a bit showing the number for anyone who would want to peak.
I trended to hit a lot of different shots so I had to be difficult to club off of. I didn’t do much looking either, it confused me sometimes, which was a short trip most days
Indeed I find this phenomenon way more difficult to understand than the ruling by the committee or any other thing about this whole situation. Pat, do you know why the guys are so free with this information but yet many are sticklers about really most of the other rules?
Charlie,
Honestly don’t know. I felt I was pretty much a stickler on the rules but there I was. I would tell anyone what I hit, but I certainly never worried about anyone seeing the club I hit.
I also called my ball moving after address 10+ times in my career, so maybe I’m just bipolar.
It’s interesting to look at this in the context of the Masters from far on the sidelines, the quiet sharing of clubs hit was going on all the time now that I look back. A rule that, in effect, isn’t.
-
can the coach tell his third player what the first two players through hit to the green on a par-3?
Yes.
By the same token, college coaches are so competitive that I doubt players are ever encouraged to watch what their opponents are hitting, and certainly not to share information from their own experience.
You might be surprised. PGA Tour players are competitive, too, but they share it. It happens at the collegiate level, too.
Unfortunately.
And, like with backstopping, you can sometimes be seen as "the jerk" if you don't acquiesce. It's bullcrap, IMO, that players feel the pressure to basically give their opponents information.
-
I rarely watch college golf but I’ve always thought the level of interaction between the coaches and players was excessive. I have watched the NCAA Division 1 Northeast Regionals a number of times at Yale and that is a takeaway I always have. I get it during the practice rounds but when the competition starts I wish they would let them play without so much interference. I wonder how often they hinder their player versus helping them?
-
My experience was similar happened all the time. I was actually a little surprised at how much guys looked in your bag to see what club is being hit or how after a shot the club would “linger” a bit showing the number for anyone who would want to peak.
I trended to hit a lot of different shots so I had to be difficult to club off of. I didn’t do much looking either, it confused me sometimes, which was a short trip most days
Indeed I find this phenomenon way more difficult to understand than the ruling by the committee or any other thing about this whole situation. Pat, do you know why the guys are so free with this information but yet many are sticklers about really most of the other rules?
Possibly because this has been going on for a long time? Pre-dating the use of rangefinders and officially provided yardages?
For anything that happens on Tour today I also think about whether it's been a part of college golf, because nearly all of the players go through that portal on their way to the PGA TOUR. I would imagine that teammates often share info in practice and [maybe?] on course . . . can the coach tell his third player what the first two players through hit to the green on a par-3?
By the same token, college coaches are so competitive that I doubt players are ever encouraged to watch what their opponents are hitting, and certainly not to share information from their own experience.
Just yesterday on TGC while I was watching the college tourny from Pasatiempo, an Oregon golfer who was 1 shot back of the leader on the windy par 3 15th, took 3 steps away from his bag to look up close into another kids bag who had just it over the green to see what club he hit. Announcers even mentioned it was a good idea without mentioning anything about a rules violation or even bad etiquette. He then hit a good shot pin high but missed the putt and finished 1 shot back to the winner, a kid from Pepperdine. So it must be commonplace in college also. 8)
-
Sharing club info on the tour has been going on as long as I have watched golf. That's why it was a big deal when towels were thrown over the bag. Made you think there was perhaps a beef going on between the players.
Back stopping has been has been happening forever. As has not dropping the ball in the exact spot of where it was hit after a penalty for the obvious reason the ball might hang up in the divot.
Ciao
-
As has not dropping the ball in the exact spot of where it was hit after a penalty for the obvious reason the ball might hang up in the divot.
They'd have to re-drop anyway because the divot hole is almost certainly forward of the location from which that ball was hit.
It's different if you're a chop and your divot starts 6" behind the ball… ;D
-
It pleases me that backstopping is now recognized as commonplace. The remedy should be double disqualification for collusion. But the rule requires an actual agreement; a tacit agreement doesn’t qualify.
I propose a rule change - the 5/10 rule. If the ball on the green is within 5 feet of the hole and the ball off the green is within 10 yards of the green, the ball must be marked or the chipper will receive a one stroke penalty if he hits the other ball. No, this won’t slow down play; players will just stop backstopping.
-
I know pretty much 100% what club the guys in my regular group are playing without cheating. I would be shocked if these pros don't....
-
It pleases me that backstopping is now recognized as commonplace. The remedy should be double disqualification for collusion. But the rule requires an actual agreement; a tacit agreement doesn’t qualify.
I propose a rule change - the 5/10 rule. If the ball on the green is within 5 feet of the hole and the ball off the green is within 10 yards of the green, the ball must be marked or the chipper will receive a one stroke penalty if he hits the other ball. No, this won’t slow down play; players will just stop backstopping.
Really, 5 & 10 yards? You are introducing crazy specifics that would at times require a seriously accurate measurement. Back stopping never bothered me. It's all part of the rub of the game. I never watched golf or any sport for the most accurate or fair result. I watch for drama, intrigue, mishaps and moments of greatness. That part of sports is slowly being eroded and to me it is tragic.
Ciao
-
I can't recall what exactly, but didn't Hogan do something to the numbers on his clubs to prevent other golfers knowing what he'd hit. Seems a long way from there...
I'm not as worked up about it as some, but I do struggle with the idea that the players of a game decide which rules apply. After this I hope their committee of representatives will write to the rules committee and say can't we just drop rules X, Y and that part of Z...(I'm not holding my breath).
-
Sean: Backstopping isn’t rub if the green; it’s collusion and it’s cheating. No, there won’t be lots of measurements and delays, because if players measure and leave the ball, it’s clearly collusion. They’ll just mark it. Is my 5/10 rule perfect? No. Will it end backstopping/cheating? Yes.
-
IMO, there is a world of difference between backstopping and the question of advice.
I believe the rule requires a player to mark his ball on the green IF doing so can be accomplished without undue delay. (If my wording is incorrect, I think that gets the gist right?). That creates a ton of judgement calls already; even if I’m close to the green, should I sprint to mark my ball if another player is already preparing to play his shot? If I’m not mistaken, the current rule is a one-way rule, isn’t it? It requires me to mark if I can do so without undue delay, but it doesn’t require another player to wait while I go and mark my ball.
Any attempt to add to that rule brings even more judgement into the equation. How close to the hole? How close am I to the green? How close to the line of play? And so on…
I will cop to going ahead and playing my shot before a fellow competitor has time to walk up and mark his ball, but only when I was already closer to the green to begin with. I don’t hurry to play the shot; that would be counterproductive vs the remote possibility that my ball MIGHT hit the other ball and be helped by that more than if I just played a good shot to begin with. I realize the pros are far more precise than I, and it bugs the heck out of me that this practice goes on, but I don’t know how you legislate it away without creating even more issues and slowing up play.
The club selection thing, by contrast, is relatively cut and dried. Either advice was asked for/given, or it wasn’t. Looking away with a wink and a nod, or saying, “Well, everybody does it…” doesn’t change that.
I’ll say it again; I struggle with the concept of these guys in ANY way assisting a guy they are trying to beat. I just do NOT get that, and I’ve been in competitive sports for 60+ years now. It is beyond my comprehension.
-
Sean: Backstopping isn’t rub if the green; it’s collusion and it’s cheating. No, there won’t be lots of measurements and delays, because if players measure and leave the ball, it’s clearly collusion. They’ll just mark it. Is my 5/10 rule perfect? No. Will it end backstopping/cheating? Yes.
Except so called back stopping isn't cheating. You are on about tacit agreements between players to mark or not....no? A player can request a ball be marked or a player can mark a ball if they choose to. I am of the mind that if I can comfortably mark the ball without holding up play I will do so. However, my priority is not to interfere with the rhythm of another golfer over marking the ball. You may disagree and that's ok. But in my experience, that is how the game is played 🤷. And yes, in your scenario I can definitely see issues with measuring distance for the sake of rule accuracy. Nope, introducing distance into the rule creates more grief. If you think it's fixed, don't bet on golf.
Ciao
-
Sean: Backstopping isn’t rub if the green; it’s collusion and it’s cheating. No, there won’t be lots of measurements and delays, because if players measure and leave the ball, it’s clearly collusion. They’ll just mark it. Is my 5/10 rule perfect? No. Will it end backstopping/cheating? Yes.
Except so called back stopping isn't cheating. You are on about tacit agreements between players to mark or not....no? A player can request a ball be marked or a player can mark a ball if they choose to. I am of the mind that if I can comfortably mark the ball without holding up play I will do so. However, my priority is not to interfere with the rhythm of another golfer over marking the ball. You may disagree and that's ok. But in my experience, that is how the game is played 🤷. And yes, in your scenario I can definitely see issues with measuring distance for the sake of rule accuracy. Nope, introducing distance into the rule creates more grief. If you think it's fixed, don't bet on golf.
Ciao
Well, I could be wrong here, but...
Under Rule 15.3, "backstopping" by agreement, spoken or unspoken, IS cheating. Difficult to interpret, difficult to enforce, difficult to prove; yes to each. But still, if there is an agreement, it IS cheating.
-
Sean: Backstopping isn’t rub if the green; it’s collusion and it’s cheating. No, there won’t be lots of measurements and delays, because if players measure and leave the ball, it’s clearly collusion. They’ll just mark it. Is my 5/10 rule perfect? No. Will it end backstopping/cheating? Yes.
Except so called back stopping isn't cheating. You are on about tacit agreements between players to mark or not....no? A player can request a ball be marked or a player can mark a ball if they choose to. I am of the mind that if I can comfortably mark the ball without holding up play I will do so. However, my priority is not to interfere with the rhythm of another golfer over marking the ball. You may disagree and that's ok. But in my experience, that is how the game is played . And yes, in your scenario I can definitely see issues with measuring distance for the sake of rule accuracy. Nope, introducing distance into the rule creates more grief. If you think it's fixed, don't bet on golf.
Ciao
Well, I could be wrong here, but...
Under Rule 15.3, "backstopping" by agreement, spoken or unspoken, IS cheating. Difficult to interpret, difficult to enforce, difficult to prove; yes to each. But still, if there is an agreement, it IS cheating.
That is my understanding. So to label anybody who leaves a ball on a green a cheater is slander. Its wild west justice...typical for golf wing nuts. :D I have never heard of anybody accussing someone of illegal backstopping in all the golf I have played. I am sure it has come up, but I have never seen it. Or are we suggesting a different rule for the pros?
So much angst over crap rather than the actual shot quality. Is this what happens to tv spectators when play is slow? :o
Ciao
-
Sean: Backstopping isn’t rub if the green; it’s collusion and it’s cheating. No, there won’t be lots of measurements and delays, because if players measure and leave the ball, it’s clearly collusion. They’ll just mark it. Is my 5/10 rule perfect? No. Will it end backstopping/cheating? Yes.
Except so called back stopping isn't cheating. You are on about tacit agreements between players to mark or not....no? A player can request a ball be marked or a player can mark a ball if they choose to. I am of the mind that if I can comfortably mark the ball without holding up play I will do so. However, my priority is not to interfere with the rhythm of another golfer over marking the ball. You may disagree and that's ok. But in my experience, that is how the game is played . And yes, in your scenario I can definitely see issues with measuring distance for the sake of rule accuracy. Nope, introducing distance into the rule creates more grief. If you think it's fixed, don't bet on golf.
Ciao
Well, I could be wrong here, but...
Under Rule 15.3, "backstopping" by agreement, spoken or unspoken, IS cheating. Difficult to interpret, difficult to enforce, difficult to prove; yes to each. But still, if there is an agreement, it IS cheating.
That is my understanding. So to label anybody who leaves a ball on a green a cheater is slander. Its wild west justice...typical for golf wing nuts. :D I have never heard of anybody accussing someone of illegal backstopping in all the golf I have played. I am sure it has come up, but I have never seen it. Or are we suggesting a different rule for the pros?
So much angst over crap rather than the actual shot quality. Is this what happens to tv spectators when play is slow? :o
Ciao
Agreed. I play a LOT of competitive golf, and in many, many rounds these situations come up. I might play from off the green and start walking toward my ball to mark it, only to see a fellow competitor ready, or close to it, to play his shot; now I have to decide whether or not to go ahead and mark. And, of course, I could be the player with the upcoming shot,and face the decision of going ahead and playing or waiting for the fellow competitor to get up to the green to mark. I think the key here is that the idea of an agreement between the two players.
The only time I remember it being openly discussed was in a four ball when the guys we were playing with discussed it and left a ball on the green just beyond the hole to possibly help on a very difficult downhill pitch over a bunker. At the time, I wasn't sure of whether the rule applied the same way when the two player were partners; I asked after the round, and was told in no uncertain terms that it DOES apply in a partner situation.
-
I recall an incident many years ago when Monty and Darren Clarke were playing together in a Euro event. Clarke was chipping on first with Monty in the greenside bunker and ready to play. As soon as Clarke had played Monty played his shot before Clarke had a chance to mark. Monty's ball hit Clarke's which was 6 or 7 feet behind the flag. Clarke wasn't best pleased but then he never was when it came to Monty.
Can't say whether Monty simply played ready golf or had it in his mind that Clarke's ball could act as a back-stop. I suspect not as it wasn't much of a bunker shot, but Clarke wasn't happy all the same. At the time I thought that he was miffed that he hadn't been allowed to mark and thought that bad etiquette but maybe he just didn't want to give Monty an advantage.
Niall
-
I recall an incident many years ago when Monty and Darren Clarke were playing together in a Euro event. Clarke was chipping on first with Monty in the greenside bunker and ready to play. As soon as Clarke had played Monty played his shot before Clarke had a chance to mark. Monty's ball hit Clarke's which was 6 or 7 feet behind the flag. Clarke wasn't best pleased but then he never was when it came to Monty.
Can't say whether Monty simply played ready golf or had it in his mind that Clarke's ball could act as a back-stop. I suspect not as it wasn't much of a bunker shot, but Clarke wasn't happy all the same. At the time I thought that he was miffed that he hadn't been allowed to mark and thought that bad etiquette but maybe he just didn't want to give Monty an advantage.
Niall
Clarke had the right to make him to wait until he marked
-
Wrong. The rules clearly prevent such.
No, sorry. Tiger is allowed to talk to his caddie. He's not giving advice to Adam Scott, he's simply making misleading comments to his caddie. Good luck proving otherwise.
Tiger intentionally acted (verbally) with the intent to influence Scott in choosing a club and making a stroke. That is clearly contrary to the definition of advice.
Also, note the first example of advice given in the Guide book
-
Tiger intentionally acted (verbally) with the intent to influence Scott in choosing a club and making a stroke. That is clearly contrary to the definition of advice.
No, it's not, because you're not going to be able to prove the intent. You can prove that he spoke, but not that it was to Scott or to influence Scott.
Given your previous (incorrect) comment about how "different shaft flexes" and stuff make this info worthless, you're now arguing that Tiger can/did influence Adam Scott by saying something to Tiger's own caddie?
-
Tiger intentionally acted (verbally) with the intent to influence Scott in choosing a club and making a stroke. That is clearly contrary to the definition of advice.
No, it's not, because you're not going to be able to prove the intent. You can prove that he spoke, but not that it was to Scott or to influence Scott.
I can't speak for John, but I think the point might be that the exact same thing could be said of Brooks.
Rules committee: Brooks, you and your caddie both said "Five", did you intend to influence play?
Brooks: Nope
Rules committee: Nothing we can do here boys.
-
I can't speak for John, but I think the point might be that the exact same thing could be said of Brooks.
Brooks and his caddie said it TO Gary's caddie (three times), not to each other as is often done on Tour. Equivalent of leaving the towel off the club heads, etc.
-
I can't speak for John, but I think the point might be that the exact same thing could be said of Brooks.
Brooks and his caddie said it TO Gary's caddie (three times), not to each other as is often done on Tour. Equivalent of leaving the towel off the club heads, etc.
It's not the equivalent of leaving the towel off the club heads. Anyone can do that but the other player has to walk over and look. They directly gave them the advice both visually and verbally. The rules don't say you have to cover your clubs. They do say you can't give tell them what club you hit.
I don't understand the argument. They knowingly broke the rules and you can't defend that. Then they lied about it
-
It's not the equivalent of leaving the towel off the club heads.
Saying "Let's hit the 5I" (caddie to his player or vice versa) is equivalent to leaving the towel off. In either case, someone can over-hear or take a peek, and it's not illegal.
Both are often done on Tour (players will talk loudly to their caddies, will wash the club in a way that others can see it, etc.). I don't like it, but it's commonly done.
I don't understand the argument. They knowingly broke the rules and you can't defend that. Then they lied about it
Uhhh, I haven't defended Brooks or his caddie (or Gary or his). Not once. They should have been penalized IMO.
-
I want to say that I don’t like the situation as it is either. It’s just that the permissive attitude on tour combined with the language of the rule makes it nigh on impossible to enforce. There has been only one instance on the tour of it being enforced thus far this millennium. And that guy called it on himself!
-
It's not the equivalent of leaving the towel off the club heads.
Saying "Let's hit the 5I" (caddie to his player or vice versa) is equivalent to leaving the towel off. In either case, someone can over-hear or take a peek, and it's not illegal.
Both are often done on Tour (players will talk loudly to their caddies, will wash the club in a way that others can see it, etc.). I don't like it, but it's commonly done.
I don't understand the argument. They knowingly broke the rules and you can't defend that. Then they lied about it
Uhhh, I haven't defended Brooks or his caddie (or Gary or his). Not once. They should have been penalized IMO.
I know you aren’t defending them, didn’t say you were. I replied to your post because the towel comparison makes no sense. To imply you are doing something wrong by not covering your clubs is foolish.
-
To imply you are doing something wrong by not covering your clubs is foolish.
Good thing I didn't do that then.
-
I recall an incident many years ago when Monty and Darren Clarke were playing together in a Euro event. Clarke was chipping on first with Monty in the greenside bunker and ready to play. As soon as Clarke had played Monty played his shot before Clarke had a chance to mark. Monty's ball hit Clarke's which was 6 or 7 feet behind the flag. Clarke wasn't best pleased but then he never was when it came to Monty.
Can't say whether Monty simply played ready golf or had it in his mind that Clarke's ball could act as a back-stop. I suspect not as it wasn't much of a bunker shot, but Clarke wasn't happy all the same. At the time I thought that he was miffed that he hadn't been allowed to mark and thought that bad etiquette but maybe he just didn't want to give Monty an advantage.
Niall
Clarke had the right to make him to wait until he marked
John
Clarke hadn't even got to the green when Monty played. Are you saying that it is a rule that a player can insist on marking his ball after hitting a shot onto a green and before his playing partner has hit his approach to the same green ? If so, does that same rule apply when both players are 200 yards from the green rather than within 15/20 yards ?
Niall
-
Clarke hadn't even got to the green when Monty played. Are you saying that it is a rule that a player can insist on marking his ball after hitting a shot onto a green and before his playing partner has hit his approach to the same green ? If so, does that same rule apply when both players are 200 yards from the green rather than within 15/20 yards?
He's likely saying what he wrote: that Clarke could have told Monty he intended to mark his ball, and Monty would have had to allow him to go do so.
In fact, any player (even one on a nearby hole) could have requested Clarke mark his ball before Montgomerie played. It doesn't even matter if it's their ball or they're the one about to play the shot.
Rule 15.3:
If a player reasonably believes that a ball on the putting green might help anyone’s play (such as by serving as a possible backstop near the hole), the player may:
- Mark the spot of the ball and lift it under Rule 13.1b if it is their own ball, or if the ball belongs to another player, require the other player to mark the spot and lift the ball (see Rule 14.1).
- The lifted ball must be replaced on its original spot (see Rule 14.2).
-
Another example of “professional courtesy.” On 15 today, Walker hit a high hook into the trees. No one saw the ball. A video replay couldn’t follow it either, but no splash was seen in the water left of the trees. They looked around on both sides of the water for what seemed like a lot longer than 3 minutes. The announcers correctly questioned whether it was virtually certain that it went in the water. No one saw it go in the water, and it could have easily glanced off a tree left of the water.
All of a sudden, Scheffler opined that it had have to hit a tree at the far end of where they were looking, on the right side of the water. Walker took a drop giving him a direct shot to the green. Once Scheffler put his two cents in, I suppose everything after that was Kosher. But all Scheffler was doing was scratching his buddy’s back. Anybody see this and think it was sketchy?
-
Another example of “professional courtesy.” On 15 today, Walker hit a high hook into the trees. No one saw the ball. A video replay couldn’t follow it either, but no splash was seen in the water left of the trees. They looked around on both sides of the water for what seemed like a lot longer than 3 minutes. The announcers correctly questioned whether it was virtually certain that it went in the water. No one saw it go in the water, and it could have easily glanced off a tree left of the water.
All of a sudden, Scheffler opined that it had have to hit a tree at the far end of where they were looking, on the right side of the water. Walker took a drop giving him a direct shot to the green. Once Scheffler put his two cents in, I suppose everything after that was Kosher. But all Scheffler was doing was scratching his buddy’s back. Anybody see this and think it was sketchy?
Good article here on the Jimmy Walker ruling yesterday at HT.
With 'vote of confidence' rules gesture, Scottie Scheffler rescues bewildered pro (golf.com) (https://golf.com/instruction/rules/vote-confidence-scottie-scheffler-helps-gesture/)
-
Excellent description of what happened. Once another player comes to the rescue (a la Casey Wittenberg for Tiger at the Players), that’s the end of the discussion. Scheffler sure waited a long time to put his 2 cents in, and one would think if the ball dropped pretty near the fairway the camera would have picked it up. We’ll never know. But it seemed pertinent to a discussion of Tour players helping each other out.
-
8)
As to backstopping by Monty, if he was seven feet behind the hole who really cares? More likely D.Clark was irritated in general by the curmudgeonly Englishman ( meant Scot) and just needed a little push to go off! There’s a long history there too regarding the English and Irish ☘️
-
yeah, who was the Englishman ?
-
yeah, who was the Englishman ?
Ha, I was going to say the same thing
-
8)
Ha , ha my bad. Must have been a senior moment as I totally meant to say the dour Scot ;D
Met Monty as a 19 year old and he wasn't much fun even then...as to Clark woo hoo
-
I can't speak for John, but I think the point might be that the exact same thing could be said of Brooks.
Brooks and his caddie said it TO Gary's caddie (three times), not to each other as is often done on Tour. Equivalent of leaving the towel off the club heads, etc.
It's not the equivalent of leaving the towel off the club heads. Anyone can do that but the other player has to walk over and look. They directly gave them the advice both visually and verbally. The rules don't say you have to cover your clubs. They do say you can't give tell them what club you hit.
I don't understand the argument. They knowingly broke the rules and you can't defend that. Then they lied about it
I have a friend who caddies on the Corn Ferry Tour. I asked him today about the Keopka/caddy advice controversy. He said the CF caddies were told it wasn’t a rule violation because the comments were made AFTER both players had hit their shots. I hadn’t heard that explanation anywhere else. If that’s true, why wasn’t it made clear somewhere?
-
Well that's not true.
According to shot tracker on the Masters website.
Brooks hit his drive 310 yards, and had 231 left.
Woodland hit his drive 331 yards, and had 209 yards left
In the video, you can see Brooks hit then his caddy gave information to Woodlands caddy...
-
Well that's not true.
According to shot tracker on the Masters website.
Brooks hit his drive 310 yards, and had 231 left.
Woodland hit his drive 331 yards, and had 209 yards left
In the video, you can see Brooks hit then his caddy gave information to Woodlands caddy...
Hmm... I'll take that up with him. Thanks.
-
Well that's not true.
According to shot tracker on the Masters website.
Brooks hit his drive 310 yards, and had 231 left.
Woodland hit his drive 331 yards, and had 209 yards left
In the video, you can see Brooks hit then his caddy gave information to Woodlands caddy...
Kalen - I've reviewed the video and you are absolutely correct. The advice was definitely given before Woodland hit his shot, not after. I can't imagine why this caddy would have told me otherwise (or why he was told otherwise) when the evidence is so telling.
-
So they won't enforce a two shot penalty for a player's caddie deliberately breaking the rules.
But they do enforce an accidental misunderstanding like this, causing one player to miss the cut...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/a-bizarre-rules-mishap-involving-a-shuttle-ride-might-have-just-cost-a-tour-pro-his-job-on-the-korn-ferry-tour/ar-AA1abH6s?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=56b87d6659564820b3822d43c7bc3425&ei=9
-
So they won't enforce a two shot penalty for a player's caddie deliberately breaking the rules.
But they do enforce an accidental misunderstanding like this, causing one player to miss the cut...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/a-bizarre-rules-mishap-involving-a-shuttle-ride-might-have-just-cost-a-tour-pro-his-job-on-the-korn-ferry-tour/ar-AA1abH6s?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=56b87d6659564820b3822d43c7bc3425&ei=9 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/a-bizarre-rules-mishap-involving-a-shuttle-ride-might-have-just-cost-a-tour-pro-his-job-on-the-korn-ferry-tour/ar-AA1abH6s?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=56b87d6659564820b3822d43c7bc3425&ei=9)
They in this instance was the PGA(Korn Ferry) Tour
The other "They" are The Masters, who pick and choose who and what to enforce.
Koepka's caddie cheated, and "they" The Masters Committee, simply chose to ask the wrong questions.
-
Bruce says to no one in particular when playing with Archie Struthers " I hit a stock 5 iron on that last shot". Archie has to know:
1. How far Bruce hits a 5 iron - 175
2. How far Archie hits a 5 iron
3. Wind direction
4. Bruce's lie - uphill, downhill, sidehill
5. Type of shot Bruce tried to play and if it actually worked to play - 3/4, punch, rope hook, cut, etc.
I get the rules...........but..................
Yeah - and no one who has opined here in 8 pages has ever gone above the speed limit while driving, made a right on red without making a complete stop, rolled thru a stop sign orgone thru a red light when thought you would make it thru on a yellow........
-
Bruce says to no one in particular when playing with Archie Struthers " I hit a stock 5 iron on that last shot". Archie has to know:
1. How far Bruce hits a 5 iron - 175
2. How far Archie hits a 5 iron
3. Wind direction
4. Bruce's lie - uphill, downhill, sidehill
5. Type of shot Bruce tried to play and if it actually worked to play - 3/4, punch, rope hook, cut, etc.
I get the rules...........but..................
Yeah - and no one who has opined here in 8 pages has ever gone above the speed limit while driving, made a right on red without making a complete stop, rolled thru a stop sign orgone thru a red light when thought you would make it thru on a yellow........
Bruce,
For obvious reasons, the Rules don’t contain any provisions about how beneficial advice might or might not be. While I think it’s highly likely that club selection advice on Tour would be more helpful than in your match with Archie, that’s not the point. The point is that a player can’t ask for or give advice; it’s a rule of the game that you agree to abide by when you enter a competition.
Likewise, my own previous rule breaking has no bearing on my current status if I get a traffic ticket. Neither “But I’ve always done this!” or “But EVERYONE does this!” is a valid defense. It didn’t work with your parents when you were a kid, you didn’t buy it from your kids, a judge wouldn’t buy it from you in traffic court, and it SHOULDN’T have worked at The Masters.