Wie in water hazard

[Jim Sweeney]

Rory:

Your comment verges on a very important point- that the officials, while there to protect MS. Wie's rights under the rules, also have to protect the field's rights. If she violated a rule (which she did), the epenalty must be imposed to protect the integrity of the competition. In a case like this, the violation does not constitute cheating, but arguing about the legitimate application of the rule might be construed by some as an attempt to circumnavigate it, and that might not be recieved very well by her peers.

[Rory Connaughton]

Jim

I agree that protection of the field is paramount. My guess is that her peers are not impressed by this attempt to avoid penalty and will watch her closely in the future. They would be far more angry and justifiably so had she been able to brow beat the officials into a favorable ruling.

[JLahrman]

Well I'm sure other players have contested rulings before, maybe some of them with an even flimsier case than Ms. Wie.  But I do agree that it was highly improper to be broadcasting the discussion from the scoring tent.  I think any player should be able to plead their case if they really think they've been unfairly penalized, but I didn't see anything indicating that her penalty was inappropriate.

[TEPaul]

"On explanation is that Peter didn't know the rules."

Garland:

Could be but that is no excuse for not getting penalized and the Rules of Golf state that specifically.


"Another explanation is that he was savvy enough to get permission before entering the hazard knowing he could ground his club until the official told him to cease and desist."


To get permission from a Rules official that he was going to prevent himself from falling BEFORE he did anything?

Wow, that's a new one on me. I don't know whether I'd give Jacobsen a two stroke penalty for the way you described tha situation or fire that Rules official for giving him permission before he did anything, or both. That one may be one to have JVB weigh in on. I've done a lot of officiating but he definitely has a lot more experience with those kinds of things than I do.

Sometimes I'm shocked by the explained philosophies of some really good Rules Officials that seem arbitrary or totally subjective to me and other times I get really pissed at other really good Rules Official who sort of act like they are more interested in entrapping players into penalties rather than helping them avoid them under the Rules of Golf and its stated procedures.

For well over a century there has been the philosophies of the so-called "Conservative Party" vs the "Party of Equity" amongst even the very best Rules officials, and thinkers, philosophers and Rules-makers. I think I come down somewhere in the middle of that in a pretty unique way.

I want to feel like I can help a player avoid a penalty within the context the Rules allows that but on the other hand I am not so much into the "Equity Party" philosophy that I want to really consider what is completely in a player's mind. To me it's pretty much a matter of what is just is and intent is not really part of that. When the Rules go so far as to try to totally analyze the underlying intent of any player's mind in various situations I think the Rules of Golf will begin to enter into a virtual courtroom context and I never want to see the Rules go there or go that far.

To me, Tuft's old principle and the uniquely golf-related "equity" principle of "like situations shall be treated alike" will always do it for me in The Rules of Golf and their application.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's the responsibility of every golfer to advocate their position, provided they're doing so in good faith.
Unfortunately, the facts or their data base (rules) are not always in agreement.

It's the officials responsibility to protect the field and provide accurate rulings.
Unfortunately, the facts or their data base (rules) are not always in agreement.

There's a rather efficient, fair process for disputes in medal play, so irrespective of the positions of the two parties, the issue can be properly adjudicated subsequent to the play of the course.

In my limited experience, I've rarely seen players advocate for the more penal position.

[John Moore II]

I didn't see this on TV, so I just want to know if Wie took off her pants/shorts or her shirt while she was in the water hazard? Damn it man why can't the women hit shots like Henrick Stenson did at Doral last year?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I was just reading your post #80. Have you even remotely noticed recently, or perhaps for some years now, that your posts are generally very similar to that Post #80, wherein the words, if looked at individually seem fairly understandable, and amazingly even taken together, may seem passably cogent, but on closer or close analysis mean virtually nothing?

I know you Patrick, and you're a good guy, probably a smart guy, or at least you once were, and probably before falling into the easily debauchering and mind-addling Neroesque habits of chasing nubile young skirts around fancy hotel swimming pools on the Platinum coast of Southeast Florida at your age, and some such.

The only other explanation for your bizarre and unintelligable posts is that you have not yet divorced yourself enough from the Troglodytically low and muddled ideas and positions of Tom MacWood on here.

You meet me within the next month or so to the right of the 7th green at NGLA Patrick, as we did once before (and I think with that strange man Bahto in tow) and we will breath deeply for fifteen minutes or so, and then, once again, I will show you and teach you the theory and spirituality of truly sublime golf architectural concept and actuality, as I once did. It seems your worldly weaknesses have corrupted you in the twixt and the twain, but I can purify you again, as I did once before.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Wie's excuse was weak to the point that it was unbelievable.

Her balance, post shot, was never in question, despite her protests to the contrary.
She made a careless mistake that we could all make, it was a mistake of the moment, one where disappointment overrode awareness.

While you not might be aware of it, in medal play, play can continue uninterupted, with the dispute being resolved, post round, prior to signing and attesting of the scorecard.

I look forward to meeting with you near the 7th green or anywhere else on the property in June.
You should start playing golf again.

Not playing has idled your mind and you've forgotten almost everything that I've taught you over the years, which is considerable.

Call me tonight

[George Pazin]

While you not might be aware of it, in medal play, play can continue uninterupted, with the dispute being resolved, post round, prior to signing and attesting of the scorecard.

I believe this is actually what happened in this case. The dispute occurred post round in the scorer's tent.

Embarrassing question:

What if she had been holding the club above the grass casually and it slipped out of her hand? Would that constitute grounding?

[TEPaul]

"What if she had been holding the club above the grass casually and it slipped out of her hand? Would that constitute grounding?"


George:

Pretty much the entire deal and determing factor within Rule 13-4 revolves around testing the condition of the hazard before a shot when one's ball is within a hazard. The Rule does allow players to do things like place a club or clubs in a hazard which is technically grounding the club just so long as nothing is done that constitutes "testing the condition" of the hazard with one's hands or a club or even one's feet other than in preparation from taking a norman stance to hit the shot.
 
 
 

[Dale Jackson]

So the question still stands:  would Wie have been better off just dropping the damn club?

If the club had been dropped or slipped from her hands there would not have been a penalty.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So the question still stands:  would Wie have been better off just dropping the damn club?

If the club had been dropped or slipped from her hands there would not have been a penalty.

Are you positive ?

Remember, Wie's ball never left the hazard after she hit it out of the water.

What did she do next, after her attempt from the water ?

[Dale Jackson]

If the club had been dropped or slipped from her hands there would not have been a penalty.

Are you positive ?

Remember, Wie's ball never left the hazard after she hit it out of the water.

What did she do next, after her attempt from the water ?
[/quote]

Pat, Shivas et. al., if the question is:

Would Wie have been penalized if she had not grounded her club while it was in her grasp, but dropped her club intentionally or unintentionally after her first stroke from the hazard and before her second stroke, the answer is no she would not have been penalised.

And that is my final answer!

Pat, I do not know what you are referring to in your last question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If the club had been dropped or slipped from her hands there would not have been a penalty.

Are you positive ?

Remember, Wie's ball never left the hazard after she hit it out of the water.

What did she do next, after her attempt from the water ?

Pat, Shivas et. al., if the question is:

Would Wie have been penalized if she had not grounded her club while it was in her grasp, but dropped her club intentionally or unintentionally after her first stroke from the hazard and before her second stroke, the answer is no she would not have been penalised.

That's not my question.

But, to expand on my question, if according to your premise, the club "slipped from her grasp"  WHERE DID IT LAND ?  In the hazard ?

And that is my final answer!

Pat, I do not know what you are referring to in your last question.

My last question inquired as to her actions subsequent to her shot from the water that never left the boundaries of the hazard.
Did she play the next shot from within the hazard or did she take a drop (a) in the hazard per 26-1a ?  Or, did she proceed as under
26-1b or 26-1c ?

Do you maintain that if the club had slipped from her hand and come to rest within the hazard, that she could retrieve that club and subsequently play her ball, still at rest within the hazard, without further penalty ?
[/quote]

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

She saved par by hitting the next shot from within the hazard. That is she would have saved par if it weren't for mind reading rules officials.

[Dale Jackson]

Do you maintain that if the club had slipped from her hand and come to rest within the hazard, that she could retrieve that club and subsequently play her ball, still at rest within the hazard, without further penalty ?

Sir, that is indeed what I maintain.

And trying to edit your posts when quoting them is quite an interesting experience.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do you maintain that if the club had slipped from her hand and come to rest within the hazard, that she could retrieve that club and subsequently play her ball, still at rest within the hazard, without further penalty ?

Sir, that is indeed what I maintain.

To further clarify, if her club slipped and came to rest directly in front of, or behind her ball, which was still in the hazard, do you maintain that she could pick her club up and play her next shot without penalty ?

What if an old club was lying directly in front of, or behind her ball, could she pick that club up and proceed to play without penalty ?

And trying to edit your posts when quoting them is quite an interesting experience.

Just left click and drag your mouse across the part you want to quote, it will save you time,

[Dale Jackson]

To further clarify, if her club slipped and came to rest directly in front of, or behind her ball, which was still in the hazard, do you maintain that she could pick her club up and play her next shot without penalty ?

What if an old club was lying directly in front of, or behind her ball, could she pick that club up and proceed to play without penalty ?

Providing the ball is not moved when dropping or picking up the club, and nothing is done which improves the position or lie of her ball, the area of her intended stance or swing, or her line of play, she may pick up the club and play without penalty.

As for the old club, which I assume to not be hers, it has the status of a movable obstruction and yes, she can pick up the club and play without penalty.  In that case, even if the ball is moved in the removal of the club, the ball is replaced and she may play without penalty.

Mr Mucci, you seem to be getting at something, so why not come to the point and do away with this sparring.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Wie now sporting her new waterproofs in case she slips and falls into the water  - lot cheaper than $90,000



Melvyn

PS Actually Garland has just lent her his gear as a small sign of solidarity with her minor error.

PPS I am still very surprised that no one has asked why Tiger was never fined for throwing his clubs. The site must be full of male chauvinist pigs to coin a phrase – of course that may not necessary be my opinion. The scales of justice do not seem to balance anymore and double standards have become the norm which I expect loosely translated means that a misdemeanour now requires a life terms in prison with minimal proof, while felonies are dismissed as just too hard to prove and anyway do we want to charge our heroes, hell what sort of society not to mention justice system would that be.

[Pete_Pittock]

Melvyn,
How can wie  respond without knowing what is in your mind?   I would guess that,until you lobbed in a grenade on Tiger's club throwing, no one had posted because it was seemingly not germane to the thread.
I am unsure about your statement re: PGA Tour fines, because they are normally a private matter between the Tour and the professional golfer, but I might be wrong.