News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« on: August 26, 2006, 06:18:11 PM »
   The Scot got screwed, me thinks, on 16.  He's in the hazard.  The referee for the match is right there with him (five yards away).  The kid takes a few practice swings;  looks like he's grounding club, but maybe he's brushing the grass;  he addresses the ball; again, looks like he's grounded the club;  official says nothing; commentaters on tv say it looks like he grounded the club; official's walkie talkie goes off; official declares loss of hole, saying that the TV people determined that club had been grounded.
   Fortunately, the kid wins anyway.  In post match interview, he says he knows the rule and didn't ground his club.  Should TV have butted in?  Is TV allowed to butt in?

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2006, 06:28:11 PM »
This is what bugs me about the Rules of Golf - They frequently seem to be using video replay even though use of the replay isn't codified in the rules.

The NFL, the NCAA, etc - all have video review built into their rulebook.  I don't think there's anything in the rule on "The Committee" that suggests than an NBC production truck plays a part as a referee.

I used to officiate HS football back in Oregon.  Do you think we'd stop the game to review a video that some parent or local cable TV outlet shot?  No way, Jose.  

Can you imagine a baseball umpire overturning a call based on a TV replay?  Of course not.

So why then, does golf allow such strageness?

Jim Sweeney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2006, 06:30:40 PM »
All I can tell you as a 15 year rules official is that when I saw it on TV, There was no question in my mind that he was over the line and he had transgressed the rule. At first I couldn't believe what I was seeing, and thought that the hazard line must have been very tight to the water and his ball was not in the hazard. Actually, in my opinion, his practice swings constituted more than lightly brushing the grass, which is allowed.

If you listened closely, the rules official, Lew Blakey, said to the players than he could not see the grouding of the club. Blakey is a rules instructor in PGA/USGA schools.

The call to Blakey came from David Fay, who was doing rules commentary in the booth. I might listen to an argument that general viewers should have no role, but the USAG Executive Director who is on site? Absolutely.

"Hope and fear, hope and Fear, that's what people see when they play golf. Not me. I only see happiness."

" Two things I beleive in: good shoes and a good car. Alligator shoes and a Cadillac."

Moe Norman

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2006, 06:32:47 PM »
It seems to me that it was David Fay who called the official and told him that it appeared that the club was grounded.  What I think is sstrange is that Ramsey was not asked if he grounded the club.  Asking the player should be the first thing that should have been done.  Golf is a game of honor and the USGA declares that all the time.  I think they dropped the ball on this one.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Brian_Ewen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2006, 06:38:50 PM »
What ? , two consecutive days of rules infractions ? .

I am presuming Richie's caddy stayed out of the way today ? .

Jim Sweeney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2006, 06:38:52 PM »
Dan:

The USGA, tours, PGA, everybody who can uses TV footage. There are people assigned to watch the telecast fo rthat very reason. Some rules can be applied after the fact, and doing so may actually help a player.

There was no "replay" in this case. It happened real time. The official's view of the grouding apparently was obscured because the player was facing away from him.

And, as I mentioned above, in my opinion the practice strokes themselves were a breech of the rule.
"Hope and fear, hope and Fear, that's what people see when they play golf. Not me. I only see happiness."

" Two things I beleive in: good shoes and a good car. Alligator shoes and a Cadillac."

Moe Norman

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2006, 06:40:56 PM »
Jim,
No problem if Mr. Fay, a member of The Committee, called it in.  I think that's A-OK.

It's when Joe Six-Pak calls in from a bar somewhere that I have a problem.

TEPaul

Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2006, 07:02:51 PM »
Lew Blakey was the Rules official in that match?

Well, forget about it boys, there probably isn't a Rules official in the world that they say knows more about the Rules, the principles behind them, and how to apply them than Lew Blakey----with the possible exception of.......,particularly with on course Rules interpretations---guess who? Just guess who is considered to be perhaps the best there is in all things Golf Rules today?

TEPaul

Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2006, 07:36:55 PM »
"This is what bugs me about the Rules of Golf - They frequently seem to be using video replay even though use of the replay isn't codified in the rules."

Dan:

Actually it is. Rules officials look to the actual Rules of Golf for most rulings but if the situation isn't clearly articulated in the main body of the Rules themselves they look to the Decisions on the Rules of Golf that cite analagous situations to many that come up. The Decisions are equal to the actual Rules for situation interpretation purposes and rulings.

Decision 6-6d/5 gives committees the right to "take into account the testimony of other witnesses" into which category spectators either in person or on TV fall.

Perhaps the most famous or even the first TV call in Rules problem was the Craig Stadler towel situation.

The truth is, however, the guy who called in thought he was watching Stadler live and that he was doing him a favor by preventing him from signing an incorrect scorecard and getting DQed. What that TV spectator didn't realize is he was watching a taped replay and Stadler already had signed his scorecard unaware that he'd done anything wrong (other than perhaps worry too much about grass stains on the knees of his trousers ;) ).


Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2006, 08:30:56 PM »
TEP, Thanks for the information on the decision.  I actually have a copy of the decisions that I read from time to time (actually, it's fantastic bathroom fare!), but I admit that Rule 6 is still deserving of more study on my part.

I prefer the Rules of Golf to football.  Football has so many strange rules, especially in the kicking game, that you as an official may never see.  And when you do, you've got about 15 seconds to recall the correct rule, often while coaches are expressing their 'opinion' on the matter.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2006, 08:40:40 PM »
Lew Blakey was the Rules official in that match?

Well, forget about it boys, there probably isn't a Rules official in the world that they say knows more about the Rules, the principles behind them, and how to apply them than Lew Blakey----with the possible exception of.......,particularly with on course Rules interpretations---guess who? Just guess who is considered to be perhaps the best there is in all things Golf Rules today?
Ed Hoard
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

TEPaul

Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2006, 08:50:17 PM »
" I actually have a copy of the decisions that I read from time to time (actually, it's fantastic bathroom fare!),"

Dan:

I love that. I've been officiating for about twenty five years now but I may be one of the only ones who's never been to USGA Rules School. And in a sense I'm sort of glad I never have, and frankly, at this point, I don't think I'd want to go or I might go on some rant over something like what I call "Rules Creep" and what I consider to be that insidious logic within the Rules of Golf.

l've always come at Rules from a different perspective than every other Rules official I know and those that I work with. I come at Rules from reading most everything about the Rules and their history and evolution and memorizing the entire Decisions on the Rules of Golf as well as officiating.

In some certain ways I may even be considered a radical liberal "on-course" when I officiate and that's because my intutiion has always told me to try to protect players from Rules complications and intracies that can sometimes become overbearing to the natural playing of golf. I often think too many Rules experts and officials are just trying to catch golfers like an overbearing policeman who is too concerned about the letter rather than the spirit of the Law. I certainly do realize Rules officials do need to apply their interpretations and rulings equitably across the board but I'm not one who attempts to look into some situations for some nefarious "intent" that probably just isn't there.

Where did I memorize the Decisions on the Rules of Golf? Well, it took me about ten or so years but I did it all in one place---on the toilet.  ;)

In my opinion, there is nothing much worse than sitting on the toilet or sitting in a bath tub with nothing to read and the Decision on the Rules of Golf was always my sole and distinct choice.

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2006, 08:58:11 PM »
Tom,
You're obviously using the same method to officiate as a good football official uses.  Let's say I'm the umpire (stands with the linebackers).  If I see an obvious rules infraction about to occur, I'll let the player know.  Whether he's in the neutral zone or something silly like forgetting to wear his mouthguard, it's imortant to try to prevent fouls if you can.

We're not out there to throw flags.  We're there to ensure a fair game within the spirit and intent of the rulebook.  Is every foul called?  Absolutely not.  But if the foul gives his team an advantage, it's flagged.

Same philosophy is used in baseketball and ice hockey.  And I'd imagine that baseball would be the same too (I"ve never done baseball).

Rule Nazis (as we called them) do not last.  The coaches and players hate them and their fellow officials are actually embarrassed by them.

Tom - I give your philosophy a standing ovation!

AndrewB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2006, 10:59:05 PM »
Well, forget about it boys, there probably isn't a Rules official in the world that they say knows more about the Rules, the principles behind them, and how to apply them than Lew Blakey----with the possible exception of.......,particularly with on course Rules interpretations---guess who? Just guess who is considered to be perhaps the best there is in all things Golf Rules today?

John Morrissett?
"I think I have landed on something pretty fine."

TEPaul

Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2006, 11:04:33 PM »
Andrew Baggadike:

Bing Bing. You win a $10,000 credit at Old Navy, a day free at Pine valley and a date in your city of choice with Hedi Klum.

Congratulaitons Kemosabe, can we have a short speech?

AndrewB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2006, 11:55:58 PM »
Bing Bing. You win a $10,000 credit at Old Navy, a day free at Pine valley and a date in your city of choice with Hedi Klum.

Congratulaitons Kemosabe, can we have a short speech?

All I have to say is, can I trade in the Old Navy credit and date with Heidi Klum for a second day at Pine Valley?
"I think I have landed on something pretty fine."

Joe Andriole

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2006, 04:38:55 PM »
I thought that there was confusion and probably a wrong ruling for Yip on the 16th hole when he acknowledged that his ball moved in the hazard.  The official asked him if he had grounded his club -- an irrelevant question.  The question should have been whether he had taken his stance.  On TV it appeared he had and therefore would have "caused" the ball to move and lost the hole

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2006, 06:31:26 PM »
I agree -- the officiating seemed rather ineffective to me. Yip clearly seemed to have taken his stance before the ball moved. He stood extacly the same way afterwards when he hit his shot. All the official did was ask, "Had you taken your stance?" Yip said no -- no penalty. I disagree. Good for Yip for reporting that the ball moved; bad on Yip for grabbing the out offered him by the official and denying the obvious, that he had indeed taken his stance.

As for the Ramsay affair, there really can't be any doubt that he grounded his club, but why didn't Blakey position himself in a way to see it with his own eyes? What good does a rules official do if he puts himself far enough away from the players that he can't see an infraction?

As for Ramsay, I think he doesn't know what "grounding the club" means.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2006, 06:32:45 PM by Rick Shefchik »
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

JohnV

Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #18 on: August 27, 2006, 08:33:16 PM »
Dan, I agree that an official should prevent an infraction if possible.  But it is also his duty to call everything, not make judgements about the advantage gained.  See the quote from Stewart Cink on this post.

There is nothing I hate more than seeing something that was called as a foul early in a basketball game not get called at the end because "the official didn't want to decide the game" or he is just "letting them play."  The players decide the game, not the official who should always call the game the same way every time.  When he chooses to ignore something, he is deciding the game in a different manner.

Everytime I hear someone say that a football official could call holding on every play, I say, then just do it damn it.  That is the rule, enforce it.

Sorry, I might be a Rules Nazi, but that is the way I see it which is why I'll never officiate a football or basketball game.

JohnV

Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2006, 08:38:21 PM »
I didn't see what happened with Yip so I won't comment on it.

Blakey might not have been in position to see it because he had been over looking at the other player's ball which was near the cart path.  Or he just might have looked away at that instant.

I know that when I'm refereeing a match, I always try to make sure I'm in a position to see the ball and the club when the player is ready to hit, but sometimes you miss things.

If there was one thing I didn't like it was his not asking Ramsay if he had possibly grounded his club.  I would have asked and if he said no, I think I would have reconfirmed with Fay that he was absolutely sure that he had.  After all, Blakey couldn't see the video.

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Questionable Ruling - U.S. Am
« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2006, 11:15:59 PM »
John --

I appreciate your input on this issue. From what I saw on TV, Blakey was standing no more than 10 feet behind Ramsay, but in a spot where it would have been hard for him to see Ramsay ground his club. The camera was on the target line, and I can't imagine there's any doubt in anyone's mind who was watching on TV that Ramsay grounded his club. Let me put it this way: no one who knows the rule, and understands the definition of "grounding", would have done what Ramsay did. Given that Blakey was as close as he was to Ramsay, I just can't see why he didn't position himself a few feet in one direction or another so he could have detected a violation if one occurred.

It seemed as though he was there to be consulted, not to observe and to rule.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2006, 11:38:24 PM by Rick Shefchik »
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice