"And by the way, TEP, Love's shot selection and non-request for a drop was based on the lie, which was so hairy he said he couldn't have hit more than a six-iron, and in no way a high fade to the green. I also think that Love's class act was one of many examples of why golf (and these matches) are so cool."
Brad:
But that's precisely the point here, isn't it? This is about what Love said later and what he didn't do and didn't ask for. But that in no way whatsoever means Love couldn't have asked for relief under Rule 24-2 and almost without a scintilla of a doubt would have received relief under Rule 24-2!!
I wasn't there around that ball or next to Love but maybe you were. If Love could've gotten a normal high faded 6 iron (forget about that poor lie in rough) to the green and thereby would've had his left foot touching that immovable obstruction I seriously doubt there's a rules official in the entire world who would've denied him relief under the necessary "test' to the "exception" to Rule 24-2 that that stance and proposed play was "unnecessarily abnormal" OR "unnreasonable", particularly at a time like that when a golfer just may reasonably try a really high risk play (such as on the 18th hole of an "all square match" in the Ryder Cup from even a poor lie in the rough)!
Furthermore, the exception to relief under Rule 24-2 talks about (a) interference to a player making a stroke by something other than the immovable obstruction in question, OR (very important) (b) interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal STANCE, swing or direction of play.
In Love's situation and in my officiating experience, simply a poor lie in rough like the one he had is not considered to be "interference" to a player making a "normal STROKE" and there could be nothing "unnecessarily abnormal" about Love taking a six iron from that poor lie in an attempt to hit a high faded 6 iron, again, particularly in a situation like that.
I had a discussion and debate on this kind of rules point (and rules decision) with one of our GOLFCLUBATLAS contributors over on that Leith Rules website about how most all really good rules officials take the entire situation at hand into consideration. Perhaps amazingly to some taking the entire situation at hand into consideration also means making some subjective judgements about the player in question and his particular capabilities (in this sense not all rules decisions regarding all levels of players may end up being the same!).
In my opinion, a really competent rules official in that situation with Love (if asked by Love for 24-2 relief would NOT consider what someone like Brad Klein or Tom Paul was or wasn't capable of in that specific situation--vis-a-vis what's "unnreasonable" or an abnormal STANCE, swing and direction of play") he would consder what Davis Love 3rd was capable of or not in determining what constituted an "unnecessarily abnormal STANCE, swing and direction of play and if it was clearly unnreasonable for him (Love and not Klein or Paul) to make a stroke because of intereference by anything other than the immovable obstruction!
Most of those officials were probably tour pro officials and God knows they understand from experience that some of these players (Wood's et al) are more than capable of hitting shots that some of us may think unnreasonable or abnormal! And a really good rules official will reflect that reality in the on-course rules decisions they make!