[TEPaul]

"Rules Guys,
This happened 10 minutes after signing her scorecard. Is there anything to stop it from happening 10 hours or 10 day after she signs? Is there a formal process, time limit or other for the Tournament Committee to "close out" a tournament? By that I mean, there is no changing the results, the results stand no mattter what is discovered down the road."

MikeS:

Yes, there is a formal "time limit" for the "Tournament Committee" to "close competition". In stroke play competition it's contained in Rule 34-1b that says;

"In stroke play, a penalty must not be rescinded, modified or imposed after the competition has closed. A competition is closed when the result has been officially announced, or in stroke play qualifying followed by match play, when the player has teed off in his first match."

There are four "Exceptions" to Rule 34-1b and basically all of them involve a player who knew he had breached a rule of golf before the competition closed for which the penalty is disqualification.

[TEPaul]

"Unintentional cheating is still cheating.  There is no mens rea requirement in golf."

Shivas:

There sure as hell isn't within the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf and thank God there isn't. An unintentional breach of a Rule of golf is still a breach of a rule to which particular penalties are attached, however, under the requirement within the Rules that ignorance of the Rules is no excuse. But as Rule 34-1b states, in stroke play, the statute of limitations for imposing a penalty for an unintentional breach of a rule is at that point when the competition is officially closed, and in most all professional tournaments that's sometime on Sunday or on the day of the final round.

[Lou_Duran]

JVB,

If a rules official "approves" a drop (or otherwise makes another judgement of the rule (s) in question) does that make it legal and binding?  In other words, if an official had been called over and said that the drop was made in accordance with the rules, would that have prevented the sports writer from making his belated concerns known and the drop re-examined?  I was under the impression that the officials were there to assist, but their mistakes could not indemnify the player.  Am I wrong?

A second scenario:  Let's say she dropped the ball the first time and deemed that it rolled closer to the hole.  She dropped it again and, upon concluding that it was a good drop, played it.

An engineer who had a great eye for distances was standing by and he was very troubled that she picked up her first drop.  After play continued, he went to the spot where the first ball was dropped, marked it, and further thought about what had transpired.  He contacts the rules officials about his suspicions, and it is verified that the first drop was not closer to the hole.  Is Ms. Wie penalized for taking an improper second drop?  If a rules official had been present, would that have exculpated her actions?
   
BTW, I think that this is all bullshit.  Two inches?  A foot?  If there was a consequential infraction- that the drop allowed her a clearer path which a drop 2" to 1' further away from the hole would not have- viewers and commentators would have been screaming bloody murder.

There are disadvantages about being so out of the ordinary.  She gets her $10MM endorsements for the attention she draws.  She will also get knit-picked to death as also exemplified by the earlier comment on this thread that she also commited another infraction by not dropping from shoulder length (apparently her arm was not perfectly parallel with the ground).

If we are going to be that exact about the rules, let's put four cameras on everyone and have a crew of film reviewers pass final fudgement.  Perhaps a winner could be determined by attrition- the last man/woman standing not deemed to have made an infraction against the strictest interpretation of the rules.

Perhaps this ruling will pave the way for the legal use of lasers on the course.  She could have "lasered" the position of the ball in the bush, then lasered again from the drop.  This could also be done on the greens where I very commonly see marking techniques which scream for further scrutiny.

What purposes do rules serve?  Did this after-the-fact ruling really further golf as a sport?   Was it in the spirit of the rules?

Some may find rulings like this one and the one with DeVicenzo's (sp) incorrect scorecard at the Masters to underscore the purity and uniqueness of golf as a sport.  Sometimes I have to wonder if part of it is not a bit of form over substance.  

[PThomas]

thinks make me think of the infamous drop that Els got at the Open at Oakmont(not the one at Augusta )..it was obviously a mistake by the rules official - and it stood...so why didn't they review that after the round and penalize him?

[Dan King]

All this rules is rules and facts is facts is silly.

Say I see a player take a drop for an unplayable lie, and the player uses option c of Rule 28. Ball Unplayable.

c. Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped.

So I go and tell Robert O. Smith I saw Michelle Wie using a point not directly on that line. Does he go and get his surveying equipment to verify the line, and then penalize her because she was 18 inches off that line?

Of course he doesn't. He dismisses me as a non-credible witness -- as he should. Bamberger as someone who came to him more than 24 hours after the fact could have easily been dismissed as a non-credible witness.

Oh and by the way, no matter how you measure, there is a difference between 18 inches and 100 yards.

Just in case you aren't aware Tom, the above is all my opinion.

Dan King

A golfer must have a deep love for rules. More: a worshipful respect for rules. In golf, rules are not devices for running a contest: they are a fetish, a matter of faith a religion. Bamberger said that Wie was not cheating, she was just "too hasty". He shopped her not to right a wrong but for the simple pleasure in shopping: and to admire his own smug Pharisee golfer's virtue.
 --Simon Barnes (The London Times

[TEPaul]

"JVB,
If a rules official "approves" a drop (or otherwise makes another judgement of the rule (s) in question) does that make it legal and binding?  In other words, if an official had been called over and said that the drop was made in accordance with the rules, would that have prevented the sports writer from making his belated concerns known and the drop re-examined?  I was under the impression that the officials were there to assist, but their mistakes could not indemnify the player.  Am I wrong?"

Lou;

In effect, you are wrong. If a referee (rules official) authorizes a player to infringe a Rule the player will in almost any case not be penalized. What the "Tournament Committee" and rules officials use to justify that procedure is Rule 34-2 and Decision 34-2/2 which reads;

Rule 34-2: Referee's Decision
"If a referee has been appointed by the "Committee", his decision is final"

and,

Decision 34-2/2:
Q. In error, a referee authorizes a player to infringe a Rule of Golf. Is the player absolved from penalty in such a case?
A. Yes, under Rule 34-2 a referees decision is final, whether or not the decision is correct.

However, in my opinion, and in some odd cases it potentially  may not be quite that simple. What, for instance, of a case where a referee has not been given "final authority" by the "Tournament Committee" to make rulings? And how would a player know that?

I hesitate to even mention that because most on here will probably start to scream but most all "Tournament Committees" have a person who is the one who can make a final ruling if a player decides to work a situation right up the chain of command as Els did at the Masters. The incredibly interesting thing about that situation with Els on #11 at the Masters is the Official in charge of the "Tournament Committee" happened to reverse every other ruling of the rules officials who'd spoken to Els before him, and so Els finally got the decision he was apparently looking for.

But what if Els had gone with a decision of one of the rules officials that preceded that final guy and the "Tournament Committee" later deemed that decision to be wrong? In that case, and in my opinion, Els certainly would've been absolved of any penalty and if for some reason he wasn't and they tried to penalize him for proceeding on the incorrect decison of a rules official there probably would've been a blood bath.

The principle behind this Rule 34-2 and Decision 34-2/2 is the Rules contempltate that if a player cannot depend on the opinion or decision of a rules official, then who's opinion and decision can he depend on to proceed correctly?

[JohnV]

thinks make me think of the infamous drop that Els got at the Open at Oakmont(not the one at Augusta )..it was obviously a mistake by the rules official - and it stood...so why didn't they review that after the round and penalize him?

There was no penalty that could be applied.  He was told he could drop there by a member of the Rules Committee so he was absolved from penalty.  Similarly if Wie had gotten a Rules Official and he told her to drop there it wouldn't be a penalty.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

The process is simple.

If you place a club on the ground that is along the line between the ball and the hole, and then, near the ball, place another club on the ground that is at a 90 degree angle to the first club, you get a conservative line, eliminating arc, that provides you with the boundaries for "no closer to the hole" drops.

It's so simple that second graders can determine what constitutes the lines of demarcation for determining whats' closer to the hole.

And, if you've been playing golf for a number of years, you should understand the procedure.

If you're playing at the highest professional level you should be meticulous in performing this procedure.

There's no excuse for being casual, careless or edgy.

Players can confuse where they'd like to be with where they have to be.

[PThomas]

sometimes one can't resist Redanman..I know the feeling.....

[TEPaul]

"They didn't penalize him (TH - the official) they made him president! (I know, I know, I know....)

redanman:

I'm not totally sure why but practically everything you say on here pisses me off somehow, even if you do have a smiley face behind it.

There's an old saying in Rules officiating that if you've never made a mistake out there you've never really officiated. But you obviously wouldn't know that or understand it because you've never officiated anyway.  

[Dan King]

John Vander Borght writes:
That 85 page rule book must look pretty thick all right if all you know how to do is write a 500 word column.  Ignorance of the law is now an excuse?

It is not an 85 page rule book. It is a 600 page Decision Book. The rules are screaming out for simplification, but the ruling bodies rather make then more complicated (and slower.)

How would he feel if there was an violation where it was obvious that someone was cheating and not just making a mistake, but nothing could be done because his statute of limitations had expired?

You mean similar to the current statute of limitations when the competition closes? Right now if a contestant knowingly cheats, the statute of limitations doesn't help. Why couldn't that same rule be written for at the close of a round instead of the close of the competition?

Once again this is all my opinion. I can't imagine posting other's opinions as my own.

Dan King

I don't know the traffic regulations of every city I get to either,
but I manage to drive through without being arrested.
 --Lloyd Mangrum (on being assessed many violations as a result of not knowing the rules)

[TEPaul]

PaulT:

To carry the question you asked JVB one step further, it's also in the Rules of Golf that if a mistake was made by a rules official or even the "Tournament Committee" and it was not corrected or resolved before the "close of competition" the situation can be submitted to the USGA (or R&A in their jurisdiction) and they will provide the correct decision but that cannot alter the outcome.

This fact may confuse and frustrate some on here but this really is the way the Rules of Golf work through those two Rules, #33 and #34, which are all about tournament administration and rules officials and are pretty much for the benefit of rules officials and tournament adminstrators.

As I mentioned in an email to Joe Logan this morning, most golfers, even tournament players and professionals aren't very aware of the specifics and ramifications of Rules 33 and 34 and it's no wonder really----they don't pertain to them in any real direct way. The first 28 Rules of Golf do though. No player has ever been penalized directly on the golf course in play for breaching Rule 33 and 34---that's impossible, and so they tend not to know the specifics of those rules very well.

They also tend not to know that in a real sense the entire justice system of golf is basically contained in the administration of those two Rules. Some on here and elsewhere may disagree or even bridle at that but the "Committee" as it's structured and used within the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf really is the jury, judge and final arbiter. Once the "Tournament Committee" says the "competition is closed", one could literally say---"The Fat Lady has sung."  

But in large part much of this Wie situation revolved around Rule 33 or even 34 even if much of the facts emanated from Rule 6, 20 and 28.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Let's focus again on what MW did--

This was not about 3 inches on a 500 yard hole, this is about being able to place your ball rather than take the chance of the lie after a drop--

It is very, very rare that a player gets into a "place" situation after taking relief under Rule 28c -- unless the player intentionally wants to press the envelope and drop right at the edge of the allowed area in the hopes that the ball will roll closer to the hole permitting a redrop (twice) and then place--And if that is not supervised a huge risk exists that you did not do it properly (because of the significant distance from the original unplayable lie).

When working as an official I will always have questions when a player does place their ball in such a situation because of the "fine line" between the point of a proper drop and did the ball come to rest closer to the hole-- I have on occasion viewed situations where I have seen a player from afar placing a ball after taking relief and sometimes called the player back to illustrate the area(and have called an infraction on more than one occassion)--

If an official were there I can further assure you that the official is going to insure that there is clear evidence the ball was closer to the hole before permitting a lift and place (Officials will err on determining its a "good drop" rather than allowing the player the right to place the ball in order to protect the field)--

I think MW knew what she was doing-- she was not cheating, but she was pressing the envelope, and any time you take that risk you may have an offical disagree with what she did and impose the penalty--If told a player had taken Rule 28c relief in a fairly level area, and had then placed the ball, the officials almost have a duty to examine the procedure and the place of the incident--regardless of where that information comes from--

That does not mean every drop is to be examined (players taking Rule 28 relief have all kinds of "safe" areas to drop and play)-- Its only when you are trying to push the issue (drop on the outer edge to achieve a right to place) do you run the risk without an official.

[Brent Hutto]

That does not mean every drop is to be examined (players taking Rule 28 relief have all kinds of "safe" areas to drop and play)-- Its only when you are trying to push the issue (drop on the outer edge to achieve a right to place) do you run the risk without an official.

The procedure you describe as risky is in fact the procedure that I see almost universally employed among Tour players on television and among good players in tournaments I watch in person. The players on TV almost invariably request the presence of an official before dropping for the very reason you describe and I'm sure it will be a very cold day in hell before Michelle Wie takes another drop without the highest ranking available official standing right beside her watching.

Regardless of what some have said in these threads, it is precisely the desirability of waiting for an official to watch the drop that is the only lesson Michelle Wie will learn or needs to learn (or can learn) from this regrettable incident. It is done almost universally by Tour players because it's in their best interest to do so and the heck with the fact that it slows the game down a little more.

In local tournaments at the City Championship or similar level the players generally make do with having their fellow competitor(s) watch the drop. I'm sure some of them occasionally ask for an official to be sent over but not that I've seen. What is almost universal is the procedure of dropping where you have the maximum likelihood of getting to place the ball after it rolls closer to the hole. For good players, having the ball in hand is too much of an advantage to give up without at least trying.

[Jerry Kluger]

I find this discussion to be interesting but I have a problem with the justification for the results.  Golf prides itself on the fact that it relies upon the integrity of the player to bring to the attention of his or her fellow players the fact that he or she has committed an infraction of the rules.  With that in mind, we must presume that all players are attempting to play within the rules and would not knowingly violate any of those rules.  That being said, why should the unintentional violation of the rules result in disqualification?  To me it seems that the penalty flies in the face of the basic principles of the game.

[TEPaul]

Dennis:

I'm not sure but it almost seems that you have some moral problem with players who do what you seem to be calling 'pushing the envelope'.

As far as I'm concerned I view this technique of a player trying to get two bad drops and then a place as a player simply using the entire latitude of what the Rules require and allow. What you seem most concerned about is that players may be so lax in this technique that in the process they'll violate Rule 18-2 or 20-7.

If I'm watching a player do something like that I might ask him to use tees to establish some exact points so there will be little guessowork and estimating but if a player wants to go through all that I sure don't have any moral problem with it. He's simply using the maximum latitude and the maximum procedure the Rules of Golf clearly allow.

I try to keep things pretty black and white out there--either a player does things right within the Rules or he doesn't somehow. I do realize that some rules officials seem to get into some moral question of the intent of a player but if a player follows the Rules and their procedures properly I don't give a damn what kind of envelope he's pushing as long as he stays within the allowable boundaries and procedures of the Rules.

[Brent Hutto]

The old saying is that when all you've got is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. Perhaps the reason "direct line" is less closely monitored than "closer to the hole" is that you can't measure it with a string...

[TEPaul]

"Right now if a contestant knowingly cheats, the statute of limitations doesn't help."

DanK:

Oh really? Perhaps you should refer to the four "Exceptions" to Rule 34-1. That pretty much covers how the "Committee" and the Rules of Golf can handle people who intentionally cheat after the statute of limitations known as the "close of competition" runs out.

[JohnV]

Lou, to answer your questions:

1.  Yes, getting a ruling makes it final and binding, even if the ruling is wrong.

Not always.  Decision 34-3/1 says a ruling can be corrected and a penalty can be imposed or rescinded if the player had acted before asking for the ruling even if he is told what he did was ok.  But, if the player plays based on an incorrect ruling, Decision 34-3/3 says he can't be penalized for the actions he took after the ruling.  

In the case of MW this would mean that if an official had been there and told her the drop was ok, she would have been ok.  If she had come up to an official some time later and said, "I may have played from a wrong place" and the official said, "That's ok, don't worry about it" and she turned in her card with no penalty and then later the Committee goes out and measures it, they could add the two strokes, but not DQ her even though her card had been turned in.

Dan King, Yes the decisions book is almost 500 pages long, but the rules that most of the players break on tour can be found in the rule book.  There was no need for a decision book in making the ruling in Wie's case.

As for your question about proceeding under Rule 28b (options b and c was reversed in 2004 to be consistent with Rule 26, you need to get a new rule book   ), the player should stand with her hand above the line and drop the ball as near as possible to that line.  Obviously it is probably impossible to hit the line every time and the player wouldn't be penalized for missing by a small amount.  But if the player stands on that line and drops one arm's length to the side, they have not followed the rule and could be penalized.  This is a rule that many people break when proceeding under Rules 26b or 28b.  

Another example of this is when dropping after an embedded ball.  The player is supposed to drop the ball as near as possible to where the ball was embedded.  I've been told by those teaching rules workshops that the ball should land within a couple of inches of the spot.  But, even then, if the ball landed nearer the hole than where it was embedded it is a non-drop and you have to try again.  Even if it is an inch.

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
"Right now if a contestant knowingly cheats, the statute of limitations doesn't help."

DanK:

Oh really? Perhaps you should refer to the four "Exceptions" to Rule 34-1. That pretty much covers how the "Committee" and the Rules of Golf can handle people who intentionally cheat after the statute of limitations known as the "close of competition" runs out.

Tom, this whole discussion can go better if you read what I write rather than what you'd like me to write. Please note the doesn't that you quoted from me.

And to make it clear, these are not the official opinion of the state of Paraguay. These are my opinions and my opinions only.

Dan King

If you call on God to improve the results of a shot while it is still in motion, you are using 'an outside agency' and subject to appropriate penalties under the rules of golf.
  --Henry Longhurst

[Dan King]

John Vander Borght writes:
As for your question about proceeding under Rule 28b (options b and c was reversed in 2004 to be consistent with Rule 26, you need to get a new rule book   ),

My 2000-2001 Decisions book is an Grant Spaeth autographed copy so I've always been partial to it.

the player should stand with her hand above the line and drop the ball as near as possible to that line.  Obviously it is probably impossible to hit the line every time and the player wouldn't be penalized for missing by a small amount.

Ok, you got me.
20-2. Dropping and Re-Dropping
b. Where to Drop
When a ball is to be dropped as near as possible to a specific spot, it must be dropped not nearer the hole than the specific spot which, if it is not precisely known to the player, must be estimated.
A ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course where the applicable Rule requires it to be dropped. If it is not so dropped, Rules 20-6 and -7 apply.

It looks like the rules treat the Wie situation and the one I brought up differently. I'd forgotten that (yet another reason thw rule book needs to be simplified.)

All the above is my opinion, thouh I don't think I posted an opinion in this post. I think it was all a mea culpa.

Dan King

The rules are based on three fundamental principles: That the golfer must play the ball as it lies, play the course as he finds it, and finally, where neither of the first two principles can apply, settle all questions by fair play.
 --Joseph C. Dey, Jr., 1956

[TEPaul]

"Tom, this whole discussion can go better if you read what I write rather than what you'd like me to write. Please note the doesn't that you quoted from me."

Dan:

Then what were you trying to say?

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
Then what were you trying to say?

Exactly what I said and you quoted:

"Right now if a contestant knowingly cheats, the statute of limitations doesn't help."

Note I said it doesn't help. I didn't say it helps. If you knowingly cheat, as it says in Rule 34-1 then the statute of limitations does you no good. The key word in the sentence said by me and quoted by you is doesn't. I can't think of anyway to make it clearer. We agree.

But what about the original concept? Why not change Rule 34 to end this stuff at the end of the round rather than the end of the competition. Either Bamberger would have had to be quicker with his observation or it would have meant nothing. Either way, the golf world would be better off.

Once again, my opinions, only my opinions.

Dan King

I agree with no man's opinion. I have some of my own.
 --Ivan Turgenev

[Dennis_Harwood]

[quote author=Dan King  

It looks like the rules treat the Wie situation and the one I brought up differently. I'd forgotten that (yet another reason thw rule book needs to be simplified.)

Yep-- 28c provides "Drop a ball within two club lengths of the spot the ball lay, but not nearer the hole".

That requires the ball first contact the couse after the drop within that area (a semicircle)-- If it contacts the course outside that area (ie an inch nearer the hole) then it does not count as a drop-

The relevant provisions of Rule 20b is the last sentence which states "A ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course where the applicable Rule requires it to be dropped. If it is not so dropped Rules 20-6 and 20-7 apply"--

20-7 is playing from a wrong place(the 2 stroke penalty MW did not put on her scorecard ) and 20-6 says if you make a mistake in dropping you do it again and don't count the drop.

20-2c is what MW TRIED to do-- It says if you drop properly (in the right place), and do it twice, but the ball rolls closer to the hole than its original location, you then PLACE the ball where it first struck the course on the redrop-- But since it was not dropped in a right place it was not PLACED in a right place--

[Dennis_Harwood]

Dennis:

I'm not sure but it almost seems that you have some moral problem with players who do what you seem to be calling 'pushing the envelope'.

I don't have a moral problem with this course of action and believe that players should be able to take advantage of the Rules if the opportunity exists (hey, I advise clients the same thing re Tax Laws all the time)--

But what I am saying is that when the player choses to seek relief in placing the player has a burden of proof to establish he has proceeded correctly-- and I think officials have a duty to review a placing procedure in a relatively level area--

When the player has the burden, and has not summoned an offical, there is a risk, since officials can see things different than you (ask the Angels about the call of Doug Eddings).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()