"Why isn't there a provision within the Rules that one must drop in a similar situation - ie. if seeking relief from a sprinkler head while your ball is in the rough, you must drop in the rough? Seems logical to me. Kind of like if there's casual water in a section of a bunker, you still have to drop in the bunker (at least, I hope that's the rule!)."

George:

There's a very simple reason for that that's explained and described in that wonderful little book called "The Priniciples Behind the Rules of Golf" by Richard Tufts. That little book, since written, has been the little virtual "bible" the USGA uses to explain rules "priniciples" and logic and to go to for some decisions and such.

As Tuft's explains, the Rules of Golf makes no distinctions between any areas "through the green"---whether it be rough or fairway makes no difference regarding such things as Rule 24-2 relief (from obstructions). The reason being is a golfer seeking the 'nearest point of relief' is just as likely to have to go from the fairway to the rough (or even into something like a bush) as he is to go from the rough to the fairway so they make no distinctions. Rules writers and good rules officials are all aware that sometimes applying the rules properly may benefit a golfer fortuitously and sometimes not---so they make no distinctions on things like areas "though the green". It's all one of the unique beauties about the Rules of Golf and how they don't believe it's necessary to attempt to define every concievable situation (too many angles on the head of a pin) so as not to fill up a small library with rules and decisions on them).

TEP:

You'll notice that I specifically said such would NOT have been cheating.  Oh I know I am not the world's greatest writer, but that seemed pretty clear to me.

Read the rest of my post.  Tell me what's wrong with my analogies or summary.

It was preference for the spirit of fair play over availing oneself of an advantage available under the letter of the law and perfectly legal if taken.

Just like what occurs in tennis and soccer, as per my examples.

Come on man, I was just having fun ripping my friend's idol Mr. Love.  On this I am serious.

TH

TEP:

Hmmmm... I see my rants against Love, among other things, seem to have disqualified me from any benefit of the doubt from you.  That's ok, you can just join everyone else there.

 

My words chosen in that first sentence did not convey my intent well enough, obviously.  However, the intent and meaning were quite clear in the remainder of each of my last two posts on this thread, which should have outweighed the first sentence, or at least caused a benefit of the doubt to be given.  But to explain this better...

"Cheating" was a euphemism for "availing oneself of an advantage available under the letter of the law but perhaps against the spirit, if the latter is important to one."  Sometimes one word works well, if people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt, over long-winded explanations.  Obviously that wasn't the case here!

But in any case, I do understand the point you are trying to make.  Just wanted you to know that someone did.  Love choose to not take an option he legally could have, because for him it seemed wrong and against the spirit of fair play.  Once again, that is pretty cool and the world needs more of it.

TH

Probably the most significant thing said on this entire thread, in my opinion, was back on page 1 or 2 when Phillipe Binette said--had Love taken 24-2 relief from where he was it would in effect have diminished the advantage that Clarke held over him at that point with a better tee shot than Love produced!

And to Love, that would not have been "fair", nor would it have been morally or ethically "right", no matter what the rules say on the issue.  The rules shouldn't give him an advantage he didn't earn.

I get it.

And your darn right, our entire sports culture does tend to fly in the face of this.  Individuals and teams are taught early on that anything one can get away with, sans penalty or getting "caught", is ok so long as it helps the team or the individual competitively.  That's how sports is, and perhaps always has been more or less.  You do what you have to do to win, inside the rules - and bending such to one's advantage is often lauded rather than decried.

Which again makes what Love did so darn cool.  He went beyond this, choosing his own moral code over what the rules allowed, AND what is seemingly encouraged in other sports and our culture in general.  This to me is very significant without a doubt, and Love deserves all praise and acknowledgements given.

Transfer this to baseball... when's the last time a runner called himself out on a blown call?  Oh, they know if they are safe or out - that's why they argue so stridently when the calls DON'T go their way.  Or in football, could you imagine a player telling the ref he committed a penalty?  It's just not going to happen.  In fact in that sport - which I love as much as golf, btw - players are actively coached on how to commit penalties and not get caught, camoflauging their actions.  It's part of the game.

Transfer this to everyday life... entire programs are created which show individuals how to declare items on their taxes that they really didn't do (or earn, or whatever) but that will not trigger IRS audit flags.  The idea there being that it's OK to declare such, with the underlying moral excuse that it's not wrong if you don't get caught.  Perhaps this is taking this whole issue way to far, but to me it's an indicator of how far too many in our culture think.

Which again highlights why Love's actions are so cool...  Such serve once again to set golf apart, from other sports and from our culture in general, and this serve to highlight once again just how great our sport is.

TH

I was watching my son's 10th-grade football game last night. On a fourth down play, the other team's quarterback threw a low pass to one of their receivers. The ball and the boy's hands and the ground all seemed to converge simultaneously; but both refs made the same call at the same time -- "No catch; the ball hit the ground!" -- even as the receiver was leaping up in the air, holding the ball aloft and insisting that he caught it.

When he realized he wasn't going to get the call, he dropped the ball nonchalantly and ran back to the sidelines. By his own actions, you knew he knew he hadn't caught it, but he has been trained -- by his coaches, his teammates, the sport, our culture -- to try to pull a fast one if he can get away with it.

I found myself thinking of Davis Love III (the geek!) at that moment, and wondered why so few athletes in other sports adhere to, or even understand, the higher code of honor that is second nature to golfers. Instead of golf infecting other sports, I fear the opposite is gradually happening. We do need to celebrate DL3 and the other guardians who are keeping the barbarians from the gates.

Rick, this is EXACTLY what my long-winded last post was trying to get at.  EXACTLY.  The boy is trained to try and get the call, even though he knew he didn't actually catch the ball... and had he managed to convince the refs he did make the catch, his coach would have praised him for it.

Which of course highlights how our sports culture is, and underscores how cool Love's actions were.  Geek or no-geek.

 

Rick and TomH;

The real difference in golf today that highlights Love's decision using that analogy of the high school football game and that kid who said he caught the ball when the refs ruled he didn't is with the Love situation it was as if the refs said the kid did catch the ball and once the dust settled that kid stood up and said;

"I've got to tell you despite what you think you saw I guess only I know I really did NOT catch it!"

Now how often, if ever, have you seen that happen?

Tom -- Another near-collision in cyberspace. I salute your wisdom and your typing speed.

Same to you, my friend!

Here's a tough one though, on which I'd like your wisdom.  I am two games into a season as coach of my son's 7years old and under soccer team.  Do I coach them to be like Love, or like they will have to act in all other sports?  I swear I am really trying to do the former.  But it's tough when we see other teams blatantly NOT doing so, and it hurts us competitively - and as much as I try to make this "just for fun", well.. these little guys do want to win, at least to some extent!  Man, talking the talk and walking the walk really are too different things.  What can I say to get my boys to see the overall good of taking the "LoveIII" road?

TH

Here's what you can tell them TomH. That all they really need to do, either collectively or individually is look just to their own consciences to figure out how to do the right thing and that when they do that honestly they just may find that it's better to lose with honor than to win without it!

TEP:

That is VERY good and I do appreciate it.  Because Mike B. is right - I did highlight in my posts to you an instance of where soccer players do show honor, but that is dwarfed (at the higher levels anyway) by exactly what Mike says - players feigning injury to get a rest, only to bounce right back up when they are sufficiently rested.  Talk about going against the spirit of the rules...

So you can see the problem.  I'd hate it if one of my little guys even thought that doing that was right.

We're gonna go to a pro soccer game this Sat night.  I hope this happens.  I'm gonna ask the guys if they think that was right to do... it will be interesting what they say.

TH

Tom Paul:

I'm not surprised by Pate's request - in fact, to have the creativity to ask the question in the first place infers that JP isn't quite so dumb, after all.

The point of my post was:

1) to highlight the verbal "splendiferousness" of Sandy Tatum (e.g. "We are not trying to humiliate the best golfers in the world - we are trying to identify them".)

2) to offer up a possible chuckle at Pate's rather witty response.

If I played golf for a living, I'd probably be as opportunistic as many others in terms of at least asking for rulings.

What Davis Love did was the ultimate class act.

Question:  Do you believe that he would have been so magnanimous if the outcome of the team competition wasn't already a (de facto) foregone conclusion?

Maybe yes.  Maybe no.  I'm inclined to think he would have done the same as he did given the front left pin location.

HOWEVER, do you think Captain Sutton would have permitted Love to not ask for relief if the outcome of the team competiton wasn't already a (de facto) foregone conclusion?

I'm not so sure that El Capitan wouldn't have assumed his "final decision" role if he thought it might matter.

And that is fantastic and sage counsel and I really do appreciate it, Rick.  It's funny, these games are so slow (pack-ball) and these kids are so innocent that nothing really overt has come up yet, at least not with my guys... but I have seen some inklings of this in other more skilled and experienced teams (yes, that does happen at the U7 level!).  I think the subject will come up at some point and when it does, I'm gonna try and do exactly what you said, following TEP's basic guideline as well.

I really think the pro game might give us a very good learning experience this weekend... we shall see...

In any case my Dad coached me long ago that in the end it is way better to lose with honor than win by giving away integrity.  Of course I didn't know what the hell he meant at the time, and maybe that's why I lose so much, but over time it did sink in, and it's been a rare time I haven't felt good about my actions in competition, both in and out of golf.

BTW, Chip asks some very difficult questions... I'm just feeling so good about Davis' actions, I don't want to try and answer them myself.  I'm gonna prefer to think that Davis would have done what he felt was right regardless of the competitive situation, and that if Sutton tried to step in he would have held his ground.  But if I think about this too much, my happy feeling might go away.

TH

Chip:

Those questions of what Love or Sutton may have done if the final result of the Ryder Cup was in the breach is not for such as me to give answers to particularly since that wasn't the way it was so we'll never remotely know. Of course, I'd like to think if the whole thing was in the balance that may've been the time Love particuarly would've done such a thing. In some ways, in a major team event it may've been something like what Nicklaus once did with Jacklin for which a number of the members of his team found it hard to forgive him for (obviously they wanted to win that badly). I think after the passage of time, particularly, what Nicklaus did will go down as an act of honor and fairness after 99.9% of the battle had been waged.

There was a wonderful saying painted on the wall above the blackboard in my old math classroom at St Marks that said;

"Character is what you are in the dark".

That's how I feel about what Love did and I don't really feel it's necessary to wonder what he would've done in different circumstances.