Davis Love's decision on #18!

[Paul_Turner]

Frost would have looked even more ridiculous if he hadn't attempted to play that shot, after whining for 10 minutes on TV.  He wasn't cheating, but he was definitely pushing too hard for a dodgy ruling.

Tom

I'm glad Davis didn't try and fudge his stance to get the relief.  I just don't think he should be overly praised for not doing the wrong thing!

[TEPaul]

"It appeared that that was in fact his only shot, but there was no way he was going  to get relief because the officials screwed up the Van de Velde request from relief the day before and were not going to take any chances."

Jeff Goldman:

If that were true that's a case where two wrongs add up to two wrongs and nothing less. I do realize that all good rules officials strive in theory for equity in their decision making but that kind of thing, if actually true, is shameful officiating in my book!

[Dan Kelly]

Honestly, maybe I saw something that no one else did yesterday or maybe I'm wrong or making too much of this but the decision Love made on #18 and particularly the reasons why doesn't even fall into the same zip code as that famous quote by Bobby Jones.

This isn't even remotely about whether Love would've been cheating in some way ('robbing a bank') if he'd asked for Rule 24-2 relief and been granted it.

Tom I --

I take Mr. Jones's statement more broadly than you do, I guess.

I think Mr. Jones was saying: Don't praise me for playing within the rules -- within the letter and the spirit of the rules -- because a man with integrity must play within the letter and the spirit of the rules, or he has no integrity.

As I said: Bravo to Mr. Love. This incident says something very complimentary about him. It says he is a man of integrity -- at least on the golf course. (I mean to imply nothing about him off the golf course -- where I know nothing about him.)

The fact that some find his display of integrity remarkable says something very uncomplimentary about our times -- does it not?

[TEPaul]

Now is probably as good a time as any to ask the contributors to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com if they actually think that this apparently common modus operandi of players and tournament players (since they're really the only ones who play tournament golf with real rules officials) are guilty of cheating if they try to goad rules officials into such things as giving them relief under very questionable rules circumstances?

I, for one, don't in any way think that's cheating on the part of tournament players but it is a bad and unfortunate practice that just seems to be so much part of the game these days (and perhaps for many years).

What that type of thing is to me is simply a true lack of even understanding the spirit that lies behind the Rules of Golf. Unfortunately, for as long as I can remember the Rules of Golf give a player immunity for a mistake made in his favor by a rules officials and even more unfortunately too many really good tournament players not only understand that but actually relie on the occasional prospect of that!

Do you ever wonder why so many tournament players call for rules officials in relief situations when it's almost crystal clear what the proper procedure is? Sure, the ultra cautious tournament player may call for a rules official so he doesn't make a mistake on his own and thereby get penalized for it but the over-use of Rules officials is also far more insidious than that, I'm afraid.

But is it cheating? Not in my book. It's simply misunderstanding or abusing the spirit (but not the letter) behind the Rules of Golf. As I'm sure everyone on here knows the presumption in the actual Rules of Golf is that every player will play honorably. The actual rules of golf rarely if ever mention the idea of and certainly not the act of cheating.

[Philippe Binette]

The key of the call was that if Davis had taken a drop, he would have been in the light rough instead of dead in the rough which would have reduced the value of Darren's drive,

the cup was basically lost at that point, but imagine last hole of the US Open... If the guy take a drop in the light rough, hit the ball on the green, two putts and a one stroke win, would it be fair...

[Steve Pozaric]

I have always rooted for DLIII and this reinforced that.  However, I do wish he had a better reputation as a "closer."

[THuckaby2]

TomH:

You despise Davis Love? In that case you need to see Dr Katz quick or get somebody nearby to screw your head on right. If you actually despise Davis Love you most certainly have a very serious personality disorder---probably something like this weirdo character around here who goes by the name of redanman. Did you say you work in a Clorox factory? Try putting on your protective mask more frequently!  

TEP:  as I said in that post, we all have our likes and dislikes.  Of course I've never met the man (as I gather you have) and perhaps if I did my attitude would change.  So taking into account that all I know is what I see in TV, well... to me he personfies the words "goober" and "dweeb."  He also just seems so uptight, white-bread, geeky, walks like he has a stick up his butt... well you can see where I'm going.  Beyond that, one of my best golf buddies holds him as a life hero, so that makes me automatically dislike the guy.  Love, that is.

So to each his own... hey, where's the fun if we always disagree.

BTW, thank the lord but I work in an office.  If I actually worked in a plant making products, we'd likely have a lot more product liability cases to deal with.

 

In any case I am prepared to give the tight-ass chokemaster full credit for being a good egg about the rules here.  Good on you, Davis.  Now just take some anti-geek classes and learn how to walk.

 

[George Pazin]

Huck -

You oughta read DLIII's book Every Shot I Take - a quick and heartwarming read.

Kind of funny, someone on this site thinking someone else is a geek....

[Mike Benham]

In any case I am prepared to give the tight-ass chokemaster full credit for being a good egg about the rules here.  Good on you, Davis.  Now just take some anti-geek classes and learn how to walk.

 

Spoken like someone who has the same amount of major titles as DLIII      

[Mike Hendren]

Huckster,

Having spent four days in California last week, I am astonished that anyone residing there would chose to judge a person by their appearance.  In such a contest Rest Of World would undoubtedly win 10 and 8

Kindest regards,

Mike

[TEPaul]

"Tom
I'm glad Davis didn't try and fudge his stance to get the relief.  I just don't think he should be overly praised for not doing the wrong thing!"

PaulT:

Did you actually see that situation with Love yesterday? If so I still think you're pretty much misunderstanding this situation. There appeared no way on earth if Love had asked for relief from that immovable obstruction yesterday and demonstrated his reason for asking with what may not have even been recognized to be a "fade stance" he would have gotten it from any competent rules official in the world. He basically wouldn't have "fudged" (as you say) anything, and he most definitely would have not been just NOT doing the wrong thing, as you say.

Apparently Love's foot with the swing he says he intended to take (probably a SW blast out of that poor lie) was never more than one inch from that immovable obstruction (at least that's the way all the people there who reported it reported the facts as I heard them.

Again, I'd ask you to cite me another example of a tournament player doing what he did yesterday. I don't think you can. I've been officiating and playing tournament golf for a long time and I can honestly say his specific reasoning was an education to me. I've just never seen anything exactly like that. I also feel that all those who were there on the spot--including a lot of seasoned tournament players felt the same thing. My recollection of watching that situation was that at first no one could figure out what he was doing by doing nothing to even ask about relief.

[TEPaul]

"the cup was basically lost at that point, but imagine last hole of the US Open... If the guy take a drop in the light rough, hit the ball on the green, two putts and a one stroke win, would it be fair... "

Phillipe:

Of course that would've been fair if Love legitimately established "interference" by an immovable obstruction under the letter of Rule 24-2! That's why Rule 24 is in the Rule book and it make no distinction whatsoever between fairway, first cut rough, deep rough or much of anythng else except a few known "exceptions" all found within the Rules.

But what you're saying about even a legitimate drop somehow minimizing the effect of Darren Clarke's drive is a remarkable thing to say nonetheless. That very thing is exactly what C.B. Macdonald was so fixated on when he tried so hard before 1905 to get the USGA and American golf to understand and accept what he called the "Spirit of St. Andrews" when the United States was writing rules under the auspices of the young USGA.

Macdonald's point was that even in St Andrews many of the golfers didn't really even understand their own really minimal Rules of Golf that well--but they did understand that the "Spirit of St Andrews" sort of morally required any player to never take advantage of his opponent EVEN IF he was somehow LEGITIMATELY able to do so under the existing Rules of Golf. The overriding idea was to want to best the very best your opponent could throw at you and never to use the rules, even if legitmately, to take some advantage of your opponent to do so.

That "Spirit of St Andrews" never really got to these shores to the eventual dismay of Macdonald and it seems not that many really understand exactly what it was. It seems you do though---and perhaps Love did too in some way yesterday.

But if he'd been granted relief yesterday in what seemed to be clear relief would it have been fair and within the letter of the Rules of Golf? Definitely! And I'm pretty sure both Love AND Clarke understood that!

[TEPaul]

"TEP:  as I said in that post, we all have our likes and dislikes.  Of course I've never met the man (as I gather you have) and perhaps if I did my attitude would change.  So taking into account that all I know is what I see in TV, well... to me he personfies the words "goober" and "dweeb."  He also just seems so uptight, white-bread, geeky, walks like he has a stick up his butt... well you can see where I'm going.  Beyond that, one of my best golf buddies holds him as a life hero, so that makes me automatically dislike the guy.  Love, that is."

TomH:

I know exactly what you mean by all that. Davis Love and his preceived "presonae" has always been that way with most everyone and certainly including those who never actually met or known the guy. In my opinion, that's all simply because of the way he looks the way he walks and other stuff like that.

For some odd reason Love has always had that sort of pouty or glum look to his face but that really is just the way his face is and not the way he is. It's pretty startling really to find that he's nothing at all like that. He also has about size 15 feet and a very thin upper body for his size and he's always padded along like a big duck that's always made him seem sort of goofy or geeky to those who don't know anything else about him.

But I think when you see him play and get to know him all that changes instantly. It's no secret he's always been one of the most popular and respected guys on the tour and with people who know him. And, I'm not sure how old you are TomH or whether you remember when and how Love hit the golf world's attention. He was considered to be a true hybrid, perhaps a sign of the distance future he was soooo long with everything. After a year or two on the tour he toned that way down and started to be successful. I saw Love when he was a sophmore in college and his length was positively shocking! Matter of fact, the other day I ran into the great old caddie at Merion who caddied for Love the first time he came to Merion (first time he came to Philadelphia actually) and shot a 64. He said after the round he told Love; "Young man basically you've got a problem--you hit the ball waaay too far!"

I'm not sure if you ever knew this either but apparently in the teaching profession his Dad was considered to be perhaps one of the true geniuses on the golf swing.

[TEPaul]

"The fact that some find his display of integrity remarkable says something very uncomplimentary about our times -- does it not?:

Dan:

No, I don't think so. I think most on here seem to think all Love did was basically just not do something that might have been in some way questionable but in my opinion, it wasn't that at all.

I kind of hate to admit this because I've been around a long time but until yesterday I really didn't even think it was possible for a golfer to have thought of what Love did and I dare say almost everyone there never did either. They even teach you in rules school to really understand the technicalities of the rules because in the end all it can do is help you. Love could've legitimately done that yestereday--and that's what I think so many on here are failing to understand. But he didn't and again, what he did was as much of an education to me as anything else.

Maybe I just have a very different opinion of what constitutes "clearly unreasonable" and "an abnormal stance and swing" within the technicalities of the Rules of Golf than some of the others on here.

[TEPaul]

My God, redanman, by all rights and tenets of decency and good taste after all the ridiculous things you've said about Davis Love in the past you should just completely recuse yourself from ever saying a word on this thread. You actually think you might be hard on Davis Love because he or his golf game in some ways reminds you of yourself?? This I really can't take! I just knew there was some out of control "Walter Mittyism" going on on the website!  

[TEPaul]

I'm not going to accept that redanman. You aren't getting off the hook until you declare your unconditional love for Davis Love everyday for a month and swear you'll never again play golf with that psychopath from the West Thomas Clorox Huckaby.

And now all that's left to say is---Goodnight Mrs Callabash, wherever you are!

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

I love you too, man.  And not to worry - redanman and I have played exactly one round together the entire decade or so we've now known of each other in this electronic way.  

As for Mr. Love the third, well... I do appreciate the insight in your post, though none of that is new to me.  I am 42 years old and thus old enough to be all too familiar with my contemporary there.

And he remains a geek, dweeb, goober and all-around dork.  I hope you saw the recent golf channel news feature where they showed him leading a motorcycle rally... never has anyone done such a great impersonation of PeeWee Herman.  I actually felt kinda sad for him, in a "Jesse Palmer ruining my chance of ever being cool via a TV appearance" way.

But he also remains cool about the rules.  And his Dad was a teaching genius.

TH

ps - please understand I am just having fun with this.  DLIII has as much effect on my life as does Donovan McNabb.

pss to George P - touche!

[THuckaby2]

Mike H.:

Actually, George's retort touches on why I do have such disdain for Davis Love III.  See, I've been playing golf since I was 8.  Thus I've been fighting the geek image basically my whole life.  Oh, the arguments between me and my brother, who considers golf not to be a sport... Anyway, no matter how hard I ever tried to convince him of the true coolness of the sport, whereas Tom Kite hurt my argument, the be all and end-all argument killer has always been when he uttered these words:

Davis Love the third.

I never have come up with a retort.

So help me out here.  Traditionally I've just punted and said, well, I guess you're right.  Golf is geeky and I am a geek.  What should I say in the face of this overwhelming evidence?

 

[Paul_Turner]

Tom P

If Davis Love would have claimed that he needed to take a stance to fade a shot from that lie then he most certainly would have been fudging his stance.  

If there are a several "reasonable" options for a player and he claims to that the only "reasonable" stance will give him relief, then in IMO he's doing the wrong thing.

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom P

If Davis Love would have claimed that he needed to take a stance to fade a shot from that lie then he most certainly would have been fudging his stance.  

If there are a several "reasonable" options for a player and he claims to that the only "reasonable" stance will give him relief, then in IMO he's doing the wrong thing.

Actually, I think all DLIII would have had to do would have been to stand a couple of inches farther from the ball.  Rolfing said a wider stance.  In either case, I don't think the only way to get relief would have been a fade stance for a shot he wasn't going to play anyway.

[ForkaB]

I agree that DLIII did the right thing, given that his lie was such that it was impossible (even for him) to hit the requisite high fade onto the green.  However.....

What if the lie had been such that it was possible but not prudent to hit that high fade (let's say a 2% chance of success)?  Could Love (or anyone) argue that because the shot was possible, he MIGHT choose to take it (depending on his propensity for risk), and thus should be offerred relief?  Or does the player have to calculate whether or not he WOULD choose that riskier shot (if no relief were possible) in order to be given relief?

It would seem to me that relief should be available if a certain shot is possible, regardless of whether or not it is prudent.  Otherwise you get into the slippery slope of trying to incorporate a player's psyche into a Decision.  But, I'm not sure.

Any thoughts?

[A_Clay_Man]

Huckster-Since you seem to be in a soul searching forgiving mode, perhaps you could investigate why you can give a golf course a pass, on critique. But, one of the world's best ball strikers gets the scrutiny of a pathologist. (or proctologist in this case)

Could you e'splain this apparent incongruency?

[THuckaby2]

Adam:

You assume I give all golf courses a pass on critique, which is far from true.  I just tend to choose to try and find the good rather than highlight the bad.  So if you rephrase your question to ask why I don't do the same re DLIII, well, the answer is easy and is contained in one of my prior posts.

He's the absolute life-hero of one of a good golfing bud, one with whom I exchange constant crap back and forth and one with whom I'd sooner end it all than agree on any issue pertaining to this great game, just out of principle.  Once that hero status was established, it was absolutely certain that any flaws DLIII was perceived to possess would be highlighted with laser-intensity.

Make sense?

 

And BTW, I concur that he is one hell of a ball-striker, one of the best.  He's still a dork.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom, with that argument, I cannot fight. Darn!

Other than the standard, who'd you wanna be? Mike Jordan or Bill Gates? Geek or Jock?

The answer should be painfully obvious. Geekdom is it.

[THuckaby2]

That surely is obvious.  I'll take Jordan all day over Gates.  It's not like I'd be suffering for money as MJ, I'd be as good a golfer and love the sport as much as I do as Tom Huckaby, and I don't think I'd mind being the all-time best at a sport played world-wide.  There are plenty of great businessmen and plenty of rich people.  There is only one MJ.  And the fact he's a golf nut seals the deal.

Now change it to someone who really has contributed to bettering the world in a very meaningful way - oh, I'm thinking Jonas Salk, Isaac Newton, Gandhi - and give me their "geekiness" any time, even over MJ, even giving up this great game.

Creation of software and personal wealth do not overly impress me.  Gates with his foundation has done more to impress me than anything Microsoft has done.  So if you make it Gates and many other people, I might go for the geek.

But against MJ?  Forget it.

But talk about going out into left-field... I doubt I've ever gotten so far from golf course architecture here.  My bad.  Act of contrition to follow.