Wie in water hazard

[noonan]

Why is she continuing to argue with the official?

And is it appropriate to have a camera in there?

It is a bad break the ball landed inside the marked hazard.

[Garland Bayley]

Why is she continuing to argue with the official?
...

Must have learned from Annika.

Actually, I have no idea what you are talking about. But, I have seen Annika argue endlessly with officials.

[CJ Carder]

I just watched the same thing.  I don't really think they needed to have a camera in there, but Michelle didn't do herself any favors in the reputation department by continuing to argue that she was really using her club to keep her balance.  The video made it obvious that she just flat out grounded the club while the ball was still in the hazard.  End of story, take your medicine and move on.

[Garland Bayley]

So that's what it is about. Apparently she hasn't learned from the seniors. I saw a senior enter about to enter a water hazard ask an official if it was ok to ground the club for balance. Then proceeded to excessively ground the club (IMO) before hitting the shot. I guess in this case it is better to ask permission than forgiveness.

[Pete_Pittock]

Watching the video she was stood ina hazard and made a shot at ball lying in mud/muck/water. The ball did not exit the hazard and she stood, well balanced, looking at the ball, which was now on the grass withing the hazard. She then grounded the club in the grass well within the hazard line. To me it was a clear violation and no amount of argument would cause me to change my mind.

[Steve Salmen]

Garland,

Annika is one of the few professionals who has taken the USGA rules class.  I would expect her to argue her point pretty well.

[TEPaul]

What did Wie do this time? What are all the facts in this situation that are necessary to make a ruling on all the available facts involved in this Wie ruling situation?

I think you all need to understand something about tournament golf, particularly stroke play tournament golf. No competitor can hang around a stroke play ruling situation with a Rules official and argue endlessly. If they try to do that they are more than liable to get hit with a Rule 6-7 penalty which comes with various warnings and penalities all the way to DQ.

To move a player along who is inclined to argue with a Rules official endlessly in stroke play is the availability of playing a second ball along with the original ball and the situation can be resolved after that fact with a Ruling review.

But if some player is stupid enough and obtuse enough to try to hang around a ruling situation endlessly without proceeding to the next shot in hopes that the situation will somehow be resolved in what they think is their favor or their opinion eventually the Rules of Golf provide that they can and will be disqualified under Rule 6-7 and whether they like it or not that is truly the end of their round and their tournament!

I've been officiating for over twenty years and I've never seen that come close to happening because all the players I've ever seen are not that intransigent or that stupid!

So what did Wie do this time?

[Pete_Pittock]

http://www.thegolfchannel.com/golf-videos/wie-little-mishap-13849/?ref=26000

Here is the video. I would think that if you are grounding a club to maintain balance there should be some body weight on it or leaning in that direction.  On the 11th hole.

[Ken Moum]

No competitor can hang around a stroke play ruling situation with a Rules official and argue endlessly. If they try to do that they are more than liable to get hit with a Rule 6-7 penalty which comes with various warnings and penalities all the way to DQ.

In this case, 6-7 doesn't apply because the discussion took place in the TV trailer after she completed her round.

What she did was ground a club in a (lateral?) water hazard after trying to play out of the water.  Since the ball rolled back into the hazard, she was penalized for it.

Apparently she actually reported the grounding herself, but she argued at great length that she did it because she felt like she was losing her balance.

She clearly did not do it to "prevent falling" as required in the rules.

Her arguing cost her a lot of fans, including me.

K

EDIT -- Okay, I just read Jon V's take on this, and may have to soften my stance.... http://freedrop.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/michelle-wie-and-the-lpga/. I do wish the rules officials would have told her that the standard wasn't whether or not she felt off balance, but whether she actually believed she was using the club to "prevent falling."

[TEPaul]

Ken Moun:

Thanks for that information. I had no idea what happened. I thought it sounded like it happened on the course during the round.

From what you describe, theoretically, at least, a player has a right to argue a ruling situation all the way to the ultimate and final authority---in Wie's case the USGA if she was playing in their jurisdiction but providing the Tournament "Committee" allowed her some latitude to play on and have the situation resolved after the "close of competition" which frankly would be practically unprecedented.

The Rules of Golf in the over-all are actually pretty fascinating in this way and I believe have their very own unique type and spirit of equity and equitable resolution in the final analysis.

However, the reality is in most any case the matter would be somehow resolved before Wie left the "scoring area" which technically is or can be a whole lot more important and consequential than most all golfers realize.

[Garland Bayley]

http://www.thegolfchannel.com/golf-videos/wie-little-mishap-13849/?ref=26000

Here is the video. I would think that if you are grounding a club to maintain balance there should be some body weight on it or leaning in that direction.  On the 11th hole.

Sorry, but the officials on the Senior Tour don't seem to see it your way. As I mentioned, I saw a player repeatedly needlessly tap the ground to "maintain balance" all with an official standing by already having granted permission.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

Annika is one of the few professionals who has taken the USGA rules class.  I would expect her to argue her point pretty well.

So you're saying she flunked. Two of the three interminable arguments I have seen her engage in have been verified by rules officials on this site as being out of line. She kept wanted to get relief according to the shot shape she wanted to play as opposed to line of sight as stipulated by the rules. I didn't know about the disqualification rule TEP mentions. In the past, I have suggested there should be something like the technical foul in basketball for golf. Seems they already have such a rule. But, it begs the question, at what point do you disqualify the world #1 in the running to win a tournament?

[Garland Bayley]

From JVB's blog
"I also believe it was wrong for the LPGA to allow the Golf Channel to broadcast from the trailer.  These kind of things should be conducted in private, not with the entire world looking on.   Wie did a good job of arguing her point, but it seemed the official had his mind made up and wasn’t about to give in to her.  She handled it all with dignity and class."
Thank you JVB!

[Pete_Pittock]

Garland,
I did not see the incident on the senior tour, therefore I cannot respond with a well-formed opinion.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
I did not see the incident on the senior tour, therefore I cannot respond with a well-formed opinion.

Are you sure? It happened on your course.

[TEPaul]

"But, it begs the question, at what point do you disqualify the world #1 in the running to win a tournament?"


Garland:

Believe it or not, the Rules of Golf provide a remarkable amount of latitude to ultimately resolve any situation that occurs on a golf course. And perhaps more remarkable still the Rules do provide that latitude within a framework that does not include or incorporate some on-going moral or philosophical question. If some situation ever occurs that it is resolved seemingly unfairly or inequitably the particular and dictating situation is never revisited in and of itself for some far after-the-fact resolution even though the Rules or their administrative bodies provide for an alteration in interpretation in the future by a Rules change or a Decsion within the Rules of Golf that reflects that particular situation.

[Dale Jackson]

"But, it begs the question, at what point do you disqualify the world #1 in the running to win a tournament?"


Garland:

Believe it or not, the Rules of Golf provide a remarkable amount of latitude to ultimately resolve any situation that occurs on a golf course. And perhaps more remarkable still the Rules do provide that latitude within a framework that does not include or incorporate some on-going moral or philosophical question. If some situation ever occurs that it is resolved seemingly unfairly or inequitably the particular and dictating situation is never revisited in and of itself for some far after-the-fact resolution even though the Rules or their administrative bodies provide for an alteration in interpretation in the future by a Rules change or a Decsion within the Rules of Golf that reflects that particular situation.

Well, I 'm glad that's been cleared up!

[Garland Bayley]

"But, it begs the question, at what point do you disqualify the world #1 in the running to win a tournament?"


Garland:

Believe it or not, the Rules of Golf provide a remarkable amount of latitude to ultimately resolve any situation that occurs on a golf course. And perhaps more remarkable still the Rules do provide that latitude within a framework that does not include or incorporate some on-going moral or philosophical question. If some situation ever occurs that it is resolved seemingly unfairly or inequitably the particular and dictating situation is never revisited in and of itself for some far after-the-fact resolution even though the Rules or their administrative bodies provide for an alteration in interpretation in the future by a Rules change or a Decsion within the Rules of Golf that reflects that particular situation.

Well, I 'm glad that's been cleared up!

LOL

[TEPaul]

Dale and Garland:

Is there something funny or not particularly understandable to you with that Rules explanation?

[Garland Bayley]

Dale and Garland:

Is there something funny or not particularly understandable to you with that Rules explanation?

Yes

[TEPaul]

Well, in that case, I guess I'm fairly sure it would be too much to ask either of you why.

If so, don't worry about it, as about the last thing I've become accustomed to doing is to ask too much of today's golfers.

[Garland Bayley]

Tom,

Isn't it past your bedtime on the right coast?
You lost me about half way (or maybe earlier) through the last sentence.

[TEPaul]

Well, never mind Garland; I think I remember you and your schtick; and I recall it doesn't take much to lose you. Maybe the Rules of Golf just ain't your thing. I vaguely recall you're one of the ones on here who thinks he knows I&B better than the USGA Tech Research center. Or am I thinking of one of the others?

[Michael Taylor]

I find it hilarious that she claims she did it to keep balance. Look at the vid, her weight is nowhere near her right side, and she isn't going to fall in the water at all. Just a stupid mistake and she has payed for it. I only play the game, and am not a rules expert by any means, but 2 shots for "that" seems unfair. She hasn't gained any unfair advantage and I can't imagine she did it to test the surface, so maybe the ruling is a bit unfair in that case? Just my opinion anyway.

Pup

[Rob_Waldron]

Michelle appeared to be arguing the "fairness" of the rule by attempting to introduce logic. As we all know the rules of golf are generally neither fiar nor logical. Of course she gained no advantage by letting the club touch the ground yet the rule dictates a two stroke penalty. Her limited understanding of the rules produced her "I needed the club to maintain my balance" arguement. She asked the officials how they could determine whether she needed the club to maintain her balance and she never really received an answer...just two shots and a payday shorted by $90K. As far as The Golf Channel broadcasting Michelle's trials and tribulations, what else did they have? An unknown Korean lapping the field. A long time ago I made the decision not to sit for the USGA Rules Exam because my mind thinks logically and I have no chance of passing.