[glenn.hackbarth@gmail.com]

Kalen,


There is nothing in the rule, or the "spirit of the rules", saying that Spieth should have played from the rough, as opposed to going further back to drop on short grass.  On the contrary, the rule explicitly says "with no limit to how far beyond that point the ball may be dropped."  Unlike Sergio, Spieth was not claiming that he intended to play an implausible shot in order to gain advantage.  The shot from the area of the trucks was not implausible, nor did Spieth gain advantage by dropping further to the right on the range.


I am worn out on this topic.  Otherwise, I would listen again to Sergio's discussion with the rules official.  I thought I heard the official ask Sergio if he would really play the richochet off the rock.  Sergio's response...I think...was "if this was Wednesday, sure."  Because of background noise, I am not certain that was the exchange.  Perhaps someone else heard that or can correct me.

[JESII]

I just saw the whole deal...embarrassing for Sergio and the official.

[Carl Nichols]

Glen and Carl,


I understand what you're saying, but the trucks were in fact present.  And he did in fact drop it in a place in which he had no intention of playing from. 

P.S.  If you read the rule....nowhere does it state that he's entitled to a good lie or a fairway lie when he uses the rule.  It only stipulates how the player can take a drop.  The fact that he exploited the situation to get an additional free drop is the point...





The player may deem his ball unplayable at any place on the course, except when the ball is in a water hazard. The player is the sole judge as to whether his ball is unplayable.
If the player deems his ball to be unplayable, he must, under penalty of one stroke:
a.
Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or
b.
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; or
c.
Drop a ball within two club-lengths of the spot where the ball lay, but not nearer the hole.

Kalen:
We're not saying he's entitled to a fairway lie or a good lie.  We're saying (1) he's entitled to drop wherever the rules permit him to drop and (2) his preferred place to play from, among his permitted options, would have been from where the trucks were, if they hadn't been there.  Sure, you can argue that he wouldn't have intended to play from that spot because the trucks were there, but they weren't supposed to be there in the first place--that's why they are called temporary immovable obstructions and players get relief.   

[Jim Nugent]

Kalen, forgetting Spieth for the moment, what is your reaction to Garcia? 

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm reminded of going as a kid to watch professional wrestling at Maple Leaf Gardens.
The title match was Lord Althol Layton (from Britain) against The Sheik (from the Middle East).
But on the undercard, The Beast (from southern Italy) was up against a lumberjack of some kind (from Quebec, I believe).
They were really hammering eachother. We had ring side seats, and at one point the lumberjack threw the Beast out of the ring and then, following him out, started smashing him with a folding chair -- totally against the rules, but the referee was ineffectual, and though he issued several warning wasn't able to stop this flagrant foul.
Then suddenly, one of the crowd, an actual audience member, not a plant, couldn't take the injustice anymore and decided to take matters into his own hands; he grabbed a chair and started hitting the lumberjack!
But after only a few moments, and much to my dismay, the Beast stepped in and helped the lumberjack -- violently pushing his would-be defender back into the crowd before making sure his opponent was okay!
Later I told myself that it was because the Beast wanted to win fair and square, and didn't want any outside help. But of course, the two of them - though ostensibly 'opponents' -- were actually part of the same charade and thus would always stick together against any such outside interference/real danger.
Likewise: Sergio played his role, the pro golfer grinding it out to get to East Lake; the ref as well made all the right noises and motions, dressed in his official uniform and looking very serious; and Phil graciously set aside his opponent's role and later admitted that, having been the cause of such delays for his own playing partners in the past, he could only patiently wait and wish Sergio the best.
The lesson here: no matter what the sport, including golf, we are never that far away from a professional wrestling match!
Peter

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, forgetting Spieth for the moment, what is your reaction to Garcia?

Jim


I'm glad you asked that question.  I have read several different articles today that said the referee acted well within whats allowed by the rules. Garcia took advantage of the temporary immovable obstruction rules which appear to be specialized for the Tour, so I don't see any difference between what Garcia did when compared to Spieth.  I will say once again that neither of them broke any actual rule...by letter... only in spirit.


Hence my original question, why is Serg and his situation getting such a different reaction than Jordan in his?

[JESII]

Because Garcia would not have played the ball against the rock and Speith would have dropped where the trailers were parked.


Night and Day.

[JESII]

He wouldn't have played it off the rock because the rock face was angled down the creek bank so his ricochet would have been no better than the drop with penalty just short of the creek...

[Kalen Braley]

So perhaps I can better explain the distinction I'm trying to make on the Jordan scenario


When you take an unplayable lie, you are only "guaranteed" the right to drop the ball elsewhere, using 3 general guidelines under penalty of one stroke. There is nothing written in the rule that entitles you to getting actual "relief" using this rule.  So when Jordan intentionally dropped the ball in a spot where he knew he wasn't going to play it from and then invoke relief, this is when it felt like it he deliberately violated/twisted/manipulated the spirit of the rule.  If he had hit the ball between the trucks, at least his ball got there in the natural playing of the game...not by a contrived condition where he intentionally sought it out and dropped to willfully gain benefit.


P.S.  And before you say, "but the trucks are temporary", it could have just as easily been staked trees, and taken relief from them and it would have felt just as "wrong"

[Kalen Braley]

He wouldn't have played it off the rock because the rock face was angled down the creek bank so his ricochet would have been no better than the drop with penalty just short of the creek...

Jim,


To my knowledge, and I could be wrong, there is no rule saying a player won't/can't play a shot a certain way.  If I want to ricochet my ball off a tree, or intentionally hit it into a bunker or pond, or play the entire course with my putter....there is nothing I'm aware of that prohibits player from doing so or gives a mandate to a referee to intercede and and make a judgement.

[JESII]

Correct...but Sergio can't create a new physical law...

[Peter Pallotta]

Correct...but Sergio can't create a new physical law...

Oh, contraire
These guys are good!

[Kevin_Reilly]

Sergio demonstrating how the club handle would "potentially" hit the grandstand on his follow through.  Official missed the fact that his clubhead was 18" above the ball in this posed position, and if the clubhead were next to the ball at the completion of the shot, the grip would never have ended up in that position (and he'd never have anything close to this amount of shaft lean).  My screen cap:


https://imgur.com/a/ODn4c

[jeffwarne]

Because Garcia would not have played the ball against the rock and Speith would have dropped where the trailers were parked.


Night and Day.

Bingo
one was lying and one wasn't
no chance he plays that shot
and the thread is about the pitiful call/lack of call by the official.
No balls on the part of the official and twenty minutes wasted
play on

[Jim Nugent]

Suppose Sergio had taken a penalty.  Where would he have dropped, and what kind of 4th shot would he face? 

[John Kavanaugh]

No matter what game you play those at the top play by different rules. Simple solution. Bitch less, work harder.

[Thomas Dai]

Kind of a shame Rory Sabatini wasn't playing with Sergio! Or maybe Ken Green (Seve at the Masters).

atb

[Rob Marshall]

Kind of a shame Rory Sabatini wasn't playing with Sergio! Or maybe Ken Green (Seve at the Masters).
 
atb

I'd take Sergio over those two any day. So is this about Sergio or the officials? I'd love to hear some one justify Charlie Hoffmans bunker ruling.


I was at a tournament once and Jerry Stahl (sp) (long time Oak Hill member and USGA rules official) was the speaker. He told 3 stories about interaction he had with Jack, Arnie, and Player. The story about Jack was about a drop he wanted at the Masters. Jerry said no. Jack wasn't happy and tried a little , you know who I am to get a favorable ruling. Jerry wasn't going for it. If you don't think they are all pulling that crap you're crazy.

[jeffwarne]

So perhaps I can better explain the distinction I'm trying to make on the Jordan scenario


When you take an unplayable lie, you are only "guaranteed" the right to drop the ball elsewhere, using 3 general guidelines under penalty of one stroke. There is nothing written in the rule that entitles you to getting actual "relief" using this rule.  So when Jordan intentionally dropped the ball in a spot where he knew he wasn't going to play it from and then invoke relief, this is when it felt like it he deliberately violated/twisted/manipulated the spirit of the rule.  If he had hit the ball between the trucks, at least his ball got there in the natural playing of the game...not by a contrived condition where he intentionally sought it out and dropped to willfully gain benefit.


P.S.  And before you say, "but the trucks are temporary", it could have just as easily been staked trees, and taken relief from them and it would have felt just as "wrong"

Kalen,
The trucks were TEMPORARILY parked where he wanted to (or would've) dropped if they weren't there. So he dropped, then took relief from the trucks.
Still amazed they took 20 minutes to do this-but they got it right.


Sergio was lying about the shot he said he would attempt.
It was not possible.
The official knew it , but lacked the balls to enforce it and protect the field-so he phoned a friend.
Shocked they took 20 minutes and got it wrong.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()