[Thomas Dai]

Being hit by a golf ball hurts and much worse is possible. A lady spectator was hit in or near the eye by a tee shot at the Ryder Cup.
Can't be long before the ambulance and £-$ chasing brigade become involved (if their not already).
There are potentially other implication too.
Is there a likelihood of such incidents causing changes in the characteristics of the ball, architecture, protection for spectators/onsite workers/players etc etc?
In particular a 'soft' ball is less likely to cause injury/damage and won't go as far as the current version so less land/water would be needed.
Thoughts?
atb

[Pat Burke]

Not sure how French law works.


There’s a lot of assumption of risk when buying a ticket in the USA.  As PGA members,mthe players have liability insurance with their membership, but not sure the policy max.


Horrible thing.  Looks like she’s lost sight in the eye

[Jon Wiggett]

As I understand it the lady in question is looking for damages from the organiser for not insuring adequate warning was made i.e. no shouts of 'fore' from the marshals. I would imagine some sort of out of court settlement will be arrived at in the end.

[John Kavanaugh]

You can't promote yourself as a charitable organization and then ignore a woman who loses an eye at your event.

[jeffwarne]

Horrible-and somewhat unavoidable in a windy environment with sound being carried another direction.
Gallery ropes were a long way from play-fairways narrow but wide rough(and water) corridors.
I can't say I saw many places at all where the gallery was dangerously close to the action, unlike The Masters or many Tour events.
I don't remember seeing a ball in the gallery.


It does call into question the morality and legality of "aiming into the grandstands" as Van de Velde and others have done


As ballspeeds and distacnes the ball travels increase, so does the risk, and the ever increasing need for wider corridors for events and off course structures.

[Sean_A]

Those folks on high ground left of a drivable par 4 were in a very dangerous spot imo.  I saw a few shots end up there and a few more quite close. 

The ropes were further back than normal...it didn't allow for that horrible second cut of rough to get trampled.  I am sure this was an intentional part of the set-up. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

As ballspeeds and distacnes the ball travels increase, so does the risk, and the ever increasing need for wider corridors for events and off course structures.

+1
atb

[John Kavanaugh]

I get 500 balls a year hit into my yard from distances and angles that you can not imagine. Just yesterday I saw a middle school girl hit a tree and send the ball into a group a parents behind her. If you are close enough to see you are close enough to get hit.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

I've seen a couple youtube vids of the persimmon era, where spectators got drilled by a necked driver.  Literally less than 25 yards off the tee box and to the side. 



Actually, one was Tom Kite at Bellerive:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMKVbuo_WSg

[Duncan Cheslett]

The technology must exist to link a Trackman to some kind of early warning system whereby spectators in the danger zone are alerted to an incoming missile within a millisecond of the ball being struck.


It follows that organisers of pro tournaments have a duty of care to their paying customers to utilise all reasonable means of warning them of stray balls.


At the very least a marshal with a loud-hailer should be positioned on each tee to shout "Fore" when required.

[Kalen Braley]

Helmets with protective face gear attachments at every event!! 

[Steve Kline]

It's a horrible accident but you are at a golf tournament. Everyone, even pros, hit balls off line. You assume this risk when you go to a tournament. When I attend tournaments I generally sit in the stands in places where you are never going to be in danger of being hit. And, I am forever amazed at the people that make a seemingly small alley for a player who is trying to hit a recovery short. You are just asking to get hammered with a ball at some point doing that.

[jeffwarne]

The technology must exist to link a Trackman to some kind of early warning system whereby spectators in the danger zone are alerted to an incoming missile within a millisecond of the ball being struck.


It follows that organisers of pro tournaments have a duty of care to their paying customers to utilise all reasonable means of warning them of stray balls.

This is a great idea-----counting on a human marshall bad idea with sunlight, human error, wind/sound etc. issues

[Garland Bayley]

Personally, I position myself either behind the players, or about the halfway point of expected ball flight (Which enables better sight of the ball leaving the club, and the ability to see the entire flight).

I don't understand, nor do I excuse, spectators that purposely put themselves in harm's way.

[Duncan Cheslett]

The technology must exist to link a Trackman to some kind of early warning system whereby spectators in the danger zone are alerted to an incoming missile within a millisecond of the ball being struck.


It follows that organisers of pro tournaments have a duty of care to their paying customers to utilise all reasonable means of warning them of stray balls.

This is a great idea-----counting on a human marshall bad idea with sunlight, human error, wind/sound etc. issues

I agree entirely that the technological solution is the better way, and is probably inevitable at very large tournaments if a couple of law suits are won by victims of stray shots. Insurers will insist on it.


For smaller tournaments for whom this would be financially prohibitive, the marshal with the bullhorn is probably the only way the organisers could cover their arses and tick the required boxes.

[Mark Chaplin]

How will this technology work for second shots? A three wood approach on a par 5 would still have a similar velocity.

[Duncan Cheslett]

How will this technology work for second shots? A three wood approach on a par 5 would still have a similar velocity.

True, but I suspect that a detailed risk assessment would show a much reduced chance of anyone being hit on an approach shot. Players are aiming at a specific target rather than blasting it as far as they can. There is far less likelihood of a major error.

If the lawyers and insurance companies insist however, I guess a portable device could be used. The TV coverage tracks certain fairway shots as well as tee shots so nothing is impossible.


The day that one of technology companies comes up with the solution is the day that pressure begins for tournaments to use it. Not to do so could be construed as negligence in the event of another unfortunate incident.


I suspect that in the aftermath of the weekend several companies are working on this right now. They will sniff the obvious business opportunity.

[Niall C]

I read this morning that the lady in question is likely to lose sight in one eye and is pursuing legal action. The paper also had a graphic of the hole and where she was hit. On a driveable par 4, perhaps they should have had taken special precautions like setting the ropes even further back, having an early warning system where marshals can shout fore at the earliest opportunity (bear in mind it isn't the marshals job to shout fore for spectators, the players have the responsibility).

I doubt having a message simply saying enter here at your peril will suffice. It might mitigate repsonsibility to a degree but I can't imagine it will absolve the organisers completely if there has been any negligence.

Niall 

[James Reader]

I read this morning that the lady in question is likely to lose sight in one eye and is pursuing legal action. The paper also had a graphic of the hole and where she was hit. On a driveable par 4, perhaps they should have had taken special precautions like setting the ropes even further back, having an early warning system where marshals can shout fore at the earliest opportunity (bear in mind it isn't the marshals job to shout fore for spectators, the players have the responsibility).

I doubt having a message simply saying enter here at your peril will suffice. It might mitigate repsonsibility to a degree but I can't imagine it will absolve the organisers completely if there has been any negligence.

Niall

I’ve read comments that tour players know that shouting “fore” at distances of more than 250 yards is a waste of time as the sound of a human shouting is inaudible (or as good as) at that distance.  Does anyone know if that’s true?  Or is it an excuse being used for  a lack of basic etiquette and good sense?

[jeffwarne]

How will this technology work for second shots? A three wood approach on a par 5 would still have a similar velocity.

5-14 drivers per round off the tee


3 wood second shots? maybe once a month.....


but to your point a 280 yard 3 iron from the fairway would sting and the technology would not be as practical/easyat this point

[Thomas Dai]

If the modern ball didn't go so damn far the overall potential 'hurt zone' would be smaller, plus from closer it would be easier to see the ball in flight and thus gauge it's probably landing zone more accurately and shouts of "fore" from a short distance ought to be heard easier than shouts from further away.
I can't help but think that insurance companies and lawyers are examining all sorts of positions as a result of this incident. Where £-$ are involved there's usually an agenda/opportunity/vested interest around and the punter usually picks up the tab somehow or other.

atb

[jeffwarne]

If the modern ball didn't go so damn far the overall potential 'hurt zone' would be smaller, plus from closer it would be easier to see the ball in flight and thus gauge it's probably landing zone more accurately and shouts of "fore" from a short distance ought to be heard easier than shouts from further away.


atb

Pay no attention to the 800 lb elephant in the room (in all aspects of the game)
cuz remember some pretty so-called smart and highly placed people are consistently fooled by the (evidently) oh-so compelling  and convincing "chicks did the long ball" argument....

[Jon Wiggett]

I’ve read comments that tour players know that shouting “fore” at distances of more than 250 yards is a waste of time as the sound of a human shouting is inaudible (or as good as) at that distance.  Does anyone know if that’s true?  Or is it an excuse being used for  a lack of basic etiquette and good sense?

James,


at 250 yards the shout would be easily audible.

[Mark Pearce]

I’ve read comments that tour players know that shouting “fore” at distances of more than 250 yards is a waste of time as the sound of a human shouting is inaudible (or as good as) at that distance.  Does anyone know if that’s true?  Or is it an excuse being used for  a lack of basic etiquette and good sense?

James,


at 250 yards the shout would be easily audible.

This. 


Also, I have heard suggestions that the ambulance chasers may be involved here.  It will be interesting in time to see just how bad the injuries incurred are.  If as bad as suggested, that's tragic. 

[Jim Nugent]

I’ve read comments that tour players know that shouting “fore” at distances of more than 250 yards is a waste of time as the sound of a human shouting is inaudible (or as good as) at that distance.  Does anyone know if that’s true?  Or is it an excuse being used for  a lack of basic etiquette and good sense?

James,


at 250 yards the shout would be easily audible.

Wouldn't that depend on background noise, e.g. from the crowds? 

Wind also might have an effect. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()