Quirk versus bad luck - should they be equal?

[Jerry Kluger]

I believe the general consensus within GCA is that quirk is fun and part of what makes the game so great.  So we call it rub of the green or something similar when a ball takes a funny bounce and the player winds up in a hazard or something similar.  But what about bad luck and at what point does it become unfair.  This is especially true at the highest levels of the game and in particular what happened to Lee Westwood on the 18th hole yesterday.  With an immense amount of pressure on him he hits an absolute bomb down the middle of the fairway and winds up in a divot which drastically reduces his chance of making birdie on the hole and his only hope was Bryson screwing up.  I know when I am playing a match against a friend or rival or whatever and this happens to me I am pissed off but I know that it happens.  At the professional level we are talking about a very large amount of money, etc., which is even more meaningful here because of Westwood's age and how unlikely it will be for him to win in the future.  It should be noted that Bryson got favorable rulings which were questioned by the announcers as to interference by sprinkler heads which allowed him after 2 drops to place and align the ball and separately on another hole if his ball was on the green so he could lift it and clean it. 

[Tom_Doak]

You didn't dare use the "U" word in your Subject line so you should get it out of the first paragraph too.  If you hit it in a divot, you dig it out.


Lee Westwood is old enough to not consider this "unfair" although he might feel very unlucky that it happened to him at the 72nd hole.  P.S. One of the reasons water holes suck is because they make it harder to play out of a divot.


If you are playing with your friend for laughs and you both want to roll the ball out of divots, go right ahead, but that doesn't mean that the rule should be changed for serious golf.


BTW I also fight against the proliferation of sprinkler heads around greens because they cause extra rulings and chances to improve your lie as they did for Bryson.  The sprinkler salesmen don't seem to care though.

[Jim_Coleman]

  Bruce Edwards was asked the biggest difference between caddying for Norman and Watson. When Norman landed in a  divot, he’d moan, “can you believe my f...ing luck.”  When Watson landed in a divot he’d say, “watch this shot.”

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom:  Bryson got relief from the sprinkler head which wasn't even in his line of play or involve his swing or stance because they say it is not part of the course and is man made - so is a divot! I realize that divots are part of the game and appreciate that but Westwood gets screwed because someone didn't replace his divot which was made by a man.  I am of course saying this somewhat tongue in cheek but one could argue that the best player did not win. So if at the professional level they have to play out of some other player's divot why not bring back the stymie and let the other player's ball be treated just like another player's divot:}

[Brian Walshe]

"Luck" on a golf course can go both ways.  If people want relief from divots in the fairway because a good shot doesn't deserve to be punished, then the flip side should be that if you hit a bad shot into the rubbish and get a great lie you have to drop it somewhere unplayable.  You can't just happily take the good without accepting the bad.  By the way, the divot didn't cost Westwood the win, his crap approach and poor putt on 16 did.

[Kalen Braley]

And its not limited to just that Jerry.

Ball marks and Spike Marks on the green are also incurred in the playing of the game, but the rules makes have no problem letting players cheat and fix em anyways! 

P.S.  Given most courses actually make an effort to fix and repair them, shouldn't divots be "Ground Under Repair" as technically they are exactly that.

[David Ober]

I am firmly in the "never ever" camp when it comes to divots becoming GUR. There would be far, far too many "Well, this does look like a divot to me" fiascos. Just play out of the damn things and show me some spine and some phocking talent.

[jeffwarne]

I am firmly in the "never ever" camp when it comes to divots becoming GUR. There would be far, far too many "Well, this does look like a divot to me" fiascos. Just play out of the damn things and show me some spine and some phocking talent.

There hasn't been one rules change that hasn't led to unintended circumstances, yet the rulesmakers continue to cave to pop culture and think they can make it better,
clearer and "fairer"
The old rules were clear and simple(and yes you needed to learn them)-address the ball and it rolls? add one and replace. Now? Did you cause it to move? WTF kind've question is that?
Imagine if the added a divot rule and the debate with Bryson if he were in a less than perfect lie anywhere in a fairway.


Once upon a time, play it as it lies meant something.

[cary lichtenstein]

The best players take it as a challenge, the babies say "woe is me"

[Sean_A]

I believe the general consensus within GCA is that quirk is fun and part of what makes the game so great.  So we call it rub of the green or something similar when a ball takes a funny bounce and the player winds up in a hazard or something similar.  But what about bad luck and at what point does it become unfair.  This is especially true at the highest levels of the game and in particular what happened to Lee Westwood on the 18th hole yesterday.  With an immense amount of pressure on him he hits an absolute bomb down the middle of the fairway and winds up in a divot which drastically reduces his chance of making birdie on the hole and his only hope was Bryson screwing up.  I know when I am playing a match against a friend or rival or whatever and this happens to me I am pissed off but I know that it happens.  At the professional level we are talking about a very large amount of money, etc., which is even more meaningful here because of Westwood's age and how unlikely it will be for him to win in the future.  It should be noted that Bryson got favorable rulings which were questioned by the announcers as to interference by sprinkler heads which allowed him after 2 drops to place and align the ball and separately on another hole if his ball was on the green so he could lift it and clean it.

If anything, I have much less inclination to change a rule like this because pros get upset. The guy is being paid to hit the shot and if we watch it is to be entertained. I would find it entertaining to watch guys deal with divot lies when under pressure.

Ciao

[Paul Rudovsky]

I have long felt that one of the things that makes golf such a great game is that the game of golf is a simulation of the game of life.  In life, you get good bounces and bad bounces...and you have to deal with the bad ones.  Same should be true with the game of golf.  It is part of the "test" of the game. 


The above is also one more reason why links golf is such a better test of the mental capacity of players than over manicured, seemingly "perfect" tracks in the USA.

[Mike_Young]

IMHO, I'm not sure the really good players consider hitting from a normal divot to be that big of a deal if they can get below the equator of the ball.  Also, ball marks, divots etc are accentuated more today due to the lower heights of cut and the overall conditions of courses.  Seems to me a bush or a tree are much more unfair.  Oh...sand in divots sux...

[Jamie Pyper]

As stated by Jeff " Once upon a time, play it as it lies meant something". I can't think of a better example than the Harry Bradshaw bottle incident during the 1949 Open at St. George's. How times have changed.


On the 5th hole of the second round the Irishman's drive rolls into the bottom of a broken bottle. Today, we just take relief, but not clear of the rule of the day, he elects to pay it as it lies, lets rip, smashes the bottle to pieces while advancing the ball of few yards.
Harry went on to loose the championship in a playoff to Bobby Locke and was reported as saying afterwards,
" If the ball had been in a Guinness bottle, I couldn't have brought myself to hit the bottle."

[Lou_Duran]

On the 5th hole of the second round the Irishman's drive rolls into the bottom of a broken bottle. Today, we just take relief, but not clear of the rule of the day, he elects to pay it as it lies, lets rip, smashes the bottle to pieces while advancing the ball of few yards.
Harry went on to loose the championship in a playoff to Bobby Locke and was reported as saying afterwards,
" If the ball had been in a Guinness bottle, I couldn't have brought myself to hit the bottle."

No doubt that a good sense of humor and a positive attitude go a very long way.  I was not aware that Lee W whined about his misfortune, but no doubt that his strategy on the second shot was changed by the lie.  He acquitted himself very well throughout the round and afterwards.


Two changes to the rules seem to have wide popular support, the stroke and distance penalty for going OB, and no relief for balls ending in a divot in closely mown areas.  The arguments for change are understandable as is the "slippery slope" counter to them.  I'm ok with these two, but believe that a more aggressive simplification of the rules would benefit the game.

[Tom_Doak]

I was not aware that Lee W whined about his misfortune, but no doubt that his strategy on the second shot was changed by the lie.  He acquitted himself very well throughout the round and afterwards.

He didn't whine about it.


Amazingly, no one asked him about it in the press conference after the round.  But he responded on Twitter to a post from Alex Miceli as follows:


"Just gotta shrug it off and get on with it.  The game was never meant to be fair.  That's the mental challenge."




P.S.  Miceli's post was a response to Paige Spiranac advocating for free drops from divots.  Draw your own conclusions about that.

[Thomas Dai]

To paraphrase Monty Pythons famous Yorkshireman sketch .....
....."Free drop from a divot? Luxury! When we were lads we used to have to play from railway track!"

atb

[Jerry Kluger]

I never intended to imply that Westwood had complained about it.  What I was questioning was how a great clutch shot is not rewarded because of bad luck while a less than great shot is permitted to dramatically improve by stretching a rule.  The sprinkler head was far less of an impediment to executing the shot than was the divot in the middle of the fairway.  I am not suggesting that at any level other than professional should this situation be considered as warranting consideration of some sort.  However, when so much is at stake amongst the best in the world it is arguable that the competitor who played the best should win and if that does not happen because of something which can be addressed then why not do so?  I don't think you can call it a bad break and then say it is okay to do what Bryson was able to do.  Perhaps the answer is to not allow Bryson to do what he did and that would be better to me at that level of competition. 

[Kalen Braley]

I'm all for playing it where it lies...if we apply the rule universally and cancel undo all the exceptions that already exist in the rule book for a myriad of other situations.

BDC got to take a free drop, and eventually place his ball at acritical juncture, cause a sprinkler head was nearby that likely didn't even affect  him, yet Lee just had to man up and take his bad luck? 

Lets bring some consistency to the rules, even if that means consistent bad luck for everyone more often...

[Peter Pallotta]

To paraphrase Monty Pythons famous Yorkshireman sketch .....
....."Free drop from a divot? Luxury! When we were lads we used to have to play from railway track!"

atb

We could only *dream* about playing from the railroad track! When we were young, we had to play golf without golf clubs -- or balls! We had to use an old used sock and a crust of dried bread dipped in molasses!

[Lou_Duran]

I didn't mean to imply that anyone implied Westwood whined about landing in a divot.  Frankly, playing out of divots is a rather common occurrence, and complaining about it is counter-productive/negative goal setting (Norman vs. Watson example makes this point).


Players will get a variety of breaks during the course of a round.  Bryson's drive on 16, bouncing opposite of the contour, shape of the shot (tiny fade), and left-to-right hole design to near the lip of the fairway bunker was a bad break that should have benefited Westwood.  Lee not being able to get a short iron, maybe a 9, on the green was far more consequential than the lie on 18.


Lee also got a favorable ruling on his ball being on the green (15?- the TV angle showed a darker shade of green in front of his ball short of the actual putting green- the rule is that the ball must be touching the green for it to be on the green, not that part of the ball hovers above the line).  And Bryson got one on the relief granted for being within two club-lengths from the sprinkler heads on 16.  The camera shots on both rulings seemed to be from good angles and to me at least, suggested too much generosity.

[Jerry Kluger]

If I understand the rule with respect to a ball on the green if any part of the ball is on the green that is sufficient and I presume it doesn't have to touch it as the line of the green/fringe extends straight up so there was no subjectivity involved.   I totally agree with Kalen - the rules need to be consistent. 

[Sean_A]

To paraphrase Monty Pythons famous Yorkshireman sketch .....
....."Free drop from a divot? Luxury! When we were lads we used to have to play from railway track!"

atb

We could only *dream* about playing from the railroad track! When we were young, we had to play golf without golf clubs -- or balls! We had to use an old used sock and a crust of dried bread dipped in molasses!

You were lucky! I didn't have socks.


Ciao

[Lou_Duran]

Rule 13 states that if the ball touches the green, it is on the green.  In the 2019 book, I have not found a reference to the the line/edge of the green extending upwards.


Rules can be highly consistent and the element of luck will still be a factor.  Bryson's drop on 16 didn't look good, but I have to believe that the camera angle must not have been good (it is not a difficult rule to understand and enforce- the line that the player claims and some buffer have to be reasonable).  It is a local rule which the Tour adopted for the tournament, indicating that these IOs near the greens merited the exception (to playing the course as it is found).  Many modern courses with tight, closely-mowed areas around the greens will have this problem and the 2-club rule makes sense IMO.

[Thomas Dai]

To paraphrase Monty Pythons famous Yorkshireman sketch .....
....."Free drop from a divot? Luxury! When we were lads we used to have to play from railway track!"

atb

We could only *dream* about playing from the railroad track! When we were young, we had to play golf without golf clubs -- or balls! We had to use an old used sock and a crust of dried bread dipped in molasses!

You were lucky! I didn't have socks.
Ciao

As things once were at St Andrews circa 1850 as told by a local lad who in time became a club pro elsewhere in the UK.
atb

[Steve Wilson]

Well I  don't know but I've been told that at one time RDGC allowed free drops from divots in the fairway.  Does anyone know if this is true or not?  How would that worked in competitions such as the Club Open and The Burghfield House tournament?  I know when I played there in the first BUDA in 2003 there was no such provision.