Did Rory Get An Undeserved Favorable Ruling?

[Pete_Pittock]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/usga-admits-to-incorrect-relief-measurement-with-rory-mcilroy-in-final-round-of-u-s-open/ar-AA1d4TuX?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=22c3a10307f148deb92bd421cc827afc&ei=12


In brief, the official ruled that relief would start at the side of ball, when it should have been immediately behind the ball, in this case a matter of inch or inches.  The ball was embedded. (Patrick Reed had nothing to do with the ruling, IMO).

[Jim_Coleman]

   The picture seems to pretty much answer my question. Looks like it plugged in the non grassed face of the bunker.

[Niall C]

Question for the resident rules guys;


Could the referee have gone in to the bunker to check from there bearing in mind Scheffler was in that bunker ?

   I’m not a rules guy, but I don’t see why not. She could have avoided Scottie’s lie and then raked her tracks, no? That’s what a player who hit first would do.

Niall

Jim


The reason I asked the question was because a friend did a rules course a couple of years ago and was presented with a scenario where he had to make a decision regarding a ball in a bunker (can't recall the exact scenario) and he mostly got it right other than he stepped into the bunker to look at the situation.


While McIlroys ball wasn't in the bunker, his playing partners was, and the referee certainly seemed to make sure she didn't step in the bunker. It would have been much easier for her to step into the bunker to inspect where the ball had landed.


Niall

[Kyle Harris]

   The picture seems to pretty much answer my question. Looks like it plugged in the non grassed face of the bunker.

Just because it isn't green doesn't mean it isn't grass.

The ball is in the General Area, no question, apparently there existed a point behind the ball in the General Area from which to have a reference point.

The location of the reference point is what was in doubt.

[Anthony Butler]

The difference between Reed and McIlroy's situation is that no-one doubts that McIlroy's ball was plugged. And that's not about anyone's 'reputation' or honesty. The NBC Broadcast clearly showed McIlroy's ball was plugged - ironically by the fact the ball was completely invisible - even in close up. The camera was not able to show Reed's ball because he'd already marked and removed it from the lie before anyone - a camera crew or a rules official - could get over there to verify.

The controversy around McIlroy's situation: Was there a nearer place he would have taken relief? From the camera shot it's hard to see any place outside the bunker offering relief that was 'behind' where the ball was plugged.

It's also hard to imagine he could have made worse than the 6 he put on the scorecard.

[Rob Marshall]

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2023/06/27/usga-incorrect-ruling-rory-mcilroy-2023-us-open/

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The procedure was wrong, but he may have still dropped where he should have as he used a reference spot about a foot to the right but didn’t use a full clublength where he dropped.


It was still a free drop and he still made a bogey, which is probably all he was going to make if he dropped a few inches farther left anyway.

[John Kavanaugh]

Didn’t this also happen in the last few weeds during a Tour event. That guys bogus looking drop is what made me think Rory’s was legit.

[Pete_Pittock]

Unless the "wall" is exactly vertical there will be a nearest point of relief in the general area. 

[Anthony Butler]

Unless the "wall" is exactly vertical there will be a nearest point of relief in the general area.

From the TV coverage, the wall appeared steep enough that it's hard to imagine the ball would have stayed somewhere on the bunker face once placed there.

Should Mclroy have first attempted this in front of the rules official before taking alternate relief? Possibly, but neither party seemed to consider that as a viable option and instead went sideways out of the bunker.

[Pete_Pittock]

Unless the "wall" is exactly vertical there will be a nearest point of relief in the general area.

From the TV coverage, the wall appeared steep enough that it's hard to imagine the ball would have stayed somewhere on the bunker face once placed there.

Should Mclroy have first attempted this in front of the rules official before taking alternate relief? Possibly, but neither party seemed to consider that as a viable option and instead went sideways out of the bunker.

The "nearest point of relief" is merely the point which is used to determine the area of relief. A ball does not have to be able to remain at rest there. The player can immediately proceed to drop anywhere within the area of relief which is in the same part of the course. At this point he was already out of the bunker.


I typed "nearest point of relief".  I should have been typed "reference point" as that is the language used in 16.3.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

From the TV coverage, the wall appeared steep enough that it's hard to imagine the ball would have stayed somewhere on the bunker face once placed there.

Should Mclroy have first attempted this in front of the rules official before taking alternate relief? Possibly, but neither party seemed to consider that as a viable option and instead went sideways out of the bunker.

That's not the issue (or the Rule). You don't place - you identify a reference point and drop within 1 club length of that in the general area. The referee identified a reference point that was 12-18" too far to the right than it should have been.

I'm saying the same thing as Pete but hopefully slightly differently.

[Kyle Harris]

Unless the "wall" is exactly vertical there will be a nearest point of relief in the general area.

From the TV coverage, the wall appeared steep enough that it's hard to imagine the ball would have stayed somewhere on the bunker face once placed there.

Should Mclroy have first attempted this in front of the rules official before taking alternate relief? Possibly, but neither party seemed to consider that as a viable option and instead went sideways out of the bunker.

The "nearest point of relief" is merely the point which is used to determine the area of relief. A ball does not have to be able to remain at rest there. The player can immediately proceed to drop (or placer if required) anywhere within the area which is in the same part of the course. At this point he was already out of the bunker.

Is this still true even after the revision last January? It seemed the spirit of the change was to ensure that at the very least the reference point could be used for complete relief so as to avoid the potential rigamorale of going through multiple drops and a placement.

[Pete_Pittock]

i have revised my previous post.


It is a point, not a lie for a golf ball

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Is this still true even after the revision last January? It seemed the spirit of the change was to ensure that at the very least the reference point could be used for complete relief so as to avoid the potential rigamorale of going through multiple drops and a placement.

I'm not sure what specific revision made you feel that way, or what "complete relief" has to do with this. He would get complete relief for an embedded ball here. The NPCR (nearest point of complete relief) has been a thing in the rules for decades. We just now have the "reference point" as often being that same point, and the club lengths measured out from there.

Rory took relief for an embedded ball, and his RP was right near the ball, but no closer to the hole. That's just a point - the ball doesn't have to be able to come to rest there. Someone's RP could be on a slanted sidewalk, after all. Or on a steep slope of closely mown grass.

[Kyle Harris]

Is this still true even after the revision last January? It seemed the spirit of the change was to ensure that at the very least the reference point could be used for complete relief so as to avoid the potential rigamorale of going through multiple drops and a placement.

I'm not sure what specific revision made you feel that way, or what "complete relief" has to do with this. He would get complete relief for an embedded ball here. The NPCR (nearest point of complete relief) has been a thing in the rules for decades. We just now have the "reference point" as often being that same point, and the club lengths measured out from there.

Rory took relief for an embedded ball, and his RP was right near the ball, but no closer to the hole. That's just a point - the ball doesn't have to be able to come to rest there. Someone's RP could be on a slanted sidewalk, after all. Or on a steep slope of closely mown grass.

Because there were more than a few instances (think of a wide arc for a bunker edge) where a ball was embedded in this manner and there would be nowhere to drop prior to the revision of the language.


The ability to shift the reference point at least gives the drop plausibility.


I figured that was both the reason for the revision and the reason why the reference point was moved here. If that “vertical” face was a little longer in each direction would Rory have to drop in it twice, have it land in the bunker both times, and then attempt to place the ball within the face?

[Dave Doxey]

If there was no rule for plugged balls and the ball was played as it lies everywhere, then there would be no controversy on the judgement used.


Fair?  Golf contains luck, both good and bad.


The rule book could be greatly simplified.  Trying to make the game 'fair' to everyone generates these rules situations.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Because there were more than a few instances (think of a wide arc for a bunker edge) where a ball was embedded in this manner and there would be nowhere to drop prior to the revision of the language.

The ability to shift the reference point at least gives the drop plausibility.

I figured that was both the reason for the revision and the reason why the reference point was moved here. If that “vertical” face was a little longer in each direction would Rory have to drop in it twice, have it land in the bunker both times, and then attempt to place the ball within the face?

Not to be too… whatever about it… but:

• There's really no such thing as "complete relief" for an embedded ball. Your reference point is the spot right behind (or in this case, "below") where the ball is, and then extends 1 club length out from there, no nearer the hole. The ball is completely removed from the embedding, but "complete relief" typically means your stance, area of swing… and the ball.
• They added the ability to move sideways, yes.
• But, since the ball was well above the bunker, the reference point should have been just below the ball, not "in the air" and "behind" the ball.
• The referee mistakenly went sideways when directly below was available, thus giving Rory ostensibly another 12" of relief area.
• If he did try to drop in the general area in the relief area and the ball didn't stay in the relief area, yes, he would place it after the second drop. If it didn't stay at rest there, he'd find the nearest spot where it would stay at rest.

[Kyle Harris]

Because there were more than a few instances (think of a wide arc for a bunker edge) where a ball was embedded in this manner and there would be nowhere to drop prior to the revision of the language.

The ability to shift the reference point at least gives the drop plausibility.

I figured that was both the reason for the revision and the reason why the reference point was moved here. If that “vertical” face was a little longer in each direction would Rory have to drop in it twice, have it land in the bunker both times, and then attempt to place the ball within the face?

Not to be too… whatever about it… but:

• There's really no such thing as "complete relief" for an embedded ball. Your reference point is the spot right behind (or in this case, "below") where the ball is, and then extends 1 club length out from there, no nearer the hole. The ball is completely removed from the embedding, but "complete relief" typically means your stance, area of swing… and the ball.
• They added the ability to move sideways, yes.
• But, since the ball was well above the bunker, the reference point should have been just below the ball, not "in the air" and "behind" the ball.
• The referee mistakenly went sideways when directly below was available, thus giving Rory ostensibly another 12" of relief area.
• If he did try to drop in the general area in the relief area and the ball didn't stay in the relief area, yes, he would place it after the second drop. If it didn't stay at rest there, he'd find the nearest spot where it would stay at rest.

Right.


It’s the point three that matters here. Though I believe the verbiage in the rule is “immediately behind” or some such? So if the face were more vertical such that “immediately behind and below” fell in the bunker should the reference point have moved?


It seems any controversy is rooted there. Which. The evidence is gone was the ball is removed from the condition alas.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It’s the point three that matters here. Though I believe the verbiage in the rule is “immediately behind” or some such? So if the face were more vertical such that “immediately behind and below” fell in the bunker should the reference point have moved?

It seems any controversy is rooted there. Which. The evidence is gone was the ball is removed from the condition alas.

The removal of the ball is irrelevant. They know where the ball was. Its location was marked. Removing it allowed them to verify it was embedded.

The verbiage is "right behind" in the rule, and "not immediately behind" in the Clarification (16.3b/1).

Reference Point: The spot in the general area right behind where the ball is embedded

16.3b/1 – Taking Embedded Ball Relief When Spot Immediately Behind Ball is Not In General Area

Again… the referee in this case didn't think that the reference point could be in "thin air" and it also would have been in the bunker, and didn't think about going "below" the ball to establish the reference point.

I doubt many other people who know the rules even as well as this particular referee did would have, either.