| |
Main
Date: 11 Sep 2006 06:45:10
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Testing a hazard
|
"Jonathan Byrd was penalized two strokes after the round for violation
of Rule 13-4a (testing the conditions in a hazard) when he dug his golf
shoes in an area away from his ball in a greenside bunker (front right)
on No. 9, giving him a triple-bogey 7 on the hole."
This happened in yesterday's Canadian Open. I really wonder some
times
where some of these rules come from. Why did it occur to someone to
make
practice strokes and otherwise "touching" the bunker against the rules?
I mean, when you realize the game basically started as a diversion for
a
bunch of bored shepards, where in the evolution would it occur to
someone
to make a rule about touching the hazard with a club, much less
"testing"
it with a shoe "away from the area of his ball".
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 07:31:16
From: Parinella
Subject: Re: Testing a hazard
|
oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> "Jonathan Byrd was penalized two strokes after the round for violation
> of Rule 13-4a (testing the conditions in a hazard) when he dug his golf
> shoes in an area away from his ball in a greenside bunker (front right)
> on No. 9, giving him a triple-bogey 7 on the hole."
>
> This happened in yesterday's Canadian Open. I really wonder some
> times
> where some of these rules come from. Why did it occur to someone to
> make
> practice strokes and otherwise "touching" the bunker against the rules?
>
> I mean, when you realize the game basically started as a diversion for
> a
> bunch of bored shepards, where in the evolution would it occur to
> someone
> to make a rule about touching the hazard with a club, much less
> "testing"
> it with a shoe "away from the area of his ball".
The rationale for the rule is that you are in a hazard and should
suffer for it. Apparently this suffering includes not being able to
learn anything about the condition of the hazard. Digging your feet in
means you can "unfairly" learn whether the sand is fluffy, wet, etc.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 22:49:02
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Testing a hazard
|
On 12 Sep 2006 07:31:16 -0700, "Parinella" <parinell@shelltown.com >
wrote:
>The rationale for the rule is that you are in a hazard and should
>suffer for it. Apparently this suffering includes not being able to
>learn anything about the condition of the hazard. Digging your feet in
>means you can "unfairly" learn whether the sand is fluffy, wet, etc.
But I've seen some pros with some extreme values of "establishing
their stance".
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 16:46:06
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Testing a hazard
|
oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
>
> This happened in yesterday's Canadian Open. I really wonder some
> times
> where some of these rules come from.
>From trying to stop cheaters from prospering.
If we all played honourably, there would only be a handful of rules.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 11:25:11
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: Testing a hazard
|
> "Jonathan Byrd was penalized two strokes after the round for violation
> of Rule 13-4a (testing the conditions in a hazard) when he dug his golf
> shoes in an area away from his ball in a greenside bunker (front right)
> on No. 9, giving him a triple-bogey 7 on the hole."
>
Did he actually get the penalty for that? I was watching and heard about
the incident, even watched the replay footage. The announcers said the
potential problem was that his prattice stroke was near enough to where his
real stroke would be that he might be accused of "building a stance". They
also said that in their view there was no infraction. I wondered about
testing the hazard, but that too seems very tenuous to me. If it's legal to
dig your feet in before you make the shot, why isn't it legal to do it
elsewhere? The real problem is that the rule for something like this can't
be absolute -- in walking into a bunker you are going to kick up some sand.
The rules were intended to be applied by competitors to themselves and their
fellow competitors relying on honor and equity to resolve ambiguous
situations. I really think the ruling bodies have to stop letting the
audience call rules violations. At least it sounds like this one was caught
before the scorecard was signed so he was allowed to finish the tournament
and collect his winnings rather than face disqualification for an infraction
nobody on the course knew about, as is too often the case.
--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 18:46:02
From: gary hayenga
Subject: Re: Testing a hazard
|
On 2006-09-11 12:25:11 -0400, "warren montgomery"
<wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net > said:
>> "Jonathan Byrd was penalized two strokes after the round for violation
>> of Rule 13-4a (testing the conditions in a hazard) when he dug his golf
>> shoes in an area away from his ball in a greenside bunker (front right)
>> on No. 9, giving him a triple-bogey 7 on the hole."
>>
> Did he actually get the penalty for that? I was watching and heard
> about the incident, even watched the replay footage. The announcers
> said the potential problem was that his prattice stroke was near enough
> to where his real stroke would be that he might be accused of "building
> a stance". They also said that in their view there was no infraction.
> I wondered about testing the hazard, but that too seems very tenuous to
> me. If it's legal to dig your feet in before you make the shot, why
> isn't it legal to do it elsewhere? The real problem is that the rule
> for something like this can't be absolute -- in walking into a bunker
> you are going to kick up some sand. The rules were intended to be
> applied by competitors to themselves and their fellow competitors
> relying on honor and equity to resolve ambiguous situations. I really
> think the ruling bodies have to stop letting the audience call rules
> violations. At least it sounds like this one was caught before the
> scorecard was signed so he was allowed to finish the tournament and
> collect his winnings rather than face disqualification for an
> infraction nobody on the course knew about, as is too often the case.
According to ESPN.com he went back to the bunker with an official after
the round, but before signing his scorecard, and recreated the
incident. After doing so the story says he decided to call a penalty
on himself for "Testing the conditions of a hazard before playing from
it."
So he added the penalty to his score on the hole before signing his
card and dropped from T3 to T5, if I recall correctly.
gary hayenga
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 18:18:03
From:
Subject: Re: Testing a hazard
|
does it appear that he flagrantly violated the rule, or just
accidentally violated said rule, and only did the paper work when the
"violation" become apparent?
>m h o
> v =83e
>d w n =A0w / t h e =A0$ c a l p e r - u $ e =A0l e $ $ =A0g a $
>g a s o l i n e - $1.499 / gl.,, i s =A0a =A0f a i r =A0p r i c e
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 13:03:12
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Testing a hazard
|
Nothing tenuous about it at all. He done wrong.
Decision 13-4/25 Taking Firm Stance in Bunker Some Distance from Where Ball
Lies in Bunker to Simulate Next Stroke
Q. While waiting to play a bunker shot, a player went to another part of the
bunker, took a firm stance and simulated the bunker shot, with or without
using a club. Was he in breach of Rule 13-4?
A. Yes. The player tested the condition of the bunker in breach of Rule
13-4a. (Revised)
"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:WLGdnbUv3fx6EJjYnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "Jonathan Byrd was penalized two strokes after the round for violation
>> of Rule 13-4a (testing the conditions in a hazard) when he dug his golf
>> shoes in an area away from his ball in a greenside bunker (front right)
>> on No. 9, giving him a triple-bogey 7 on the hole."
>>
> Did he actually get the penalty for that? I was watching and heard about
> the incident, even watched the replay footage. The announcers said the
> potential problem was that his prattice stroke was near enough to where
> his
> real stroke would be that he might be accused of "building a stance".
> They
> also said that in their view there was no infraction. I wondered about
> testing the hazard, but that too seems very tenuous to me. If it's legal
> to
> dig your feet in before you make the shot, why isn't it legal to do it
> elsewhere? The real problem is that the rule for something like this
> can't
> be absolute -- in walking into a bunker you are going to kick up some
> sand.
> The rules were intended to be applied by competitors to themselves and
> their
> fellow competitors relying on honor and equity to resolve ambiguous
> situations. I really think the ruling bodies have to stop letting the
> audience call rules violations. At least it sounds like this one was
> caught
> before the scorecard was signed so he was allowed to finish the tournament
> and collect his winnings rather than face disqualification for an
> infraction
> nobody on the course knew about, as is too often the case.
>
> --
> Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
> http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
>
>
begin 666 decision-line.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``")$D ```"'Y! ``````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 15:13:19
From: Howard U. Dewing
Subject: Re: Testing a hazard
|
oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> "Jonathan Byrd was penalized two strokes after the round for violation
> of Rule 13-4a (testing the conditions in a hazard) when he dug his golf
> shoes in an area away from his ball in a greenside bunker (front right)
> on No. 9, giving him a triple-bogey 7 on the hole."
>
> This happened in yesterday's Canadian Open. I really wonder some
> times
> where some of these rules come from. Why did it occur to someone to
> make
> practice strokes and otherwise "touching" the bunker against the rules?
>
> I mean, when you realize the game basically started as a diversion for
> a
> bunch of bored shepards, where in the evolution would it occur to
> someone
> to make a rule about touching the hazard with a club, much less
> "testing"
> it with a shoe "away from the area of his ball".
>
I guess that's why you see other players who land in bunkers take their
practice/prep swings in the grass beside the bunker
--
Howard U. Dewing
I made up this name. It was a choice between this and Watson deMehneux.
But now I'm thinking about changing it to Roger Thaht.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 07:16:06
From: sjh
Subject: Re: Testing a hazard
|
oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> I mean, when you realize the game basically started as a diversion for a
> bunch of bored shepards, where in the evolution would it occur to someone
> to make a rule about touching the hazard with a club, much less
> "testing" it with a shoe "away from the area of his ball".
Surely, you jest...
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 14:20:52
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Testing a hazard
|
"sjh" <strat68@eudoramail.com > wrote in message
news:1157984166.281456.313520@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Surely, you jest...
>
He's serious, and don't call him "Shirley"
|
|
