| |
Main
Date: 11 Sep 2006 10:29:04
From: multi
Subject: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
1. Justin Rose at the Canadian Open. In a bunker, he dug his feet in
a bit before he took a couple practice swings, then moved at most six
inches toward the ball, dug in again, and hit it. The "digging in"
in both cases was absolutely standard, just a few shimmies of his
feet. Some birdbrain viewer called in to the CPGA, and I still don't
know how they get the number. The announcers heard about it, played
the video over, and concluded he had done nothing wrong. But the
rules officials called Rose in anyway, had him look at the tape, and
let him make the call. Unwilling to look like Monty or JJ, he said
fine, penalize me. He got two shots added to his score. What was
really sick was that the rules official came on TGC and said the
reason it was a penalty was because he had tested the soil by digging
in "several feet" from where he hit it, right after they played the
video that clearly showed it was actually about six inches.
2. Simon Khan was DQd from the Omega Masters for playing the wrong
ball. He hit a long second shot to a par five, and started walking
toward the green. He had walked 40-50 yards when somebody coming down
an adjacent fairway took it upon himself to tell Khan that his ball
took a big hop and was OB, so Khan went back and dropped a ball to hit
a provisional. But then another guy said no, your ball is OK, so Khan
picked the ball back up. When he reached his original ball, he
checked with an official, who asked him if he had walked to the green
before dropping the second ball, and Khan said no. The official then
said no problem, hit away.
It turns out that the official was Swiss, and there may have been a
language problem. What he should have asked Khan was whether he had
walked *toward* the green, which he had. If you walk more than ten or
20 yards forward, you can't drop a provisional. If you drop a new
ball, that becomes the ball in play. Since Khan picked it up, he was
playing the wrong ball after that. Since the official didn't tell him
to correct it on that hole, it was too late to fix, and he was DQd.
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 05:24:30
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
Tranny wrote:
> multi wrote:
> > On 11 Sep 2006 13:21:20 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
> > <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
> >>> I don't think you've got this right. What I read in this mornings
> >>> PGA TOUR site said that what we saw in the video replay wasn't the
> >>> issue. Byrd actually had to go back to the trap and retrace his steps
> >>> before he determined what he had done. As it was describe there,
> >>> he had dug a foot in the trap, well away from the ball, not the few
> >>> inches we all saw in the broadcast.
> >> OK, that would help explain the ruling. Do you have a url,
> >
> >> http://www.pgatour.com/story/9651251
> >
> > Thank you. Here's what it says:
> > " 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. He
> > fell out of a third-place tie to finish in a tie for fifth, costing
> > him $120,500 (290,000 for a tie for third to $169,500 for a tie for
> > fifth). Television replays were inconclusive, and Byrd and rules
> > officials went back to the bunker where Byrd re-traced his steps and
> > ultimately called the penalty on himself after the rules officials
> > gave him the final word on the situation."
> >
> > Either they changed the text after you read it, or you are
> > interpreting this much differently than I would. They don't say he
> > was "well away" from the ball,
No, they say he was "away" from the ball. The "well away"
comes from one of the TV commentators.
> > and they don't say that what they replayed wasn't the issue.
They say the replays were "inconclusive".
> > It still looks to me like Byrd didn't do
> > anything wrong, but he decided it was better to take the penalty than
> > to have people mutter about him.
Now you are reading things into it. He went back and retraced his
steps and called the penalty on himself. It had nothing to do with
the video, which is why he had to go back and retrace his steps.
Someone recently chose NOT to call a penalty on himself after
play out of a waste area, so I'm dubious about the "muttering"
accusation.
>
> How do you define "well away" from the ball? He could have simply said "
> I was going to plonk it out with my driver, hence taking my stance well
> away from the ball, but since the sand was loser there, in the end
> decided to stand closer and use my SW".
However, since none of that was true, he chose to call the penalty
on
himself. The rule prevents you from "testing". However, you are
allowed
to "dig in" but only as part of taking a stance. My guess is that they
guy stepped into the bunker and "dug in" before taking his stance.
It could easily be unconcious, small dig of the heel after stepping
into
the bunker could get you in trouble. You wouldn't even know it until
someone pointed it out to you. Once they did however, honor would
force you to admit that you had done it.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 09:54:24
From: multi
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On 12 Sep 2006 05:24:30 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote:
>><multi:
>> > Either they changed the text after you read it, or you are
>> > interpreting this much differently than I would. They don't say he
>> > was "well away" from the ball,
>
> No, they say he was "away" from the ball. The "well away"
>comes from one of the TV commentators.
Fine. That's not what you said earlier. I agree he was away from the
ball. Six inches away. The TV commentators I saw, both on the live
broadcast and the post-game analysis, said they saw nothing wrong in
what he did, but perhaps you saw a third show.
>> > and they don't say that what they replayed wasn't the issue.
>
> They say the replays were "inconclusive".
Correct. And the fact that they were trying, albeit unsuccessfully,
to determine whether a penalty should be called by viewing the replay
indicates that what they replayed most certainly was the issue.
>> > It still looks to me like Byrd didn't do
>> > anything wrong, but he decided it was better to take the penalty than
>> > to have people mutter about him.
>
> Now you are reading things into it.
Correct. That's why I said "it still looks to me..."
> He went back and retraced his
>steps and called the penalty on himself. It had nothing to do with
>the video, which is why he had to go back and retrace his steps.
I don't understand why you keep saying this. If a football player is
ruled out of bounds when he catches a pass, and the replay from Camera
Angle A is inconclusive about it, it doesn't mean that the incident
happened somewhere else, it just means the camera angle wasn't
optimal. In the NFL, they just go to a different camera angle. In
golf, where they normally have at most one camera angle available,
they have to recreate the incident as best they can.
>Someone recently chose NOT to call a penalty on himself after
>play out of a waste area, so I'm dubious about the "muttering"
>accusation.
I don't know whom you mean, but I mentioned the two incidents I was
thinking of, namely Monty replacing his ball in a more favorable spot
after resumption of play, and Jeong Jang saying she didn't double hit
her ball. Both non-calls hurt their reputations for fair play, and
when the officials decided to go ahead and penalize Jang anyway, many
people said they saved her from herself.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 04:56:49
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> "warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:d7mdnUxiMOCSuZvYnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >
> >> Like most other formal golf competitions the 'tours' play according to
> >> the 'Rules of Golf' as administered by the R&A and the USGA. The 'tours'
> >> do not have any authority to 'grant 10-20 yards leeway'. The only
> >> 'leeway' that is sometimes allowed is if the player's target was
> >> unsighted (eg a blind tee shot). Circumstances vary, but if the caddie
> >> only went forward for a better view to make a judgement as to whether the
> >> ball may be lost or not, and the player had stayed behind, then it is
> >> reasonable to suggest that the player/caddie had not gone forward to
> >> 'search for the ball'.
> >>
> > I've read the rule and now know what it is, but I don't understand the
> > purpose. I don't understand how it gives a player any advantage to delay
> > hitting a provisional until after he starts to look for it.
> >
> > --
> > Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
> > http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
> > "david s-a" <dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:4mmgrpF6k8opU1@individual.net...
> >> multi wrote:
> >>> On 11 Sep 2006 10:56:10 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>If the rule is that you can't hit a provisional after walking 10-20
> >>>>yards, then the decision was correct, albeit sad.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The rule actually says you can't go forward to search for your ball,
> >>> period. The tours grant 10-20 yards leeway.
> >> cheers
> >> david
>
> So much for golfers being on their honor. If you take a step it is assumed
> that you are gong to look for your ball. Your word is useless because you
> are a member of the honorable game of golf, but only in areas where anal
> retentive control freaks can't legislate stupidity. I love golf but this is
> so wrong.
Agree. This one of the few rules that I disagree with. Most rules that
sound a bit odd are actually quite sensible when you consider the
alternatives. Perhaps someone could suggest why the current provisional
ball ruling is the best wording...
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 02:02:44
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
johnty wrote:
> multi wrote:
> >
> > My source is John Paramor, chief referee of the Euro Tour.
> > http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/sport/story.jsp?story=705740
> >
>
> I can't get anything on that link. Can you post the text?.
OK doesn't matter - I've found it elsewhere.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 01:53:49
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
multi wrote:
>
> My source is John Paramor, chief referee of the Euro Tour.
> http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/sport/story.jsp?story=705740
>
I can't get anything on that link. Can you post the text?.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 09:33:47
From: multi
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On 12 Sep 2006 01:53:49 -0700, "johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote:
>multi wrote:
>>
>> My source is John Paramor, chief referee of the Euro Tour.
>> http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/sport/story.jsp?story=705740
>>
>
>I can't get anything on that link. Can you post the text?.
Everything below this line is quoted verbatim:
European Tour chief referee John Paramor said: "I have an enormous
amount of sympathy for Simon, especially because I have a proposal
currently with the R&A rules committee for this to be looked at.
It's a very severe penalty.
"Under rule 27-2 players are not allowed to walk forward, then come
back and play a provisional ball. We do give some leeway - usually it
is to the end of the teeing ground for example - of about 20 yards,
but Simon said he had gone forward about 40 yards."
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 21:01:17
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
david s-a wrote:
> Birdie Bill wrote:
>
> > Or I could be totally FOS. Wouldn't be the first time.
> >
>
> Got it in one...or two or so!
>
> David
>
> (an accredited rules official)
OK, I defer to AO. But you do need to reread the definition
of a provisional ball, though :-)
If I get motivated I'll see if I can dig up a quote.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:23:31
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006 19:00:12 -0700, "Birdie Bill"
> <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >What I don't get about this is, I've heard it said that if you ask an
> >official for a ruling and then follow his instructions, then you are
> >"protected". Is that not the case?
>
> On a much, much, much lower level this happened to me yesterday :-)
>
> I pushed a tee shot and it landed very close to a bridge, which is
> surrounded by 6ft high brushlike plants. We couldn't find the ball,
> but my playing partner said that he had read in our monthly news
> letter that they had instituted a new local rule that you now get free
> relief from this bridge and the bushes, in order to speed play. The
> rest of the group said "ok, if that's the new local rule", and I
> dropped, and finished the hole. My score on this hole made a lot of
> difference in all of my bets, so I immediately went to the Pro after
> the round to make sure of that ruling.
>
> He had never heard of it. My buddy was FOS. It was a lost ball.
> Bummer. Big time bummer for my stroke play bets.
>
> Moral: Always play a provisional if you have any doubt.
Yeah, well, I should have qualified that to mean on the PGA
Tour. I know there is no usga rule of golf that says that. But I
thought it was one of the conditions of competiton on the
PGA Tour, or some such. If somebody has actual knowledge
about how it works on the PGA Tour or the rest of the pro tours,
I'd apperciate knowing. I know that there are at least some
people here that have been rules officials or caddies, and
might know. I think I've read it in a couple books, at least.
Or I could be totally FOS. Wouldn't be the first time.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 13:46:20
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
Birdie Bill wrote:
> Or I could be totally FOS. Wouldn't be the first time.
>
Got it in one...or two or so!
David
(an accredited rules official)
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:00:12
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
multi wrote:
> 2. Simon Khan was DQd from the Omega Masters for playing the wrong
> ball. He hit a long second shot to a par five, and started walking
> toward the green. He had walked 40-50 yards when somebody coming down
> an adjacent fairway took it upon himself to tell Khan that his ball
> took a big hop and was OB, so Khan went back and dropped a ball to hit
> a provisional. But then another guy said no, your ball is OK, so Khan
> picked the ball back up. When he reached his original ball, he
> checked with an official, who asked him if he had walked to the green
> before dropping the second ball, and Khan said no. The official then
> said no problem, hit away.
>
> It turns out that the official was Swiss, and there may have been a
> language problem. What he should have asked Khan was whether he had
> walked *toward* the green, which he had. If you walk more than ten or
> 20 yards forward, you can't drop a provisional. If you drop a new
> ball, that becomes the ball in play. Since Khan picked it up, he was
> playing the wrong ball after that. Since the official didn't tell him
> to correct it on that hole, it was too late to fix, and he was DQd.
What I don't get about this is, I've heard it said that if you ask an
official for a ruling and then follow his instructions, then you are
"protected". Is that not the case?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 21:36:52
From: multi
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On 11 Sep 2006 19:00:12 -0700, "Birdie Bill"
<bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote:
>multi wrote:
>> 2. Simon Khan was DQd from the Omega Masters for playing the wrong
>> ball. He hit a long second shot to a par five, and started walking
>> toward the green. He had walked 40-50 yards when somebody coming down
>> an adjacent fairway took it upon himself to tell Khan that his ball
>> took a big hop and was OB, so Khan went back and dropped a ball to hit
>> a provisional. But then another guy said no, your ball is OK, so Khan
>> picked the ball back up. When he reached his original ball, he
>> checked with an official, who asked him if he had walked to the green
>> before dropping the second ball, and Khan said no. The official then
>> said no problem, hit away.
>>
>> It turns out that the official was Swiss, and there may have been a
>> language problem. What he should have asked Khan was whether he had
>> walked *toward* the green, which he had. If you walk more than ten or
>> 20 yards forward, you can't drop a provisional. If you drop a new
>> ball, that becomes the ball in play. Since Khan picked it up, he was
>> playing the wrong ball after that. Since the official didn't tell him
>> to correct it on that hole, it was too late to fix, and he was DQd.
>
>What I don't get about this is, I've heard it said that if you ask an
>official for a ruling and then follow his instructions, then you are
>"protected". Is that not the case?
Like I said, there may have been a language problem. I surmise that
the official felt that Khan gave him incorrect information, therefore
he was not protected.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 21:09:32
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On 11 Sep 2006 19:00:12 -0700, "Birdie Bill"
<bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote:
>What I don't get about this is, I've heard it said that if you ask an
>official for a ruling and then follow his instructions, then you are
>"protected". Is that not the case?
On a much, much, much lower level this happened to me yesterday :-)
I pushed a tee shot and it landed very close to a bridge, which is
surrounded by 6ft high brushlike plants. We couldn't find the ball,
but my playing partner said that he had read in our monthly news
letter that they had instituted a new local rule that you now get free
relief from this bridge and the bushes, in order to speed play. The
rest of the group said "ok, if that's the new local rule", and I
dropped, and finished the hole. My score on this hole made a lot of
difference in all of my bets, so I immediately went to the Pro after
the round to make sure of that ruling.
He had never heard of it. My buddy was FOS. It was a lost ball.
Bummer. Big time bummer for my stroke play bets.
Moral: Always play a provisional if you have any doubt.
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 18:12:08
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
> 2. Simon Khan was DQd from the Omega Masters for playing the wrong
> ball. He hit a long second shot to a par five, and started walking
> toward the green. He had walked 40-50 yards when somebody coming down
> an adjacent fairway took it upon himself to tell Khan that his ball
> took a big hop and was OB, so Khan went back and dropped a ball to hit
> a provisional. But then another guy said no, your ball is OK, so Khan
> picked the ball back up. When he reached his original ball, he
> checked with an official, who asked him if he had walked to the green
> before dropping the second ball, and Khan said no. The official then
> said no problem, hit away.
>
> It turns out that the official was Swiss, and there may have been a
> language problem. What he should have asked Khan was whether he had
> walked *toward* the green, which he had. If you walk more than ten or
> 20 yards forward, you can't drop a provisional. If you drop a new
> ball, that becomes the ball in play. Since Khan picked it up, he was
> playing the wrong ball after that. Since the official didn't tell him
> to correct it on that hole, it was too late to fix, and he was DQd.
What rule is this?
I don't see anything in rule 27.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 21:35:10
From: multi
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On 11 Sep 2006 18:12:08 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
><multi:
>> It turns out that the official was Swiss, and there may have been a
>> language problem. What he should have asked Khan was whether he had
>> walked *toward* the green, which he had. If you walk more than ten or
>> 20 yards forward, you can't drop a provisional. If you drop a new
>> ball, that becomes the ball in play. Since Khan picked it up, he was
>> playing the wrong ball after that. Since the official didn't tell him
>> to correct it on that hole, it was too late to fix, and he was DQd.
>
>What rule is this?
>
>I don't see anything in rule 27.
27-2(a)
"...The player must inform his opponent in match play or his ker or
a fellow-competitor in stroke play that he intends to play a
provisional ball, and he must play it before he or his partner goes
forward to search for the original ball."
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 21:37:12
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:56ecg2lt8mffd27gf0skua1vf4hve2i1ha@4ax.com...
>
> 27-2(a)
> "...The player must inform his opponent in match play or his ker or
> a fellow-competitor in stroke play that he intends to play a
> provisional ball, and he must play it before he or his partner goes
> forward to search for the original ball."
>
I don't understand what the wording is trying to prevent. What advantage
are you giving yourself if you walk 30 yards, see that your ball could be
lost, return and hit a provisional? It seems to be within the spirit of the
intent of provisional balls (faster play).
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 14:48:29
From: multi
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:37:12 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote:
>
>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>news:56ecg2lt8mffd27gf0skua1vf4hve2i1ha@4ax.com...
>>
>> 27-2(a)
>> "...The player must inform his opponent in match play or his ker or
>> a fellow-competitor in stroke play that he intends to play a
>> provisional ball, and he must play it before he or his partner goes
>> forward to search for the original ball."
>>
>
>I don't understand what the wording is trying to prevent. What advantage
>are you giving yourself if you walk 30 yards, see that your ball could be
>lost, return and hit a provisional? It seems to be within the spirit of the
>intent of provisional balls (faster play).
I agree, and so, apparently, do the people who are trying to get the
rule changed.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 11:12:02
From: Tranny
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
multi wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006 18:12:08 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> <multi:
>>> It turns out that the official was Swiss, and there may have been a
>>> language problem. What he should have asked Khan was whether he had
>>> walked *toward* the green, which he had. If you walk more than ten or
>>> 20 yards forward, you can't drop a provisional. If you drop a new
>>> ball, that becomes the ball in play. Since Khan picked it up, he was
>>> playing the wrong ball after that. Since the official didn't tell him
>>> to correct it on that hole, it was too late to fix, and he was DQd.
>> What rule is this?
>>
>> I don't see anything in rule 27.
>
> 27-2(a)
> "...The player must inform his opponent in match play or his ker or
> a fellow-competitor in stroke play that he intends to play a
> provisional ball, and he must play it before he or his partner goes
> forward to search for the original ball."
He didn't search for the original.
Tran
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 10:00:14
From: multi
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On 12 Sep 2006 11:12:02 +0200, Tranny <tranny@notrolll.com > wrote:
>multi wrote:
>> On 11 Sep 2006 18:12:08 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> <multi:
>>>> It turns out that the official was Swiss, and there may have been a
>>>> language problem. What he should have asked Khan was whether he had
>>>> walked *toward* the green, which he had. If you walk more than ten or
>>>> 20 yards forward, you can't drop a provisional. If you drop a new
>>>> ball, that becomes the ball in play. Since Khan picked it up, he was
>>>> playing the wrong ball after that. Since the official didn't tell him
>>>> to correct it on that hole, it was too late to fix, and he was DQd.
>>> What rule is this?
>>>
>>> I don't see anything in rule 27.
>>
>> 27-2(a)
>> "...The player must inform his opponent in match play or his ker or
>> a fellow-competitor in stroke play that he intends to play a
>> provisional ball, and he must play it before he or his partner goes
>> forward to search for the original ball."
>
>He didn't search for the original.
No, but he was going forward to search for it. The fact that he
expected the search to be extremely short is immaterial. He clearly
did not know where it was, or he wouldn't have listened to other
people tellling him where it was.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 15:05:04
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:m56bg29pjrkg65vesk9eb385llbbqr4hml@4ax.com...
> 1. Justin Rose at the Canadian Open. In a bunker, he dug his feet in
> a bit before he took a couple practice swings, then moved at most six
> inches toward the ball, dug in again, and hit it. The "digging in"
> in both cases was absolutely standard, just a few shimmies of his
> feet. Some birdbrain viewer called in to the CPGA, and I still don't
> know how they get the number. The announcers heard about it, played
> the video over, and concluded he had done nothing wrong. But the
> rules officials called Rose in anyway, had him look at the tape, and
> let him make the call. Unwilling to look like Monty or JJ, he said
> fine, penalize me. He got two shots added to his score. What was
> really sick was that the rules official came on TGC and said the
> reason it was a penalty was because he had tested the soil by digging
> in "several feet" from where he hit it, right after they played the
> video that clearly showed it was actually about six inches.
>
> 2. Simon Khan was DQd from the Omega Masters for playing the wrong
> ball. He hit a long second shot to a par five, and started walking
> toward the green. He had walked 40-50 yards when somebody coming down
> an adjacent fairway took it upon himself to tell Khan that his ball
> took a big hop and was OB, so Khan went back and dropped a ball to hit
> a provisional. But then another guy said no, your ball is OK, so Khan
> picked the ball back up. When he reached his original ball, he
> checked with an official, who asked him if he had walked to the green
> before dropping the second ball, and Khan said no. The official then
> said no problem, hit away.
>
> It turns out that the official was Swiss, and there may have been a
> language problem. What he should have asked Khan was whether he had
> walked *toward* the green, which he had. If you walk more than ten or
> 20 yards forward, you can't drop a provisional. If you drop a new
> ball, that becomes the ball in play. Since Khan picked it up, he was
> playing the wrong ball after that. Since the official didn't tell him
> to correct it on that hole, it was too late to fix, and he was DQd.
The video was conclusive, imo, he cheated by standing in the sand trap and
taking a practice swing. It's an open and shut case. The rules say that you
can not appear to do something legal if a fan calls in. Rule BS-100
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 15:03:57
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
sfb wrote:
> Sorry, Big Fan, but testing sand with your feet is simple. Any questions
> about how deep, compact, etc. are quickly answered as you take your stance.
>
> "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1157997370.099315.85910@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
>
> > I'm not sure I understand the Rose decision. If they said he was
> > testing the sand with his feet, then it is idiotic. You don't need to
> > test the sand with your feet. If he touched the sand with his club,
> > then it's obviously a penalty.
> >
That's what I was saying. There is no advantage to testing your feet
away from the ball. You get everything you need to know when you take
your stance.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 14:27:07
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
multi wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006 10:56:10 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >If the rule is that you can't hit a provisional after walking 10-20
> >yards, then the decision was correct, albeit sad.
>
> The rule actually says you can't go forward to search for your ball,
> period. The tours grant 10-20 yards leeway. I realize that Khan
> should have known the rule, but it's interesting that I read of
> nothing but sympathy for him in not knowing it. He turned pro when
> Michelle Wie, who has been raked over the coals for not studying the
> rules, was one year old.
>
I've questioned the 'go forward' bit before. The reason for this clause
is related to the whole point of the provisional rule - to save time.
You need to have some way to stop people walking all the way to where
their ball might be, then walking back to play a 'provisional'. 'Go
forward to search' implies to me that the player does actually walk
forward with the intention of searching for a ball that he thinks may
be lost. In this situation, Khan walked forward without any thought
that his ball may be in trouble and the act of walking back 20 yards to
play a provisional was done to save time and was perfectly in the
spirit of the provisional ball.
I've been in exactly the same position myself. Hit a ball over the
corner of the dogleg, assuming the ball was in the middle of the
fairway, walked away from the tee, then a another player tells me the
ball landed in some thick rough. In this situation, walking back 50
yards to play a provisional seems a much more sensible thing to do ,
than going forward 250 yards, looking for the ball, then having to walk
back 250 yards to play another.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 02:27:33
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On 11 Sep 2006 14:27:07 -0700, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>I've been in exactly the same position myself. Hit a ball over the
>corner of the dogleg, assuming the ball was in the middle of the
>fairway, walked away from the tee, then a another player tells me the
>ball landed in some thick rough. In this situation, walking back 50
>yards to play a provisional seems a much more sensible thing to do ,
>than going forward 250 yards, looking for the ball, then having to walk
>back 250 yards to play another.
Me too - I hit the ball over a ridge about 20 yards away. I walked
forward, looked for my ball, and mistakenly went back and hit an
illegal provisional. Funny thing is, my original was a career shot
on the fringe of the green.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 13:21:20
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
multi wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006 12:32:28 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't think you've got this right. What I read in this mornings
> >PGA TOUR site said that what we saw in the video replay wasn't the
> >issue. Byrd actually had to go back to the trap and retrace his steps
> >before he determined what he had done. As it was describe there,
> >he had dug a foot in the trap, well away from the ball, not the few
> >inches we all saw in the broadcast.
>
> OK, that would help explain the ruling. Do you have a url,
http://www.pgatour.com/story/9651251
> because I
> couldn't find that on the PGA site. And I wasn't just referring to
> the CO broadcast, but the TGC post-game show, where they interviewed
> an official and showed the shot again.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 15:57:31
From: multi
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On 11 Sep 2006 13:21:20 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote:
> >I don't think you've got this right. What I read in this mornings
> >PGA TOUR site said that what we saw in the video replay wasn't the
> >issue. Byrd actually had to go back to the trap and retrace his steps
> >before he determined what he had done. As it was describe there,
> >he had dug a foot in the trap, well away from the ball, not the few
> >inches we all saw in the broadcast.
>
> OK, that would help explain the ruling. Do you have a url,
>http://www.pgatour.com/story/9651251
Thank you. Here's what it says:
" 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. He
fell out of a third-place tie to finish in a tie for fifth, costing
him $120,500 (290,000 for a tie for third to $169,500 for a tie for
fifth). Television replays were inconclusive, and Byrd and rules
officials went back to the bunker where Byrd re-traced his steps and
ultimately called the penalty on himself after the rules officials
gave him the final word on the situation."
Either they changed the text after you read it, or you are
interpreting this much differently than I would. They don't say he
was "well away" from the ball, and they don't say that what they
replayed wasn't the issue. It still looks to me like Byrd didn't do
anything wrong, but he decided it was better to take the penalty than
to have people mutter about him.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 11:10:06
From: Tranny
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
multi wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006 13:21:20 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>>> I don't think you've got this right. What I read in this mornings
>>> PGA TOUR site said that what we saw in the video replay wasn't the
>>> issue. Byrd actually had to go back to the trap and retrace his steps
>>> before he determined what he had done. As it was describe there,
>>> he had dug a foot in the trap, well away from the ball, not the few
>>> inches we all saw in the broadcast.
>> OK, that would help explain the ruling. Do you have a url,
>
>> http://www.pgatour.com/story/9651251
>
> Thank you. Here's what it says:
> " 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. He
> fell out of a third-place tie to finish in a tie for fifth, costing
> him $120,500 (290,000 for a tie for third to $169,500 for a tie for
> fifth). Television replays were inconclusive, and Byrd and rules
> officials went back to the bunker where Byrd re-traced his steps and
> ultimately called the penalty on himself after the rules officials
> gave him the final word on the situation."
>
> Either they changed the text after you read it, or you are
> interpreting this much differently than I would. They don't say he
> was "well away" from the ball, and they don't say that what they
> replayed wasn't the issue. It still looks to me like Byrd didn't do
> anything wrong, but he decided it was better to take the penalty than
> to have people mutter about him.
How do you define "well away" from the ball? He could have simply said "
I was going to plonk it out with my driver, hence taking my stance well
away from the ball, but since the sand was loser there, in the end
decided to stand closer and use my SW".
Tran
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 12:32:28
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
multi wrote:
> 1. Justin Rose at the Canadian Open. In a bunker, he dug his feet in
> a bit before he took a couple practice swings, then moved at most six
> inches toward the ball, dug in again, and hit it. The "digging in"
> in both cases was absolutely standard, just a few shimmies of his
> feet. Some birdbrain viewer called in to the CPGA, and I still don't
> know how they get the number. The announcers heard about it, played
> the video over, and concluded he had done nothing wrong. But the
> rules officials called Rose in anyway, had him look at the tape, and
> let him make the call. Unwilling to look like Monty or JJ, he said
> fine, penalize me. He got two shots added to his score. What was
> really sick was that the rules official came on TGC and said the
> reason it was a penalty was because he had tested the soil by digging
> in "several feet" from where he hit it, right after they played the
> video that clearly showed it was actually about six inches.
[snip]
I don't think you've got this right. What I read in this mornings
PGA TOUR site said that what we saw in the video replay wasn't the
issue. Byrd actually had to go back to the trap and retrace his steps
before he determined what he had done. As it was describe there,
he had dug a foot in the trap, well away from the ball, not the few
inches we all saw in the broadcast.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 12:50:29
From: multi
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On 11 Sep 2006 12:32:28 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote:
>I don't think you've got this right. What I read in this mornings
>PGA TOUR site said that what we saw in the video replay wasn't the
>issue. Byrd actually had to go back to the trap and retrace his steps
>before he determined what he had done. As it was describe there,
>he had dug a foot in the trap, well away from the ball, not the few
>inches we all saw in the broadcast.
OK, that would help explain the ruling. Do you have a url, because I
couldn't find that on the PGA site. And I wasn't just referring to
the CO broadcast, but the TGC post-game show, where they interviewed
an official and showed the shot again.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 10:56:10
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
multi wrote:
> 1. Justin Rose at the Canadian Open. In a bunker, he dug his feet in
> a bit before he took a couple practice swings, then moved at most six
> inches toward the ball, dug in again, and hit it. The "digging in"
> in both cases was absolutely standard, just a few shimmies of his
> feet. Some birdbrain viewer called in to the CPGA, and I still don't
> know how they get the number. The announcers heard about it, played
> the video over, and concluded he had done nothing wrong. But the
> rules officials called Rose in anyway, had him look at the tape, and
> let him make the call. Unwilling to look like Monty or JJ, he said
> fine, penalize me. He got two shots added to his score. What was
> really sick was that the rules official came on TGC and said the
> reason it was a penalty was because he had tested the soil by digging
> in "several feet" from where he hit it, right after they played the
> video that clearly showed it was actually about six inches.
>
> 2. Simon Khan was DQd from the Omega Masters for playing the wrong
> ball. He hit a long second shot to a par five, and started walking
> toward the green. He had walked 40-50 yards when somebody coming down
> an adjacent fairway took it upon himself to tell Khan that his ball
> took a big hop and was OB, so Khan went back and dropped a ball to hit
> a provisional. But then another guy said no, your ball is OK, so Khan
> picked the ball back up. When he reached his original ball, he
> checked with an official, who asked him if he had walked to the green
> before dropping the second ball, and Khan said no. The official then
> said no problem, hit away.
>
> It turns out that the official was Swiss, and there may have been a
> language problem. What he should have asked Khan was whether he had
> walked *toward* the green, which he had. If you walk more than ten or
> 20 yards forward, you can't drop a provisional. If you drop a new
> ball, that becomes the ball in play. Since Khan picked it up, he was
> playing the wrong ball after that. Since the official didn't tell him
> to correct it on that hole, it was too late to fix, and he was DQd.
If the rule is that you can't hit a provisional after walking 10-20
yards, then the decision was correct, albeit sad.
I'm not sure I understand the Rose decision. If they said he was
testing the sand with his feet, then it is idiotic. You don't need to
test the sand with your feet. If he touched the sand with his club,
then it's obviously a penalty.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 12:51:59
From: multi
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On 11 Sep 2006 10:56:10 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:
>If the rule is that you can't hit a provisional after walking 10-20
>yards, then the decision was correct, albeit sad.
The good news for Kahn is that by not improving his world ranking, he
gets to play Michael Campbell in the first round of this week's HSBC
Match Play, instead of having to play Tiger.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 11:25:09
From: multi
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On 11 Sep 2006 10:56:10 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:
>If the rule is that you can't hit a provisional after walking 10-20
>yards, then the decision was correct, albeit sad.
The rule actually says you can't go forward to search for your ball,
period. The tours grant 10-20 yards leeway. I realize that Khan
should have known the rule, but it's interesting that I read of
nothing but sympathy for him in not knowing it. He turned pro when
Michelle Wie, who has been raked over the coals for not studying the
rules, was one year old.
>I'm not sure I understand the Rose decision.
My mistake, it was Byrd.
> If they said he was
>testing the sand with his feet, then it is idiotic.
Yes they did, and yes it is.
> You don't need to
>test the sand with your feet. If he touched the sand with his club,
>then it's obviously a penalty.
Absolutely no implication that he did that.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 11:29:22
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
multi wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006 10:56:10 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If the rule is that you can't hit a provisional after walking 10-20
>>yards, then the decision was correct, albeit sad.
>
>
> The rule actually says you can't go forward to search for your ball,
> period. The tours grant 10-20 yards leeway.
Like most other formal golf competitions the 'tours' play according to
the 'Rules of Golf' as administered by the R&A and the USGA. The 'tours'
do not have any authority to 'grant 10-20 yards leeway'. The only
'leeway' that is sometimes allowed is if the player's target was
unsighted (eg a blind tee shot). Circumstances vary, but if the caddie
only went forward for a better view to make a judgement as to whether
the ball may be lost or not, and the player had stayed behind, then it
is reasonable to suggest that the player/caddie had not gone forward to
'search for the ball'.
cheers
david
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 21:30:48
From: multi
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:29:22 +1000, david s-a
<dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
>multi wrote:
>> On 11 Sep 2006 10:56:10 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If the rule is that you can't hit a provisional after walking 10-20
>>>yards, then the decision was correct, albeit sad.
>>
>>
>> The rule actually says you can't go forward to search for your ball,
>> period. The tours grant 10-20 yards leeway.
>
>Like most other formal golf competitions the 'tours' play according to
>the 'Rules of Golf' as administered by the R&A and the USGA. The 'tours'
>do not have any authority to 'grant 10-20 yards leeway'. The only
>'leeway' that is sometimes allowed is if the player's target was
>unsighted (eg a blind tee shot). Circumstances vary, but if the caddie
>only went forward for a better view to make a judgement as to whether
>the ball may be lost or not, and the player had stayed behind, then it
>is reasonable to suggest that the player/caddie had not gone forward to
>'search for the ball'.
My source is John Paramor, chief referee of the Euro Tour.
http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/sport/story.jsp?story=705740
If you have superior credentials, please state them.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 15:54:58
From: Steven Paul
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
In article <urdcg255kb3r0j6ccjjkhtrurp0h43a5eg@4ax.com >, multi
<multi@asm.org > wrote:
> My source is John Paramor, chief referee of the Euro Tour.
> http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/sport/story.jsp?story=705740
In that article he's quoted as saying "Under rule 27-2 players are not
allowed to walk forward, then come back and play a provisional ball."
But that is not what the rule says. The rules says "... he must play it
before he or his partner goes forward to search for the original ball.
"
If they meant you simply can't go forward, why include the last part
about searching? It seems to me that at that point it's a question of
intent.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 23:58:18
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:urdcg255kb3r0j6ccjjkhtrurp0h43a5eg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:29:22 +1000, david s-a
> <dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>multi wrote:
>>> On 11 Sep 2006 10:56:10 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If the rule is that you can't hit a provisional after walking 10-20
>>>>yards, then the decision was correct, albeit sad.
>>>
>>>
>>> The rule actually says you can't go forward to search for your ball,
>>> period. The tours grant 10-20 yards leeway.
>>
>>Like most other formal golf competitions the 'tours' play according to
>>the 'Rules of Golf' as administered by the R&A and the USGA. The 'tours'
>>do not have any authority to 'grant 10-20 yards leeway'. The only
>>'leeway' that is sometimes allowed is if the player's target was
>>unsighted (eg a blind tee shot). Circumstances vary, but if the caddie
>>only went forward for a better view to make a judgement as to whether
>>the ball may be lost or not, and the player had stayed behind, then it
>>is reasonable to suggest that the player/caddie had not gone forward to
>>'search for the ball'.
>
> My source is John Paramor, chief referee of the Euro Tour.
> http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/sport/story.jsp?story=705740
>
> If you have superior credentials, please state them.
My source is God almighty who created conscience in man.
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 22:05:51
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
>
> Like most other formal golf competitions the 'tours' play according to the
> 'Rules of Golf' as administered by the R&A and the USGA. The 'tours' do
> not have any authority to 'grant 10-20 yards leeway'. The only 'leeway'
> that is sometimes allowed is if the player's target was unsighted (eg a
> blind tee shot). Circumstances vary, but if the caddie only went forward
> for a better view to make a judgement as to whether the ball may be lost
> or not, and the player had stayed behind, then it is reasonable to suggest
> that the player/caddie had not gone forward to 'search for the ball'.
>
I've read the rule and now know what it is, but I don't understand the
purpose. I don't understand how it gives a player any advantage to delay
hitting a provisional until after he starts to look for it.
--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
"david s-a" <dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote in message
news:4mmgrpF6k8opU1@individual.net...
> multi wrote:
>> On 11 Sep 2006 10:56:10 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If the rule is that you can't hit a provisional after walking 10-20
>>>yards, then the decision was correct, albeit sad.
>>
>>
>> The rule actually says you can't go forward to search for your ball,
>> period. The tours grant 10-20 yards leeway.
> cheers
> david
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 22:56:25
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:05:51 -0500, "warren montgomery"
<wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
>I've read the rule and now know what it is, but I don't understand the
>purpose. I don't understand how it gives a player any advantage to delay
>hitting a provisional until after he starts to look for it.
I think that provision just was easier than setting up criteria about
how far forward one can go. I'd like to see a provision that allows
someone to declare a provisional peek.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 16:14:56
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:05:51 -0500, "warren montgomery"
> <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I've read the rule and now know what it is, but I don't understand the
>>purpose. I don't understand how it gives a player any advantage to delay
>>hitting a provisional until after he starts to look for it.
>
>
> I think that provision just was easier than setting up criteria about
> how far forward one can go. I'd like to see a provision that allows
> someone to declare a provisional peek.
Read Decision 27-2a/1.5 (Meaning of "Goes forward to search") for a
greater understanding of the attitude of the RoG in this respect.
cheers
david
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 23:57:17
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:d7mdnUxiMOCSuZvYnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
>> Like most other formal golf competitions the 'tours' play according to
>> the 'Rules of Golf' as administered by the R&A and the USGA. The 'tours'
>> do not have any authority to 'grant 10-20 yards leeway'. The only
>> 'leeway' that is sometimes allowed is if the player's target was
>> unsighted (eg a blind tee shot). Circumstances vary, but if the caddie
>> only went forward for a better view to make a judgement as to whether the
>> ball may be lost or not, and the player had stayed behind, then it is
>> reasonable to suggest that the player/caddie had not gone forward to
>> 'search for the ball'.
>>
> I've read the rule and now know what it is, but I don't understand the
> purpose. I don't understand how it gives a player any advantage to delay
> hitting a provisional until after he starts to look for it.
>
> --
> Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
> http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
> "david s-a" <dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:4mmgrpF6k8opU1@individual.net...
>> multi wrote:
>>> On 11 Sep 2006 10:56:10 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If the rule is that you can't hit a provisional after walking 10-20
>>>>yards, then the decision was correct, albeit sad.
>>>
>>>
>>> The rule actually says you can't go forward to search for your ball,
>>> period. The tours grant 10-20 yards leeway.
>> cheers
>> david
So much for golfers being on their honor. If you take a step it is assumed
that you are gong to look for your ball. Your word is useless because you
are a member of the honorable game of golf, but only in areas where anal
retentive control freaks can't legislate stupidity. I love golf but this is
so wrong.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 13:41:42
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
warren montgomery wrote:
>>Like most other formal golf competitions the 'tours' play according to the
>>'Rules of Golf' as administered by the R&A and the USGA. The 'tours' do
>>not have any authority to 'grant 10-20 yards leeway'. The only 'leeway'
>>that is sometimes allowed is if the player's target was unsighted (eg a
>>blind tee shot). Circumstances vary, but if the caddie only went forward
>>for a better view to make a judgement as to whether the ball may be lost
>>or not, and the player had stayed behind, then it is reasonable to suggest
>>that the player/caddie had not gone forward to 'search for the ball'.
>>
>
> I've read the rule and now know what it is, but I don't understand the
> purpose. I don't understand how it gives a player any advantage to delay
> hitting a provisional until after he starts to look for it.
>
The purpose of the rule is to SAVE TIME....as in (Rule 27-2a
Provisional) "........or may be out of bounds, TO SAVE TIME a player may
play another ball provisionally.........
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 13:56:52
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
> The purpose of the rule is to SAVE TIME....as in (Rule 27-2a
> Provisional) "........or may be out of bounds, TO SAVE TIME a player may
> play another ball provisionally.........
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 11:05:40
From: Tranny
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
david s-a wrote:
> warren montgomery wrote:
>>> Like most other formal golf competitions the 'tours' play according
>>> to the 'Rules of Golf' as administered by the R&A and the USGA. The
>>> 'tours' do not have any authority to 'grant 10-20 yards leeway'. The
>>> only 'leeway' that is sometimes allowed is if the player's target was
>>> unsighted (eg a blind tee shot). Circumstances vary, but if the
>>> caddie only went forward for a better view to make a judgement as to
>>> whether the ball may be lost or not, and the player had stayed
>>> behind, then it is reasonable to suggest that the player/caddie had
>>> not gone forward to 'search for the ball'.
>>>
>>
>> I've read the rule and now know what it is, but I don't understand the
>> purpose. I don't understand how it gives a player any advantage to
>> delay hitting a provisional until after he starts to look for it.
>>
> The purpose of the rule is to SAVE TIME....as in (Rule 27-2a
> Provisional) "........or may be out of bounds, TO SAVE TIME a player may
> play another ball provisionally.........
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 14:14:31
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
Sorry, Big Fan, but testing sand with your feet is simple. Any questions
about how deep, compact, etc. are quickly answered as you take your stance.
"Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1157997370.099315.85910@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I'm not sure I understand the Rose decision. If they said he was
> testing the sand with his feet, then it is idiotic. You don't need to
> test the sand with your feet. If he touched the sand with his club,
> then it's obviously a penalty.
>
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 10:51:42
From: multi
Subject: Re: Two Horrendous Rulings Yesterday
|
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:29:04 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>Justin Rose at the Canadian Open
Oops, wrong guy. It was Byrd.
|
|
