| |
Main
Date: 29 Aug 2006 06:03:58
From: annika1980
Subject: David Hayes in the News
|
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/pga/2006-08-28-tiger-roof-ruling_x.htm
===============
According to David Hayes of the U.S. Golf Association, which makes and
interprets the rules in the USA, out of bounds is determined by the
rules committee at each event.
"The whole world is in bounds until the committee makes part of it out
of bounds," Hayes said.
|
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 10:41:31
From: johnty
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
dph wrote:
> Why reach for 'Tin Cup' or 'Caddy Shack' (maintenance
> barn shot) when Decision 24-2b/14 deals with it?
Welcome back.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:56:03
From: dph
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
"johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > writes:
> dph wrote:
> > Why reach for 'Tin Cup' or 'Caddy Shack' (maintenance
> > barn shot) when Decision 24-2b/14 deals with it?
>
>
> Welcome back.
>
Thanks.
[poof]
Gone.
--
-- dph
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 09:07:23
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
>
> And the club house is an obstruction? I think much of the confusion
> surrounds the sort of odd ball lack of definition of the clubhouse.
> The common experience of many folks around here is that clubhouses
> are OB. Therein starts the reaction to this situation.
And as David Hayes of the USGA (and formerly a frequent poster here)
said, the clubhouse is OB only if it is marked as such. There are old
stories of players hitting the ball through windows and such. Didn't
the movie "Tin Cup" have a scene like that?
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 11:15:11
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
On 29 Aug 2006 09:07:23 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
>>
>> And the club house is an obstruction? I think much of the confusion
>> surrounds the sort of odd ball lack of definition of the clubhouse.
>> The common experience of many folks around here is that clubhouses
>> are OB. Therein starts the reaction to this situation.
>
>And as David Hayes of the USGA (and formerly a frequent poster here)
>said, the clubhouse is OB only if it is marked as such. There are old
>stories of players hitting the ball through windows and such. Didn't
>the movie "Tin Cup" have a scene like that?
Yeah, but it was from inside, and was a bar bet or something.
___,
\o
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:36:09
From: dph
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > writes:
> On 29 Aug 2006 09:07:23 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> >>
> >> And the club house is an obstruction? I think much of the confusion
> >> surrounds the sort of odd ball lack of definition of the clubhouse.
> >> The common experience of many folks around here is that clubhouses
> >> are OB. Therein starts the reaction to this situation.
> >
> >And as David Hayes of the USGA (and formerly a frequent poster here)
> >said, the clubhouse is OB only if it is marked as such. There are old
> >stories of players hitting the ball through windows and such. Didn't
> >the movie "Tin Cup" have a scene like that?
>
> Yeah, but it was from inside, and was a bar bet or something.
Why reach for 'Tin Cup' or 'Caddy Shack' (maintenance
barn shot) when Decision 24-2b/14 deals with it?
--
-- dph
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 08:05:25
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
rich wrote:
[snip]
> You see, the rules also say that there must be reasonable evidence that the
> ball is lost in the obstruction.
And the club house is an obstruction? I think much of the confusion
surrounds the sort of odd ball lack of definition of the clubhouse.
The common experience of many folks around here is that clubhouses
are OB. Therein starts the reaction to this situation.
> Thousands of people saw it enter the
> obstruction. If it ended up on the clubhouse it was on an obstruction and
> if it went over the clubhouse it was almost surely in an obstruction because
> 95% of the area behind the clubhouse was obstruction. So there was clear
> reasonable evidence that if the ball was lost it was lost in an obstruction.
It wasn't immediately obvious that the ball was "lost". What
bothered me
a bit was that no one was clearly looking for the ball. Now obviously
I wasn't there but what we saw was a player not even go forward until
a rules official showed up. Then we saw them all standing in front of
the clubhouse talking up a big storm, but no one seemed to be looking,
especially the player and caddie themselves. And it took a half hour
to
sort it all out, not 5 minutes. These things all suggested that it was
never considered that the ball could have been somewhere in which the
ball was found. There seemed to be a pretty immediate decision that
the ball was lost in an obstruction.
> Then there is the awkward fact that the outside agency picked it up in the
> obstruction, which includes not only the clubhouse but all of the
> artificially paved areas around it.
Made more awkward that it was discovered as such well after
the five minute "looking" limit.
> So either way he was going to be entitled to relief from the obstruction.
Once it was decided that it was lost in an obstruction, everything
fell
out from that decisions.
> And under the local rules that the PGA Tour plays under, since the
> grandstands, a Temporary Immovable Obstruction, was between his ball and the
> green he was entitled to line-of-sight relief regardless of what other
> things might be between his ball and the green.
>
> What I find disturbing is so many people opining about the case without
> bothering to inform themselves as to the facts and the rules, when it is all
> out there.
I think what you are missing is that the basic impression was
formed by
Tiger's initial behavior. He never considered looking for the ball,
and even
he said "how that wasn't OB I'll never know". After that, all
decisions seemed
to presume that Tiger was going to get free relief, without much effort
to
determine otherwise.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 20:16:30
From: rich
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
news:1156863925.347378.3870@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
= > And the club house is an obstruction? I think much of the confusion
> surrounds the sort of odd ball lack of definition of the clubhouse.
> The common experience of many folks around here is that clubhouses
> are OB. Therein starts the reaction to this situation.
Yes the clubhouse is an obstruction.
There was no oddball definition. Bith the USGA and PGA rules officials have
confirmed that many clubhouses are not OB and are therefore Obstructions.
So the common experience of many folks around here is probably wrong. The
question is how they react once it is explained to them that it is not OB,
If they keep insisting it was OB or that Tiger should have treated it as OB
even though it wasn't - well there you have a person who seems to be biased.
> It wasn't immediately obvious that the ball was "lost". What
> bothered me
> a bit was that no one was clearly looking for the ball. Now obviously
> I wasn't there but what we saw was a player not even go forward until
> a rules official showed up.
Because the player assumed that it would be OB. Once the rules official
turned up and informed him that it was not OB he went forward since at that
point it was clear that there would be some kind of relief, not a stoke and
distance penalty.
> Then we saw them all standing in front of
> the clubhouse talking up a big storm, but no one seemed to be looking,
> especially the player and caddie themselves.
There were officials and fans looking. Plus a player has no obligation to
look for his ball and Tiger would have been better off if the ball had not
been found. The finding of the ball cost him 30-50 yards on his drop.
>> Then there is the awkward fact that the outside agency picked it up in
>> the
>> obstruction, which includes not only the clubhouse but all of the
>> artificially paved areas around it.
>
> Made more awkward that it was discovered as such well after
> the five minute "looking" limit.
Only if you drink the Kool Aid and assume that the PGA officials are lying
through their teeth. It took a while because they had to decide where the
relief was going to be given, According to the officials the ball was
deemed found within the 5 minutes.
> I think what you are missing is that the basic impression was
> formed by
> Tiger's initial behavior. He never considered looking for the ball,
> and even
> he said "how that wasn't OB I'll never know". After that, all
> decisions seemed
> to presume that Tiger was going to get free relief, without much effort
> to
> determine otherwise.
Because once it was known that there was no OB there was no other
possibility than free relief. The ball was going to be found or it was
going to be ruled lost in an obstruction. There were no other
possibilities. A simple lost ball was not possible because thousands saw it
go into the obstruction and the area around the clubhouse - all of the paved
areas, etc. are all part of the obstruction. That easily met the reasonable
evidence standard and, in fact, the ball was found in the obstruction.
Rich
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 08:46:40
From: Golfwichita
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1156856638.319437.252530@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/pga/2006-08-28-tiger-roof-ruling_x.htm
> ===============
>
> According to David Hayes of the U.S. Golf Association, which makes and
> interprets the rules in the USA, out of bounds is determined by the
> rules committee at each event.
>
> "The whole world is in bounds until the committee makes part of it out
> of bounds," Hayes said.
>
To the most part, that can be agreed on. Unless marked (previously
determined) "the whole world is in bounds."
What I found disturbing is that after that fiasco they decided that it was
probable (not definite) that someone picked up ball. No lost ball. Now, if
Tiger, or any other player's ball bounded of someone's head in the rough and
landed in the fairway, or better yet, picks it up and heaves back into the
fairway, that is understandably a good break for the player with the help of
the gallery. However, that someone would pick up the ball and keep it, the
player would get free drop. Seems like a double standard to me. The
gallery can only help you. Maybe I'm off base, but, it appears all together
too favorable to me.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:10:53
From: rich
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
"Golfwichita" <golfwichitaFINGER@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:8zXIg.3864$B14.3289@dukeread03...
> What I found disturbing is that after that fiasco they decided that it was
> probable (not definite) that someone picked up ball. No lost ball. Now,
> if Tiger, or any other player's ball bounded of someone's head in the
> rough and landed in the fairway, or better yet, picks it up and heaves
> back into the fairway, that is understandably a good break for the player
> with the help of the gallery. However, that someone would pick up the
> ball and keep it, the player would get free drop. Seems like a double
> standard to me. The gallery can only help you. Maybe I'm off base, but,
> it appears all together too favorable to me.
Yes you are off-base because that isn't what the rules say. The rules say
there must be reasonable evidence that the ball was moved by an outside
agency. Two witnesses of someone picking up a ball in a place that, absent
Tiger's shot, there would be no reason for a ball to be is reasonable
evidence. Reasonable evidence gives probability, not definiteness, so your
basic criteria is at odds with the rule. Of course then there is the
awkward fact that the ball was eventually recovered from the outside agency
and it was Tiger's ball.
But if they hadn't found it then Tiger would have been better off. The ball
would have been ruled lost in an obstruction and his relief would have ended
up 30-50 yards closer than what he actually got.
You see, the rules also say that there must be reasonable evidence that the
ball is lost in the obstruction. Thousands of people saw it enter the
obstruction. If it ended up on the clubhouse it was on an obstruction and
if it went over the clubhouse it was almost surely in an obstruction because
95% of the area behind the clubhouse was obstruction. So there was clear
reasonable evidence that if the ball was lost it was lost in an obstruction.
Then there is the awkward fact that the outside agency picked it up in the
obstruction, which includes not only the clubhouse but all of the
artificially paved areas around it.
So either way he was going to be entitled to relief from the obstruction.
And under the local rules that the PGA Tour plays under, since the
grandstands, a Temporary Immovable Obstruction, was between his ball and the
green he was entitled to line-of-sight relief regardless of what other
things might be between his ball and the green.
What I find disturbing is so many people opining about the case without
bothering to inform themselves as to the facts and the rules, when it is all
out there.
Rich
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 19:21:49
From: Thor
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
rich wrote:
> "Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com> wrote in message
> news:1156875242.283535.31620@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Was the evidence that a security guard saw a kid pick up A ball enough
> > to be 'preponderantly in favor' of Tiger's ball being in the
> > obstruction?
> >
>
> No, you are confusing two different things both of which involve reasonable
> evidence. The security guard seeing the kid was reasonable evidence that
> the ball had been moved by an outside agency. This is the only possibly
> dodgy part of the ruling. But it was a judgement call and the PGA guy made
> it and this decision was to Tiger's disadvantage.
Yes, I agree with all of this. I meant to say exactly this - replace
'being in the
obstruction' with 'being moved by an outside agency'. I maintain that
I
am not confused even though I wrote it wrong :-)
I am only trying to clarify/discuss what constitutes reasonable
evidence and
when. I believe there was probably more evidence or rationale than has
been reported.
> Had the ball not been found the question would have been is there reasonable
> evidence that the ball was lost in an obstruction,. There the evidence was
> thousands of people seeing it bounce onto the clubhouse and, possibly, over
> it and the fact that the clubhouse and 95% of the area behind it are
> obstruction. A 95% chance that it is in the obstruction is pretty
> preponderant.
I agree there was plenty of evidence that the ball was lost in an
obstruction. How
many obstructions there actually were and what they were is complex.
-- Thor
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 04:09:07
From: rich
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
"Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com > wrote in message
news:1156904509.054708.26330@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, I agree with all of this. I meant to say exactly this - replace
> 'being in the
> obstruction' with 'being moved by an outside agency'. I maintain that
> I
> am not confused even though I wrote it wrong :-)
Careful, you keep this up you are going to get a reputation as a reasonable
person. Which I guess means that you could then give reasonable evidence
(g).
Rich
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:58:27
From: sjh
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
dph wrote:
>
> Don't tell anyone, my dandruff is simulated (baby powder).
>
Not only is he the official, but he's also a client.
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:44:14
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
rich wrote:
[snip]
> Because once it was known that there was no OB there was no other
> possibility than free relief. The ball was going to be found or it was
> going to be ruled lost in an obstruction. There were no other
> possibilities. A simple lost ball was not possible because thousands saw it
> go into the obstruction and the area around the clubhouse - all of the paved
> areas, etc. are all part of the obstruction. That easily met the reasonable
> evidence standard and, in fact, the ball was found in the obstruction.
>
>
However, we don't get line of sight relief from obstructions. The
nearest point
of relief could have been alot of unfavorable locations. It was
because of
the TIO that he got line of sight relief. Thsi is only contributes to
the perception
that Tiger got a beneficial ruling. FWIW I've always thought the TIO
rule
was a bit favorable to the players.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 04:15:52
From: rich
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
news:1156887854.935705.85370@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> However, we don't get line of sight relief from obstructions. The
> nearest point
> of relief could have been alot of unfavorable locations. It was
> because of
> the TIO that he got line of sight relief. Thsi is only contributes to
> the perception
> that Tiger got a beneficial ruling. FWIW I've always thought the TIO
> rule
> was a bit favorable to the players.
That is a different point. There is no doubt that Tiger got a beneficial
ruling. It is untrue, IMO, that the ruling was any more beneficial than any
other player would have gotten.
Rich
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 11:54:08
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
dph wrote:
> > >And as David Hayes of the USGA (and formerly a frequent poster here)
> > >said, the clubhouse is OB only if it is marked as such.
>
> Why reach for 'Tin Cup' or 'Caddy Shack' (maintenance
> barn shot) when Decision 24-2b/14 deals with it?
>
> --
Hey Dave, your 15 minutes are almost up.
So how do you like your Blue Blazer?
"When I retire, I'm going to get a pair of gray slacks, a white
shirt, a striped tie, a blue blazer, a case of dandruff and go stand on
the first tee so I can be a USGA official."
-Lee Trevino
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:15:29
From: dph
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > writes:
> dph wrote:
> > > >And as David Hayes of the USGA (and formerly a frequent poster here)
> > > >said, the clubhouse is OB only if it is marked as such.
>
> >
> > Why reach for 'Tin Cup' or 'Caddy Shack' (maintenance
> > barn shot) when Decision 24-2b/14 deals with it?
> >
> > --
>
> Hey Dave, your 15 minutes are almost up.
> So how do you like your Blue Blazer?
C'mon, I was quoted in the PGA TOUR Partners
magazine, and one of the airline's magazines
too. I must be up to 17 minutes by now.
> "When I retire, I'm going to get a pair of gray slacks, a white
> shirt, a striped tie, a blue blazer, a case of dandruff and go stand on
> the first tee so I can be a USGA official."
> -Lee Trevino
Don't tell anyone, my dandruff is simulated (baby powder).
--
-- dph
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 11:14:02
From: Thor
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
dph wrote:
> Why reach for 'Tin Cup' or 'Caddy Shack' (maintenance
> barn shot) when Decision 24-2b/14 deals with it?
There are decisions:
26-1/1 Meaning of "Reasonable Evidence" in Rule 26-1
[includes The evidence must be preponderantly in favor of its
being in the hazard. ]
25-1c/1 Meaning of "Reasonable Evidence" in Rule 25-1c
How come there is no decision for the meaning of "Reasonable Evidence"
for rule 24-3? The 25-1c/1 decision is just a specific case. Do the
words
'preponderantly in favor of' really apply in all 3 cases?
Was the evidence that a security guard saw a kid pick up A ball enough
to be 'preponderantly in favor' of Tiger's ball being in the
obstruction?
I guess so - at least the rules officials thought so.
--
-- David "Thor" Collard
-- My It is golf.
-- 11th annual RSG-Ohio Sept 15-17 2006
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 20:22:06
From: rich
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
"Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com > wrote in message
news:1156875242.283535.31620@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Was the evidence that a security guard saw a kid pick up A ball enough
> to be 'preponderantly in favor' of Tiger's ball being in the
> obstruction?
>
No, you are confusing two different things both of which involve reasonable
evidence. The security guard seeing the kid was reasonable evidence that
the ball had been moved by an outside agency. This is the only possibly
dodgy part of the ruling. But it was a judgement call and the PGA guy made
it and this decision was to Tiger's disadvantage.
Had the ball not been found the question would have been is there reasonable
evidence that the ball was lost in an obstruction,. There the evidence was
thousands of people seeing it bounce onto the clubhouse and, possibly, over
it and the fact that the clubhouse and 95% of the area behind it are
obstruction. A 95% chance that it is in the obstruction is pretty
preponderant.
Rich
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 04:51:34
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: David Hayes in the News
|
rich wrote:
> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:1156887854.935705.85370@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > However, we don't get line of sight relief from obstructions. The
> > nearest point
> > of relief could have been alot of unfavorable locations. It was
> > because of
> > the TIO that he got line of sight relief. Thsi is only contributes to
> > the perception
> > that Tiger got a beneficial ruling. FWIW I've always thought the TIO
> > rule
> > was a bit favorable to the players.
>
> That is a different point. There is no doubt that Tiger got a beneficial
> ruling. It is untrue, IMO, that the ruling was any more beneficial than any
> other player would have gotten.
To a great extent I agree. "The rest of us" don't get TIO and it
leads I suspect to the perception that certain rulings are favorable
to leaders. That has more to do with the fact that we only tend to
see rulings for players that are leading I'd guess. One does wonder
though if the presences of 5000 fans following along doesn't get
Tiger faster conclusions that people ran off with their balls than the
guy 125th on the money list.
|
|
