| |
Main
Date: 25 Aug 2006 14:03:29
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
How can they not have an OB marker back there? Most courses would use
something like the cartpath behind the green as the OB marker.
Ridiculous.
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 19:42:15
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
grailknight wrote:
> No cameras and shut up while I am putting wrote:
> > Big_Fan wrote:
> > > How can they not have an OB marker back there? Most courses would use
> > > something like the cartpath behind the green as the OB marker.
> > > Ridiculous.
> >
> > Give em a break....The course has only been host to a Zillion
> > tourneys and
> > a quadrillion shots over the years. Bring in Google ..Zoom in and
> > Voila.
>
> Then why did it take 45 minutes to declare the clubhouse a temporary
> obstruction?
That's not what they ruled. The ruled the grandstand was a TIO, not
the clubhouse. I guess it didn't matter that the ball was 100 yards
off the course, only that the grand stands were in the way.
Tiger could have hit that thing in Cleveland and still gotten a free
drop.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 14:01:10
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1156560135.220921.322900@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> grailknight wrote:
> > No cameras and shut up while I am putting wrote:
> > > Big_Fan wrote:
> > > > How can they not have an OB marker back there? Most courses would
use
> > > > something like the cartpath behind the green as the OB marker.
> > > > Ridiculous.
> > >
> > > Give em a break....The course has only been host to a Zillion
> > > tourneys and
> > > a quadrillion shots over the years. Bring in Google ..Zoom in and
> > > Voila.
> >
> > Then why did it take 45 minutes to declare the clubhouse a temporary
> > obstruction?
>
> That's not what they ruled. The ruled the grandstand was a TIO, not
> the clubhouse. I guess it didn't matter that the ball was 100 yards
> off the course, only that the grand stands were in the way.
>
> Tiger could have hit that thing in Cleveland and still gotten a free
> drop.
>
I believe that the exterior road in front of the clubhouse would be ruled as
OB.
dave
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 09:08:36
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:01:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
>>
>> That's not what they ruled. The ruled the grandstand was a TIO, not
>> the clubhouse. I guess it didn't matter that the ball was 100 yards
>> off the course, only that the grand stands were in the way.
>>
>> Tiger could have hit that thing in Cleveland and still gotten a free
>> drop.
>>
>
>I believe that the exterior road in front of the clubhouse would be ruled as
>OB.
>
>dave
>
The officials said that Woods’ ball could have bounced across Warner
Road and onto the North Course and still would have been in play
because the boundry had never been set.
The shame is that so many jump to blame Woods. Hell, he didn't make
the ruling. It's important to realize that PGA officials did though.
Wonder how the USGA would've ruled it?
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 14:21:25
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:p8l0f2h99ibpvv21noh2jsl5705ffcrrkh@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:01:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> That's not what they ruled. The ruled the grandstand was a TIO, not
> >> the clubhouse. I guess it didn't matter that the ball was 100 yards
> >> off the course, only that the grand stands were in the way.
> >>
> >> Tiger could have hit that thing in Cleveland and still gotten a free
> >> drop.
> >>
> >
> >I believe that the exterior road in front of the clubhouse would be ruled
as
> >OB.
> >
> >dave
> >
> The officials said that Woods' ball could have bounced across Warner
> Road and onto the North Course and still would have been in play
> because the boundry had never been set.
>
> The shame is that so many jump to blame Woods. Hell, he didn't make
> the ruling. It's important to realize that PGA officials did though.
> Wonder how the USGA would've ruled it?
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 09:23:56
From: Harrison Bergeron
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > writes:
> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:p8l0f2h99ibpvv21noh2jsl5705ffcrrkh@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:01:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> > <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> That's not what they ruled. The ruled the grandstand was a TIO, not
> > >> the clubhouse. I guess it didn't matter that the ball was 100 yards
> > >> off the course, only that the grand stands were in the way.
> > >>
> > >> Tiger could have hit that thing in Cleveland and still gotten a free
> > >> drop.
> > >>
> > >
> > >I believe that the exterior road in front of the clubhouse would be ruled
> as
> > >OB.
> > >
> > >dave
> > >
> > The officials said that Woods' ball could have bounced across Warner
> > Road and onto the North Course and still would have been in play
> > because the boundry had never been set.
> >
> > The shame is that so many jump to blame Woods. Hell, he didn't make
> > the ruling. It's important to realize that PGA officials did though.
> > Wonder how the USGA would've ruled it?
> > ___,
> > \o
> >
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 14:46:10
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com > wrote in message
news:barejv31soz.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
>
> > "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> > news:p8l0f2h99ibpvv21noh2jsl5705ffcrrkh@4ax.com...
> > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:01:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> > > <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> That's not what they ruled. The ruled the grandstand was a TIO,
not
> > > >> the clubhouse. I guess it didn't matter that the ball was 100
yards
> > > >> off the course, only that the grand stands were in the way.
> > > >>
> > > >> Tiger could have hit that thing in Cleveland and still gotten a
free
> > > >> drop.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >I believe that the exterior road in front of the clubhouse would be
ruled
> > as
> > > >OB.
> > > >
> > > >dave
> > > >
> > > The officials said that Woods' ball could have bounced across Warner
> > > Road and onto the North Course and still would have been in play
> > > because the boundry had never been set.
> > >
> > > The shame is that so many jump to blame Woods. Hell, he didn't make
> > > the ruling. It's important to realize that PGA officials did though.
> > > Wonder how the USGA would've ruled it?
> > > ___,
> > > \o
> > >
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 10:00:35
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:46:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
>
>"Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
>news:barejv31soz.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
>> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
<cip >
>>
>> NOTHING is out of bounds unless the Committee marks/specifies it
>> as such. NOTHING.
>>
>> --
>>
>
>http://www.uga.org/tournaments/rules.html is one exception to the above.
>
>dav
>
That site is a Utah State Golf Association site, and those rules are
their local rules. I can't find a USGA exception, so it seems that
Bergeron may be correct.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 15:03:06
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:8co0f2h45qpb39ui1ea2lcqbh9qhrkrlil@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:46:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
> >news:barejv31soz.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> >> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
> <cip>
> >>
> >> NOTHING is out of bounds unless the Committee marks/specifies it
> >> as such. NOTHING.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >
> >http://www.uga.org/tournaments/rules.html is one exception to the above.
> >
> >dav
> >
> That site is a Utah State Golf Association site, and those rules are
> their local rules. I can't find a USGA exception, so it seems that
> Bergeron may be correct.
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 10:07:42
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:03:06 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:8co0f2h45qpb39ui1ea2lcqbh9qhrkrlil@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:46:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
>> <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
>> >news:barejv31soz.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
>> >> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
>> <cip>
>> >>
>> >> NOTHING is out of bounds unless the Committee marks/specifies it
>> >> as such. NOTHING.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >
>> >http://www.uga.org/tournaments/rules.html is one exception to the above.
>> >
>> >dav
>> >
>> That site is a Utah State Golf Association site, and those rules are
>> their local rules. I can't find a USGA exception, so it seems that
>> Bergeron may be correct.
>> ___,
>> \o
>>
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 10:07:30
From: Harrison Bergeron
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > writes:
> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:8co0f2h45qpb39ui1ea2lcqbh9qhrkrlil@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:46:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> > <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
> > >news:barejv31soz.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > >> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
> > <cip>
> > >>
> > >> NOTHING is out of bounds unless the Committee marks/specifies it
> > >> as such. NOTHING.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >
> > >http://www.uga.org/tournaments/rules.html is one exception to the above.
> > >
> > >dav
> > >
> > That site is a Utah State Golf Association site, and those rules are
> > their local rules. I can't find a USGA exception, so it seems that
> > Bergeron may be correct.
> > ___,
> > \o
> >
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 09:54:18
From: Harrison Bergeron
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > writes:
> "Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
> news:barejv31soz.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
> >
> > > "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> > > news:p8l0f2h99ibpvv21noh2jsl5705ffcrrkh@4ax.com...
> > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:01:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> > > > <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That's not what they ruled. The ruled the grandstand was a TIO,
> not
> > > > >> the clubhouse. I guess it didn't matter that the ball was 100
> yards
> > > > >> off the course, only that the grand stands were in the way.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Tiger could have hit that thing in Cleveland and still gotten a
> free
> > > > >> drop.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >I believe that the exterior road in front of the clubhouse would be
> ruled
> > > as
> > > > >OB.
> > > > >
> > > > >dave
> > > > >
> > > > The officials said that Woods' ball could have bounced across Warner
> > > > Road and onto the North Course and still would have been in play
> > > > because the boundry had never been set.
> > > >
> > > > The shame is that so many jump to blame Woods. Hell, he didn't make
> > > > the ruling. It's important to realize that PGA officials did though.
> > > > Wonder how the USGA would've ruled it?
> > > > ___,
> > > > \o
> > > >
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 15:02:14
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com > wrote in message
news:barac5r1rad.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
>
> > "Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
> > news:barejv31soz.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:p8l0f2h99ibpvv21noh2jsl5705ffcrrkh@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:01:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> > > > > <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> That's not what they ruled. The ruled the grandstand was a
TIO,
> > not
> > > > > >> the clubhouse. I guess it didn't matter that the ball was 100
> > yards
> > > > > >> off the course, only that the grand stands were in the way.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Tiger could have hit that thing in Cleveland and still gotten a
> > free
> > > > > >> drop.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I believe that the exterior road in front of the clubhouse would
be
> > ruled
> > > > as
> > > > > >OB.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >dave
> > > > > >
> > > > > The officials said that Woods' ball could have bounced across
Warner
> > > > > Road and onto the North Course and still would have been in play
> > > > > because the boundry had never been set.
> > > > >
> > > > > The shame is that so many jump to blame Woods. Hell, he didn't
make
> > > > > the ruling. It's important to realize that PGA officials did
though.
> > > > > Wonder how the USGA would've ruled it?
> > > > > ___,
> > > > > \o
> > > > >
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 10:06:20
From: Harrison Bergeron
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > writes:
> "Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
> news:barac5r1rad.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
> >
> > > "Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
> > > news:barejv31soz.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > > > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:p8l0f2h99ibpvv21noh2jsl5705ffcrrkh@4ax.com...
> > > > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:01:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> > > > > > <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> That's not what they ruled. The ruled the grandstand was a
> TIO,
> > > not
> > > > > > >> the clubhouse. I guess it didn't matter that the ball was 100
> > > yards
> > > > > > >> off the course, only that the grand stands were in the way.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Tiger could have hit that thing in Cleveland and still gotten a
> > > free
> > > > > > >> drop.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I believe that the exterior road in front of the clubhouse would
> be
> > > ruled
> > > > > as
> > > > > > >OB.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >dave
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > The officials said that Woods' ball could have bounced across
> Warner
> > > > > > Road and onto the North Course and still would have been in play
> > > > > > because the boundry had never been set.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The shame is that so many jump to blame Woods. Hell, he didn't
> make
> > > > > > the ruling. It's important to realize that PGA officials did
> though.
> > > > > > Wonder how the USGA would've ruled it?
> > > > > > ___,
> > > > > > \o
> > > > > >
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 15:11:38
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com > wrote in message
news:bar64gf1qqb.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
>
> > "Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
> > news:barac5r1rad.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > "Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:barejv31soz.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > > > > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:p8l0f2h99ibpvv21noh2jsl5705ffcrrkh@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:01:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> > > > > > > <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> That's not what they ruled. The ruled the grandstand was a
> > TIO,
> > > > not
> > > > > > > >> the clubhouse. I guess it didn't matter that the ball was
100
> > > > yards
> > > > > > > >> off the course, only that the grand stands were in the way.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Tiger could have hit that thing in Cleveland and still
gotten a
> > > > free
> > > > > > > >> drop.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I believe that the exterior road in front of the clubhouse
would
> > be
> > > > ruled
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >OB.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >dave
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The officials said that Woods' ball could have bounced
across
> > Warner
> > > > > > > Road and onto the North Course and still would have been in
play
> > > > > > > because the boundry had never been set.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The shame is that so many jump to blame Woods. Hell, he
didn't
> > make
> > > > > > > the ruling. It's important to realize that PGA officials did
> > though.
> > > > > > > Wonder how the USGA would've ruled it?
> > > > > > > ___,
> > > > > > > \o
> > > > > > >
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 10:14:40
From: Harrison Bergeron
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > writes:
> "Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
> news:bar64gf1qqb.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
> >
> > > "Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
> > > news:barac5r1rad.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > > > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > "Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:barejv31soz.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > > > > > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:p8l0f2h99ibpvv21noh2jsl5705ffcrrkh@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:01:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> > > > > > > > <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> That's not what they ruled. The ruled the grandstand was a
> > > TIO,
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> the clubhouse. I guess it didn't matter that the ball was
> 100
> > > > > yards
> > > > > > > > >> off the course, only that the grand stands were in the way.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Tiger could have hit that thing in Cleveland and still
> gotten a
> > > > > free
> > > > > > > > >> drop.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >I believe that the exterior road in front of the clubhouse
> would
> > > be
> > > > > ruled
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >OB.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >dave
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The officials said that Woods' ball could have bounced
> across
> > > Warner
> > > > > > > > Road and onto the North Course and still would have been in
> play
> > > > > > > > because the boundry had never been set.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The shame is that so many jump to blame Woods. Hell, he
> didn't
> > > make
> > > > > > > > the ruling. It's important to realize that PGA officials did
> > > though.
> > > > > > > > Wonder how the USGA would've ruled it?
> > > > > > > > ___,
> > > > > > > > \o
> > > > > > > >
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 20:46:42
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com > wrote in message
news:barwt8vzfz3.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
>
> > "Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
> > news:bar64gf1qqb.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > "Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:barac5r1rad.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > > > > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:barejv31soz.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > > > > > > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:p8l0f2h99ibpvv21noh2jsl5705ffcrrkh@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:01:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> > > > > > > > > <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > Ah - I understand now. In general "the committee" is club/event specific
(at
> > least that is what I am used to). You used it in more general terms.
>
> I used 'Committee' in the manner in which the Rules of Golf
> define the term.
>
> --
>
The Rules of Golf say
I spent all the time I cared to in trying to find the decision that I
claimed to recall. The closest that I could find is 27/20 (
http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/books/decisions/dec27.html ), which is
probably the one that I (incorrectly) recalled.
So unless there is something else out there in "USGA decision-land", I stand
corrected.
dave
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 16:06:50
From: Harrison Bergeron
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > writes:
> I spent all the time I cared to in trying to find the decision that I
> claimed to recall. The closest that I could find is 27/20 (
> http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/books/decisions/dec27.html ), which is
> probably the one that I (incorrectly) recalled.
>
> So unless there is something else out there in "USGA decision-land", I stand
> corrected.
If you decide to continue your quest, here are all the Decisions in the
2006 book that include 'bound' (i.e. bounds or boundary).
3-3/1 Provisional Ball Used as Second Ball When Not Determinable Whether Original Ball Is Out of Bounds
3-3/7.5 Competitor Announces Intention to Play Two Balls; Plays Original Ball Before Dropping Second Ball; Elects Not to Play Second Ball
5-1/3 Condition Requiring Use of Ball on List of Conforming Golf Balls; Ball Not on List Played as Provisional Ball
7-1b/1 One Practice Stroke Played on Course Before Stroke-Play Round
7-2/1.7 Explanation of "Strokes Played in Continuing the Play of a Hole"
9-2/16 Ascertaining Whereabouts of Opponent's Ball Before Playing
11-3/3 Original Ball Out of Bounds; Ball Played Under Stroke-and-Distance Procedure Falls Off Tee at Address
11-4b/6 Ball Played from Outside Teeing Ground Goes Out of Bounds
11-5/3 Ball Played Out of Bounds from Wrong Teeing Ground Not Recalled
13-2/1 Explanation of "Fairly Taking His Stance"
13-2/1.1 Player Attempts to Take Stance Fairly But Improves Line of Play by Moving Interfering Growing Object
13-2/4.5 Divots Replaced in Area in Which Ball Is to Be Dropped
13-2/17 Removal of Boundary Stake Interfering with Swing
13-2/18 Improving Position of Ball by Bending Boundary Fence
13-2/19 Improving Area of Intended Swing by Moving Growing or Fixed Object Situated Out of Bounds
13-2/20 Part of Fence Off Course Leans Across Boundary and Interferes with Swing
13-2/25 Player Removes Boundary Post on Line of Play But Replaces It Before Playing
13-2/32.5 Improving Line of Play by Removing Part of Fence
13-4/37 Ball Played from Bunker Is Out of Bounds or Lost; Player Tests Condition of Bunker or Smoothes Footprints Before Dropping Another Ball in Bunker
14-1/4 Striking Ball with Half an Inch Backswing
14-1/5 Moving Ball Lying Against Fence by Striking Other Side of Fence
14-4/2 Ball Strikes Pipeline and on Rebound Is Deflected by Face of Club
15/6 Stroke Played with Ball Lying Out of Bounds
15/7 Wrong Ball Played in Belief It Is Provisional or Second Ball
15/9 Ball Thrown into Bounds by Outside Agency and Played; Caddie Aware of Action of Outside Agency
15/10 Ball Thrown into Bounds by Outside Agency and Played; Neither Player Nor His Caddie Aware of Action of Outside Agency
15/11 Wrong Ball Hit Out of Bounds; Another Ball Played Under Rule 27-1; Original Ball Then Found Nearby
15/12 Wrong Ball Found Out of Bounds Played Under Stroke-and-Distance Procedure; Original Ball Then Found in Bounds
18-2a/3 Ball Lifted and Dropped Away from Boundary Stake Under Obstruction Rule
18-2a/11 Tee Shot Wrongly Thought to Be Out of Bounds Lifted; Competitor Plays Another Ball from Tee
18-2a/22 Ball Moved Accidentally by Backward Movement of Club After Stroke Misses; Ball Comes to Rest Out of Bounds
18-2b/9 Ball Moves After Address and Comes to Rest Out of Bounds
18-3b/5 Opponent's Caddie Lifts Player's Ball Which May or May Not Have Been Out of Bounds
19-2/2 Player's Ball Strikes Own Caddie and Comes to Rest Out of Bounds
19-2/3 Player's Ball Strikes Own Caddie Standing Out of Bounds and Comes to Rest on Course
19-2/4 Player's Ball Strikes Own Caddie Standing Out of Bounds and Comes to Rest Out of Bounds
19-3/1 Ball Accidentally Strikes Opponent Standing Out of Bounds and Comes to Rest Out of Bounds
20-2c/3.5 Dropped Ball Comes to Rest and Then Rolls Out of Bounds
20-5/1 Teed Ball Missed Then Hit Out of Bounds
20-5/2 Player Proceeding Under Rule 20-5 Drops Ball on Different Part of Course
20-7/1 Ball Played from Spot Where Original Ball Deflected Out of Bounds by Maintenance Vehicle
23-1/9 Removal of Loose Impediment Lying Out of Bounds
24/1 Stile Attached to Boundary Fence
24/2 Angled Supports or Guy Wires Supporting Boundary Fence
24/3 Concrete Bases of Boundary Fence Posts
24/4 Part of Boundary Fence Within Boundary Line
24/5 Boundary Stakes Having No Significance in Play of Hole Being Played
24-1/3 Movable Artificial Object Lying Out of Bounds
24-2b/3.5 Player Unable Physically to Determine Nearest Point of Relief
24-2b/6 Relief from Immovable Obstruction Incidentally Results in Relief from Boundary Fence
24-2b/12 Ball in Drainpipe Under Course; Entrance to Drainpipe Is Out of Bounds
4-2b/14 Window of Clubhouse Opened and Ball Played Through Window
24-2b/17 Obstruction Interferes with Abnormal Stroke; Abnormal Stroke Reasonable in Circumstances
24-2b/21 Interference by Immovable Artificial Object Situated Out of Bounds
24-3b/1 Ball Lost in Underground Drainpipe
25-1b/23 Ball Enters Burrowing Animal Hole Out of Bounds and Comes to Rest in Bounds
25-1b/24 Ball Enters Burrowing Animal Hole in Bounds and Comes to Rest Out of Bounds
26/2 Ball Within Natural Margin of Water Hazard But Outside Stakes Defining Margin
26/3 Unmarked Water Hazard
26-1/7 Ball Moved Out of Bounds by Flow of Water in Water Hazard
26-1/8 Ball Moved into Bounds by Flow of Water in Lateral Water Hazard
26-1/10 Placing Ball on Bank of Water Hazard Instead of Dropping to Prevent Ball Rolling into Water
26-2/1 Explanation of Options Under Rules 26-2a and -2b
27/11 Provisional Ball Not Distinguishable from Original Ball
27/18 Gate in Boundary Fence
27/19 When Ball Inside Boundary Fence Is Out of Bounds
27/20 Public Road Defined as Out of Bounds Divides Course; Status of Ball Crossing Road
27-2/1 Provisional Ball Serving as Ball in Play If Original Ball Unplayable or in Water Hazard
27-2a/1 Announcement of Provisional Ball
27-2a/2 Provisional Ball Played Solely in Belief Original Ball Might Be in Water Hazard
27-2a/3 Play of Provisional Ball in Absence of Reasonable Possibility Original Ball Is Lost or Out of Bounds
27-2a/4 Three Balls Played from Same Spot; Only Second Ball Was Provisional Ball
27-2b/2 When Provisional Ball Holed Becomes Ball in Play
27-2b/4 Provisional Ball Played from Beyond Where Original Ball Likely to Be But Not Beyond Where Original Ball Found
27-2b/7 Provisional Ball Played in Erroneous Belief It Is Original Ball
27-2b/8 Provisional Ball Lifted in Erroneous Belief Original Ball Is in Bounds
27-2c/1 Possibility That Original Ball Is in Water Hazard May Not Preclude Play of Provisional Ball
27-2c/3 Provisional Ball Played from Point Nearer Hole Than Original Ball Because Player Erroneously Thought Original Ball, Which Was Visible, Was Out of Bounds
27-2c/4 Original Ball and Provisional Ball Found Out of Bounds
28/5 Regression Under Unplayable Ball Rule
29/2 Mixed Foursome in Which Different Tees Used by Men and Women; Tee Shot Out of Bounds
29-1/3 Who Plays Provisional Ball in Foursome
29-1/4 Provisional Ball Played by Wrong Member of Side in Foursome
30-3f/7 Player After Picking Up Drops Ball Where Partner's Ball Lies and Plays Practice Stroke
33-2a/1 Exposed Water Pipe Adjacent and Parallel to Boundary Fence Causes Problems; Suggested Procedure
33-2a/11 Defining Body of Water Adjacent to Course
33-2a/12 Internal Boundary Between Holes
33-2a/13 Tee Decreed to Be in Bounds for Tee Shot and Out of Bounds Thereafter
33-2a/14 Internal Out of Bounds Applying to Stroke from Teeing Ground Only
33-2a/15 Establishing Boundary Line Inside Fence on Property Line
33-2a/16 Deeming Ball in Bounds Until Beyond Boundary Wall
33-2a/19 Boundary Altered by Unauthorized Removal of Boundary Stake
33-2a/20 Displaced Boundary Stake
33-8/14 Local Rule Deeming Interior Boundary Fence to Be an Obstruction
33-8/16 Local Rule Deeming All Stakes on Course to Be Immovable Obstructions
33-8/38 Local Rule Deeming Out of Bounds Ball Which Crosses Boundary But Comes to Rest on Course
33-8/41 Marking Environmentally-Sensitive Areas
33-8/43 Stroke Played from Environmentally-Sensitive Area
--
<-- Harry -- >
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 22:34:16
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
You've got to let the committee decide. Remember when someone on the
tour found his original ball in an unmarked field and played it,
picking up his provisional - and the committee ruled the ball OB? This
happened within the last year.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 17:15:29
From:
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
Well in my opinion the powers to be screwed up earlier on, in not
setting reasonable boundaries.
This a common practice, call it what you want, it is a snafu.
An established boundary for the area in question should benefit the
players, in that they would be put on notice, and play accordingly.
(maybe)
>m h o
>=A0v =83 e
>d r i v i n g =A0l e s s =A0l o w e r s =A0g a s =A0p r i c e s =A0
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 12:31:03
From: David
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:08:36 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:01:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
><DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> That's not what they ruled. The ruled the grandstand was a TIO, not
>>> the clubhouse. I guess it didn't matter that the ball was 100 yards
>>> off the course, only that the grand stands were in the way.
>>>
>>> Tiger could have hit that thing in Cleveland and still gotten a free
>>> drop.
>>>
>>
>>I believe that the exterior road in front of the clubhouse would be ruled as
>>OB.
>>
>>dave
>>
>The officials said that Woods’ ball could have bounced across Warner
>Road and onto the North Course and still would have been in play
>because the boundry had never been set.
>
>The shame is that so many jump to blame Woods. Hell, he didn't make
>the ruling. It's important to realize that PGA officials did though.
>Wonder how the USGA would've ruled it?
Well, Bobby, Woods knew better and should have been able to
determine the ball OB by himself. Woods is claiming that drug testing
is needed on the PGA tour--claiming that he does not believe there is
a drug problem today. For someone with some much foresight, and
desire for "fair" play, you'd think he could have called this one on
himself.
David
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:36:09
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:31:03 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
> Well, Bobby, Woods knew better and should have been able to
>determine the ball OB by himself. Woods is claiming that drug testing
>is needed on the PGA tour--claiming that he does not believe there is
>a drug problem today. For someone with some much foresight, and
>desire for "fair" play, you'd think he could have called this one on
>himself.
What rule gives Tiger the right to determine the O.B. boundary?
He is *not* allowed to determine a found ball to be lost. He could
decide that the ball is unplayable and take the option of stroke and
distance. While that has the same effect, if he called it OB, he is
taking over the committee's role.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 06:35:51
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:31:03 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:08:36 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:01:10 GMT, "Dave Lee"
>><DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> That's not what they ruled. The ruled the grandstand was a TIO, not
>>>> the clubhouse. I guess it didn't matter that the ball was 100 yards
>>>> off the course, only that the grand stands were in the way.
>>>>
>>>> Tiger could have hit that thing in Cleveland and still gotten a free
>>>> drop.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I believe that the exterior road in front of the clubhouse would be ruled as
>>>OB.
>>>
>>>dave
>>>
>>The officials said that Woods’ ball could have bounced across Warner
>>Road and onto the North Course and still would have been in play
>>because the boundry had never been set.
>>
>>The shame is that so many jump to blame Woods. Hell, he didn't make
>>the ruling. It's important to realize that PGA officials did though.
>>Wonder how the USGA would've ruled it?
>
> Well, Bobby, Woods knew better and should have been able to
>determine the ball OB by himself. Woods is claiming that drug testing
>is needed on the PGA tour--claiming that he does not believe there is
>a drug problem today. For someone with some much foresight, and
>desire for "fair" play, you'd think he could have called this one on
>himself.
>
>David
I can't imagine any golfer, pro or otherwise, that would call a
penalty on himself when he's within his rights to make sure that there
is none. That just would not happen. From what i understand, he
thought that the ball was OB, but was told by an official to let them
check. The problem, as even five-iron understands (fancy that!!!) is
that they didn't mark the course. Tiger said that he would bet that
it is marked now.
___,
\o
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 17:40:40
From: Don A Roof
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
Terrible ruling!
There is too much at stake in having Tiger Woods play ANY tournament.
If he wins, the hope is that he comes back and defends. This ruling was
so bad that it defies common sense in the first place and the commonly
accepted rules of golf in the second place.
Look at it this way: After 5 minutes Woods did not have his ball. It
was lost. All speculation to the side, he did NOT have his ball. Why
did the lost ball rule not prevail?
Spending over half an hour devising a "rule" that would cover him is
preposterous. At the very least he should have played a provisional
ball from the original point of the shot.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 04:31:56
From: rich
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"Don A Roof" <donaroof@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:19829-44F0BFD8-302@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
> Terrible ruling!
>
> There is too much at stake in having Tiger Woods play ANY tournament.
> If he wins, the hope is that he comes back and defends. This ruling was
> so bad that it defies common sense in the first place and the commonly
> accepted rules of golf in the second place.
>
> Look at it this way: After 5 minutes Woods did not have his ball. It
> was lost. All speculation to the side, he did NOT have his ball. Why
> did the lost ball rule not prevail?
So you want them to totally ignore the rule that says that if there is
reasonable evidence that a ball has been lost in an Immovable Obstruction it
does not come under the lost ball rules? And then they should ignore the
local rule that all PGA Tour events play under that grants line-of-sight
relief from Temporary Immovable Obstructions?
BTW the commonly accepted rules of golf are contained in a rule book. Which
contains rule 24. Which contains rule 24-2b and 24-3. If you don't have
the book you can look up the actual rules online. That is better than
relying on some "commonly accepted rules of golf" that you think you know
but that may have nothing to do with the actual rules.
Got Rules?
Rich
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 09:17:52
From: OldSailor
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"rich" dummy wrote
>
> So you want them to totally ignore the rule that says that if there is
> reasonable evidence that a ball has been lost in an Immovable Obstruction
it
> does not come under the lost ball rules?
My questions regarding this ruling would be:
1. Did the rules officials make their decision before or after they knew
the ball had been found?
Rule 24-3 (Ball Lost in Obstruction) says:
"It is a question of fact whether a ball lost after having been struck
toward an obstruction is lost in the obstruction. In order to treat the ball
as lost in the obstruction, there must be reasonable evidence to that
effect. In the absence of such evidence, the ball must be treated as a lost
ball and Rule 27 applies. "
2. Was it a FACT that the ball had been lost in the obstruction?
Considering the ball WAS found, it seems that this rule may have been
loosely applied?
3. If they knew ball had been found (on far side of clubhouse by cook), why
did they not get Woods to go to that location and attempt to play from
there?
4. Was the clubhouse itself an obstruction? This is important because ball
lost in obstruction would otherwise not apply and ball would be deemed lost
through the green and Rule 27 would apply.
This would apparently depend on the local rules:
"An “obstruction’’ is anything artificial, including the artificial surfaces
and sides of roads and paths and manufactured ice, except:
a. Objects defining out of bounds, such as walls, fences, stakes and
railings;
b. Any part of an immovable artificial object that is out of bounds; and
c. Any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of
the course."
5. So is the clubhouse an obstruction or an integral part of the course?
The Committee knows, but do we?
> And then they should ignore the
> local rule that all PGA Tour events play under that grants line-of-sight
> relief from Temporary Immovable Obstructions?
Well, the clubhouse is not a TIO and it is not clear if the local rules deem
it an obstruction or not.
Obviously a royal screw up, but at least another opportunity to tray and
interpret "The Rules"
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 18:45:27
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
Don A Roof wrote:
> Terrible ruling!
>
> There is too much at stake in having Tiger Woods play ANY tournament.
> If he wins, the hope is that he comes back and defends. This ruling was
> so bad that it defies common sense in the first place and the commonly
> accepted rules of golf in the second place.
>
> Look at it this way: After 5 minutes Woods did not have his ball. It
> was lost. All speculation to the side, he did NOT have his ball. Why
> did the lost ball rule not prevail?
But didn't a cook or somebody pick his ball up? Isn't that an outside
agency? And doesn't that change what the ruling has to be?
I had that happen to me a couple of weeks ago. I hit a ball into the
rough near the green, between holes 14 and 18 (I was playing 14). I saw
it come down, marked it with a tree, and when I went to play it, it was
simply not there.
But I did find a different ball from mine, and we had seen a couple in a
cart go by that area as they played up 18.
The ball I was playing was a brand-new ProV1; brand new in that I had
hit two shots with it on that par 5, and that was all the action it had
ever seen.
I was darned if I was going to have someone come by and swipe my brand
new $4 ProV1, with red dots above and below the logo on each side
identifying it clearly as my ball.
So I took a cart up 18, caught up with them at the 18th green (and BTW,
the 5 minutes were up). I asked them if they'd perhaps played the wrong
ball, and they said no. I asked if they'd picked up a ball by mistake.
They said no.
And there I saw it: My brand new ProV1, with the red dots, sitting in
the storage area under the front. I just grabbed it, gave 'em a look,
and went back down to finish play. The jerks never even apologized for it.
I went back down to the 14th, dropped about where we thought the ball
had come to rest, and I played out from there.
Elapsed time? Maybe even 10 minutes.
Should I have been penalized?
> Spending over half an hour devising a "rule" that would cover him is
> preposterous. At the very least he should have played a provisional
> ball from the original point of the shot.
I'm not so sure they have devised any rules. One advantage of knowing
the rules is that you can, sometimes, use them to your advantage. As
long as it was written down, and objectively applied, Tiger has nothing
to apologize for, absolutely nothing.
Mike
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 20:31:28
From: Steven Paul
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
In article <4lc4oiF18jcgU1@individual.net >, Mike Dalecki
<mike@dalecki.net > wrote:
> And there I saw it: My brand new ProV1, with the red dots, sitting in
> the storage area under the front. I just grabbed it, gave 'em a look,
> and went back down to finish play. The jerks never even apologized for it.
So did you give them their ball back?
;-)
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 22:11:37
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
Steven Paul wrote:
> In article <4lc4oiF18jcgU1@individual.net>, Mike Dalecki
> <mike@dalecki.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And there I saw it: My brand new ProV1, with the red dots, sitting in
>>the storage area under the front. I just grabbed it, gave 'em a look,
>>and went back down to finish play. The jerks never even apologized for it.
>
>
>
> So did you give them their ball back?
>
> ;-)
I said something like "well, here's *your* ball" and flipped it back to him.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 00:34:25
From: Tim Mocarski
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
In article <4lc4oiF18jcgU1@individual.net >, Mike Dalecki
<mike@dalecki.net > wrote:
>
> I'm not so sure they have devised any rules. One advantage of knowing
> the rules is that you can, sometimes, use them to your advantage. As
> long as it was written down, and objectively applied, Tiger has nothing
> to apologize for, absolutely nothing.
The USGA definition of OB is :
³Out of bounds¹¹ is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of
the course so marked by the Committee.
So the question becomes, then, is a clubhouse beyond the boundaries of
the course? Some would argue that it is. The second part of the
definition clearly states that anything the committee says and marks OB
is. By that definition, they could draw a strip across a fairway 310
yards out and fifty yards wide and mark it OB. (Not that they would,
but it sure would make driver off the tee a risky proposition at time).
USGA rules also state:
The Committee must define accurately:
(i) the course and out of bounds,
(ii) the margins of water hazards and lateral water hazards,
(iii) ground under repair, and
(iv) obstructions and integral parts of the course.
I agree. Tiger didn't do anything wrong. Well, okay, he hit the ball
into another postal zone, but haven't we all?
Evidently the committee here didn't define OB very well or mark it.
The referees made their decision based on the information they had.
Whoever set the course up and didn't set or identify OB is the oen at
fault here. The fault in the referees, if any, is not necessarily in
their decision. They could have perhaps asked for definition before
their ruling.
Did Tiger catch a break on this? Probably, but we're talking maybe
another stroke of two for that hole. I would argue that Tiger did the
smart play in asking for a ruling. He abided by that ruling.
He didn't screw up, the committee did from the beginning of the
tournament.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 19:41:04
From: Harrison Bergeron
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
Tim Mocarski <poetryrocksnow@yahoo.com > writes:
> In article <4lc4oiF18jcgU1@individual.net>, Mike Dalecki
> <mike@dalecki.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I'm not so sure they have devised any rules. One advantage of knowing
> > the rules is that you can, sometimes, use them to your advantage. As
> > long as it was written down, and objectively applied, Tiger has nothing
> > to apologize for, absolutely nothing.
>
> The USGA definition of OB is :
>
> ³Out of bounds¹¹ is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of
> the course so marked by the Committee.
>
> So the question becomes, then, is a clubhouse beyond the boundaries of
> the course? Some would argue that it is. The second part of the
> definition clearly states that anything the committee says and marks OB
> is. By that definition, they could draw a strip across a fairway 310
> yards out and fifty yards wide and mark it OB. (Not that they would,
> but it sure would make driver off the tee a risky proposition at time).
>
> USGA rules also state:
>
> The Committee must define accurately:
> (i) the course and out of bounds,
> (ii) the margins of water hazards and lateral water hazards,
> (iii) ground under repair, and
> (iv) obstructions and integral parts of the course.
>
> I agree. Tiger didn't do anything wrong. Well, okay, he hit the ball
> into another postal zone, but haven't we all?
>
> Evidently the committee here didn't define OB very well or mark it.
> The referees made their decision based on the information they had.
> Whoever set the course up and didn't set or identify OB is the oen at
> fault here. The fault in the referees, if any, is not necessarily in
> their decision. They could have perhaps asked for definition before
> their ruling.
>
> Did Tiger catch a break on this? Probably, but we're talking maybe
> another stroke of two for that hole. I would argue that Tiger did the
> smart play in asking for a ruling. He abided by that ruling.
>
> He didn't screw up, the committee did from the beginning of the
> tournament.
Has the thought crossed your mind that the Committee
did not mark the clubhouses as out of bounds because that
was how they wanted the course marked?
You seem in a rush to call this a screw-up when, in fact,
it is quite common to NOT mark such areas as out of bounds.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/15364392.htm
"FYI to Woods: PGA Tour tournament director Slugger White said the
only clubhouse he can think of that is out of bounds is at
Colonial Country Club in Fort Worth, Texas. Muirfield Village,
another one of his favorite lairs, is fair game."
--
<-- Harry -- >
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 20:53:19
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
The we really didn't fuck up revisionist crap by the tournament officials
is childish. The lazy bleeps got caught with their pants down.
There are all kinds of things like parking lots, swimming, pools, and tennis
courts inside the property boundaries of a golf course that are marked as
OB. You have to believe the TV trucks, media and hospitality tents are
marked OB.
We had an amateur girl's tournament at our place a few years ago and had to
go over to the third nine to borrow enough OB and hazard stakes to keep the
committee happy.
"Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com > wrote in message
news:barzmdrau3j.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> Tim Mocarski <poetryrocksnow@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> In article <4lc4oiF18jcgU1@individual.net>, Mike Dalecki
>> <mike@dalecki.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I'm not so sure they have devised any rules. One advantage of knowing
>> > the rules is that you can, sometimes, use them to your advantage. As
>> > long as it was written down, and objectively applied, Tiger has nothing
>> > to apologize for, absolutely nothing.
>>
>> The USGA definition of OB is :
>>
>> ³Out of bounds¹¹ is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of
>> the course so marked by the Committee.
>>
>> So the question becomes, then, is a clubhouse beyond the boundaries of
>> the course? Some would argue that it is. The second part of the
>> definition clearly states that anything the committee says and marks OB
>> is. By that definition, they could draw a strip across a fairway 310
>> yards out and fifty yards wide and mark it OB. (Not that they would,
>> but it sure would make driver off the tee a risky proposition at time).
>>
>> USGA rules also state:
>>
>> The Committee must define accurately:
>> (i) the course and out of bounds,
>> (ii) the margins of water hazards and lateral water hazards,
>> (iii) ground under repair, and
>> (iv) obstructions and integral parts of the course.
>>
>> I agree. Tiger didn't do anything wrong. Well, okay, he hit the ball
>> into another postal zone, but haven't we all?
>>
>> Evidently the committee here didn't define OB very well or mark it.
>> The referees made their decision based on the information they had.
>> Whoever set the course up and didn't set or identify OB is the oen at
>> fault here. The fault in the referees, if any, is not necessarily in
>> their decision. They could have perhaps asked for definition before
>> their ruling.
>>
>> Did Tiger catch a break on this? Probably, but we're talking maybe
>> another stroke of two for that hole. I would argue that Tiger did the
>> smart play in asking for a ruling. He abided by that ruling.
>>
>> He didn't screw up, the committee did from the beginning of the
>> tournament.
>
> Has the thought crossed your mind that the Committee
> did not mark the clubhouses as out of bounds because that
> was how they wanted the course marked?
>
> You seem in a rush to call this a screw-up when, in fact,
> it is quite common to NOT mark such areas as out of bounds.
>
> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/15364392.htm
>
> "FYI to Woods: PGA Tour tournament director Slugger White said the
> only clubhouse he can think of that is out of bounds is at
> Colonial Country Club in Fort Worth, Texas. Muirfield Village,
> another one of his favorite lairs, is fair game."
>
> --
>
>
> <-- Harry -->
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 20:38:27
From: Harrison Bergeron
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > writes:
> The we really didn't fuck up revisionist crap by the tournament officials
> is childish. The lazy bleeps got caught with their pants down.
>
> There are all kinds of things like parking lots, swimming, pools, and tennis
> courts inside the property boundaries of a golf course that are marked as
> OB. You have to believe the TV trucks, media and hospitality tents are
> marked OB.
>
> We had an amateur girl's tournament at our place a few years ago and had to
> go over to the third nine to borrow enough OB and hazard stakes to keep the
> committee happy.
Different Committees decide to mark courses differently. The clubhouse
at Winged Foot was not out of bounds either (and neither was the hospitality
tent that Mickelson bounced a ball off of).
At Prairie Dunes (Sr. Open), the Committee changed the boundary
marking around the clubhouse to make it IN bounds. That doesn't
sound like a case of laziness and there's no reason to label the
marking of the clubhouse at Firestone as laziness either.
--
<-- Harry -- >
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 19:57:57
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:53:19 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>The we really didn't fuck up revisionist crap by the tournament officials
>is childish. The lazy bleeps got caught with their pants down.
>
>There are all kinds of things like parking lots, swimming, pools, and tennis
>courts inside the property boundaries of a golf course that are marked as
>OB. You have to believe the TV trucks, media and hospitality tents are
>marked OB.
>
The PGA is damned generous with their rulings. Some of the free drops
around the green, near grandstands, are too good to be true.
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 16:58:45
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:40:40 -0400, donaroof@webtv.net (Don A Roof)
wrote:
>Terrible ruling!
>
>There is too much at stake in having Tiger Woods play ANY tournament.
>If he wins, the hope is that he comes back and defends. This ruling was
>so bad that it defies common sense in the first place and the commonly
>accepted rules of golf in the second place.
>
>Look at it this way: After 5 minutes Woods did not have his ball. It
>was lost. All speculation to the side, he did NOT have his ball. Why
>did the lost ball rule not prevail?
>
>Spending over half an hour devising a "rule" that would cover him is
>preposterous. At the very least he should have played a provisional
>ball from the original point of the shot.
According to the rules official the ball was found within the 5 minute
period. The time taken was to determine where he was allowed to drop.
Read this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14518915/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 20:07:52
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
The MSNBC story certainly doesn't convince me they knew the caterer had the
ball within five minutes.
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:itg1f2pves0a8lv8aa1vdj6hn17abbts8g@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:40:40 -0400, donaroof@webtv.net (Don A Roof)
> wrote:
>
>>Terrible ruling!
>>
>>There is too much at stake in having Tiger Woods play ANY tournament.
>>If he wins, the hope is that he comes back and defends. This ruling was
>>so bad that it defies common sense in the first place and the commonly
>>accepted rules of golf in the second place.
>>
>>Look at it this way: After 5 minutes Woods did not have his ball. It
>>was lost. All speculation to the side, he did NOT have his ball. Why
>>did the lost ball rule not prevail?
>>
>>Spending over half an hour devising a "rule" that would cover him is
>>preposterous. At the very least he should have played a provisional
>>ball from the original point of the shot.
>
> According to the rules official the ball was found within the 5 minute
> period. The time taken was to determine where he was allowed to drop.
>
> Read this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14518915/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 19:29:57
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:07:52 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>The MSNBC story certainly doesn't convince me they knew the caterer had the
>ball within five minutes.
>
The PGA rules officials were convinced. End of story.
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 16:52:12
From: grailknight
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
No cameras and shut up while I am putting wrote:
> Big_Fan wrote:
> > How can they not have an OB marker back there? Most courses would use
> > something like the cartpath behind the green as the OB marker.
> > Ridiculous.
>
> Give em a break....The course has only been host to a Zillion
> tourneys and
> a quadrillion shots over the years. Bring in Google ..Zoom in and
> Voila.
Then why did it take 45 minutes to declare the clubhouse a temporary
obstruction?
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 14:06:56
From: No cameras and shut up while I am putting
Subject: Re: Hitting on top of the clubhouse
|
Big_Fan wrote:
> How can they not have an OB marker back there? Most courses would use
> something like the cartpath behind the green as the OB marker.
> Ridiculous.
Give em a break....The course has only been host to a Zillion
tourneys and
a quadrillion shots over the years. Bring in Google ..Zoom in and
Voila.
|
|
