| |
Main
Date: 30 Aug 2006 21:44:41
From: nativetexan_1
Subject: Questionsabout Tiger's Top of the Clubhouse shot
|
I didn't pay that close attention when I saw the replay, but just got to
thinking:
I concede that the clubhouse was not marked as Out of Bounds. Doesn't the
clubhouse then become an Immovable Obstruction? Shouldn't Tiger have gotten
a free drop (which he did) ONE club length from the nearest point of relief?
It seems to me that I recollect his being a lot farther from the clubhouse
than ONE club length. Yes or no? If yes, why not DQ for failure to follow
the ROG? If no, why the generous drop?
|
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 02:58:02
From: rich
Subject: Re: Questionsabout Tiger's Top of the Clubhouse shot
|
"nativetexan_1" <nativetexan_1@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:63sJg.38$lh4.68676@news.sisna.com...
>I didn't pay that close attention when I saw the replay, but just got to
>thinking:
>
> I concede that the clubhouse was not marked as Out of Bounds. Doesn't the
> clubhouse then become an Immovable Obstruction? Shouldn't Tiger have
> gotten a free drop (which he did) ONE club length from the nearest point
> of relief? It seems to me that I recollect his being a lot farther from
> the clubhouse than ONE club length. Yes or no? If yes, why not DQ for
> failure to follow the ROG? If no, why the generous drop?
First of all the obstruction is not just the clubhouse but the surrounding
paved surfaces.
Second of all, the PGA Tour plays under a local rule in which line of sight
relief is given for Temporary Immovable Obstructions, which includes the
grandstands. So long as the grandstand lies between the ball and the hole
the player is entitled to line of sight relief regardless of whatever else
might be in the way (such as a clubhouse).
Third, did you really think that Tiger was supposed to be DQed but no one
noticed?
Rich
|
| | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 22:58:34
From: nativetexan_1
Subject: Re: Questionsabout Tiger's Top of the Clubhouse shot
|
"rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote in message
news:_esJg.9125$4O4.3624@trnddc02...
>
> First of all the obstruction is not just the clubhouse but the surrounding
> paved surfaces.
Understood. I just wish, now, that I had noticed the layout of the
clubhouse and its surroundings.
> Second of all, the PGA Tour plays under a local rule in which line of
> sight relief is given for Temporary Immovable Obstructions, which includes
> the grandstands. So long as the grandstand lies between the ball and the
> hole the player is entitled to line of sight relief regardless of whatever
> else might be in the way (such as a clubhouse).
Was not aware of that one.
> Third, did you really think that Tiger was supposed to be DQed but no one
> noticed?
Certainly not. I was just asking for my own clarification. After thinking
about the situation, I didn't get it. Surely, it had to be right, I just
didn't know why. Please, please don't think people are that stupid.
> Rich
>
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 20:54:46
From: Rick
Subject: Re: Questionsabout Tiger's Top of the Clubhouse shot
|
Since when is a lost ball not a lost ball??? TW never found or identified
that ball until later - if he did at all.
"nativetexan_1" <nativetexan_1@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:63sJg.38$lh4.68676@news.sisna.com...
>I didn't pay that close attention when I saw the replay, but just got to
>thinking:
>
> I concede that the clubhouse was not marked as Out of Bounds. Doesn't the
> clubhouse then become an Immovable Obstruction? Shouldn't Tiger have
> gotten a free drop (which he did) ONE club length from the nearest point
> of relief? It seems to me that I recollect his being a lot farther from
> the clubhouse than ONE club length. Yes or no? If yes, why not DQ for
> failure to follow the ROG? If no, why the generous drop?
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 02:30:07
From: rich
Subject: Re: Questionsabout Tiger's Top of the Clubhouse shot
|
"Rick" <hchiava1@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:q0IJg.182$za1.145@news02.roc.ny...
> Since when is a lost ball not a lost ball??? TW never found or identified
> that ball until later - if he did at all.
Since they put in a rule that a ball lost in an obstruction is treated
differently than a generic lost ball. I'm guessing the rule has been that
was for at least several decades.
Rich
|
| | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 18:58:36
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Questionsabout Tiger's Top of the Clubhouse shot
|
ROG 24-3 Ball Lost in Obstruction
It is a question of fact whether a ball lost after having been struck toward
an obstruction is lost in the obstruction. In order to treat the ball as
lost in the obstruction, there must be reasonable evidence to that effect.
In the absence of such evidence, the ball must be treated as a lost ball and
Rule 27 applies.
"Rick" <hchiava1@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:q0IJg.182$za1.145@news02.roc.ny...
> Since when is a lost ball not a lost ball??? TW never found or identified
> that ball until later - if he did at all.
>
> "nativetexan_1" <nativetexan_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:63sJg.38$lh4.68676@news.sisna.com...
>>I didn't pay that close attention when I saw the replay, but just got to
>>thinking:
>>
>> I concede that the clubhouse was not marked as Out of Bounds. Doesn't
>> the clubhouse then become an Immovable Obstruction? Shouldn't Tiger have
>> gotten a free drop (which he did) ONE club length from the nearest point
>> of relief? It seems to me that I recollect his being a lot farther from
>> the clubhouse than ONE club length. Yes or no? If yes, why not DQ for
>> failure to follow the ROG? If no, why the generous drop?
>>
>>
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 01:36:40
From: Rick
Subject: Re: Questionsabout Tiger's Top of the Clubhouse shot
|
So the clubhouse is considered an obstruction - 90 yards beyond the 18th
green - interesting.
FWIW, I was driving by a club that hosts an LPGA stop here. In plain view
were OB stakes at the edge of the asphalt behind the 18th green.
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:366dnRU3aPwB9GrZnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> ROG 24-3 Ball Lost in Obstruction
>
> It is a question of fact whether a ball lost after having been struck
> toward an obstruction is lost in the obstruction. In order to treat the
> ball as lost in the obstruction, there must be reasonable evidence to that
> effect. In the absence of such evidence, the ball must be treated as a
> lost ball and Rule 27 applies.
>
> "Rick" <hchiava1@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:q0IJg.182$za1.145@news02.roc.ny...
>> Since when is a lost ball not a lost ball??? TW never found or
>> identified that ball until later - if he did at all.
>>
>> "nativetexan_1" <nativetexan_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:63sJg.38$lh4.68676@news.sisna.com...
>>>I didn't pay that close attention when I saw the replay, but just got to
>>>thinking:
>>>
>>> I concede that the clubhouse was not marked as Out of Bounds. Doesn't
>>> the clubhouse then become an Immovable Obstruction? Shouldn't Tiger
>>> have gotten a free drop (which he did) ONE club length from the nearest
>>> point of relief? It seems to me that I recollect his being a lot farther
>>> from the clubhouse than ONE club length. Yes or no? If yes, why not DQ
>>> for failure to follow the ROG? If no, why the generous drop?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 02:30:42
From: rich
Subject: Re: Questionsabout Tiger's Top of the Clubhouse shot
|
"Rick" <hchiava1@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:I8MJg.209$Ka1.62@news01.roc.ny...
> So the clubhouse is considered an obstruction - 90 yards beyond the 18th
> green - interesting.
> FWIW, I was driving by a club that hosts an LPGA stop here. In plain view
> were OB stakes at the edge of the asphalt behind the 18th green.
And this is relevant how??
Rich
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 03:53:13
From: Rick
Subject: Re: Questionsabout Tiger's Top of the Clubhouse shot
|
Why is it that nobody can post anything in this group without some _SSH_L_
trying to mock them - want to buy a vowel.
Someone did mention the lack of OB stakes in a previous post so I thought
I'd mention that a club here that hosts an LPGA stop does have a similar
area marked OB.
"rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote in message
news:mXMJg.39405$NF3.26877@trnddc05...
>
> "Rick" <hchiava1@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:I8MJg.209$Ka1.62@news01.roc.ny...
>> So the clubhouse is considered an obstruction - 90 yards beyond the 18th
>> green - interesting.
>> FWIW, I was driving by a club that hosts an LPGA stop here. In plain
>> view were OB stakes at the edge of the asphalt behind the 18th green.
>
> And this is relevant how??
>
> Rich
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 20:56:09
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Questionsabout Tiger's Top of the Clubhouse shot
|
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:36:40 GMT, "Rick" <hchiava1@gmail.com > wrote:
>So the clubhouse is considered an obstruction - 90 yards beyond the 18th
>green - interesting.
>FWIW, I was driving by a club that hosts an LPGA stop here. In plain view
>were OB stakes at the edge of the asphalt behind the 18th green.
>
Not worth much at Firestone.
bk
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 04:37:38
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Questionsabout Tiger's Top of the Clubhouse shot
|
rich wrote:
> "Rick" <hchiava1@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:q0IJg.182$za1.145@news02.roc.ny...
> > Since when is a lost ball not a lost ball??? TW never found or identified
> > that ball until later - if he did at all.
>
> Since they put in a rule that a ball lost in an obstruction is treated
> differently than a generic lost ball. I'm guessing the rule has been that
> was for at least several decades.
>
Since 1992 actually.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 14:21:46
From: rich
Subject: Re: Questionsabout Tiger's Top of the Clubhouse shot
|
"johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1157110658.670459.281690@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> rich wrote:
>> "Rick" <hchiava1@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:q0IJg.182$za1.145@news02.roc.ny...
>> > Since when is a lost ball not a lost ball??? TW never found or
>> > identified
>> > that ball until later - if he did at all.
>>
>> Since they put in a rule that a ball lost in an obstruction is treated
>> differently than a generic lost ball. I'm guessing the rule has been
>> that
>> was for at least several decades.
>>
>
> Since 1992 actually.
Thanks for that detail. I was off in my guess of decades.
You mean it wasn't put in just to favor Tiger? (g)
Rich
|
|
