- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tiger may not have been 2 yards back like he said
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:12 am to medtiger
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:12 am to medtiger
quote:
If someone asked me what my intent was, I would tell them I was trying to drop it as close to the original spot as possible.
i would too. i am just wondering if that is correct and within the spirit of the rules. if you were originally in a divot and hit it fat, shouldn't you play again from a divot? if you didn't it would be an advantage.
1
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:12 am to CocomoLSU
quote:the only way the Committee acted within the rules is if you completely throw away the USGA's explanation of the rule change. You have to willingly say that the USGA's explanation of the rule means nothing.
but that this situation falls under it. The way the rule is worded, the Committee acted completely within the rules. You disagree.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:12 am to bamafan425
quote:
But technically you weren't. Thus, violating the integrity of the game.
Sure I was. If the rules didn't allow for a drop, but told me I had to place the ball in its original position, and I didn't then I would be violating the rules and integrity of the game. The rule calls for dropping the ball, so a margin of error of "as close as possible" is allowed under the rules and integrity of the game.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:12 am to hashtag
quote:
those aren't my hypotheticals. Those are the hypotheticals provided by the USGA to further explain the rule they changed. It isn't like I made those up. They created those as the explanation for the intent of the rule. Sure, the Committee can do whatever they want. But, it doesn't mean that the rule that you are citing gives them the authority to do so. It does not. They did it because they screwed up.
Right, I know where the hypotheticals are coming from, but my point is that THEIR rule, as stated by them, completely allows the Augusta Committee to do what they did this weekend. You say it doesn't give them authority to do that, and I wholeheartedly disagree with you on that. They followed all three criteria of the rule to the letter. So no, I'm not worried about the USGA's hypotheticals since the rule clearly states what it states. If they want it to be only used in certain instances, then the rule should be less vague and state that. It's not like someone else made the rule and they are having to explain it...they wrote the fricking thing.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:14 am to CocomoLSU
The Tiget hate has really jumped the shark
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:15 am to CocomoLSU
quote:and they wrote the explanation. there are a ton of USGA rules that use explanations not explicitly stated in the rule to help the players and committee understand the rule better. the explanations are intended to provide insight into how the rule can be used.
they wrote the fricking thing.
I've never seen any golf committee completely ignore the intent and explanation of a USGA rule before. I doubt it happens very often.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:15 am to medtiger
But if you intended to miss the divot. That's not as close as possible. Not saying in this situation you did. But I guarantee this happens every week on tour.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:16 am to unbeWEAVEable
Can someone explain the relevant timeline of signing a card and having it reviewed in a pro tournament?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:16 am to Rickety Cricket
quote:i don't hate Tiger. Once the rules' officials on the course gave him the clear to sign his score card the issue should have been resolved. But, once they decided to make a ruling, they should have followed the actual rules and not ignored the intent of the rule.
The Tiget hate has really jumped the shark
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:16 am to lsugolf1105
quote:that's what I'm saying
i would too. i am just wondering if that is correct and within the spirit of the rules. if you were originally in a divot and hit it fat, shouldn't you play again from a divot? if you didn't it would be an advantage.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:17 am to acgeaux129
No. Maybe tomorrow.
I'm done explaining for today
I'm done explaining for today
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:17 am to medtiger
quote:
The rule calls for dropping the ball, so a margin of error of "as close as possible" is allowed under the rules and integrity of the game.
big question to me is should you try to drop it in a divot if you originally played from a divot? i think most of us would try to drop next to the divot.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:17 am to acgeaux129
quote:normally the rules' officials will tell the players prior to them signing the scorecard. I believe the rules allow for the committee to make changes as long as the tournament is still active.
Can someone explain the relevant timeline of signing a card and having it reviewed in a pro tournament?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:17 am to lsugolf1105
ill see what he emails me back with then ask. My orginal question was this, "player a completes his round and then in the course of discussing his last hole with friends states that he played a different type ball on hole 18. what is the ruling if in fact he did play the same ball but incorrectly states he breached the one ball rule" His response was that any rules official should side with the player on any indecision. Thus he would believe the player broke the rule because he stated that he did an no farther prood is needed.
I see how your question is different and I will see if I can get an answer.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:18 am to lsugolf1105
And I bet it happens every week on tour.
As close as possible seems to be allowance for the ball rolling. Not allowance to intend to drop outside a divot purposefully.
As close as possible seems to be allowance for the ball rolling. Not allowance to intend to drop outside a divot purposefully.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:19 am to bamafan425
quote:
But if you intended to miss the divot. That's not as close as possible. Not saying in this situation you did. But I guarantee this happens every week on tour.
Totally agree with the first part, but the rules allow for them to miss the divot and say they didn't do so on purpose with as close as possible.
As for happening every week on tour...I disagree. The divot issue doesn't come up very much because pros divots are in front of the ball.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:20 am to hashtag
What about retroactive dqing after a round within a tourney? Surely a signed scorecard is subject to further scrutiny if necessary. How else do you disqualify a player for signing an incorrect card?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:20 am to medtiger
You're right. But it definitely happens.
And lying about it is just as bad as violating the rule. But it's impossible to test intent without trusting the player.
And lying about it is just as bad as violating the rule. But it's impossible to test intent without trusting the player.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:21 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
big question to me is should you try to drop it in a divot if you originally played from a divot? i think most of us would try to drop next to the divot.
Yes, most of us would try to drop next to the divot, but I think if your original lie was in a divot, you should be trying to drop it in the divot according the way the rules are worded.
I'd love to hear a rules official explain this one though.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:21 am to hashtag
quote:
and they wrote the explanation. there are a ton of USGA rules that use explanations not explicitly stated in the rule to help the players and committee understand the rule better. the explanations are intended to provide insight into how the rule can be used.
Right, I agree with you on that.
However, there's no way that the few hypotheticals they give completely encompass every scenario in which the rule could come into play. So just because the main reason for the rule is technology, that doesn't mean there aren't other ways it can come into play. Thus why it's not a "HD/TV rule." There's more to it than just that.
quote:
I've never seen any golf committee completely ignore the intent and explanation of a USGA rule before. I doubt it happens very often.
To be honest, the whole situation doesn't happen very often. And keep in mind that the USGA agreed with the ruling..and it's their rule. If integrity is the ultimate goal, they would've had no problem disagreeing with Augusta's interpretation of the rule.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 10:22 am
Page 14 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News