The Jimenez-Dufner-Daly British Open Shamble

[MEfree]

So was that discussion worthwhile to you? Cuz… Not every situation has a specific Decision or Rule. Yet you are one of the biggest champions of "simplification." Golf has lots of "not simple" situations.

Yes, to me the discussion highlights that the RoG don't always follow the same logic which makes the rules more complicated and not as simple as they should be. i.e. If a lie is altered and you can't determine the exact spot where the ball lay, but do know how it lay, then you place the ball in the nearest most similar lie. However, if a ball is moved and you can't determine the exact spot where the ball lay, but do know how it lay, then you drop the ball as near as possible to the place it lay. Why not have it the same for both?

[Club Rat]

I watched the whole thing live (well - on DVR anyway).

RIck, or anyone.

Was Dufner's ball and Jiménez ball both bumped by tee shot's?

Club Rat

[ColinL]

Yes, to me the discussion highlights that the RoG don't always follow the same logic which makes the rules more complicated and not as simple as they should be.

i.e. If a lie is altered and you can't determine the exact spot where the ball lay, but do know how it lay, then you place the ball in the nearest most similar lie. However, if a ball is moved and you can't determine the exact spot where the ball lay, but do know how it lay, then you drop the ball as near as possible to the place it lay. Why not have it the same for both?

When placing in a similar lie, you know exactly the kind of lie you are trying to copy and you gain nothing by finding one and placing your ball in it.  When you don't know exactly where your ball lay, you therefore do no know exactly what kind of lie it had, and so dropping reproduces to an extent the randomness of where the original shot ended up.  Placing a ball when you don't know where it had been could lead to gaining significant advantages over your fellow competitors or opponent.

You place if you know ;  you drop if you don't.   I can't make it simpler than that.

[Asheville]

MEfree, until you study this, you have no right to criticize the principles behind the Rules of Golf.

[Martyn W]

Can we PLEASE stop calling 'divot-holes' 'divots'?  ;)

[iacas]

MEfree, until you study this, you have no right to criticize the principles behind the Rules of Golf.

Enough people have told him this and yet still no traction there. It's a $3 book. Tell you what @MEfree buy a copy of LSW and I'll add a copy of Principles free. Best golf book written along with something about which you're both passionate and ignorant (and I mean that literally, not pejoratively).

[Hatchman]

RIck, or anyone. Was Dufner's ball and Jiménez ball both bumped by tee shot's? Club Rat

No, only one. Dufner's.

[Avalanche]

Can we PLEASE stop calling 'divot-holes' 'divots'?  ;)

Yeah, you're right that divot is the proper term for the piece of turf and divot hole is proper for the resulting hole.  But divot seems to be commonly used for the hole as well. LINK (Not that www.about.com is authoritative or anything.)

It's usually easy to tell whether people are talking the hole or the turf based on the context.

[Martyn W]

Yeah, you're right that divot is the proper term for the piece of turf and divot hole is proper for the resulting hole.  But divot seems to be commonly used for the hole as well.  LINK (Not that www.about.com is authoritative or anything.)

It's usually easy to tell whether people are talking the hole or the turf based on the context.

Although 'divot' is not in the definitions, there are at least a dozen decisions (mostly R13) which give what the USGA calls an 'internal definition'

[Cheetah803]

First of all, once Jimenez moved his ball and picked up his mark he should have dropped his ball when they told him to replace it because they had told the wrong person to move his ball back. He no longer had a mark there, so really didn't know where the ball was originally. Secondly Dufner should have dropped his before Jimenez played his shot after he replaced the ball. BUT, the most ridiculous faux pas of the whole thing was the explanation by the official as to what happened. He cited Rule 22-2 which is NOT the rule that covers the situation. That rule is for a ball that interferes with another ball in play. It was Rule 18 that covered this situation, a ball at rest moved. I seriously couldn't believe what he was saying and he's a top official for the R & A. Hmmm.

[Rulesman]

BUT, the most ridiculous faux pas of the whole thing was the explanation by the official as to what happened. He cited Rule 22-2 which is NOT the rule that covers the situation. .

Have you got a link for that?

[turtleback]

Read Rule 20 and then you wouldn't have to ask silly questions about dropping.

Would that make those questions dropping droppings?

[Club Rat]

No, only one. Dufner's.

Thanks Hatckman.

It was quite the fiasco at the time. Seems like Jiménez always creates matters to appear quite dramatic when he's involved.

Loved it when JD said screw it, I'm hitting my ball, get out of my way....

Club Rat

[Hatchman]

Thanks Hatckman.   :beer: It was quite the fiasco at the time. Seems like Jiménez always creates matters to appear quite dramatic when he's involved. Loved it when JD said screw it, I'm hitting my ball, get out of my way.... Club Rat

Your welcome @ClubRat. Yep, it was time move on and move over. Just like part of this thread. I did get one thing wrong and was corrected myself, we all do, at times. Play on :-D

[wadesworld]

First of all, once Jimenez moved his ball and picked up his mark he should have dropped his ball when they told him to replace it because they had told the wrong person to move his ball back. He no longer had a mark there, so really didn't know where the ball was originally. Secondly Dufner should have dropped his before Jimenez played his shot after he replaced the ball. BUT, the most ridiculous faux pas of the whole thing was the explanation by the official as to what happened. He cited Rule 22-2 which is NOT the rule that covers the situation. That rule is for a ball that interferes with another ball in play. It was Rule 18 that covered this situation, a ball at rest moved. I seriously couldn't believe what he was saying and he's a top official for the R & A. Hmmm.

Believe it or not, rules officials are not always as demanding as posters in rules forums.

Jimenez knew where his ball was when he picked it up.  That was enough to satisfy the official, despite the fact he did not have proof his ball wasn't 1 millimeter in the wrong place.

Secondly, if in fact the in-booth official gave the wrong rule, it could be because of the way the hosts asked the question (which they often do incorrectly) or because of a conversation going on in his ear while he's trying to speak.  It's a difficult job, so I can forgive an occasional mistake and if they make a mistake, they usually correct themselves later.  That's in stark contrast to the announcers who drone on and on for 10 minutes, being wrong the whole time.