or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › What's with the lack of details on Tigers 2 stroke penalty in Abu Dabhi?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What's with the lack of details on Tigers 2 stroke penalty in Abu Dabhi?

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 

First no one has said why they would have gotten a free drop for a ball plugged not on the fairway. Was there a local rule in effect for a free drop for a plugged ball through the green? If so why didn't Tiger know he was in a sand trap or was it just a sandy area? Was that another special rule that even sandy areas outside a trap was not a free drop. This whole situation is what pisses me off about the news, the lack of relevant details that explain what was going on.

post #2 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chunky View Post

First no one has said why they would have gotten a free drop for a ball plugged not on the fairway. Was there a local rule in effect for a free drop for a plugged ball through the green? If so why didn't Tiger know he was in a sand trap or was it just a sandy area? Was that another special rule that even sandy areas outside a trap was not a free drop. This whole situation is what pisses me off about the news, the lack of relevant details that explain what was going on.

 

It was discussed here and elsewhwere.  The pro tours use the local rule for an embedded ball through the green, but ther is a specific exclusion for a ball embedded in sand outside of a bunker.  Tiger and his fellow competitor both thought that he was allowed relief, and did not call for a ruling. The ball was in sand under the vines, not in a bunker, so his only relief was Rule 28 - Ball unplayable.  Since he moved his ball under an inapplicable rule, he was penalized one stroke.  He subsequently played from a wrong place buy not replacing his ball, so the penalty became 2 strokes.  

post #3 of 10
post #4 of 10

Not sure why you are so upset... this has been discussed all over the place.  Golf channel was all over it for a couple days.

 

I don't understand why Tiger (of all people) would think this is an area that a drop would be acceptable.  The embedded ball rule clearly states "closely mown area" which this is obviously not.

 

post #5 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooN View Post

Not sure why you are so upset... this has been discussed all over the place.  Golf channel was all over it for a couple days.

 

I don't understand why Tiger (of all people) would think this is an area that a drop would be acceptable.  The embedded ball rule clearly states "closely mown area" which this is obviously not.

 

It would seem that you have not read the details published 'all over the place', nor the posts which preceeded yours.

He was not operating under the 'Embedded Ball' Rule (ie 25-2).

He thought he was taking relief under the authorised Local Rule which was in force. This permits relief for an embedded ball through the green. However, it does not permit taking relief for a ball embedded in sand. Woods missed this critical exception and was penalised for moving his ball when not entitled to. And then for not replacing it. 

post #6 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooN View Post

Not sure why you are so upset... this has been discussed all over the place.  Golf channel was all over it for a couple days.

 

I don't understand why Tiger (of all people) would think this is an area that a drop would be acceptable.  The embedded ball rule clearly states "closely mown area" which this is obviously not.

 

 

You need to study this closer.  The approved local rule that the pro tours use essentially removes the phrase "closely mown" from the rule.

post #7 of 10
Thread Starter 

I watched the golf channel and it was not clear on the rule. A ball in embedded anywhere but short grass on the fairway or green is play as it lies. Many courses have winter rules that give you a free drop through the green. Which means anywhere except behind red, or yellow stakes or ground under repair or sand traps. So, the embedded ball rule in this  situation was a local rule based on conditions. That part I got because I figured it was the only possibility. As for the sand rule, that is irregular and the only time I've heard anything like it was Dustin Johnston from some casual sand and not a trap (players championship east coast?). Anyway, I never heard about the sand part, which I can only infer.

 

There are a lot of answers here from people that really don't grasp the situation and rules.

post #8 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chunky View Post

There are a lot of answers here from people that really don't grasp the situation and rules.

 

Nope, there is some good information from people who grasp the rules better than you. But just to be absolutely explicit here is what happened.

 

The PGA Tour implements a local rule for all their events as follows:

 

 

“Through the green, a ball that is embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground may be lifted, without penalty, cleaned and dropped as near as possible to where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green.
Exceptions:
1. A player may not take relief under this Local Rule if the ball is embedded in sand in an area that is not closely mown.
2. A player may not take relief under this Local Rule if interference by anything other than the condition covered by this Local Rule makes the stroke clearly impracticable.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF LOCAL RULE:
Match play – Loss of hole; Stroke play – Two strokes.”

 

Tiger, and his playing partners were not aware of exception 1 above and thus he breached the local rule by taking a free drop after his ball was embedded in it's own pitch mark in sand, and as you can see at the bottom this is a two shot penalty.
post #9 of 10

If it had just been a "sandy area not a hazard" then he was within PGA Tour local rules for a plugged or embedded ball, which extends the "closely mown area" to include the entire course except hazards or where hindered by any "in play" obstructions.  He and his playing partners were under the impression the "sparse" growth was not in play---tour officials determined it was, and he was assessed a two stroke penalty.

 

Johnston grounded his club in an area defined by the course manger as a hazard, even though not clearly defined and devoid of next to any sand.  Had he not grounded his club there would have been no penalty.

 

Hope this helps you sleep better at night now:)
 

post #10 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by stangmark View Post

If it had just been a "sandy area not a hazard" then he was within PGA Tour local rules for a plugged or embedded ball, which extends the "closely mown area" to include the entire course except hazards or where hindered by any "in play" obstructions.  He and his playing partners were under the impression the "sparse" growth was not in play---tour officials determined it was, and he was assessed a two stroke penalty.

 

 

 

If you are refering to the Woods incuident, that is absolutely wrong. Did you actually read this link ?

 

http://www.usga.org/ourexpertsexplain.aspx?id=21474853834

 

and read the post immediately above yours?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › What's with the lack of details on Tigers 2 stroke penalty in Abu Dabhi?