or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Should a competitor be forced to assist another competitor?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should a competitor be forced to assist another competitor? - Page 2

Poll Results: Should a competitor be forced to assist another competitor?

 
  • 6% (2)
    Yes
  • 93% (31)
    No
33 Total Votes  
post #19 of 84

I don't consider it an assist.  Just courtesy.

 

I can't answer the poll other than "no" they shouldn't be "forced".  They should do it because that's how one should play voluntarily.

 

Which both Ricky and Phil did.......Ricky actually stopped right there and clearly was attempting to facilitate the last group to play in.  I'm actually sure Phil would have also (and his interview seemed to indicate that as well - the confusion wasn't about facilitating the finish, but more about how it was processed), but it seemed he was just into his zone too much to realize it.

 

 

 

In fact, I think both Ricky and Phil took care to work their putts with a minimum of delay.  I thought they were a bit more crispy than usual compared to their normal process.

For SURE, Phil could even have drug his feet a bit and he definitely didn't do that.

 

 

 

For that matter, Rory took a big chance to get 'out of his rhythm' to tee off when he did.

 

Seems to me, both groups were fantastic in meeting the clear opportunity to finish the tourney before dark.

 

I was impressed.  The only place the PGA stepped in was to facilitate the approach shots.  The rest was all the players being decent players.

 

 

(Just my impression, but Phil did NOT seem 'upset' about allowing the approaches, he just seemed confused that they didn't follow the normal process he was used to - frankly, he hit and was crisply moving to finish the hole (i.e., doing his part to help the other group finish).  And clearly Rory wasn't upset either, I think he was just under the assumption that they were playing in together - the PGA decision clearly settled it.  Two people having two assumptions does not equal upset or in conflict.)

post #20 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by divot dave View Post
 

 

If leveraging the rules of competition so that it preserves a competitive advantage which I obtained by playing fairly and observing the rules, makes me out to be a "huge ********" in your eyes, then you and I simply have a different philosophical approach to winning. 

 

 

 

 

The very first section in the Rules of Golf provides some insight.....

 

 

 

Section I – Etiquette; Behavior on the Course

Introduction

This section provides guidelines on the manner in which the game of golf should be played. If they are followed, all players will gain maximum enjoyment from the game. The overriding principle is that consideration should be shown to others on the course at all times.

 

The Spirit of the Game

Golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and to abide by the Rules. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf.

post #21 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

Ummmm-You quoted him saying he was not going to respond more-he has not-and you tell him to stop responding? OKay man. He was disagreeing with you AS ALMOST ALL PEOPLE WILL I think. THe poll question is poorly worded with the word 'force' in there.-If it said 'should' the results would be quite different.
BTW your reputation is about to tank and not for that but for your win at all costs approach.-Youre now gonna be 'that guy'. The jerk.-The 'gamesmanship win at all costs' jerk.

Please change your mind for your sake and those three beautiful children in your picture.

 

I'll digress, and not because I'm concerned about what you think of me, or my tanking repurtation, or the impact it will have on my kids... (seriously, that was lame)

 

but because this thread is quickly becoming off topic and i'm the cause of it. Please, if my views bother anyone as much it has Phil, Iacas, or Fourputt, feel free to vent your frustrations via private message. 

post #22 of 84

I did not watch the tournament so I don't know about the lighting issue. I voted "no" simply because no one should be forced to do anything they do not have to do. They can if they want to, but being "forced" to do something they didn't have to,  sits wrong for me.  Now my question; were they forced? 

post #23 of 84
Wow that escalated quickly...........but @David in FL nailed it by posting

All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf.

@divot dave I do also see your point if it were any other sport. Hell the Spurs made everybody uncomfortable during the NBA finals with that broken AC. I like you havent been around the game of golf long and this is where we come for clarification on certain things so no harm no foul on your part.
post #24 of 84

I voted no I don't think they should have been told.  It is the players decision to allow them to play up not the PGA officials. But I do believe it is the "right" thing to do. With that said, who knows what the outcome would have been otherwise.  What if Phil would have stuck his 2d near the hole?  I think a shot like that enters Rory's mind and could have had some impact to his tee shot or his approach.

post #25 of 84

"Forced"? I voted no, but I have no problem with them letting Rory hit up, especially from the tee so that he could be the one who decided whether he could finish or not. At that point, it is still murky about who made the decision to let Rory hit his approach.

 

Whatever. I don't think it impacted the outcome, but it should be the players' call.

 

Side note: If I were Phil or Rickie, I would not have hit their approaches in that light after seeing Rory's drive. It was going to be very difficult for Rory to hit the green from there, and they both deserved optimum circumstances to hit those approaches, if it was their choice. I really think they would have hit better shots if they had waited until this morning. JMO.

post #26 of 84

I am going out on a limb ......

 

I believe that professional golf has moved beyond being just about the competition it is a television event that ultimately depends on how much revenue the networks can make from it.

 

It is the ultimate reality show.

 

I don't know but I believe there was pressure to finish on Sunday night by the TV networks.

 

If they go to Monday how big would the viewing audience be?

 

Look at some other sports like hockey and football where overtime has been changed to make sure the TV telecast can fit into a certain time slot.

 

Golf is still one of those sports where the networks cannot predict exactly when it will end.

 

So as much as there was an major for the players to contend, it is really about getting the largest TV audience to watch so the network can maximize their ad dollars.

 

These decisions to finish or not will soon (if not already) be removed from the player's hands and be placed into the hands of TV executives and producers.

 

I'm sure lots of you will disagree with this rather cynical view point.

post #27 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by ay33660 View Post
 

I am going out on a limb ......

 

I believe that professional golf has moved beyond being just about the competition it is a television event that ultimately depends on how much revenue the networks can make from it.

 

It is the ultimate reality show.

 

I don't know but I believe there was pressure to finish on Sunday night by the TV networks.

 

If they go to Monday how big would the viewing audience be?

 

Look at some other sports like hockey and football where overtime has been changed to make sure the TV telecast can fit into a certain time slot.

 

Golf is still one of those sports where the networks cannot predict exactly when it will end.

 

So as much as there was an major for the players to contend, it is really about getting the largest TV audience to watch so the network can maximize their ad dollars.

 

These decisions to finish or not will soon (if not already) be removed from the player's hands and be placed into the hands of TV executives and producers.

 

I'm sure lots of you will disagree with this rather cynical view point.

 

Why?

 

Your argument about "lost viewership" doesn't hold water.  TV had already obtained that viewership for Sunday.  Carrying over to Monday would not have lost anything at all.  If anything, carrying over to Monday would likely provide additional viewership beyond what they would ordinarily expect on a Monday morning......

post #28 of 84

Should Phil and Rickie have been forced to let them play up? No.

 

But yes, it was the right thing to do. Not an ideal situation for anyone involved but it'll give us something to remember and debate for a long time.

post #29 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

Side note: If I were Phil or Rickie, I would not have hit their approaches in that light after seeing Rory's drive. It was going to be very difficult for Rory to hit the green from there, and they both deserved optimum circumstances to hit those approaches, if it was their choice. I really think they would have hit better shots if they had waited until this morning. JMO.

 

Hadn't really though about this, and it obviously wouldn't have gone over well with the fans, but you're absolutely right. Phil and Rickie at least had reasonable outside chances for eagle from the middle of the fairway (in good light) and it was probably 50/50 that Rory would only be able to get par from where he was.

post #30 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

Why?

 

Your argument about "lost viewership" doesn't hold water.  TV had already obtained that viewership for Sunday.  Carrying over to Monday would not have lost anything at all.  If anything, carrying over to Monday would likely provide additional viewership beyond what they would ordinarily expect on a Monday morning......

 

Was gonna type the same thing, generally, but you beat me to it.

post #31 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

 

Why?

 

Your argument about "lost viewership" doesn't hold water.  TV had already obtained that viewership for Sunday.  Carrying over to Monday would not have lost anything at all.  If anything, carrying over to Monday would likely provide additional viewership beyond what they would ordinarily expect on a Monday morning......

 

If you look at this article - http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/cbs-highest-rated-pga-final-round-2009/

 

It implies that viewership is measured on an 1/2 hour interval so they can get additional viewership due to the close finish.

 

So what do you mean by "TV has already obtained that viewership for Sunday"? The article seems to indicate that because of the close finish the viewership increased.

 

What if everyone knew they could not finish in time would that last 1/2 hour of coverage elevate? Would Sunday's viewership not peak and would Monday's viewership be more or less than the regularly scheduled program?

 

I don't know but I was throwing it out there.

 

As I had pointed out, other sporting events have change some of their overtime rules to ensure that the competition finish in a certain time slot.

 

So if there is a history of more and more golf competitions not finishing on time would the number of viewers be ultimately affected?

 

Is there pressure to ensure that we know who the winners are at the end of the scheduled telecast?

 

Were the TV executive happy that they had to preempt the regularly scheduled shows. What about the ad revenues associated with the preempted shows.

 

Again David I am not a TV executive so I have absolutely no idea.

 

So thank you for pointing out that I may be going in the wrong direction with this. 


Edited by ay33660 - 8/11/14 at 1:00pm
post #32 of 84

  Had this 'discussion' with a few ppl via Twitter last night that were saying how Phil should be pissed etc.  

 

A.  Phil didn't have to let Rory play up

 

B. Rory could've simply said it's too dark

 

The restart was for 9am so it's 12 hours were talking about here and not that big a deal.

 

Golf is a different game then all other sports (thankfully)  where u don't try to blow in a competitors ear, hit him in the nuts and poke his eyes at bottom of pile, or take a dive.   

 

You help your opponent find their ball if they need you. U may sometimes let them know a rule before it costs them, and yes you let them play with you if darkness is about to stop play

 

 

 Just my .02

post #33 of 84

Phil and Ricky did the right thing.  And, as I recall, Phil is famously knowledgeable about the rules and effectively uses them to his advantage (when it's sportsmanlike to do so).  Wasn't he the guy who managed to convince a Rules Official to declare a swimming pool 'casual water' and take a free drop in an Arizona Tour event years ago, when somebody had failed to properly mark the course boundary?

post #34 of 84

Any irritation the players showed might have come from the conflicting messages the rules officials sent about what was going on.

 

First, the TV announcers said the last two pairs would all play in as a foursome. Then, the rules guys told Mickelson and Fowler as they started after their drives on No. 18 that all would play in together. Then, someone waved M and F up to the green after McIlroy and Wiesberger hit their drives, but before Mc and W hit their approach shots.

 

The "final foursome" plan simply didn't get communicated very well to the players. Too bad, because it was a good idea. It consolidated the drama and helped save time. No one objected to the "final foursome" move while it was going on.

post #35 of 84
Rehmwa pretty much spelled out in post #19 what my understanding was as well...

No one was forced to do anything... The media and all it's talking heads are just trying to create some meaningless discussion. Phil and Ricky showed class in letting Rory tee off, and trying to do the right thing for the tournament in general... Finish it on Sunday.

I think Rory just seemed a little confused on the protocol in that situation, and Phil and Ricky were following it. It was either Phil or Bones who said to the official something along the lines of "can we get to the fairway first before he tees off"... Which is typically how that situation would/should be handled.

I also think Rory did the classy thing by trying to finish the tournament on Sunday, when he could have called it and finished up Monday.

Everyone did the classy thing, and no one was forced to do anything.
post #36 of 84

Taking advantage of the rules in my opinion is ok, assuming it is possible to do so.

 

Sometimes it's the smart thing to do. Like I remember once how Bubba got a free drop from bush, after an errant drive in Waste Management Phoenix Open.

 

Maybe Bubba is smarter than what meets the eye.

 

I suppose if Phil had felt serious about the ruling, could he have lodged a claim on the ruling?

 

Did Mickelson allege that Rory was not in the correct order of play, or what specifically was Mickelson unhappy about? Specifically regarding Rory being allowed to teeoff in the same group?

 

Is there a local rule in the Championship tournament regarding the matter?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Should a competitor be forced to assist another competitor?