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 3

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

 
  • 6% (2)
    Yes
  • 93% (31)
    No
33 Total Votes  
post #37 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by divot dave View Post
 

 

I don't think its about turning into a bunch of pricks, although I see your point. For me, its the fact that at the end of the day, golf is still a competition sport, and this wasn't some charity event, this was a major. Given how close the match was going into the final hole, in my opinion, the situation merits more of a "win at all costs" mentality. Not a Coach Jason Kidd - intentionally spill water on the court to stall time - win at all costs... but more of a less courteous, win at all costs. If u catch my drift. 


I don't catch your drift. Golf is a game of shots in stroke play so what does it matter when they hit these shots under difficult circumstances? The idea of forcing your competitor to be at a disadvantage is not what the game is about. It's about you making the shots to beat your opponent. Phil played great, tired at the end, bogeyed a key hole and just missed a near miracle chip in for the tie.

post #38 of 84
Quote:

Originally Posted by late347 View Post

 

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?

 

IMO - Phil 'alleged' nothing - commentators are pretending it's a big deal to manufacture a bit of drama.  good for the ratings and golf forums....

 

1 - Phil wasn't unhappy - he was unsettled as he was in the zone and wanting to finish play.  He was trying to play quickly and kinda overlooked the option to let them tee off.  Ricky clearly was aware of the time and ready to facilitate the other group.

 

2 - Phil wasn't unhappy about them teeing off - it's pretty typical and happens and is expected.  He was just walking briskly to his shot (which also helps get the tourny over asap).  Had he been standing next to Fowler when Ricky asked about the other group, it's pretty clear they'd have told the other group to tee off as soon as they got to the ball.  They'd have offered.  Ricky pretty much did make the offer - he was asking about it and trying to get Phil's attention too ("Hey, we gonna let these guys tee off, it's getting late") but Phil was already speed walking.

 

3 - Phil wasn't unhappy about the approach shot, he was more likely 'befuddled' because that's not the typical process and they changed it up while he wanted to focus on chipping in his 3rd shot.

 

no harm, no foul.  Certainly they all could have done this better by talking it out while all 4 were waiting for the 3rd to last group to get out of the way (wasn't it 18 where they all were waiting right there?)

post #39 of 84

I don't even understand why this was a topic for the media.  Not only was it the "right" thing for Phil and Rickie to do, it was also the smart thing for them to do.  One of the advantages of playing in the final group is, for lack of a better term, knowing what you need to do.  In this case, Phil and Rickie had the advantage of seeing what Rory did.  For instance: both Phil and Rickie went into the 18th knowing they had to go for eagle.  If Rory's tee shot had found water...think they'd have changed their second shot?  Maybe, maybe not...but by the same token, Rory didn't have the normal "advantage" of seeing what Phil/Rickie did with their second shot.  What if they'd have shanked one?  Rory could have (theoretically) played "safe" with a 3-wood, iron, whatever.  Same goes with third shot...all the advantage switched to penultimate group because for once they had the advantage of seeing the shot of the group behind them in the same circumstances.

post #40 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by rehmwa View Post
 

 

IMO - Phil 'alleged' nothing - commentators are pretending it's a big deal to manufacture a bit of drama.  good for the ratings and golf forums....

 

1 - Phil wasn't unhappy - he was unsettled as he was in the zone and wanting to finish play.  He was trying to play quickly and kinda overlooked the option to let them tee off.  Ricky clearly was aware of the time and ready to facilitate the other group.

 

2 - Phil wasn't unhappy about them teeing off - it's pretty typical and happens and is expected.  He was just walking briskly to his shot (which also helps get the tourny over asap).  Had he been standing next to Fowler when Ricky asked about the other group, it's pretty clear they'd have told the other group to tee off as soon as they got to the ball.  They'd have offered.  Ricky pretty much did make the offer - he was asking about it and trying to get Phil's attention too ("Hey, we gonna let these guys tee off, it's getting late") but Phil was already speed walking.

 

3 - Phil wasn't unhappy about the approach shot, he was more likely 'befuddled' because that's not the typical process and they changed it up while he wanted to focus on chipping in his 3rd shot.

 

no harm, no foul.  Certainly they all could have done this better by talking it out while all 4 were waiting for the 3rd to last group to get out of the way (wasn't it 18 where they all were waiting right there?)


I think the only thing where Phil or someone may have enforced rules, was maybe one or two of Rory's teeshots.

 

It looked from the camera, that one of Rory's teeshots was taken from the wrong side of the teepeg line.

 

I suppose someone could have challenged legality of that teeshot. For this reason, I myself always tee from about half a foot from the teepeg line.

post #41 of 84

This is a tempest in a teacup.

 

I took the unsporting step of actually reading the relevant rule of golf (Rule 33, and 33-3 to be specific).  The Committee (i.e., the tournament administration) has very broad powers running a competition.  If you recall the third day of the British Open, the tournament administrators sent the field off in threesomes, early, to give themselves so latitude in the event of rain/lightning delays.  Here, the committee simply moved things along because the light was failing.  If you say the two groups were consolidated, then you could argue there was an issue of playing out of turn.  But the rule relevant to that (Rule 10) provides that in stroke play there is no penalty for playing out of turn (with the irrelevant exception for collusion in cheating).

 

So, the committee had the authority to hustle things along.  There was some confusion (all poor Mickelson was trying to do was hole out for an eagle).  The final group was a bit hurried in how they played the hole.  And that's that.  No harm, no foul.  Of course, that attitude doesn't attract eyeballs, page clicks, etc.

post #42 of 84
I'm really surprised by the results of the poll. I don't think you should be forced to help someone, but if they ask something within the rules or is it something that doesn't disadvantage you then I think you should do it. That includes let something hit with you to help finish or looking for their ball, etc.

I always want to win on my merit and while I certainly don't will my opponents birdie putts in, I'd rather they play well and I play better. I don't see any reason to not help someone. Rules are rules and no matter what they have to hit a shot.

It also doesn't mean giving them something they don't deserve. My home course has a lot of yellow staked hazards off the tee and red staked hazards further down the hole. If we can't verify where a ball was, that doesn't mean I give them the benefit of the doubt on where to drop or try to be nice. Rules are rules. But helping an opponent for something under the rules, heck yes.
post #43 of 84
First, as a disclaimer: I did not see the actual events that took place, it was quite late on my side of the world. If I get the facts wrong, please disregard my statement.

I do wonder though, from what I read here, didn't Phil an Ricky get disadvantaged from letting the final group catch up? I often play late in the evening in the summer, and at some point, 5 mins (or less) means the difference between seeing clearly and having a lot of difficulties locating the pin on a barely visible green. Under such circumstances, I could imagine not letting competitors catch up.

Clearly, if it is at no disadvantage to yourself, you should facilitate your competitors round. I could even support being forced to do so. In my opinion, it's similar to letting faster groups play through on the course, a minor inconvenience yet no disadvantage. If there is a disadvantage though, particularly given the stakes, it's a rather different situation in my view.
post #44 of 84

If I were in Phil's position I would be more afraid of getting hit with the tee shot in the dark than I would be with helping Rory.  But then I don't know exactly where he was standing while Rory hit... and I am used to playing on a course packed full of bad golfers who seem to want to share my fairway and not always yell fore.

post #45 of 84

I do not think anyone was greatly disadvantaged by the sequence of events on 18, in fact they all were likely advantaged by it in some ways.  Rory's tee shot was advantaged by being able to hit a couple minutes sooner (a bit more light) but he was possibly disadvantaged by having to rush his pre-shot routine once he was told to go ahead.  Phil and Rickie's second shots were advantaged by having seen Rory's poor tee shot, but disadvantaged at having to wait an extra minute or two before hitting them into the increasing darkness.  Rory's second shot had the advantage of being able to be hit several minutes sooner, and having seen that neither Phil or Rickie had reached the green with their seconds.  After Rory's poor second shot, Phil and Rickie were advantaged by the knowledge that Rory would be unlikely to make better than par, and might still make bogey.  So I think it was pretty much a wash, and had it still been 6:00 PM, the outcome would probably not have been different.

post #46 of 84

Allowing the approach to the green seemed unnecessary and strange, but it was the right thing to do to let them to tee off.  

post #47 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divot Master View Post
 

I do not think anyone was greatly disadvantaged by the sequence of events on 18, in fact they all were likely advantaged by it in some ways.  Rory's tee shot was advantaged by being able to hit a couple minutes sooner (a bit more light) but he was possibly disadvantaged by having to rush his pre-shot routine once he was told to go ahead.  Phil and Rickie's second shots were advantaged by having seen Rory's poor tee shot, but disadvantaged at having to wait an extra minute or two before hitting them into the increasing darkness.  Rory's second shot had the advantage of being able to be hit several minutes sooner, and having seen that neither Phil or Rickie had reached the green with their seconds.  After Rory's poor second shot, Phil and Rickie were advantaged by the knowledge that Rory would be unlikely to make better than par, and might still make bogey.  So I think it was pretty much a wash, and had it still been 6:00 PM, the outcome would probably not have been different.

 

 

I think you nailed it.  This is why you have to give the Committee (Rules term), tournament administration, the classroom teacher, the unit commander, the front line supervisor, whatever, a great deal of authority and discretion in handling situations as they arise.

post #48 of 84

all i know is if it was tiger playing from where phil was no one would be asking him if the final group can it up on them twice on the final hole of the final day! someone posted golf is one of the purest games left (or something along those lines)...golf is far from it! and thats why tiger cries when the hd cameras are on him and millions of people witness his ball move clear as day but he doesnt therefore didn't think to call a stroke on himself. it has happened far too often. golf is a great game but it gets ruined by the players as does baseball, football, basketball, hockey and soccer. all major sports that involve money and large amounts of it have corruption. in baseball they have set rules a game lasting 5 innings can be called due to weather. if teams played 4 innings and the home team was winning and that win clinched a playoff spot they wouldn't ask the road team to just fore fit the game cause they were loosing already they would postpone the game till the next day.  golf handled the situation poorly (imo) as they due most issues that get brought up i.e. anchoring ban on putters after allowing them for 30+ years. a better way to handle it (again imo) would be to grandfather the club. so all players using it at a professional level can continue using it but no one else can use it coming in. as far as all non pros wanting to use them in sanctioned tournaments they would have up until a certain date and then they are no longer able to use them. or they could have just let everyone continue to use them. if they were so great then why doesnt everyone use them. 

post #49 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownCoast View Post
 

all i know is if it was tiger playing from where phil was no one would be asking him if the final group can it up on them twice on the final hole of the final day! someone posted golf is one of the purest games left (or something along those lines)...golf is far from it! and thats why tiger cries when the hd cameras are on him and millions of people witness his ball move clear as day but he doesnt therefore didn't think to call a stroke on himself. it has happened far too often. golf is a great game but it gets ruined by the players as does baseball, football, basketball, hockey and soccer. all major sports that involve money and large amounts of it have corruption. in baseball they have set rules a game lasting 5 innings can be called due to weather. if teams played 4 innings and the home team was winning and that win clinched a playoff spot they wouldn't ask the road team to just fore fit the game cause they were loosing already they would postpone the game till the next day.  golf handled the situation poorly (imo) as they due most issues that get brought up i.e. anchoring ban on putters after allowing them for 30+ years. a better way to handle it (again imo) would be to grandfather the club. so all players using it at a professional level can continue using it but no one else can use it coming in. as far as all non pros wanting to use them in sanctioned tournaments they would have up until a certain date and then they are no longer able to use them. or they could have just let everyone continue to use them. if they were so great then why doesnt everyone use them. 

 

Did you break your Shift key?

post #50 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownCoast View Post
 

all i know is if it was tiger playing from where phil was no one would be asking him if the final group can it up on them twice on the final hole of the final day! someone posted golf is one of the purest games left (or something along those lines)...golf is far from it! and thats why tiger cries when the hd cameras are on him and millions of people witness his ball move clear as day but he doesnt therefore didn't think to call a stroke on himself. it has happened far too often. golf is a great game but it gets ruined by the players as does baseball, football, basketball, hockey and soccer. all major sports that involve money and large amounts of it have corruption. in baseball they have set rules a game lasting 5 innings can be called due to weather. if teams played 4 innings and the home team was winning and that win clinched a playoff spot they wouldn't ask the road team to just fore fit the game cause they were loosing already they would postpone the game till the next day.  golf handled the situation poorly (imo) as they due most issues that get brought up i.e. anchoring ban on putters after allowing them for 30+ years. a better way to handle it (again imo) would be to grandfather the club. so all players using it at a professional level can continue using it but no one else can use it coming in. as far as all non pros wanting to use them in sanctioned tournaments they would have up until a certain date and then they are no longer able to use them. or they could have just let everyone continue to use them. if they were so great then why doesnt everyone use them. 

unable-to-process-wall-of-text.jpg?w=700

post #51 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownCoast View Post
 

all i know is if it was tiger playing from where phil was no one would be asking him if the final group can it up on them twice on the final hole of the final day! someone posted golf is one of the purest games left (or something along those lines)...golf is far from it! and thats why tiger cries when the hd cameras are on him and millions of people witness his ball move clear as day but he doesnt therefore didn't think to call a stroke on himself. it has happened far too often. golf is a great game but it gets ruined by the players as does baseball, football, basketball, hockey and soccer. all major sports that involve money and large amounts of it have corruption. in baseball they have set rules a game lasting 5 innings can be called due to weather. if teams played 4 innings and the home team was winning and that win clinched a playoff spot they wouldn't ask the road team to just fore fit the game cause they were loosing already they would postpone the game till the next day.  golf handled the situation poorly (imo) as they due most issues that get brought up i.e. anchoring ban on putters after allowing them for 30+ years. a better way to handle it (again imo) would be to grandfather the club. so all players using it at a professional level can continue using it but no one else can use it coming in. as far as all non pros wanting to use them in sanctioned tournaments they would have up until a certain date and then they are no longer able to use them. or they could have just let everyone continue to use them. if they were so great then why doesnt everyone use them. 

Grandfathering is seldom a good idea in sports.  It leads to two different sets of rules, and opens the sport up to claims of inconsistent or unfair treatment.  Since you brought up the topic of baseball, imagine if they had grandfathered A-Rod when they banned steroids?  And since you also brought up Tiger, should the R&A have grandfathered his ability to marshal a large gallery to roll large boulders aside?  How about grandfathering Bubba's Christianity, while making it illegal for all other pros?  Sure would make it easier for JC and his Dad to pre-determine who was going to win the tournament each week.  OK, now I'm being silly.

 

Perhaps if Apple had grandfathered capital letters on the i-Phone, people wouldn't have to have their messages look like they were written by a 13 year old valley girl.  Oh, wait...

post #52 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by rehmwa View Post

 

(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.)

 

I agree with that.  The real problem, IMO, is the announcers saying that Phi wasn't happy with them hitting up.    This kind of thing happens all the time in sports.  The announcers say something that is wrong, but the fans pick up on it and it becomes the conventional wisdom.  I see it all the time in football games.  An analyst will say something and the next day people on fan message boards will be parroting what he said whether he was tight or wrong.

 

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......

 

I seem to remember NBC (?) getting some nice ratings or a major playoff.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DwightC View Post
 

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?

 

Wasn't it Phil who raced through the 17th hole at the Players one year so he could hit his tee shot with the group ahead, while his fellow competitor completed 17, because if Phil hit his tee shot they would have the right to finish the hole if play was stopped?  I remember this happening and I am pretty sure it was Phil involved and the announcers were praising his acumen.

 

I don't think Phil had any problem with letting Rory it up, I think his problem was with the officials' changing stories he was getting about what they were going to do.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by late347 View Post
 


I think the only thing where Phil or someone may have enforced rules, was maybe one or two of Rory's teeshots.

 

It looked from the camera, that one of Rory's teeshots was taken from the wrong side of the teepeg line.

 

I suppose someone could have challenged legality of that teeshot. For this reason, I myself always tee from about half a foot from the teepeg line.

 

You cannot tell anything from  a camera angle.  There were hundreds of people standing round watching who would have noticed if he was teed up beyond the markers.

post #53 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

 

 

 

Wasn't it Phil who raced through the 17th hole at the Players one year so he could hit his tee shot with the group ahead, while his fellow competitor completed 17, because if Phil hit his tee shot they would have the right to finish the hole if play was stopped?  I remember this happening and I am pretty sure it was Phil involved and the announcers were praising his acumen.

 

 

Pretty sure that was Poulter. He literally ran. People crucified him for it too. Odd, because (IIRC) he basically sacrificed his round (he wasn't in the mix) so his fellow competitor could take his time putting out and be safe to finish.

post #54 of 84

I hope this is better for all the F*CKIN' grammar teachers on here. Yes grandfathering does work for equipment just like in hockey with the helmets. Secondly, its clear to see who can think for themselves and who is sucking the dicks of everything the R&A along with the USGA have to say. Thirdly, steroids in baseball are illegal period! so bringing that up was pointless along with galleries moving objects for tiger. Never was any of that in the rules. If you are going to bring up points in an argument that you clearly wanted to start, make sure they are valid!!! Its amazing how many simple minded people can talk so much sh*t about something they clearly know nothing about! Finally if a post is just too long for you to read on here, which there is none that I've ever come across then maybe you're just to stupid and have no comprehension of what a paragraph is. 

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?