FISKING | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

---

1. the act of making an argument seem wrong or stupid by showing the mistakes…

I'm going to have a stab at fisking a terrible article I read from the Guardian's golf correspondent on the rules "controversy" at the Solheim Cup. If you didn't see the whole controversy, a European player picked up an American ball that was overhanging the hole before she should have. That mean the ball was holed with the previous stroke, and the Americans won the hole instead of tying it. Cue the pearl clutching from some members of the media, in particular this Guardian writer:

Controversy over Nelly Korda’s ball mars opening of Solheim Cup | Solheim Cup | The Guardian

---

Europe lead USA 5½ – 2½ in the Solheim Cup after an opening day marred by controversy when Madalene Sagström picked up Nelly Korda’s ball too soon and was penalised

And now, for the fisking. It probably won't be as elegant as some of the greats at fisking, but this article was so bad that I wanted to go through it paragraph-by-paragraph to trash and mock it. 

Quote

The smell of cordite fills the Solheim Cup air once more. A contest which has an uncanny knack of throwing up moments of huge controversy has reverted to type in Ohio. Nelly Korda, the world No 1, was the beneficiary of an intervention from rules officials that left the European captain Catriona Matthew visibly riled. And no wonder; a key moment had been determined by a stopwatch and a television monitor.

The key moment was the European player breaking the rule, Ewan. The stopwatch and television monitor are not necessary unless she picks up an overhanging ball. And, neither were actually necessary in this case - it was so obvious that the Rules Official watching the group with her naked eye had already identified the possible issue before going to television. Still, the key point that Ewan glosses over: none of this happens if Madeline doesn't break the rule! The rules officials don't get involved unless a player breaks a rule. 

Quote

Korda’s putt for a three on the 13th during the Saturday afternoon fourball session rested agonisingly above the hole. In an obvious bid to speed up play – the match in question had earlier been warned over their pace – Europe’s Madelene Sagström stepped forward and tossed the ball back to Korda. Cue chaos. Rule 13.3b states: “If the opponent in match play deliberately lifts or moves the player’s ball overhanging the hole before the waiting time has ended, the player’s ball is treated as holed with the previous stroke.” Sagström’s intervention was after seven seconds; 10 were permitted to Korda as per the rulebook. The incident moved the US to one up in the match, which Korda and Ally Ewing duly won by a single hole.

An obvious bid to speed up play? Come the f*** on. We don't need an excuse for what it was - a brain fart. It happens. Ewan, being a Scotsman, should know that what Madeline did did not actually speed up play at all. It would have been faster for her to actually set up for her putt and get ready to play while Nelly emoted on the green. 

Another question for you, Ewan. You're on site at the tournament. Did you ask Madeline why she picked up the ball? Did she tell you she was trying to speed up play? Or are you just coming up with an excuse to paint her in the best light possible?

Quote

It must be noted that Korda did not cry foul. The Floridian – on her knees in dismay – was clearly of the wholly legitimate viewpoint that her putt was not going to drop, save the miraculous arrival of an Arctic blast. The hole had been won on the advice and actions of the Solheim Cup’s chief referee. “It was never going to go in,” argued Sagström, only to be told that did not matter. Matthew disputed with the referee that the ball was overhanging.

Nelly said she didn't know if the ball had a chance to go in because she didn't get a chance to look at it. Sort of undercuts your first point here. 

Again, the hole was not won because of the rules official. It was won because Madeline picked up the ball too early. It is important to talk about the first thing that led to everything else happening! Ewan is very conveniently skipping over that whole problem here. None of this happens if Madeline doesn't break the rules. 

Quote

“It was definitely awkward, you don’t want to win a hole like that,” said Korda. “We didn’t want it to happen this way. It was very unfortunate. Hopefully they [the Europeans] are OK with us. We didn’t even have a say.” Still, having won the hole via such dubious circumstance,

Dubious circumstance? Infrequent maybe. Dubious? Since when is following the rules dubious? This is one of the highest level competitions for women golfers out there. Why it is a question on whether they should follow the rules of golf at all?

Quote

the US pair could have earned widespread praise and protected the integrity of the competition by immediately conceding the next hole and returning the match to all square. They decided otherwise.

This is hot garbage. Europe could have protected the integrity of the competition by not breaking the rules in the first place. The integrity of the competition is much more dubious if you don't follow the rules.

And why should the US give back a hole that they rightfully won? Are they trying to win the competition or get praise in the media? Sure, it would been widely praised in the golf media, but it might have also lost them the Solheim Cup. It came down to a pretty thin margin and every half point mattered.

Final question on this - is Ewan Murray an authority on the integrity of the competition? Or the spirit of golf? Ewan, have you cracked open the Rules of Golf about what the spirit of the game is. If you had, you might have seen this as the first bullet when the rules are talking about the spirit of the game:

Quote

All players are expected to play in the spirit of the game by:

• Acting with integrity – for example, by following the Rules, applying all penalties, and being honest in all aspects of play.

The spirit of the game is following the god damn rules. You don't throw away the rulebook because your nebulous view of the integrity of the game is offended. And, to be honest, even though Ewan is a Scot, I don't really trust or care what golf writers think the spirit of the game is. Golf writers who apparently can't be bothered to turn to the first page of the first rule in the book do not have any authority on this subject. Even if they are Scottish.

Quote

Sagström, who was partnered by Nanna Koerstz Madsen, was visibly and understandably dejected as the match closed. “I believe in integrity and honour of the game of golf and I would never pick up a putt that had a chance to go in,” she said. “I personally don’t agree with the decision with the ball being on the edge but I didn’t follow the 10-second rule. It sucks right now. I feel like I let my team down.”

I'm highlighting this because I really don't think Madeline did anything awful. She broke a rule. It happens. She didn't have any moral failing. The ball was not going to fall in the hole. She did not cheat or even try to cheat. She just broke a rule. I feel bad for her because I think it was an innocent mistake, and it sucks that she is taking it so hard.

And, I think this is the last bit I want to highlight, even though it's not from the writer.

Quote

The golf world looked on agog. Thomas Bjørn, the former European Ryder Cup captain, said: “Do rules officials in golf realise how unbelievably stupid they make our game look?”

Why is enforcing the rules make golf look stupid? If you think the rule is wrong, why don't you come up with a different rule that will satisfy you? As a former Ryder Cup captain, I think your opinion would be taken pretty seriously. Also, note that Bjorn is European and undoubtedly has a rooting interest here.

I actually think the overhanging ball rule is fine, and I'm not sure there's another way to write it that's any better. Maybe I'll write that up in a different post.

That's all the energy I have on the article. The rest of it is just a recap of the day. I've already put too much time into this. Do better, Ewan Murray.

We're in that special hell of rules controversies with the implementation of the new Rules of Golf. There have been some growing pains with the new rules, and that has allowed the golf media to tee off on its favorite target, the USGA. Which, to be fair, can make itself an easy target:

Quote

“From my perspective, I would say by and large they’ve been a huge success,” Davis said.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/despite-harsh-words-from-some-tour-pros-usga-pleased-with-roll-out-of-new-rules-of-golf.

That aside, I wanted to talk about the "controversy" about the knee-height drop that the Rules now require. Rickie Fowler got a one stroke penalty for dropping from shoulder height this past weekend. Cue the complaining from him:

Quote

“I think, with the new rules that have been put in place, it’s not doing any favors for our sport. I think it will definitely be changed,” he said. “We have been making fun of the knee drop for so long that it was ingrained the first time I took a drop this year. Like, ‘This is an iconic moment. I get to drop from my knee and look stupid.’ So, no, like I said, it was on me, but I think it’s a terrible change.”

https://golfweek.com/2019/02/22/rickie-fowler-hit-with-one-shot-penalty-for-illegal-drop-at-wgc-mexico-championship/

I can forgive him - he just had a brain fart, probably didn't gain an advantage in this situation, it cost him money. I'm always annoyed when I get a penalty, personally, and it's absolutely never my fault, okay?

But cue the pearl clutching from the media:

Quote

3. Rickie Fowler was the first high-profile player to be dinged for the new drop rule when he hit a shot OB in Mexico and then dropped from shoulder height — only to be penalized an additional stroke because he didn’t drop from the new knee-height level. Fowler described the new rule as a “terrible change,” echoing the sentiments of several others pros who have spoken about the new dropping procedure. Should pros just quit their moaning and adapt, or do they have a point here?

Dethier: Yeah, this one’s dumb. There was no real need for the knee-height thing in the first place, but if the goal is for more lenient rules, let’s make it a strike zone, knee-high and up. Then we’d be able to stop talking about it.

Sens: I don’t mind knee-height as the low bar, and none of this stuff is all that tough to understand. But Dylan’s right. Penalizing for a higher drop is beyond ridiculous.

Ritter: Oh, pros are free to moan away. Their livelihoods depend on these rules. Many of the new rules are simpler and a clear improvement. The knee-high drop is a miss, though.

Bamberger: It looks ridiculous, just as dropping blind and over the shoulder looked ridiculous. The rule should be amended, knee-height to shoulder height.

https://www.golf.com/news/2019/02/25/backstopping-pro-tours-under-policed/

I'm here to tell you that this is wrong, and knee-height drops actually make a ton of sense.

One of the best things the new Rules do is simplify dropping. Now, all you have to do when dropping is land the ball in the relief area (without touching you or your equipment before hitting the ground) and ensure the ball comes to rest in the relief area. If you don't do this, you have to redrop. Pretty simple. Yes, you have to figure out what your relief area is, but that's pretty simple, too. (For a fuller explanation of this, see Rule 14 and the definitions in the Rules of Golf.)

The old rules were much more complex. Specifically, if your ball rolled to one of 9 areas after you dropped it, you had to redrop. For example, if your ball rolled more than 2 club lengths away from where your ball hit the ground, you had to redrop. You had to know all of these 9 areas to know if you needed to redrop or not.

So, the new way is simpler, right? Instead of learning 9 different triggers for a redrop, you only have to learn 1. Great!

Why am I talking about when you have to redrop? This is why we're dropping from knee height. Generally, under the new Rules, your ball cannot go as far after hitting the ground as it used to without triggering a redrop. Dropping from knee height reduces the chance that a redrop will be necessary. It also means that a ball has less of a chance of embedding in sand when you drop it. It makes a ton of sense, really.

Now, you might say, that's all fine, but why not allow dropping a ball from anywhere above knee height? I think you could easily game the rules to be able to place the ball when you really want to by simply dropping from shoulder height instead of knee height. Think about dropping on a side slope, for example. You're much more likely to have to redrop and place if you drop the ball from a higher point. Sure, this is rare, but why take the chance?

We're all on the same page, right? Knee-height drops make a lot of sense.

(If you want to know more about the changes to dropping, this is an excellent article that talks about this in a bit more detail: https://rulesgeeks.com/2018/12/30-days-of-2019-rules-changes-day-16-procedure-for-dropping-a-ball-in-playing-it-from-a-relief-area/)

Now to the point of all of this: golf media, please take 5 minutes to understand the rule before issuing a HAWT TAKE about the rule. The USGA has a one page sheet that explains the rule: http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/new-procedure-for-dropping-a-ball.html. You don't come off very well when you fail to read that. I know it's fun and easy to just mindlessly bash the USGA, but they do get things right. This is one of them.

(Oh and by the way, the Rules are actually really good, as a whole. Maybe I'll talk about that in another post later.)

The impetus behind this blog is that I volunteered to be the Rules Chairman for my men's club this fall. Now, I am of fairly sound mind, but volunteering to do that is probably a bit crazy. It is fair to ask why I volunteered. Well, I've been interested in the Rules of Golf since I started playing golf seriously. I never really had them introduced to me, so I've been mostly self-taught. They aren't some arbitrary gobbledygook to me - I intuitively understand the reasoning behind most of the rules. Instead of learning as an 8 year old that you can't step on the line of your putt without understanding why, I get why that is a rule. I'm also a lawyer, so the rules do not intimidate me. They are very straightforward compared to what I deal with. I have a book of regulations that is 1003 pages long and contains 10 regulations. This tiny book that is what, 150 pages long, is no big deal in comparison to that. I have, on multiple occasions, been able to read the Rules on the course and figure out what to do quickly enough to not delay play. One time, I found a dead fish on grass within the margin of a water hazard, and wasn't sure what I could do, but I figured it out after quickly reading the rules (bonus points if you can tell me the answer below).

That said, our club is lucky enough to have an experienced and knowledgeable professional rules official in it. He was the former Rules Chairman, and I can lean on him for any help. Which I will likely need, as you'll see in a second.

To prepare for this redoubtable position, I have started to follow the Rules of Golf section here more closely. I have been learning a ton by the rules questions asked in there and finding the answers on my own. I also took a 2 day rules seminar put on by the Colorado Golf Association. That was ... fun. A bit dry, to be honest, but I learned a lot of nuances in the rules. I also affirmed that I had a decent, although not spectacular, handle on the rules already. So, I should be pretty good at this, right?

Well... our club has a biennial (every other year - I had to look that up originally, too) rules requirement. You can fulfill it by taking an online rules quiz (I'll have a post about that later), or be attending 1 of 2 seminars we host during the year. Last weekend was our first seminar. Fortunately, the experienced rules official ran it, so I didn't have to do much besides introduce him and help his explanations when needed. But, as I held myself out as an expert, I had a couple of people ask me questions after the formal presentation was over. One asked me about whether the nearest point of relief from an immovable obstruction could be in a hazard. I said, without consulting the Rules, that it could be in a hazard. Taking relief from an immovable obstruction doesn't guarantee you a good lie or line. Well, I was right about the second sentence, but not about the first. Turns out the nearest point of relief when you're taking relief from an immovable obstruction can't be in a hazard. D'oh. Sent an e-mail, with my figurative tail between my legs, later that day to apologize and correct myself. In my defense, that situation rarely, if ever, occurs at my home course.

So, lesson learned. Read the rules before opining on a nuance like that. Probably better that I learned that lesson when it didn't matter as opposed to when it could affect someone's score.

That's probably enough for me. I'm going to try to update this periodically with tales from rules questions at my club. Please comment away. I welcome all criticism, although I strongly prefer positive.