Furyk oversleeps

[Clambake]

  iacas said:

And Clambake, as nice as that sounds:

a) I hadn't heard this before, and am curious how it works. Does the Tour have a small stable of players in a queue in case someone else has to drop out? Do they have to hang around all day until the last group is off the first tee? How are players made primary or alternates if there is such a queue?

b) I was kind of tongue-in-cheek about the dinner thing, but I'd be willing to bet that they could usually change some of their plans for such an opportunity c) Again, I wasn't real serious about the dinner thing. Just seemed like an amusing and enjoyable way for a player to try and make ammends.

  iacas said:

Sponsors don't pick the pros - they sometimes meet 'em on the first tee. So the current rule keeps that system flowing - nobody's annoyed they got Pro X instead of Pro Y and they don't even necessarily know their original pro missed

I haven't played in a pro-am, but a few that I'm aware work a little different. In those, high end sponsors get assigned different level pros, so they don't have the situation where the CEO of the title sponsor is playing with a Chris Baryla and some random schmuck who won a contest entry gets paired with Tiger or Phil. They also have the pairings announced beforehand and typically have a dinner where the pro-am partners meet each other and their pro the night before.

But all in all, I concur with your thinking that it is a well established rule, it is pretty cut and dried, and the players all know about. Trying to put in place different situations for enforcement just starts opening up loopholes and opportunities for misinterpretation. It's like the rest of the rules of golf - if you understand them they're actually really easy to apply to any situation. Even grounding a club in a bunker at Whistling Straits. Furyk, like DJ, violated a rule, accepted the penalty with class, and is moving on. It is only the unaffected masses that want to make it into something that it isn't.

[ElWagonne]

  iacas said:

Disagree entirely with taking a percentage of their winnings. Even if they win they might not cover the cost of their pro-am foursome (some pro-ams are quite pricy, folks!). And that's if they WIN, which is obviously a 1 in 156 shot or so at best.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here. I'm not saying that it's not expensive to play in a pro-am, nor am I saying that the pro should escape punishment. I think the cost of a foursome or 10%, whichever is greater would be an appropriate solution. Also, the 10% should apply to the money list and cup points. As an example, a spot in the BMW pro-am costs $8,000. To beat 32k, one would have to finish top 5 based on this. Since the amateurs are not made aware of their pro prior to the event, the amateur is not the worse for wear. Also, the charities are getting extra scratch from the players. If you can show me a fallacy in this, I'd be quite interested.

[Clambake]

  Joeyvee said:

If I knwe the penalty for stealing gum was death I wouldnt steal it. I dont setal gum now and the penalty is a lot less than that.

In Singapore it could be that is the penalty! Since '92 there has been a ban on sale and chewing of gum, and under Singaporean law the penalty is a fine of $500 to $1,000 US Dollars (USD) for first time offenders, and repeat offenders may be fined up to $2,000 USD and required to perform clean-up duties. Imagine the penalty if you also stole to get it!

[ERdiesel]

  Clambake said:

While the DQ may be a little on the harsh side, this is a rule that has lasted a long time and hasn't caused much of a controversy in the past. But one thing I don't like about the rule is that while it punishes the player, it doesn't do much to make amends to the proam players that bear the brunt of the player's failure to show. So here's my recommendation for a new rule:

On your third point, and what if the pro is late by 35 minutes? Then people would be whining about how he was only 5 minutes late right? How would that be different from being 5 minutes late? the line was draw, it was clear, and the rules are black and white, no grey here. Also, iacas is right, late is rude, and even more so in the corporate world with whom furyk most likely drew his playing partners for the day from. Mistakes do happen, but great to see furyk own up to his mistake and not whine and complain about it like some many of us without a vested personal stake in this seem to be doing.

[iacas]

  Clambake said:

a) I hadn't heard this before, and am curious how it works. Does the Tour have a small stable of players in a queue in case someone else has to drop out? Do they have to hang around all day until the last group is off the first tee? How are players made primary or alternates if there is such a queue?

First, it's typically a shotgun start. Second, they don't need a small stable of players because these things happen, what, once every couple of years? Two or three pros suffice.

  Clambake said:

b) I was kind of tongue-in-cheek about the dinner thing, but I'd be willing to bet that they could usually change some of their plans for such an opportunity

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and doubt they would. I might not even be able to change my plans and I'm not so important (and thus so wealthy) that I could dump $10k on a round of golf. These are busy people, generally... and they might not even like their pro.

  Clambake said:

c) Again, I wasn't real serious about the dinner thing. Just seemed like an amusing and enjoyable way for a player to try and make ammends.

Fair enough.

  Clambake said:

Trying to put in place different situations for enforcement just starts opening up loopholes and opportunities for misinterpretation.

I agree. The best rules are the clearest rules.

[RemyM]

  iacas said:

Sponsors don't pick the pros - they sometimes meet 'em on the first tee. So the current rule keeps that system flowing - nobody's annoyed they got Pro X instead of Pro Y and they don't even necessarily know their original pro missed.

Many events have a Pro-Am pairing party on Tuesday night where they find out who their pro is.

[walk18]

I'm thinking Fluff will be lucky to keep his job after this.

[iacas]

  walk18 said:

I'm thinking Fluff will be lucky to keep his job after this.

Not a chance anything happens there.

[MSDOGS1976]

  ERdiesel said:

Mistakes do happen, but great to see furyk own up to his mistake and not whine and complain about it like some many of us without a vested personal stake in this seem to be doing.

I guess many of us like to complain and whine when we see an unfair rule in place.

But I will admit, what's fair or unfair is in the eye of the beholder. Yes the rule was in place and that's the way it goes in this case. But per Kelly Tilghman of TGC, Geoff Ogilvy was quoted as saying when the rule was put in place, the intent was not to DQ someone who was late due to a reason as this one. And Geoff was on the rules committee when the rule was put in place. Now maybe Geoff is caving to what his peers are saying about the DQ or he was not on the ball when he was on the rules committee, but it sounds to me this rule will be reviewed at some point.

[JWL1957]

People pay alot of money just to play with these Pro's. Imagine how exciting it must be that you are going to play a round of golf with a US Open winner, only to find out he is a no-show on the day that you are going to play. I think the ruling is fair. The rule was made for a reason...... people were getting stiffed .

Pro's are very lucky to live in a economy where there is money available to make a career at playing golf, and should be grateful enough to honor thier commitments.

I love Furyk, but the rule should not be changed.