Charl Schwartzel - you've just lost me as a fan

[Shorty]

If you saw the telecast of the second round of the Memorial you'll know what I am talking about

There's a difference between taking advantage of the rules and being dishonest. Shame.

And Nick Faldo essentially said that he's going to have players talking behind his back - saying you'd rather have people talking to you on the range and saying "respect"rather than having them talking about something you did behind your back. Doing everything but calling him a C---t (5 letters, not 4)

If you didn't see it:

Ball just outside lateral hazard. left side.

Nasty sidehill stance.

Ball resting in the rough a foot behind and between two sprinkler heads, both 2 inches below the ground.

No possibility of his club going anywhere near them.

Official too gutless to say that he's not entitled to a drop and that it's up to him.

Schwartzel takes a drop, giving himself a perfect lie on the fairway with a level stance.

Not good.

[Ron Schreuders]

I definitely agree!! In my circle of friends, we would have heckled whoever did this. "Go ahead, put it wherever you want". This is nonesense and he should feel quite ashamed of making a mockery of the PGA rules! The man is a wimp!!

[walk18]

Is this "rip on professional golfers week"? I must have missed the memo.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by walk18

Is this "rip on professional golfers week"? I must have missed the memo.

No - this thread is about a particular professional golfer who, with a camera 6 feet behind him made a very, very silly choice.

One which will be between him, his conscience and the thousands who witnessed it on TV.

[Stretch]

So let me get this straight, because I didn't see what you're describing. He asked for a ruling within the rules, got one within the rules, took a drop within the rules and is a ****? Just checking.

[pond prowler]

Quote:

So let me get this straight, because I didn't see what you're describing. He asked for a ruling within the rules, got one within the rules, took a drop within the rules and is a ****? Just checking.

Yep.  I watched the whole thing go down live on GC.  Gutless rules official allowed Schwarzel to decide if he really was entitled to the drop after Charl insisted.  Charl was dishonest and took advantage of the situation IMO.  I think that's what other PGA pros would also say even if a rules official gave him the go ahead.

That rules official is going to have to answer some tough questions I'd think.  I won't be pulling for Schwarzel any time soon.

[rossvanwyk]

Bottom line, if he did something that broke the rules of the game, he would be DQ'd. He called an official over, got his ruling and went with it. So he must rather take his bad lie because people are going to call him a c--t behind his back? Are you serious?

He called for an official and the official gave his ruling. What more do you want?

And who cares what Nick Faldo says is going to happen to him really. Checking to see if nobody is looking and kicking your ball into a better lie is something I would expect you to respond with such a scathing post to. Getting an official ruling and going with it? Give me a break.

[Kieran123]

So he was allowed to drop it, and he's an *******?

Huh?

[pond prowler]

Labeling him unmentionable names is not what I was agreeing with.  I should've been clearer.

Do I think he violated the spirit of the game? Yes.

Am I no longer a fan of his?  Yes.

Will he be proud of his decision looking back at it later on in life? Probably not.

[shades9323]

A choice that is within the rules of golf can hardly be considered a silly one.

Originally Posted by Shorty

No - this thread is about a particular professional golfer who, with a camera 6 feet behind him made a very, very silly choice.

One which will be between him, his conscience and the thousands who witnessed it on TV.

[AmazingWhacker]

I don't know . . .I think I blame the official for this one.  I didn't see it but if it happened as you said and the ball was clearly out and the official said it was up to Charl then that is ridiculous.  If it's up to the player then why bother to have officials at all?

I'm not saying Charl is or isn't anything . . .he very well may be.  But I think you can't really hold this one against him.  He asked for a call, got it and played on.  It's possible that most other players would've accepted their fate without calling over an official but, again, if officials are doing their jobs then it shouldn't make a difference.  There really shouldn't be anything negative about asking for a ruling.

[bplewis24]

I find this one interesting.

A lot of times on these golf forums, some random player in contention during a tournament will be penalized by an archaic/strict rule that was applied by the letter, but not by the spirit of the rule.  We flock to the forums and bash the rulebooks in some of these circumstances.

Here (without having seen this sequence) it appears that Schwartzel did the opposite: he benefit himself somehow by insisting that he was within the letter of the rule even though it's clear (by most accounts) that he violated the spirit of the rule.  Why aren't folks allowed to bash the player for violating the spirit of the rules, if we feel they are so sacred in other circumstances?

Again, without having seen this, if it's clear that he did something to violate the spirit of the rules for the express purpose of gaining an advantage after putting himself in a poor position, I think people will be justified in not respecting that.  In the last "rules controversy" thread I participated in, I stated that one of my checks on a rules controversy is penalizing a player who is in a good position and otherwise has no control over the controversy that followed him (wind blowing the ball).  Here, the player was in poor position and had complete control over putting himself in that position because it was a poor shot that landed him there.

So, I have a question for you all.  Remember back when Tiger Woods had gallery fans move a boulder for him at some tournament in Arizona or some desert region?  Were people pissed at him for that, or were there unique details about his circumstances and the rule pertaining to them that made it different?

Brandon

[bplewis24]

As to the point about whether we should blame the official or the player, I will compare this to a boxing match from several years ago.  Probably the greatest boxing match in the last 30 years was Corrales-Castillo I.  In it, the boxer (player) did something considered dishonorable among his peers but within the rules ...barely and vaguely.  While hurt, woozy, getting pummeled and on the verge of losing the fight, Corrales repeatedly spit his mouthpiece out over the course of a round (or maybe two).  Each time, the ref had to pause the action to put the boxer's mouthpiece back in.  This worked remarkably well in giving Corrales additional time to recover from knockdowns and being hurt, and eventually allowed him to score a dramatic, come-from-behind kayo victory over Castillo.

A lot of hardcore boxing fans were irate over the fact that Corrales did such a dishonorable thing, even though there was no rule against it and, by rule, the ref had to pause the action to put the mouthpiece back in.  But, they were also calling for the ref to better handle the situation by either waiting for a natural pause in action to re-insert the mouthpiece or by disqualifying Corrales under some other guidelines.

I find similarities to this golf situation.  The official is being questioned for not interpreting the spirit of the rule better and allowing the player off the hook, and the player is allowed his victory, but loses his honor.  Maybe the ultimate conclusion to this is the rules get changed to adapt to what happened this weekend?

Brandon

[PebbleChamp]

Quote:

A choice that is within the rules of golf can hardly be considered a silly one.

I agree.  The rules themselves are so nuanced, confusing, and silly themselves sometimes.  The rules give you so many bad breaks that you definitely have to take advantage of any good breaks the rules can give you.  Tiger has said the same thing almost verbatim.

[Stretch]

Decide for yourself.

[jetsknicks1]

Originally Posted by Stretch

So let me get this straight, because I didn't see what you're describing. He asked for a ruling within the rules, got one within the rules, took a drop within the rules and is a ****? Just checking.

When you see it maybe you'll feel differently. I saw it and I see what some others are saying, it just seemed to be a bit unseemly. Was it within the rules? yes but sometimes just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

[anotherday]

I think the Rules Official should have been a bit more assertive. People call him over to have him say yes or no. Now if he really did want to make a decision based on a practice swing (which left hardly any divot) then he could easily say that the sprinkler cover was not in play. Instead, the official decided to let Charl tell him whether or not it was in play or not - that is just backwards!

Maybe the official was trying to guilt Charl into realizing that what he was asking was a bit ridiculous. For instance... consider someone taking a horrible shot off the tee and then asking you if they can take a mulligan, to which you simply respond.. if you'd like to take a mulligan.. go right on ahead. At the end of the day, there will be an unspoken asterisk to the final score. You'd hope the person would realize this and say.. its okay, I'll just hit it from there. Likewise, the official might have hoped Charl would just say.. its okay, I'll take play it as it lies.

That was not the case. And everyone knows that he made a poor decision.

[Chris27]

That was absurd on Schwartzel's part. I didn't know about this site i was just looking for some opinion so I googled schwarztel cheats memorial. Not only did he get a flat lie but he was now in the fairway! There was no interference from the sprinkler. Not even close I wish the cameras could have shown Phil or Luke rolling their eyes cus I'm sure they did. Just embarrassing. I wouldn't do that on a 5 dollar Nassau.