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

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Shorty

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

In fact, I recorded The Memorial and was watching it while working through today's forum posts. In the first part - before Donald hit - I saw what he Charl was after and said "hey, wasn't there a thread with his name in it? I bet anything it's about this."

Before I read anything else that's written, there's no way Charl's swing path would have gone through the area from which he was seeking relief. His swing path would have had to literally be 30 degrees right of the line to the target AND he had an iron in his hands... I doubt he was going at the flag (farther right than the lay-up area) with an iron.

I think that Charl did not behave professionally in this instance. I think that he violated the spirit of the rules. I wish John Brendle had done more to simply say "no, I don't believe you're entitled to relief here." I think Charl was dishonest in both the shot he was going to play and how much that would affect him. I feel that he likely didn't want to play off the sidehill lie (his feet being in the slope down into the lateral water hazard).

Originally Posted by Shorty

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.

Yep. That about sums it up.

Originally Posted by pond prowler

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.

I agree with that as well.

Originally Posted by 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.

Agree with the bolded part as well as the first sentence.

[turtleback]

Schwartzel AND the official should both be ashamed of themselves.  Schwartzel for arguing the point far beyond the bounds of reasonability and the rules official for giving in to his nonsense.

[Kieran123]

OK. Just watched the replay on TV and am changing my opinion on the matter. What a joke. 240 yards out and he thinks he is gonna dig 7 inches of turf out? Not happening

Official had no backbone in the situation and let Charl take control - it was almost awkward to watch. The official was stuttering every 5 seconds and it was if he wanted to say 'No' but was intimidated by him or something

[TourSpoon]

I saw it before reading this thread and thought it was a weak play. I wouldn't have even thought to ask for a ruling as the sprinkler heads were not interfering. It's pretty bad when golf announcers call you out.

[iacas]

PGA Tour already had the video removed (copyright). Can you say "damage control"? I saw Charl's interview after his round and he says he has no problems with his drop and will sleep just fine.

Hmmmm. It still doesn't sit well with me. Neither his practice swings nor his actual swing from the fairway took any real turf. Not from 240.

To be clear, I'm all for using the rules to your advantage.

[Bigtank]

Was it well within the rules...yes!  Was it kinda of a sketchy call...yes!  But to call the offical gutless or anything other than honorable is kinda being a d@#k .  It is not on the offical to make a call on the players swing path, he is just there to make sure that the play is within the rules of golf which it was, he doesnt get to impose his judgement.

BTW, the ball was not a foot behind the sprinkler...it was more like 6 inches.  I think the concern was more about the lip of the grass catching part of the club, not to mention it was sitting in a slight depression.  I can understand the drop, however, I dont understand letting him drop in the fairway.  Is that not improving one's lie?  if you are in the rough, you should not be able to drop in the fairway...

My two cents!

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by Bigtank

BTW, the ball was not a foot behind the sprinkler...it was more like 6 inches.

Bigtank, a lot of guys think 6 inches is a foot.

I think it was more like 9.

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by Bigtank

I think the concern was more about the lip of the grass catching part of the club, not to mention it was sitting in a slight depression.

I think the concern ( of Charl anyway ) was his footing - the sprinkler head was his way out of a shot he did not want to take

[newtogolf]

He asked an official, and the official allowed him to drop, he played within the rules of golf.  I saw the playback and read the comments here, and agree, what he did was questionable.  Ultimately I think Faldo is right, golf is a gentlemans game and I'm sure the reaction from his peers will make him regret the decision at some point.  Sometimes personal integrity has to supercede the rules if they are taken advantage of or not applied properly, Charl compromised his integrity today.

[jamo]

I didn't see it live but after seeing it now, man, that's taking a shady was out of a crappy situation. Within the rules I guess, but geez...

And saying that you'll sleep well tonight never helps.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by shades9323

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

That's not really the case, though.

It was "within the rules of golf" in the same way where player a knowingly double hits his ball or moved it noticeably and there was no video tape and the player was left to make his own call and decided not to penalise himself. It was within the rules only in the sense that the players administer the rules themsleves. If a player is under a tree and takes a hack, misses the ball and calls it a practise swing and it can't be proven that he is lying, it's "within the rules" for him not to count the shot if he is not of good character.

In this instance, the camera was there, the official was essentially giving him the opportunity not to incriminate himself. Schwartzel chose the dishonest path, and his reputation is now severely tarnished. No one who saw the tape can disagree.

[The Recreational Golfer]

I saw the whole thing live. The rules official caved. No way a drain pipe below the surface of the ground over six inches from the ball was a hazard to the stroke. He literally said to Schwartzel, do what you think is right. Are you kidding me!!??

The official even asked Schwartzel to take a swing at another sunken drain pipe close to the one in question with a pretend ball the same distance away and all he did was brush the top of the grass. Case closed, you would think. Schwartzel would have to be taking a divot nine inches long and three inches deep for it to be a problem. Then Peter Oosterhuis says Schwartzel was going to play a draw, which is a sweeping stroke, not too divot-oriented.

Don't blame Schwartzel for the ruling, it was the spineless official who didn't have the moxie to say No.

Good grief!

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

He asked an official, and the official allowed him to drop, he played within the rules of golf.

The video was removed by the time I got online to watch it.

Did he try and persuade the official at all?  From all of the posts, I get the impression that Schwartzel asked, and then pleaded his case, and tried to persuade the official to give him a positive ruling.  At which point the official rhetorically suggests he should "do what he thinks is right" under the frame of mind that in no way would Schwartzel think it's right to improve his lie when he doesn't deserve to.

Before I go any further, what particular rule is in play here?  I want to know the exact wording of the rule.

Brandon

[Swampy79]

Personally my problems with it were:

A- Charl called the official over, asked him for relief, and then in what seemed like a 20 minute long circle-jerk fluff off, I watched an official go from a position of disagreement to folding like a lawn chair and almost leading Charl in his effort to get a lame duck relief.  Phrases like " I don't want you to say I think.... just say it will affect my swing blah blah blah "  It was like watching a crooked cop lead a witness in a phony confession.

and B- For the first time in my life it something in a golf tournament took so long and was so absurd that before I even knew what was happening I caught myself saying "Just hit the damn ball" to the TV...... and I have never, ever, talked to the TV while watching golf (hockey, football, and soccer are a different story).

[anotherday]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Before I go any further, what particular rule is in play here?  I want to know the exact wording of the rule.

The exact wording is out there for you to dig up.. but the main idea is that the sprinkler top would interfere with his follow through and possibly cause injury. The official needed the player to say "This will interfere with my swing." Charl was saying initially.. "This could interfere with my swing" So after much goading, he finally came to the conclusion that the only way he could get the rules official to 'sign off' on a free drop was to say that the sprinkler top would definitely interfere.

The official gave him enough rope to hang himself and he did. Like people have said before... he might have used the rules to his advantage, but everyone in the clubhouse knows what happened. He had Phil Mickelson in the group with him and I'm sure Phil will deflect any questions on this when they are asked (putting his psych degree to use as he always does), but everyone knows better.

[turtleback]

Bigtank:  before you go calling posters names you ought to know what the rules are and what the rules official's role is.  It absolutely is the official's place to make a judgment call when the player is abusing the rules.  I am reminded of Sergio's ridiculous lobbying for a ruling in his Ryder Cup match against Anthony Kim.  Kim protected himself by essentially ridiculing Sergio's nonsense.  But here it is the rules official's role to protect the field and he failed to do so.

It was NOT within the rules because no reasonable person could conclude that the sprinkler head really interfered with the swing.  In my book Schwartzel cheated just by arguing his case and the rules official allowed him to.  Schwartzel even said, at one point, that it was a mental obstruction - and the official told him that a mental obstruction didn't matter, it had to be a physical obstruction to get relief.  After about 2 minutes the official should have just said, "sorry, no relief" and then walked away.  He let himself be bullied into granting relief by staying there and letting Schwartzel just keep repeating his argument over and over.

BTW, had it been a legitimate obstruction then dropping in the fairway is perfectly fine.    That is not improving your lie under the rules.  There are times when the rules can benefit a player.  And this would have been one of them except for the inconvenient fact that the request for relief and the granting of relief were both bogus, as everyone but Schwartzel and the official seemed to understand.

[bplewis24]

Thanks for the description.  It sounds like a poorly managed situation all around.

Brandon

[B-Con]

Decide for yourself.

That video's been pulled, but the preview image does a decent job of showing the sprinklers and his lie.