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

[max power]

He asked a rules official.  The official caved.  Far less egregious than much of Seve's questionable behavior during/before competition.

[AmazingWhacker]

Originally Posted by 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.

I caught the evening replay and saw this and now realize what the OP was talking about.  I still don't think it's *that* big of a deal but, yeah . .the official could've been stronger about the fact that the drains were not really in the way but also Charl should've just played it as it lied.  I wouldn't really call him a cheater but it wasn't that cool of a play, for sure.

[jetsknicks1]

Originally Posted by 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

It was, wasn't it? The rules official should've made the decision once Charl took his practice swing. That was like watching a home plate umpire asking the catcher if the pitch was a strike.

[Yukari]

Originally Posted by 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!

Unfortunately, you can't have one without the other.  What I mean is, if you agree that what he did was within the rules, then dropping the ball in the fairway was also within the rules.  The rule only specifies, in essence, you get relief a club length from where the ball lies no nearer to the hole (even if that means you get to drop it in the fairway).

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by jetsknicks1

It was, wasn't it? The rules official should've made the decision once Charl took his practice swing. That was like watching a home plate umpire asking the catcher if the pitch was a strike.

That sounds like the take of Faldo and the guy on the course. I thought they were right on the money.

[MSDOGS1976]

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 was mostly neutral on him as a fan going into this. I doubt he will pick up any fans over the episode, certainly not me.

[WUTiger]

Originally Posted by rossvanwyk

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

* Dustin Johnson gets a two-stroke penalty in the 2010 PGA Championship for grounding his club in straw-filled, spectator trampled patch of sand which the rules officials decide is a bunker.

* A player got disqualified for accidentally hit a non-conforming ball on a par 3 teeshot.

With all the things tour players can get penalized for, don't be surprised if they try to use the rules to their advantage on occasion.

If a pro athlete or a politician commits an actual crime or behaves rudely to others, that's cause for concern. Most of the time, however, these zaps are pretty trivial and involve a judgment call. "Get the Celebrity" appears to be the sport of choice for many Americans.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Bigtank

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.

Count me among the many who wish John Brendle had made it more clear that Charl would be making a mistake if he took relief... but to be clear, it's not Brendle's CALL to make. He can't say "no relief" and walk away. He just can't, for many reasons. The only thing he could have done was essentially lead Charl to better understand that it's shady at best... and his reputation was on the line. I think he did what he could to "hint" to Charl that he was doing something "silly" but it wasn't quite enough...

Originally Posted by WUTiger

* Dustin Johnson gets a two-stroke penalty in the 2010 PGA Championship for grounding his club in straw-filled, spectator trampled patch of sand which the rules officials decide is a bunker.

We're not going to get into that again, but in no way was that ruling wrong. And the officials didn't "decide" it was a bunker - the simply employed the definitions in the Rules of Golf. The Rules called it a bunker, not the officials.

Originally Posted by WUTiger

* A player got disqualified for accidentally hit a non-conforming ball on a par 3 teeshot.

I don't know what you're talking about with this one.

Originally Posted by WUTiger

With all the things tour players can get penalized for, don't be surprised if they try to use the rules to their advantage on occasion.

If a pro athlete or a politician commits an actual crime or behaves rudely to others, that's cause for concern. Most of the time, however, these zaps are pretty trivial and involve a judgment call. "Get the Celebrity" appears to be the sport of choice for many Americans.

That's weak. I don't get the sense that anyone here is out to get Charl on this one.

I'd have had no problem with him getting a free drop and putting the ball on a level lie and in the fairway rather than that goofy lie he had if the sprinklers had actually interfered with his swing. That's "using the rules to his advantage."

What Charl did was more like "ABUSING the rules to his advantage" or "taking advantage of the rules."

It's like someone getting free relief because they say they're going to hit a shot left-handed when in reality they wouldn't at all. They're lying, and I think Charl lied. He was probably not lying when he said it was a mental obstacle, but when he then said "yes, it's definitely a physical, real obstacle too" he switched over to lying. IMHO.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by WUTiger

* Dustin Johnson gets a two-stroke penalty in the 2010 PGA Championship for grounding his club in straw-filled, spectator trampled patch of sand which the rules officials decide is a bunker.

* A player got disqualified for accidentally hit a non-conforming ball on a par 3 teeshot.

With all the things tour players can get penalized for, don't be surprised if they try to use the rules to their advantage on occasion.

If a pro athlete or a politician commits an actual crime or behaves rudely to others, that's cause for concern. Most of the time, however, these zaps are pretty trivial and involve a judgment call. "Get the Celebrity" appears to be the sport of choice for many Americans.

Regarding the first point (that players get penalized sometimes unfairly or controversially), I don't want to rehash the DJ issue, but it kind of ignores the way Schwartzel had to be at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest in order to take advantage of this rule.  That should be a clear distinction.

Regarding the latter point (that it's not worse than a politician lying), I believe this is a red herring.  Nobody is arguing this is among the worst things to happen to humanity, simply that he lost respect among fans and possibly among peers.  I think that's a fair debate to have.

Dismissing this as a case of 'get the celebrity' undermines the merit to this thread.

Brandon

[Double Bogey]

The official cannot just say NO RELIEF and walk away, but he could have at least no said "if you think you are going to injure yourself then take relief."  Injure yourself! Really?  I agree that if the official cannot tell him that no relief can be taken, what is purpose of having an official at all.

[Edgk]

You're entire thread is wrong. Rules officials in golf are not referees. they do not make "calls". Their job is to explain to the player the definition of the rule and the rules that apply but the PLAYER must make the actual call. So no one ever said that he was green lighted by an official. in fact, the official was pretty clear that his gut instinct was that relief was questionable(however, with that being said, anyone who watched it knew the official was saying that questionable means No). it was Schwartzel who kept the conversation going trying to get the official to agree with him which never really happened. First, Schwartzel said that it was a mental issue and the rules official told him that did not qualify for relief. Next he did the practice swing which showed that the head was not in play but Schwartzel said he was going to brush the edge. The official again said, that is not justifiable for a drop it must actually become interference by the regressed lip hitting the club. Finally the rules official said to Schwartzel, You have to make the call and live with it. Scwartzel, AMAZINGLY again said, "Well, we've talked about so much that it has become an issue in my mind" Again admitting it was more a mental block then a physical. The rules officially politely reminded him that the lip MUST cause interference and that it cannot be a mental issue. Schwartzel, knowing he was FOS, and realizing the rules official wasn't going to come out and side with him, decided to take the drop anyway.

Do I believe that the rules official should have been much more blunt instead of continually implying to Charl that he hit the ball as it lay and instead said "in my opinion as per the rules, that ball does not get relief but this is the rule and you are making the swing so you have to decide." Well, yes I do. In that case, he would have stripped any false cover which plenty of posters on this site seem quick to grant Charl. This wasn't even that debateable. i would say that 90% of players wouldn't have even asked for a ruling. It was easily the most blatant example of a lack of integrity I have seen on tour in the past ten years.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Edgk

You're entire thread is wrong.

Surely not the entire thread - most posters agree with what you've written and have written very similar things.

The "call" has to be made by the player, but the official can put a metaphorical guiding hand on the shoulder, but if the player is too stupid to take notice, here is the result.

It has been made very clear by most posters that all the official could really do was hint very strongly what the course of action should be, and Schwartzel chose not to make the choice that a person of integrity, with hundreds of thousands watching would take.  Forget about integrity and character being what you do when noone is watching!!! This guy is happy to demonstrate to the world that he is lacking in judgement. He'll be remembered for this.

What people are suggesting is not that the official should have said "You can't do it", but something along the lines of "It's your call, but I'd think very carefully about it because from where I'm standing I'm finding it very hard to see it your way and I'm guessing that the people watching TV  could be too." But then..the official is not a moral policeman, so maybe he did the right thing after all, allowing Schawartzel to hang himself, which he did very efficiently.

The only people who are wrong here are those who mistake the concept of taking advantage of the rules and, as Iacas wrote, abusing them.

[zeg]

There was a very odd moment on today's (Saturday's) coverage where they showed those events again, then basically made it out as an example of how viewers should be more aware of the rules.  They expressed no question about whether it was a correct interpretation or execution of the rules, and very clearly presented the position that it was a correct ruling/relief.  The one thing they added was that it's not just the sprinkler head itself, but also the well around it.

The rule is fairly broad, I will say that.  To those who've said he has to be claiming it will injure him or the like, that's incorrect.  If there is interference with his stance or the area of his intended swing, then he gets relief.  In my opinion, it was a bit of a reach but not *completely* absurd to take relief.  Any further away and it would have been... all I can say is based on what I saw, I doubt I'd have been comfortable taking the drop...

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zeg

There was a very odd moment on today's (Saturday's) coverage where they showed those events again, then basically made it out as an example of how viewers should be more aware of the rules.  They expressed no question about whether it was a correct interpretation or execution of the rules, and very clearly presented the position that it was a correct ruling/relief.  The one thing they added was that it's not just the sprinkler head itself, but also the well around it.

I wonder if the PGA Tour requested that they do that given how negative they were about it on Friday.

Something's rotten in the state of... South Africa. Or Ponte Vedra.

[The Recreational Golfer]

OK, someone educate me. Why couldn't the rules official say, "No drop, play on" and that's that?

Clearly, Schwartzel was stretching the rule, but what if the ball had been three inches further behind the drain pipe than it was? Six inches further behind, and he still wants to take a drop? At what point can a rules official say, "Enough, already. There is just no interference here. Play on."

[anotherday]

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

OK, someone educate me. Why couldn't the rules official say, "No drop, play on" and that's that?

Clearly, Schwartzel was stretching the rule, but what if the ball had been three inches further behind the drain pipe than it was? Six inches further behind, and he still wants to take a drop? At what point can a rules official say, "Enough, already. There is just no interference here. Play on."

From what I overheard from the conversation between the official and the player it sounded like the course rule was that if the player believed the obstruction was definitely going to cause interference then the ruling would be in favor of a free drop. So the rules that were in place were a bit "wishy washy" to begin with. Which, in turn, made the official a bit "wishy washy" with how he handled the situation.

So if the official said "you won't hit that, play on" and then the player injured him/herself in the process of swinging, that would open up a much larger issue. The only way to avoid this is to put the decision in the players' hands and hope that they use some sound reasoning to make their choice (as professional golfers are expected to do).

[SouthernILGolfer]

The official was right there, Schwartzel argued his case and got his free drop.  Sounds like a done deal to me.  What more do you want?  He wasnt trying to cheat, he was trying to make sure he didnt hit something in his swing and maybe injure himself.   We werent there so we dont really know the condition of the ground around the sprinkler head, such as the drain as was mentioned in an earlier post.

[noefi13b]

I find it funny that there are very few people coming on and saying the rules are the rules as normally happens with "unfair" calls on the golf course... Amazing what happens when the shoe is on the other foot....

I haven't seen the footage but I say if its in the rules play it.....

As for if it was legal or not, well I suppose it was, otherwise on review of the situation he would have been D'Q for signing an incorrect score card (like Harrington or Camillo).... Seem's both Charl and the rules official made the right call.....