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

[bplewis24]

So a person lying to take relief is okay in golf now.  I guess that will be the day the sport changed forever...

Yes, I'm exaggerating... kind of .

[zeg]

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

That was definitely the sense I got.  The commentator didn't sound like he had much confidence in what he was saying, either.  He seemed to be hemming and hawing a bit and I got the sense he was shrugging his shoulders to Nick Faldo as he said it...

Originally Posted by anotherday

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).

As far as I know, there's no "course rule," just the Rules of Golf.  As I understand it, it's up to the player to make the factual decision, and if he presents facts to the rules official he can rely on the official's interpretation of the rules.  So if he told the official true facts and the official gave him an incorrect ruling based on true facts, he would not be penalized for relying on that official.  However, here we have a questionable fact presented by the golfer.  I think that could be reviewed later, but I don't know the details.  It looks like the powers that be are content, so I guess they considered it close enough not to question.

Originally Posted by 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.....

The thing is that it's not just a question of the rules.  The rules do unquestionably provide relief when there is interference.  The question is whether there was actually interference.  It's one thing to avail oneself to the relief to which he's entitled.  It's another to twist the facts to obtain that relief.

[newtogolf]

The difference between say golf and football is golf is supposed to be a gentlemans game.  Honor and personal integrity are supposed to be the guiding principles for it.  In football it's common for players to stretch or break the rules which is why they put officials on the field to watch for rules infractions.  I don't expect an offensive lineman to report himself to an official when he's guilty of holding but doesn't get caught, but I do expect a golfer to do the right thing, and based on the replays I saw, Charl didn't.

[rossvanwyk]

After all is said and done, I guess the argument is purely and simply about integrity. If Charl cheated as some people like to say, he would be punished, unquestionably. However, under the rules however you want to read them and interpret them and give us your view of how you would treat this shot one day when you're on tour, he didn't cheat. He called an official over, got an ultimate ruling and went with it.

A while ago i saw Quiros get relief when his drive stuck him with a tree directly in his route to the green. However, it was deemed that his back foot would be touching the path if he were to take his normal swing, therefore he got relief, took a couple steps back and had a clear path to the green. Whereas I am pretty damn sure he could have taken a perfectly good swing if he played it where it lay. is this cheating? No. Did Charl cheat? No.

Whatever the outcome, this will be forgotten in no time. I've seen people do way worse things in sport and the world hasn't ended. Hell, Faldo has had his days of smashing things and throwing clubs and being DQ'd so I really wouldn't stress too much about him saying people are going to whisper behind his back. I think people are going way too big on this and bashing a guys character when you weren't there and won't ever know the exact situation or how Charl saw things or what was going through his mind.

He didn't cheat. End.

[Shorty]

He didn't cheat. End.

That's not right. It's not "End"

The telecast was about as clear as you'd ever see. What he did made a mockery of the notion that this is a game of integrity

Did Tiger "cheat" when he got spectators to move a huge boulder ...er sorry, loose impediment?

It's not about cheating and penalties and not cheating and rulings and officials.

It's about the fact that the guy lied about what his intentions were, but no one is able to call him a "liar" because you can't prove that he didn't want to hit the ball 50 yards right of target, even though he wasn't obstructed. If I said I wanted to hit the ball backwards into the carpark off the first tee, you couldn't prove that I was lying. That's the point.

And you don't make a four word summation of a situation like this as if it's simple.  It's not B&W; as in cheat/didn't cheat. It's about integrity and honour, and Schwartzel proved himself to be lacking.
As for the following statements:

Whatever the outcome, this will be forgotten in no time. I've seen people do way worse things in sport and the world hasn't ended.

Noone is suggesting that it is the worst thinhg they've ever see or that the world is going to end. We are discussing a particular incident, not claiming that it going to change the course of history. But it's good to see how the game does reveal character.

In discussion relating to golf, we are putting it into a golf context. If we couldn't discuss things because worse things have happened, no one would be able to discuss anything because it would be too unimportant.

[rossvanwyk]

I just felt like people were going really big on a situation that is not as B&W; and clear as you seem to think it is. So I was a bit nonchalant in saying 'he didn't cheat. end'. I admit.

I just feel it's not right that people can attack the character of a guy because of a way you perceived a situation to have unfolded. You can't prove what he wanted to do, what he thought the situation was with the sprinklers and his swing.

I'm not one for cheating or beding of rules in any shape or form. i just think people are speaking with absolute authority on a situation when quite frankly, you weren't there, you can't prove his thinking and you're trying to taint his character over something that really doesn't warrant it in my opinion.

Anyhow, it'll just be a battle of opinions. Some will see it this way, others that way. I just think we're really going into symantics now. Because in a way, it IS about rules. There are rules of golf, he didn't break any. I don't see the point of there being these stringent rules and officials on the course if and when you call them over, you get your ruling so far as knowing you aren't breaking a rule of golf, then after the fact you get a bunch of people saying ya you followed the rules, but it's not right.

What if he did want to hit the ball right of target though? Can you absolutely prove that he didn't have any thought of doing this? I personally don't even think where he ended up initially was so bad so I don't see that he had enough reason to lie or cheat to get relief. It's not like his feet were in the swamp.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by Shorty

That's not right. It's not "End"

The telecast was about as clear as you'd ever see. What he did made a mockery of the notion that this is a game of integrity

Did Tiger "cheat" when he got spectators to move a huge boulder ...er sorry, loose impediment?

It's not about cheating and penalties and not cheating and rulings and officials.

It's about the fact that the guy lied about what his intentions were, but no one is able to call him a "liar" because you can't prove that he didn't want to hit the ball 50 yards right of target, even though he wasn't obstructed. If I said I wanted to hit the ball backwards into the carpark off the first tee, you couldn't prove that I was lying. That's the point.

And you don't make a four word summation of a situation like this as if it's simple.  It's not B&W; as in cheat/didn't cheat. It's about integrity and honour, and Schwartzel proved himself to be lacking.

As for the following statements:

Whatever the outcome, this will be forgotten in no time. I've seen people do way worse things in sport and the world hasn't ended.

Noone is suggesting that it is the worst thinhg they've ever see or that the world is going to end. We are discussing a particular incident, not claiming that it going to change the course of history. But it's good to see how the game does reveal character.

In discussion relating to golf, we are putting it into a golf context. If we couldn't discuss things because worse things have happened, no one would be able to discuss anything because it would be too unimportant.

It will be forgotten because I see him joining Tevor Immelman in the "what happened to him" category.

[gjsuicide]

Here is the replay

http://www.pgatour.com/video/r/highlights/top_shots/2011/06/04/mine_11memorial_rnd2_schwartzel_ruling.pgatour/index.html

[bplewis24]

Thanks for posting that.  What I see there is Nance (however you spell it) explaining why the rule was correctly enforced.  I didn't see him going out of his way to say the right thing happened.  It is extremely important to note the distinction that the rule was ONLY properly enforced IF Schwartzel disingenuously or dishonestly (depending on your POV and semantics) claims that the sprinkler head & well would interfere with his intended swing .

IF he says it will, then he is entitled to relief, and Nantz/Nance correctly explains that he took relief properly after that important distinction had transpired.  He did not (from that replay) take any stance on whether Schwartzel's swing would have been interfered with, and it even seems like he purposely avoided addressing that issue.  Notice that at the very end of the ruling he emphasizes that the key thing is the "interfering with intended swing" part of the ruling, but then doesn't discuss whether or not it would have.

Bottom line: the relief was taken correctly and the rules official probably did his job correctly because Schwartzel was dishonest.  Golfers are not supposed to be dishonest, it completely changes the game.  Think of how many tournament results would have ended differently if golfers were dishonest on a regular basis.

Brandon

[zeg]

While it's true that Nantz didn't touch on whether there was interference, I don't see that you can say what he said without at least implying that.  I thought he sounded uncomfortable when I watched it live (didn't re-listen, though), and maybe that's why.  I thought at the time that, like Erik suggests, someone "important" must not have been happy with the criticism of the ruling the day before and asked them to "clear" the record.

There are a lot of rules that depend on the golfer's accurately ascertaining facts or making reasonable claims about his intentions.  IMO, if one doesn't believe that Schwartzel made an honest claim, then there's no way you can explain this to anyone in a helpful way.  At best it leads to the (sometimes fair) belief that the Rules of Golf are needlessly lawyerly.  Without rendering an opinion about whether there was actually interference, it's at best pointless to bring it up.  I was hoping he'd at least have some statement from the officials clarifying their opinions of the facts.

[motteler621]

heres the vid, found it on youtube. I havent read much of anything in this thread but after watching the video I dont find that much of a problem with the drop. I might of done the same thing simply because the edge of the club can catch the edge of that sprinkler wall and just throw off your shot. If the edge of his club caught the edge of that sprinkler circle it could of possibly thrown off his impact. Its too close to criticize him because theres a good change I would of done the same thing from the angle of the green and two sprinkler heads right into front of him. I wouldnt be comfortable swinging through because a small mistake in your swing can turn into a total disaster with those sprinkler heads there. Sure if he had a perfect swing it might not of been a problem but sometimes just the thought of if you off a little your going to hit the sprinkler head messes you up.

[MSchott]

This is much ado about nothing. PGA players take advantage of the rules all of the time. Schwartzel is certainly not the only person to do this. They all do it, every one of them if it will benefit them. These are not the guys out for a Saturday morning foursome, they are the best and expect not to have interference from man made obstacles.

Remember, they are used to getting all the breaks. The PGA plays lift, clean and place if it rained the night before. They are spoiled but that's the way it is. IMO Schwartzel did nothing wrong.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by MSchott

This is much ado about nothing. PGA players take advantage of the rules all of the time. Schwartzel is certainly not the only person to do this. They all do it, every one of them if it will benefit them. These are not the guys out for a Saturday morning foursome, they are the best and expect not to have interference from man made obstacles.

Remember, they are used to getting all the breaks. The PGA plays lift, clean and place if it rained the night before. They are spoiled but that's the way it is. IMO Schwartzel did nothing wrong.

Well said. All PGA pros are spoiled with optimal conditions, so it's their nature to take whatever they can get under the rules. To single at Schwartzel is ridiculous.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by motteler621

I might of done the same thing simply because the edge of the club can catch the edge of that sprinkler wall and just throw off your shot. If the edge of his club caught the edge of that sprinkler circle it could of possibly thrown off his impact.

Something six inches after the ball will not "throw off his impact." The ball is gone.

Originally Posted by motteler621

Its too close to criticize him because theres a good change I would of done the same thing from the angle of the green and two sprinkler heads right into front of him.

His swing path was not 30 degrees to the right. It was between the two, and not deep either. It wasn't "right in front of him."

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Kieran123

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

Huh?

He was allowed a drop in a situation where I would never have condoned it.  The sprinklers were not in a position to interfere under any rule I'm familiar with (and I know them all pretty well), and he got away with it because he is just another prima donna Tour player.  I would lay 100 to 1 odds that the same situation in either of the upcoming Open Championships would have been denied relief.  The USGA and the R&A; like to see the players play golf, unlike the PGA Tour which would prefer to cater to the players rather than risk bad press.  Even the video posted in a previous thread "is no longer available due to copyright claim by the PGA Tour" (meaning that they don't want anyone who knows what he's talking about to second guess their crappy official).  Then Nance just toes the PGA Tour party line in the later video - no surprise there.

[ochmude]

Maybe it's just because I'm not all that good a player, but it looked like he had a pretty nice lie to begin with.  At the muni courses I play the fairway isn't as well cut and maintained as that "rough" was.  I'm not going to loose sleep over the decision, though.

[Clambake]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Even the video posted in a previous thread "is no longer available due to copyright claim by the PGA Tour" (meaning that they don't want anyone who knows what he's talking about to second guess their crappy official).

Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense.    The video is posted on the Tour's own website for anyone to see - they aren't trying to hide it or anything.     The copyright claim was exactly that - the video was being used in a business enterprise without permission by the copyright holder.    There's no conspiracy here.

[motteler621]

Two things make me really surprised about the venom directed at CS over this drop:

1. The camera does not lie...but it does distort. The camera angle, the two-dimensional nature of TV images and the way the camera filters natural light all affect our perspective of size, depth and distance. Just as the camera is said to "add 20 pounds" to people's appearance, it's not hard to believe that it adds the appearance of an inch or two to the distance between the ball and the sprinklers. That inch or two seems to be really important to the most indignant posters here. I don't know how the situation appeared to Charl either, but I'm pretty certain that it looked a little different to him than it did to us.

2. If he had left the ball in its original position, it would have been above his feet. If his original intention was to play the ball toward the green, he would have had to start it out right of the target to compensate for the stance. This makes it much more credible that the left edge of the right hand sprinkler was in play.

If I were playing a tournament match and my opponent asked for relief with his ball in a position similar to Charl's, I might have felt like he was catching a break but I would have allowed him relief and never thought twice about it. Indeed, if I were watching a match and a player denied relief to an opponent in a position similar to Charl's, I probably would have found the player denying relief less sporting than the player requesting relief.

It was a close call, and erring on the side of denying relief would have brought the possibility of injury (albeit a small possibility) into play. The rules do not require that any of us make ourselves martyrs for the sake of "the spirt of the game." Sprinkler heads, yardage blocks and cart paths are necessary but unnatural parts of the course -- that's why we are allowed relief from them. Charl Schwartzel has watched his fellow South African Trevor Immelman win the Masters only to suffer injuries and illness soon thereafter and struggle for years to regain his form. I'm sure Charl has no interest in suffering the same fate after winning his own green jacket. I suspect that even many of the most indignent about Charl's drop would find the decision much more difficult if they were on the course than they do from the comfort of their keyboards.