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

[Stretch]

Originally Posted by motteler621

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.

I wonder about that too. This picture, from a more oblique angle, makes things look a little less clear cut to me.

[ElWagonne]

Originally Posted by Clambake

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.

The video posted on PGATour.com is of the replay Saturday with Jim Nantz doing his best to take Charl's side, allowing the uninformed viewer's opinion to be adjusted by an outside source.  Video on Friday was taken down so I could see the conspiracy theory.  The drop was sketchy, but if allowed to, I'd probably do it too.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by ElWagonne

The video posted on PGATour.com is of the replay Saturday with Jim Nantz doing his best to take Charl's side, allowing the uninformed viewer's opinion to be adjusted by an outside source.  Video on Friday was taken down so I could see the conspiracy theory.  The drop was sketchy, but if allowed to, I'd probably do it too.

If a rules official told me I was entitled to a drop in this exact situation, I'd take it.  If it was left up to my own discretion I would not take the risk of incurring a 2 stroke penalty.  Schwatrtzel took a big gamble in making the drop without the RO's  backing.  He just happened to get away with it because the Tour is known to be lenient with its players in such situations.

No matter how many angles I see it from, I still don't see the physical interference.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by motteler621

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.

This uncertainty is just the reason that I wouldn't count myself among the haters, but I will say that it doesn't do anything to improve my opinion of him.  That the official was not willing to clearly agree with his assessment speaks to the truth at some level.  Of course, he also didn't smack Schwartzel and tell him to get real, so that logic can go both ways.

I can understand the Tour (or whatever group was officiating this event) being hesitant to second-guess its players on an issue like this, though.  In the end, it's better for a player to "get away" with a questionable judgement call than feel he has to take a risk and end up injured.

[iacas]

I saw it posted somewhere (maybe here) something like this...

The RO could have asked Charl whether he was prepared to take an unplayable lie. Not tell him why he was asking, but basically he'd be asking to see how credible the thought to Charl was that he was actually "interfered" with.

If Charl said "yep, I'd take an unplayable lie, because I don't want to injure myself, and that's why I think I should get a drop" then I say go for it, and take the drop with a free conscience.

It kinda makes sense. My rebuttal to that would be that ROs shouldn't have to try to play mind games to see what the player is truly thinking. But I kinda like the idea.

I'm not going to filet Charl over this, but it definitely didn't improve my perception of him as a golfer. And I don't blame the RO at all. It's 100% the golfer's call.

I believe in karma, though. Good luck Charl.

[showtime583]

Wow - hadn't heard about this one...Charl just went down a few notches in my book. I wonder what Gary Player and the Big Easy would say about this off the record?

Similar situation a few years ago in the US Open for DL3.....he was not in contention but playing in one of the final groups and coverage showed him playing the final hole. DL3 drives in the rough and the ball ends up a yard or two to the right of a sprinkler head. DL3 could have manipulated his stance to argue that he was standing on the sprinkler head to take a drop that would've have given him a much-improved lie. To his credit (and to nobody's surprise), he played the shot as it was without "taking advantage" of the rules. Truly a gentleman's game.....

[longislander]

I was reading through the USGA Rules and Decisions today and I saw the following decision Q & A which reminded me of this post.  I first thought that they must have added the decision after the Charl episode, but based on the USGA's website I don't think the Rules and Decisions have been updated since 2008.  If so,  there was an actual decision with the same fact pattern.

24-2a/1  Mental Interference by Obstruction

Q. A player's ball lies several inches to the side of a sprinkler head. The sprinkler head does not physically interfere with the player's stance or the area of his intended swing. However, the sprinkler head bothers the player mentally. Is the player entitled to relief under Rule 24-2b ?

A. No. See Rule 24-2a .

[Dr. Strangeclub]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I find this one interesting.

...

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

I didn't like TW a whole lot already, what with his fake amateur standing (endorsement money from Cobra going to his father so he could keep his "amateur" status).  I've heard plenty from both sides and this one has certainly been beaten to death.  No sense in arguing it further, but I think it was a bad decision.   You're asking this as if everybody thought that was okay, but at the time, there were a lot of people who thought that was just awful, for any number of reasons.

[MrElculver2424]

Maybe it was wrong for him to do that...but like others have said, the rules really are confusing sometimes and I don't think it's a big deal. I was never a "fan" anyway, so this doesn't affect me or my life.

[mad max]

Originally Posted by iacas

I saw it posted somewhere (maybe here) something like this...

The RO could have asked Charl whether he was prepared to take an unplayable lie. Not tell him why he was asking, but basically he'd be asking to see how credible the thought to Charl was that he was actually "interfered" with.

If Charl said "yep, I'd take an unplayable lie, because I don't want to injure myself, and that's why I think I should get a drop" then I say go for it, and take the drop with a free conscience.

It kinda makes sense. My rebuttal to that would be that ROs shouldn't have to try to play mind games to see what the player is truly thinking. But I kinda like the idea.

I'm not going to filet Charl over this, but it definitely didn't improve my perception of him as a golfer. And I don't blame the RO at all. It's 100% the golfer's call.

I believe in karma, though. Good luck Charl.

I don't think this is a just way of determining whether the player is entitled to relief.  9 times out of 10 I think I would hit off a cart path rather than take an unplayable lie but I might not use the same club or use the same swing as I might if I was not on the cart path and I am nowhere near as skilled as you or Charl.

[arogolf]

I saw this live on tv. While personally I would not have taken a drop, he was within bounds to do so. We see pro golfers take advantage of the rules all the time and he just followed suit. Don't pros look for an advantage in the grey areas to tilt things in their favor? Hard to judge his character based on that one call.

[CuppedTin]

To me this was totally a judgement call, but to say you lose respect for a man because he took a drop that was granted to him is a little ridiculous. And then to go a step further and judge the PGA sanctioned rules official makes you down right ignorant... If you witnessed him break a rule, then that's understandable. But don't put yourself in his shoes and make reckless speculation. Just my opinion.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by CuppedTin

To me this was totally a judgement call, but to say you lose respect for a man because he took a drop that was granted to him is a little ridiculous.

But the drop was granted to him only because he was able to convince the rules official that the sprinkler head interfered with his swing, when it clearly did not (by the judgement of most, including the announcers at the time, the video of which was immediately pulled by the PGA Tour... hmm, wonder why...)

Originally Posted by CuppedTin

...And then to go a step further and judge the PGA sanctioned rules official makes you down right ignorant...

The rules official is also to blame since he let Schwartzel bully him into making the wrong call.

I think there's enough gray area here that we can have opinions on the validity (or lack thereof) of the ruling that differ from yours, without actually being ignorant.

[CuppedTin]

Sorry, but calling a PGA rules official Gutless is ignorant, in my opinion.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

But the drop was granted to him only because he was able to convince the rules official that the sprinkler head interfered with his swing, when it clearly did not (by the judgement of most, including the announcers at the time, the video of which was immediately pulled by the PGA Tour... hmm, wonder why...)

The rules official is also to blame since he let Schwartzel bully him into making the wrong call.

I think there's enough gray area here that we can have opinions on the validity (or lack thereof) of the ruling that differ from yours, without actually being ignorant.

It seems you are basing your opinions on the fact you don't think he should have been allowed relief. This happens to PGA players all the time. Why single out Schwartzel? Whether or not he should have been granted relief is debatable. It's not clear one way or the other. Anything said by the announcers is speculation as they don't know all of the details and did not hear the entire conversation.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by MSchott

It seems you are basing your opinions on the fact you don't think he should have been allowed relief. This happens to PGA players all the time. Why single out Schwartzel? Whether or not he should have been granted relief is debatable. It's not clear one way or the other. Anything said by the announcers is speculation as they don't know all of the details and did not hear the entire conversation.

Nothing in this thread is anything but speculation since we can never prove what Schwartzel was really thinking. I'm just stating my opinion based on the available evidence, which I feel is overwhelmingly against Schwartzel.  I don't see how I'm singling him out - I would call BS on any other player who got relief I didn't feel he was entitled to. (See my posts on Carl in the Big Break thread for evidence of that. )

Originally Posted by CuppedTin

Sorry, but calling a PGA rules official Gutless is ignorant, in my opinion.

Believing PGA rules officials to be infallible and beyond reproach is ignorant in mine.

[inthehole]

can you blame him for using the rules to his advantage ?         Comon - at that level, if it's within the rulebook, he simply did what the official allowed.     Bottom line, they're not exactly playing loser buys dinner out there...stakes are high

[CuppedTin]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Nothing in this thread is anything but speculation since we can never prove what Schwartzel was really thinking. I'm just stating my opinion based on the available evidence, which I feel is overwhelmingly against Schwartzel.  I don't see how I'm singling him out - I would call BS on any other player who got relief I didn't feel he was entitled to. (See my posts on Carl in the Big Break thread for evidence of that. )

Believing PGA rules officials to be infallible and beyond reproach is ignorant in mine.

Who said rules officials were infallible, you might be better off posting somewhere else for awhile because you are in an uphill battle. Now you are simply putting words out there that were never said in order to minimize your stance on this. You do realize that the rules official and Schwartzel were both within their rights to do what they did. I can't believe you are even still responding. Had there been a clear violation then this would be a clearly different topic. But I am finished with this thread, and you sir are definitely entitled to your own opinion.