Large Rock Ruling - The Tiger Woods Boulder Incident with Gallery Help

[Golfingdad]

As to your suggested response?  A solution in search of a problem.

Agreed.

Also, I just looked it up and Tiger finished 3rd in 1999.  And he was clear of 4th by three shots.  Meaning, he wasn't even helped by this "unfair" assistance.

[turtleback]

The lost ball rule is a red herring. I don't complain when Player A has a larger gallery and his ball ends up being found while Player B has a small gallery and ends up with a lost ball because there is no practical way to level that playing field.  Golf is about finding equitable solutions to the thousands of circumstances that can arise, and they have done all they can with the lost ball circumstance.

The reason to address this rule in some way is simple. To not do so is to allow a golfer's popularity to become the determining factor as to how he will get to play his next shot. That is bad for the sport. Let me ask a simple question. Have you ever seen another player do what Tiger did here? Get ten guys from the gallery to do something for him that has never been done on tour for anyone else? I have not. Now I am not aware what has transpired in every professional event ever to take place in the world, so maybe you could point out another time this has happened?

The only reference to a similar event in a tournament setting that I could find dealt with a downed tree limb ... 60 years ago. It is fairly obvious that the tournament directors of that event would not have designed things for play to have to proceed thru a downed tree limb, so that player gained relief and did so with the aid of patrons.

Perhaps this could be addressed via local rules, which I would suggest they do exactly that. That is different from an outright rules change as I had previously described, but would also lend itself to a more equitable playing field. FWIW, Mark O'Meara suggested the same change as I have.

OK, so it happened in Phoenix and the only other time you could find it occurring was 60 years ago.

Do you really think the powers that be should be changing the rules because of a situation that you can only find 2 examples of in 60 years?   Or that you would even be talking about it if it had not been Tiger involved?

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

No they did not change the rule because there is no reason to.  It was there before and it is there still.  Complaining about this is like complaining because a gallery member found someone's errant tee shot when someone with a smaller gallery might have ended up with a lost ball.  I cannot tell you how many people I have played with (not suggesting you would do this) who refuse to acknowledge a lost ball penalty because a gallery would have found the ball and if the guys on TV get that advantage they should too.

As to your suggested response?  A solution in search of a problem.

The lost ball rule is a red herring. I don't complain when Player A has a larger gallery and his ball ends up being found while Player B has a small gallery and ends up with a lost ball because there is no practical way to level that playing field.  Golf is about finding equitable solutions to the thousands of circumstances that can arise, and they have done all they can with the lost ball circumstance.

The reason to address this rule in some way is simple. To not do so is to allow a golfer's popularity to become the determining factor as to how he will get to play his next shot. That is bad for the sport. Let me ask a simple question. Have you ever seen another player do what Tiger did here? Get ten guys from the gallery to do something for him that has never been done on tour for anyone else? I have not. Now I am not aware what has transpired in every professional event ever to take place in the world, so maybe you could point out another time this has happened?

The only reference to a similar event in a tournament setting that I could find dealt with a downed tree limb ... 60 years ago. It is fairly obvious that the tournament directors of that event would not have designed things for play to have to proceed thru a downed tree limb, so that player gained relief and did so with the aid of patrons.

Perhaps this could be addressed via local rules, which I would suggest they do exactly that. That is different from an outright rules change as I had previously described, but would also lend itself to a more equitable playing field. FWIW, Mark O'Meara suggested the same change as I have.

Please suggest how you would word your proposed Local Rule.

[turtleback]

Please suggest how you would word your proposed Local Rule.

I'm guessing something on the order of, "If Tiger Woods does something I do not like, he incurs a 2 stroke penalty"

[Ernest Jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asheville

Please suggest how you would word your proposed Local Rule.

I'm guessing something on the order of, "If Tiger Woods does something I do not like, he incurs a 2 stroke penalty"

4 strokes if your wife works at Perkins or the International House of Pancakes.

[imsys0042]

4 strokes if your wife works at Perkins or the International House of Pancakes.

Good one! :) At the time I thought that the Boulder incident was legal but not really in the spirit of the rules. Then I remembered that the rules are not there to punish you, but to help you. Tiger getting help from the people in the gallery is no different than a situation where you get relief or end up improving your situation. I'll bet if it had been any random pro that that happened to, the people would have done the same for them. I think the difference is that Tiger is like Nicklaus in that he would come up with something like that. Big time thinker.