Tiger and Rory paired together: 2013 Abu Dhabi HSBC Golf Championship Discussion Thread

[newtogolf]

I don't think they realized until later that the area was sand based and that he wasn't entitled to the drop.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quick question regarding Tiger's penalty:

He thought he was entitled to free relief from an embedded ball so he took a drop.  That drop would be within a club or two of the original spot I assume.  If he had called it unplayable, the drop would have been the same, no?  So it seems to me like he played it exactly the same way he would have played it had he called it unplayable, but since he didn't actually announce it as 'unplayable' he gets a 2-stroke penalty instead of 1?

Seems silly.  Why couldn't they just have told him "Hey Tiger, you weren't entitled to the [free] drop from the embedded ball because you were in sand so we're gonna have to call it unplayable and give you a stroke penalty?"

[newtogolf]

$25M is more than a few million, so in terms of financial compensation he's leaving a lot of money on the table if he doesn't take the Nike deal.  To average people $1M seems like a lot of money, but millionaires adjust their lifestyles to their incomes, which is why so many pro athletes file for bankruptcy after they retire, they can't scale the lifestyle back.

Most smart athletes approach sports like it's a business.  Their focus is to make as much money as possible while they can because they realize at any time the gravy train can go off the tracks.

Originally Posted by Old1964

Great question.

If I was no. 1 in the world, at the top of my game,  and expected to make a few million in the upcoming season with my current clubs, would I jeopardize that? Probably not. For me, I think I could live well on a few million and enjoy not having to change anything.

On the other hand, though Rory didn't answer the reporter's question about his contractual obligations - as to whether he could swap out clubs (e.g. his putter), I suspect he must have that freedom. If that's the case, I would take the money and then play whatever clubs felt best to me. Of course, all this is merely academic as neither one of them play Mizzys.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I don't think they realized until later that the area was sand based and that he wasn't entitled to the drop.

Yes, it was much later.  Still during the round, but much later.  My point, though, is that other than the words he spoke (not announcing he was taking unplayable vs. free drop) his actions were exactly the same, right?

So why can't they simply just "correct" him and add the 1-shot penalty?

This goes back to another question I asked in a rules thread earlier this year.  If you are unsure about what action to take and decide to invoke the "play it both ways and find out later" rule, even though your two choices are identical, do you actually have to play 2 balls from the same place?

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quick question regarding Tiger's penalty:

He thought he was entitled to free relief from an embedded ball so he took a drop.  That drop would be within a club or two of the original spot I assume.  If he had called it unplayable, the drop would have been the same, no?  So it seems to me like he played it exactly the same way he would have played it had he called it unplayable, but since he didn't actually announce it as 'unplayable' he gets a 2-stroke penalty instead of 1?

Seems silly.  Why couldn't they just have told him "Hey Tiger, you weren't entitled to the [free] drop from the embedded ball because you were in sand so we're gonna have to call it unplayable and give you a stroke penalty?"

WIth unplayable, he could do one of three things:

a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5 ); or

b. Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped; or

c. Drop a ball within two club-lengths of the spot where the ball lay, but not nearer the hole .

vs. embedded:

A ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground in any closely mown area through the green may be lifted, cleaned and dropped, without penalty, as near as possible to the spot where it lay but not nearer the hole . The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green . “Closely mown area” means any area of the course , including paths through the rough, cut to fairway height or less.

So if he called it unplayable, he would have had a one stroke penalty, and could have played it from the same place, but also could have played if from further back along the line.

[Wansteadimp]

The choices aren't the same though are they?

You're dropping within two club lengths when taking a penalty due to unplayable (assuming you take a drop and dont chose one of the other two options).

When taking free relief you are finding your nearest point of relief and then dropping within 1 club length of that.

They may end up at the same spot but the procedures to get there are different, so I wouldn't think you could/should play the same ball.

[Old1964]

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

So, if you were No. 1 in the world at 23 years old and was contractually obligated to play 14 of their clubs, you would not take a guaranteed 250million deal over 10 years?  Especially when the #2 golfer (former #1 for 600+ days) also signed to the company has 60+ wins and 10+ majors with the same brand.  Furthermore, at 23 years of age, you have endless amounts of time to get accustomed to the equipment?  And again, you are 23 years old with 25 millions guaranteed dollars in the bank for the next 10 years?  You really really really really really really really really think you would say...NO.

I find that very hard to believe and judgement on Rory's decision is hypocritical.  Even if Rory suffers this season, it's still only a season when he has 20+ years of "seasons" left in him.

Anyone passing judgement on Rory's decision today has a severe case of short sided vision.

Please read above on the thread and see that I was asked a question of what I would do after I posted the comments from Nick Faldo. I wasn't passing judgment on Rory's decision to take the money and the clubs. I was merely reflecting on a hypothetical question asked of me - of what I might do - while conceding if I could swap out clubs at my discretion I would take the money. So, I am not condemning Rory's decision.

On the other hand, I would add that I think Tiger gradually phased in his Nike clubs over a few years which seems to be very wise. Rory's decision to change the putter on day two speaks volumes. Finally, people with millions (and I know a few) take much more satisfaction in life in their achievements not in their net worth. Faldo's on air comments seemed to make that point. I thought his comments were substantial in that he speaks from a perspective of making millions and winning majors.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

$25M is more than a few million, so in terms of financial compensation he's leaving a lot of money on the table if he doesn't take the Nike deal.  To average people $1M seems like a lot of money, but millionaires adjust their lifestyles to their incomes, which is why so many pro athletes file for bankruptcy after they retire, they can't scale the lifestyle back.

Most smart athletes approach sports like it's a business.  Their focus is to make as much money as possible while they can because they realize at any time the gravy train can go off the tracks.

Yes. I get it. Of course, no one will ever know if the Rory made the best business decision due to the uncertainty of life. Had he another great year and finished #1 in 2013, he might have been offered an even better offer - millions more each year and a longer contract. The opposite is also true. He could have a career ending injury getting out of a hot tub. As Frank Sinatra said, "That's Life".

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dsc123

WIth unplayable, he could do one of three things:

a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or

b. Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped; or

c. Drop a ball within two club-lengths of the spot where the ball lay, but not nearer the hole.

vs. embedded:

A ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground in any closely mown areathrough the green may be lifted, cleaned and dropped, without penalty, as near as possible to the spot where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the coursethrough the green. “Closely mown area” means any area of the course, including paths through the rough, cut to fairway height or less.

So if he called it unplayable, he would have had a one stroke penalty, and could have played it from the same place, but also could have played if from further back along the line.

Originally Posted by Wansteadimp

The choices aren't the same though are they?

You're dropping within two club lengths when taking a penalty due to unplayable (assuming you take a drop and dont chose one of the other two options).

When taking free relief you are finding your nearest point of relief and then dropping within 1 club length of that.

They may end up at the same spot but the procedures to get there are different, so I wouldn't think you could/should play the same ball.

Oh, good points.  My fault here for not having all of the information.  It's certainly possible that his NPR drop was more than 2 club lengths away from the original spot.  In which case, clearly it would be an illegal drop.

However, if the NPR was within one club length and he went one club length from there, then that would still be within the legal area of an unplayable drop had he gone that route.  (But if you are right about the bold part, then its a moot point anyways, and as silly as I think it is, he would have had to play 2 balls for the remainder of the hole from that exact same spot)

But since I didn't actually see it, I'm just going to assume that his NPR plus one club length put him outside of 2 club lengths.  :)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Oh, good points.  My fault here for not having all of the information.  It's certainly possible that his NPR drop was more than 2 club lengths away from the original spot.  In which case, clearly it would be an illegal drop.

However, if the NPR was within one club length and he went one club length from there, then that would still be within the legal area of an unplayable drop had he gone that route.  (But if you are right about the bold part, then its a moot point anyways, and as silly as I think it is, he would have had to play 2 balls for the remainder of the hole from that exact same spot)

But since I didn't actually see it, I'm just going to assume that his NPR plus one club length put him outside of 2 club lengths.  :)

The simple answer: because he didn't declare an unplayable. He moved his ball improperly.

You can't just say "oh yeah I was hitting a provisional" after the fact and you can't say "oh yeah it was an unplayable" after the fact.

[KrazyTrain18]

As much as they played bad, it also looked like Rory especially just didn't want to be there, seems like he got his appearance money and once his play slipped a little he just wanted to quit.

[Old1964]

The real reason they both played so poorly is that Tiger and Rory were out partying the night before the tournament began.

They both had a bit of a hangover. Nike sponsored the binge drinking and arranged for Abu Dhabi rap artists, One Hump or Two,  to keep the party going.

Morning of start...wan't hair of the dog...it was hair of the camel!

[WWBDD]

Originally Posted by Old1964

The real reason they both played so poorly is that Tiger and Rory were out partying the night before the tournament began.

They both had a bit of a hangover. Nike sponsored the binge drinking and arranged for Abu Dhabi rap artists, One Hump or Two,  to keep the party going.

Morning of start...wan't hair of the dog...it was hair of the camel!

Admittedly, there are a lot of distractions in Abu Dhabi.

[clarkeycats]

Watched the 3rd round, Rose is playing some good golf, can see him winning easily tomorrow.

[clarkeycats]

Or maybe not!

[WWBDD]

Right on Donaldson ... wish I could stay up and watch it.

[Golfingdad]

Was pulling for Rose, because I like his swing ... and I also learned I really like the swing of the Scandanavian guy (spelling this wrong certainly) ... Thorborn Olesen.

[jamo]

Was pulling for Rose, because I like his swing ... and I also learned I really like the swing of the Scandanavian guy (spelling this wrong certainly) ... Thorborn Olesen.

There's a "j" in there, and the first "o" has the line thing. Thorbjørn Olesen.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by jamo

There's a "j" in there, and the first "o" has the line thing. Thorbjørn Olesen.

Yeah, that's it.  Really liked that guy's swing. :)

[Wansteadimp]

I think Olesen will be the real deal, nice progression in his career so far. Aggressive, didn't get phased when he made an horrific double.

Felt really bad for Howells, 4 putt from 5 foot, not good. Having said that the cheer leading the Sky commentary team were doing for him was getting a bit much, I know he has worked with them but still...