Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
wadesworld

Steve Stricker - John Deere

14 posts in this topic

I'm sure most of you saw it, but Steve Stricker made what I believe to have been a mistake, and provided a good lesson on being aware of the rules during the John Deere classic.

It was a drivable par 4, and he lost his tee shot way to the right in some knee-high fescue.  He did hit a provisional, but after the ball was found, the rules official determined the ball was embedded and he was entitled to relief.

When he took the embedded ball relief, he dropped the ball at the same spot, and of course it sunk 3 feet down in the tall grass.  At this point he decided to take an unplayable.  Two club-lengths wasn't going to buy him anything, so his only option was to trek about 60 yards up a steep hill to the #13 tee box.  He dropped there on a line extended between the pin and where the ball had lain.

Now, Steve Stricker being Steve Stricker, he pulled off an incredible wedge shot and made the putt for par.  However, he was very close to being blocked by a tree, and I'm sure the first thought in his head was not, "I know - I'll take an unplayable and drop way up there."  He was very close to being completely screwed.

I suspect that if he had it to do over again without knowing the eventual result, he would have either quickly played his provisional before his original was found, or declared the original unplayable initially without taking the embedded ball relief and replayed from the tee.

Did that thought occur to anyone else?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Why would he rush to play his provisional (4th shot) when there was a chance of finding and playing his original ball (2nd shot).

Why would he deem his original ball unplayable and then be playing his 3rd shot when he had free relief and could see what his drop was like for his 2nd shot. Taking the risk that his drop would result in an unplayable ball cost him nothing and there was also the chance of being able to play it .  In the event he decided it was unplayable and then had the usual 3 options.  At worst he was back to the tee to play his 3rd shot, but clear thinking showed him the drop on the 13th tee  And as an option for an unplayable ball in the deep stuff, ending up a wedge away from the green, playing from the surface of a tee couldn't be bettered.  I didn't see it, but what was so incredible about the shot?

Seems excellent management to me, and an object lesson as well.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would he rush to play his provisional (4th shot) when there was a chance of finding and playing his original ball (2nd shot). Why would he deem his original ball unplayable and then be playing his 3rd shot when he had free relief and could see what his drop was like for his 2nd shot. Taking the risk that his drop would result in an unplayable ball cost him nothing and there was also the chance of being able to play it .  In the event he decided it was unplayable and then had the usual 3 options.  At worst he was back to the tee to play his 3rd shot, but clear thinking showed him the drop on the 13th tee  And as an option for an unplayable ball in the deep stuff, ending up a wedge away from the green, playing from the surface of a tee couldn't be bettered.  I didn't see it, but what was so incredible about the shot?   Seems excellent management to me, and an object lesson as well.

My thoughts exactly. Given the choice of hitting my 3d with a wedge into the green or re-teeing, I'm taking the wedge every time!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:
In the event he decided it was unplayable and then had the usual 3 options.  At worst he was back to the tee to play his 3rd shot, but clear thinking showed him the drop on the 13th tee

I believe that's incorrect.  This is my point.  When he took the free relief from the embedded ball, that took away the option of going back to the tee for his unplayable.  Why?  Because the "spot last played" was now the spot where he dropped the ball.


Quote:

And as an option for an unplayable ball in the deep stuff, ending up a wedge away from the green, playing from the surface of a tee couldn't be bettered.  I didn't see it, but what was so incredible about the shot?

If you didn't see it, it's hard to describe how nasty the stuff was in which he was dropping.  There was no guarantee he was going to be able to advance it at all.

I'm not saying it's a definite he would have done it differently, but again, he got very lucky he found a place from which to play.  My point was, I'm not sure if he fully considered how handcuffed the decision to take the free relief from the embedded ball was going to leave him.

As for what was incredible about the shot, to put it within 5 feet from a tee box 100 yards away and 60 feet up to a tight pin was incredible.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that's incorrect. This is my point.  When he took the free relief from the embedded ball, that took away the option of going back to the tee for his unplayable.  Why?  Because the "spot last played" was now the spot where he dropped the ball.

I can understand why you might think that, but it's incorrect. When taking relief under Rule 25, he is allowed to drop without losing his right to subsequently declare the ball unplayable under Rule 28. Decision 18-2a/12.5(3) applies.... 18-2a/12.5 Player Entitled to Relief Without Penalty from Condition Lifts Ball; Chooses Not to Take Relief and Wishes to Proceed Under the Unplayable Ball Rule Q.A player elects to take relief from an immovable obstruction or abnormal ground condition and lifts his ball. He then realizes that the only area in which he may drop under the Rules is such that his ball, when dropped, will almost certainly be unplayable. May the player deem the ball unplayable and proceed under Rule 28? A.Yes. The player has the following options: 1. replace the ball in its original position under penalty of one stroke (Rule 18-2a) and then proceed under Rule 28, incurring an additional penalty of one stroke; or 2. proceed directly under Rule 28b or c, without replacing the ball and using the spot where the ball originally lay as the reference point for the relief procedure, incurring a penalty stroke under Rule 28 and an additional penalty stroke under Rule 18-2a; or 3. drop the ball in accordance with Rule 24 or 25 and then, using its new position as a reference point, proceed under Rule 28 incurring a penalty of one stroke; or 4. proceed directly under Rule 28a, without dropping the ball in accordance with Rule 24 or 25, incurring a penalty of one stroke under Rule 28 and no penalty under Rule 18-2a, as he does not need to establish a new reference point before proceeding under Rule 28a.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I believe that's incorrect.  This is my point.  When he took the free relief from the embedded ball, that took away the option of going back to the tee for his unplayable.  Why?  Because the "spot last played" was now the spot where he dropped the ball.

If you didn't see it, it's hard to describe how nasty the stuff was in which he was dropping.  There was no guarantee he was going to be able to advance it at all.

I'm not saying it's a definite he would have done it differently, but again, he got very lucky he found a place from which to play.  My point was, I'm not sure if he fully considered how handcuffed the decision to take the free relief from the embedded ball was going to leave him.

As for what was incredible about the shot, to put it within 5 feet from a tee box 100 yards away and 60 feet up to a tight pin was incredible.

By taking relief from the embedded ball he was in the same position  - his 2nd shot coming up - but with the bonus that his  ball might be  playable.  Should he have to deem his ball  unplayable after his drop, he is still in the same position  as he would have been if he had deemed the embedded ball unplayable - 3 options with a penalty stroke making his next shot his 3rd.    One of these options was to play from as nearly as possible at the spot from which his ball was last played (Rule 27-1)  - which was from the tee.  Your thinking about his tactics was based on a result of misunderstanding that point, I reckon.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the provisional only usable if the ball is lost?

NOT - Lost OR deemed unplayable?

He also met the spirit (IMO) of the rules by looking for the first shot.  But, once the first is found, Isn't that provisional now not an option (i.e., if he wanted to re tee, he couldn't just take the prov, he'd have to go back and hit again....)

How does it add up to par?

1 - tee shot

2 - taking relief from the unplayable deep fescue

3 - wedge

4 - putt

question is the embedded ball - isn't that also an unplayable lie and another penalty? (I'm not very good with these types of scenarios....Just wondering is that's an ongoing rule, or one special for John Deere and the wet conditions.....)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Why would he have been allowed to take relief as an embedded ball in the fescue?  Must a local rule have been in place?

RULES FAQ

Rule 25-2

Embedded Ball Rule

Q.  On what part of the course is a player entitled to relief from an embedded ball?

A.  Under Rule 25-2, a player may only take relief from a ball that is embedded in a closely-mown area through the green. A closely-mown area is any area that is mowed to fairway height or less. However, the Committee may adopt a Local Rule that allows for relief from an embedded ball anywhere through the green. This Local Rule can be found in Appendix I; Part B.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

A.  Under Rule 25-2, a player may only take relief from a ball that is embedded in a closely-mown area through the green. A closely-mown area is any area that is mowed to fairway height or less. However, the Committee may adopt a Local Rule that allows for relief from an embedded ball anywhere through the green. This Local Rule can be found in Appendix I; Part B.

thanks, my question also, but you had the cite....  3 foot fescue doesn't seem to jibe with "any area that is mowed to fairway height or less"   ; )

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Why would he have been allowed to take relief as an embedded ball in the fescue?  Must a local rule have been in place?

I believe the PGA tour, and most tours, have a local rule allowing relief for an embedded ball through the green, except in sand (i.e. the Tiger Dubai incident).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh, golf rules, don't you love them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Isn't the provisional only usable if the ball is lost?

NOT - Lost OR deemed unplayable?

He also met the spirit (IMO) of the rules by looking for the first shot.  But, once the first is found, Isn't that provisional now not an option (i.e., if he wanted to re tee, he couldn't just take the prov, he'd have to go back and hit again....)

[/quote]

Correct.  Once the original ball was found, the provisional was no longer an option.

The "debate" was over my apparently incorrect understanding that the embedded ball drop would remove his stroke-and-distance option for the unplayable.  Well, not remove it, but make it not a valid choice, since I thought it would be in the same spot as the drop.

However, what DavidInFL pointed out does make sense.  If you are entitled to free-relief, that does not change the spot from which you played the ball.  Thus, after gaining free relief, you would still be entitled to go back to the spot last played if you take an unplayable.

If my understanding is correct, The important distinction is the free relief. To look at another scenario, if you take an unplayable (which is not free relief) and drop within two club lengths and then decide you want to take another unplayable and go back to the spot you last hit the ball, you can't because your first unplayable changed the spot-last-played to where you took the drop.  Again, if my understanding is correct.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If my understanding is correct, The important distinction is the free relief.  However, if you take an unplayable (which is not free relief) and drop within two club lengths and then decide you want to take another unplayable and go back to the spot you last hit the ball, you can't because your first unplayable changed the spot-last-played to where you took the drop.  Again, if my understanding is correct.

That's still not correct.  If you deem a ball unplayable and drop within two club lengths or along the line from the hole through where the ball lies, you can deem the ball unplayable again if you wish.  One of your options is to proceed under Rule 27-1 which, as I said above, means dropping as nearly as possible at the spot where the ball was last played. That means you go back to where you played the shot that ended up in the first unplayable lie.  if you do, you have incurred two penalty strokes, one for each unplayable.

See Decision 28/6.5

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's still not correct.  If you deem a ball unplayable and drop within two club lengths or along the line from the hole through where the ball lies, you can deem the ball unplayable again if you wish.  One of your options is to proceed under Rule 27-1 which, as I said above, means dropping as nearly as possible at the spot where the ball was last played.  That means you go back to where you played the shot that ended up in the first unplayable lie.  if you do, you have incurred two penalty strokes, one for each unplayable.

See Decision 28/6.5

I stand corrected.  Thanks for the pointer.  This is why I love discussing things in this forum - to clear up erroneous assumptions which may have been made.

So, Steve Stricker was right, I was wrong, and he still played an incredible shot. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0