Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
billchao

Ben Crane Intentionally Drives Wrong Fairway

Note: This thread is 1630 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

41 posts / 2998 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

Although it's unorthodox and pretty rare to see I have no problem with it. Was listening to people on Sirius today freaking out over it.. it's not against the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clever. Looks like there is a young tree filling in the gap of an older one that fell on the tee box. As long as he didn't put another group in his landing area - well played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big question is, will the players walk onto the course tomorrow to find a spruce tree somehow materializing itself over Crane's gap?

Quote:

In the first round of the (1979) U.S. Open, (Lon) Hinkle, playing with (Chi Chi) Rodriguez, was waiting on the eighth tee. With nothing better to do, he surveyed the landscape. Suddenly, he saw it: an alternate path to the green.

Hinkle and his caddie decided on a 220-yard shot through a hole in the sparse collection of trees. He hit a 2-iron and found the 17th fairway. Then he hit another 2-iron to the green and two-putted for birdie. He finished the round with a 70 and shared the lead with Andy Bean, Keith Fergus and Tom Purtzer.

Rodriguez took the same route as Hinkle. Up went the tree, although it was little more than a meager scarecrow in the wind.

In the second round, Rodriguez had the honor on the eighth hole. He teed his ball on top of a pencil, used a driver and lofted his ball over the tree. Hinkle did the same, following up with a 6-iron shot to the green and another birdie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they put up a tree overnight.

Did he wait for that fairway to clear? Did those players know he was coming that way?

Any place else with casual players, this is a good way to start a fight.

And this is why there is "in course out of bounds" which is a :censored: solution as well.

So hurry up and put up a tree!

Share this post


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

I hope they put up a tree overnight.

Did he wait for that fairway to clear? Did those players know he was coming that way?

Any place else with casual players, this is a good way to start a fight.

And this is why there is "in course out of bounds" which is a  solution as well.

So hurry up and put up a tree!

Safety OB is lazy course design. If you don't want someone to undertake a shot, make it so they physically can't or have no benefit to. I also think it winds up being unnecessarily penal in a lot of cases, but that's farther down my list of issues with it.

Share this post


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

I don't really understand the objections. No one got hurt, they didn't get a slow play penalty, the Earth didn't stop spinning. I also don't see a "solution."

Share this post


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

I don't really understand the objections. No one got hurt, they didn't get a slow play penalty, the Earth didn't stop spinning.

I also don't see a "solution."

If they really want to stop it, they can move the tee boxes closer to those trees or put a hospitality tent right next to the tee markers. I think Crane's idea was awesome. It's like if the teacher in high school worded a question vaguely that allowed for a correct smartass answer and then got upset for a kid answering that way. Blame the teacher / course set up team.

Share this post


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

I don't really understand the objections. No one got hurt, they didn't get a slow play penalty, the Earth didn't stop spinning. I also don't see a "solution."

[quote name="dkolo" url="/t/81605/ben-crane-intentionally-drives-wrong-fairway/0_100#post_1134008"]If they really want to stop it, they can move the tee boxes closer to those trees or put a hospitality tent right next to the tee markers. I think Crane's idea was awesome. It's like if the teacher in high school worded a question vaguely that allowed for a correct smartass answer and then got upset for a kid answering that way. Blame the teacher / course set up team. [/quote] I agree. He didn't break, or even bend any rules. He used a creative strategy to make birdie. Good job I say. If they want to put up a tree so be it, but until they do he should take that route every time. I will concede that it might be a good idea to get his caddie to scope out the other fairway to ensure he isn't hitting into another player.

Share this post


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

I agree. He didn't break, or even bend any rules. He used a creative strategy to make birdie. Good job I say. If they want to put up a tree so be it, but until they do he should take that route every time. I will concede that it might be a good idea to get his caddie to scope out the other fairway to ensure he isn't hitting into another player.

Except one important thing you are missing.. He two putted for par ;)

Share this post


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

Well played Ben Crane.

No where in the rules does it say that you have to play the hole as it is designed. If the course leaves an opening, then take it. As long has he was careful in not hitting into other golfers, then I see no issue with it.

If they want to stop it, plant a tree for next year.

Share this post


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

Except one important thing you are missing.. He two putted for par ;)

Oops, you're right, it was the subsequent Chi Chi story where they birdied.

Share this post


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

Note: This thread is 1630 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2019 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
  • Posts

    • Within the past few years, we've had topics of discussion surrounding the idea and practice of girls playing in boys tournaments in high school golf. To recap: In this topic, a 14-year-old 8th grader won the boys state championship in Delaware competing from 85% of the distance. Delaware at the time didn't have a separate tournament for girls as there were apparently not many girls at all playing. They noted that they have hope to have enough girls to some day have a separate girls tournament. The girls competed on the "team" as well, and the team won too. In this instance, boys play in the fall, and girls play in the spring. The high school for which this girl played doesn't have a girls team, so she's eligible to play for the boys team, and still compete in the regional and state events in the spring for the girls. She played from shorter tees than the boys, and her team did not win/advance. And again, she could compete in the spring against other girls from the same tees. In PIAA, apparently, we have two sisters in the WPIAL (a Pittsburgh area league) that compete for Carmichaels. The school doesn't have a girls golf team, and there's apparently a PIAA rule that says that only one girl from each school can compete in the girls championship (districts, regionals, and then states). Remmey competed for the girls as a freshman and sophomore. Her year-older sister Delaney competed on the boys side those two years but didn't get out of her district (the WPIAL). This year, they put Delaney (a senior this year) through the girls so she'd have a better chance of going to States, and Remmey (junior) went through the boys track. These are individual tournaments, not the team events, which are run separately. I believe they both play on the boys team for Carmichaels. Anyway, Remmey (in the boys track) shot 72 playing from 85% of the distance that the boys played to finish second. The top 22 of 44 players advanced. Her sister, Delaney, shot 90 to miss the playoff to move on to states for AA girls by two. Club House Leaderboard - Scrolf.com Get real-time leaderboard and mobile scoring for your next golf event or league. Works on any mobile device with no app downloads. Here's the first story: Sisters Remmey and Delaney Lohr to compete in WPIAL golf finals — for girls and boys Carmichaels junior Remmey Lohr placed third in the WPIAL girls golf finals last year, but this year she’s competing on the boys side. Here's the second: Carmichaels golfer Remmey Lohr qualifies for PIAA boys championships Lohr used an eagle to place second at the PIAA western regional qualifier. My stance on this stuff remains the same. If a girl CHOOSES to compete against boys (when there's a girl's team available, or a girls track), when she has an alternative, she should be allowed to compete so long as it's on actually equal terms. That means the same tees. This basically treats the boys division as "open." I'm also fine if the rules simply say "boys" and don't allow girls to compete at all for individual titles. For teams, I think the 85% is a good compromise, because some teams literally might not even have enough players to compete if they don't allow girls to play for them, and that would hurt more people than allowing girls to play. Still, these girls should compete through the girls individual track, if available, not the boys. Unless, again, they made a choice to play for the boys when an alternative (girls) was available. Should a girl playing quarterback for the high school team only have to advance the ball 8.5 yards for a first down? Should a girl playing on a boys basketball team get a second, lower basket because girls aren't generally as tall as boys? Should a girls high school pitcher that chooses to play baseball get to pitch from, oh, 50 feet instead? P.S. It's not said above, but the best fix here is to adjust the "one girl" rule. Adjust that, and this isn't an issue. Why penalize girls who don't have a girls team by only allowing one of them to qualify, when four or five girls from a high school with a program could all qualify?
    • I think it's fun. You get to take runs at every hole because every chip shot becomes much easier, and even if not that, you get to take a run at the resulting putt. It's fun to push it to the limit sometimes in order to see how low you can go.
    • That's a very specific scenario covered by the rules. He would be DQed for a serious breach of Rule 14-7b for playing from the wrong place. I take your point, but there really isn't much of a difference between a DQ and 58 penalty strokes.
    • Where have you been? 🙂 Remember? She made a 5 and wrote down (signed for) a 4. She knows what score she had, and signed for a lower one. This isn't the same thing. Because Dave got it wrong. You're DQed for a lower score, you take the higher score. Well, she got 58 penalty strokes, so… It's not like she just got away with it or something. Again, did you miss that whole conversation in the topic I posted up above? You didn't, because you replied in it. He'd be DQed for playing from a wrong place. Such an act can't be "rectified" by correcting the scorecard. Rule 1 says this: That would be such a case. The scorecard could not be adjusted sufficiently because the ball was literally not played from anywhere near where it should have been.
    • I guess I just don't understand why the penalty for that infraction is DQ (especially since in that case she wasn't gaining an advantage since she signed for a higher score) but the penalty for breaking a different rule 29 times over two different days is just the applicable penalty strokes simply because the golfer "didn't know the rules".  I get that they are completely different rules about completely different scenarios, I just don't think it's right that a golfer can break the same rule 29 times over 2 different rounds and not be DQ'ed simply because they didnt know they were breaking a rule. To that point, let's say there was a newer golfer in a tournament and he hit multiple balls out of bounds throughout the round but played them as red staked hazards because he didn't know any better, but then it was discovered after the round and after signing the scorecard that he had played them as such, does that mean he would only get the applicable penalty strokes added to his score instead of being DQ'ed simply because he didn't know it was a rule that white stakes are treated differently than red stakes? That doesn't seem right IMO.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. boxofballs
      boxofballs
      (45 years old)
    2. CaptainsChoice
      CaptainsChoice
      (33 years old)
    3. Dozer
      Dozer
      (56 years old)
    4. Pcorys
      Pcorys
      (34 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...