DJ relief from rough to fairway, 10th hole Sunday

[SquirrelNutz]

The rule that allowed DJ to move his ball from a horrible lie in the rough to placing it in the 1st cut due to a temporary tower at #10 Sunday is an outrageously bad rule. Relief from rough to similar rough away from the line of the tower would be fair, relief from some of the deepest rough at Oakmont to 1st cut, not fair. But don't get me wrong, DJ definitely deserved to win this US Open.

[iacas]

The rules make no distinction for different heights of rough. He was dropping through the green.

Sometimes the rules help a player.

[ChrisP]

Kind of ironic....Ernie Els got the same exact break in 1994 at Oakmont on the first hole. He went on to win.

[Aguirre]

Just now, ChrisP said:

Kind of ironic....Ernie Els got the same exact break in 1994 at Oakmont on the first hole. He went on to win.

I remember. In fact, I was in the gallery in 94 where Steve Lowery (I think) got the same drop Els did from the same TV tower.  I was about eight feet away when he hit his second shot after the drop and watched the whole process.

[newtogolf]

25 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

The rule that allowed DJ to move his ball from a horrible lie in the rough to placing it in the 1st cut due to a temporary tower at #10 Sunday is an outrageously bad rule. Relief from rough to similar rough away from the line of the tower would be fair, relief from some of the deepest rough at Oakmont to 1st cut, not fair. But don't get me wrong, DJ definitely deserved to win this US Open.

It's not the golfers fault they erected a television tower where they did.  Given the circumstances, he couldn't have gotten relief from the tower without being dropped near the fairway.  

[bmartin461]

33 minutes ago, iacas said:

The rules make no distinction for different heights of rough. He was dropping through the green.

Sometimes the rules help a player.

Exactly.  What's funny is after he took relief he then went on the blast it right over the top of the TV tower.  

[Fourputt]

26 minutes ago, Aguirre said:

I remember. In fact, I was in the gallery in 94 where Steve Lowery (I think) got the same drop Els did from the same TV tower.  I was about eight feet away when he hit his second shot after the drop and watched the whole process.

Actually, the Els relief was later determined to been incorrect, as it was not a tower, but a movable crane that time.  The proper ruling would have been to move the crane out of the line of play.

[Aguirre]

1 minute ago, Fourputt said:

Actually, the Els relief was later determined to been incorrect, as it was not a tower, but a movable crane that time.  The proper ruling would have been to move the crane out of the line of play.

I wonder if I'm remembering correctly about Lowery then. 

[Aflighter]

Well in the end a rule saved him a stroke and cost him a  stroke.

[SquirrelNutz]

I agree it was the correct ruling. But what I am saying is that it's a bad rule, not a bad ruling. Especially in a US Open, where the rough is such a big factor, relief from rough to fairway or 1st cut should not be allowed.

[Aflighter]

5 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

I agree it was the correct ruling. But what I am saying is that it's a bad rule, not a bad ruling. Especially in a US Open, where the rough is such a big factor, relief from rough to fairway or 1st cut should not be allowed.

Oh I whole heartedly agree.Think was first to post bout it being bad rule.You hit there  play it from there.You knew tower was there just like  knew tree is there.That tower wasnt only line to target.Wide open.

[SquirrelNutz]

Thanks Aflighter. I like your idea, hit it from where it lies, without a drop. I wonder if DJ taking advantage of the rules on #10 had anything to do with the bad decision to re-visit the ball moving on the green ruling? Is it possible, especially considering the similar penalty to the Irish golfer on Saturday, that the ruling douchebags decided DJ was getting too many good breaks from their poorly written rulebook?

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, Aflighter said:

Well in the end a rule saved him a stroke and cost him a  stroke.

How did the rule save him a stroke? He could have hit the green from the rough as well. 

1 hour ago, Aflighter said:

Oh I whole heartedly agree.Think was first to post bout it being bad rule.You hit there  play it from there.You knew tower was there just like  knew tree is there.That tower wasnt only line to target.Wide open.

TV towers are not trees. Why should a pro be penalized for an object not integral to the original set up to the course? 

43 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

Thanks Aflighter. I like your idea, hit it from where it lies, without a drop. I wonder if DJ taking advantage of the rules on #10 had anything to do with the bad decision to re-visit the ball moving on the green ruling? 

It's not taking advantage of the rules anyways. He was well with in his right to warrant a drop just like every player in the field is entitled to. 

 

44 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

Is it possible, especially considering the similar penalty to the Irish golfer on Saturday, that the ruling douchebags decided DJ was getting too many good breaks from their poorly written rulebook?

No. DJ got correctly penalized on the putt on Sunday and he got a correct ruling on the TV tower. 

[SquirrelNutz]

Agreed, play it from where it lies. Keep the rules simple. Get yourself out of trouble honestly. Reminds me of the fat cats & corporations who weasel their way out of paying taxes.

[tdiii]

Methinks the rule should be that you don't get relief from a temporary immovable, at least to the extent it was situated in the same location throughout a round of golf.  Everyone knows its there, and everyone should account for it. 

18 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

 

TV towers are not trees. Why should a pro be penalized for an object not integral to the original set up to the course? 

If TV towers are there for the entire round for all players, everyone can play around them.  This "integral to the original set up" is irrelevant, because the players don't play anything close to the original set up.

It was the right call, but the rule is silly. 

[Lastpick]

I agree with Saevel25,  the tower is not an integral part of the golf course design.  Maybe the USGA should amend the rule for competitions that are televised, but hey, they can't really get their crap together on the rules that they have in place now.  An old course such as this Oakmont venue was built on a small amount of land as compared to the newer course.  The fairways are really close, so the television towers are going to be in the way.  

[saevel25]

14 minutes ago, tdiii said:

If TV towers are there for the entire round for all players, everyone can play around them.  This "integral to the original set up" is irrelevant, because the players don't play anything close to the original set up.

It is relevant with regards to how the USGA wants to treat them. 

Please refresh yourself with the rules. It would be irresponsible for the committee to not deem those objects TIO. Notice the word should. That is a strong word to use. It basically means that it would take extra-ordinary reason not to use the guidance under this decision for TIO. There is no reason for the USGA not to use this guidance. You have not stated a strong case either. 

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-14322

Quote

b. Temporary Immovable Obstructions

When temporary obstructions are installed on or adjoining the course, the Committee should define the status of such obstructions as movable, immovable or temporary immovable obstructions.

If the Committee defines such obstructions as temporary immovable obstructions, the following Local Rule is recommended:

1. Definition

A temporary immovable obstruction (TIO) is a non-permanent artificial object that is often erected in conjunction with a competition and is fixed or not readily movable. Examples of TIOs include, but are not limited to, tents, scoreboards, grandstands, television towers and lavatories.

Supporting guy wires are part of the TIO, unless the Committee declares that they are to be treated as elevated power lines or cables.

2. Interference

Interference by a TIO occurs when (a) the ball lies in front of and so close to the TIO that the TIO interferes with the player's stance or the area of his intended swing, or (b) the ball lies in, on, under or behind the TIO so that any part of the TIO intervenes directly between the player's ball and the hole and is on his line of play; interference also exists if the ball lies within one club-length of a spot equidistant from the hole where such intervention would exist.

Note: A ball is under a TIO when it is below the outermost edges of the TIO, even if these edges do not extend downwards to the ground.

3. Relief

A player may obtain relief from interference by a TIO, including a TIO that is out of bounds, as follows:

(a)

Through the Green: If the ball lies through the green, the point on the course nearest to where the ball lies must be determined that (a) is not nearer the hole, (b) avoids interference as defined in Clause 2 and (c) is not in a hazard or on a putting green. The player must lift the ball and drop it, without penalty, within one club-length of the point so determined on a part of the course that fulfils (a), (b) and (c) above.

(b)

In a Hazard: If the ball is in a hazard, the player must lift and drop the ball either:

(i)

Without penalty, in accordance with Clause 3(a) above, except that the nearest part of the courseaffording complete relief must be in the hazard and the ball must be dropped in the hazard, or, if complete relief is impossible, on a part of the course within the hazard that affords maximum available relief; or

(ii)

Under penalty of one stroke, outside the hazard as follows: the point on the course nearest to where the ball lies must be determined that (a) is not nearer the hole, (b) avoids interference as defined in Clause 2 and (c) is not in a hazard. The player must drop the ball within one club-length of the point so determined on a part of the course that fulfils (a), (b) and (c) above.

The ball may be cleaned when lifted under Clause 3.

 

[tdiii]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

It is relevant with regards to how the USGA wants to treat them. 

Please refresh yourself with the rules. It would be irresponsible for the committee to not deem those objects TIO. Notice the word should. That is a strong word to use. It basically means that it would take extra-ordinary reason not to use the guidance under this decision for TIO. There is no reason for the USGA not to use this guidance. You have not stated a strong case either. 

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-14322

 

Don't be a pompous jerk.  I know the rule.  It is a stupid rule.