DJ relief from rough to fairway, 10th hole Sunday

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

Questionable sportsmanship in the sense the tower was still in DJ's line of play after the drop. 

No it's not. The drop alleviates that problem. 

Quote

Line of Play

The "line of play" is the direction that the player wishes his ball to take after a stroke, plus a reasonable distance on either side of the intended direction. The line of play extends vertically upwards from the ground, but does not extend beyond the hole

It doesn't matter if DJ pulled the shot over the TIO or not. His intended line of play was taken into account when he dropped the ball. 

7 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

it certainly appeared DJ was using the rule to get a better lie, not to get the tower out of his line of play.

That doesn't matter. Being forced to play your original lie is not in the rules. Exception being that if you have an unplayable lie in the bunker you must drop in the bunker not out of it.

You are not required to drop in the rough if your original placement was in the rough. Sometimes the rules place you in a better spot, sometimes they don't. That is the game. DJ did nothing to go against the rules or the spirit of the game. 

 

[Asheville]

17 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

Questionable sportsmanship in the sense the tower was still in DJ's line of play after the drop. No way to know for sure, but after DJ hit the ball directly over the tower on to the 10th green, it certainly appeared DJ was using the rule to get a better lie, not to get the tower out of his line of play.

Golf asks the player to behave, repair ball marks, replace divots, rake bunkers and abide by the Rules. It's a game not a morality play.

[SquirrelNutz]

If you rewind your recording to the 10th hole as I did, you will see that the tower was still in DJ's line of play after the drop and that he did hit his shot directly over the tower, directly to the green. I see it as a bad rule that often leads to questionable sportsmanship from good people. Just my opinion. You see it another way. I respect your opinion. 

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

If you rewind your recording to the 10th hole as I did, you will see that the tower was still in DJ's line of play after the drop and that he did hit his shot directly over the tower, directly to the green.

The the RO did a poor job in determining where DJ should drop. It's not a bad rule. If the TIO was still in DJ's way then it was the RO fault. 

It doesn't matter if he then accidentally hits it over the tower. Again, it's the RO need to make sure that DJ get's proper relief. 

8 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

I see it as a bad rule that often leads to questionable sportsmanship from good people. Just my opinion. You see it another way. I respect your opinion. 

There is no questionable sportsmanship. Again, golf is a game where the rules can help you out of a bad lie or put you in a worse spot. That has been part of the game for years. It's not bad sportsmanship to gain a better lie if the rules allow you relief. 

 

[SquirrelNutz]

No way to know for sure, but it certainly didn't appear DJ "mistakenly" hit directly over the tower after the drop. It was a towering straight shot on to the green. Bad rule in my opinion, and yes, badly enforced by the rules official Sunday at #10. But the even worse rule is the penalty for the ball moving on absurdly fast greens. I believe that should only be a penalty if you touch the ball. By the way, not sure the USGA's love for absurdly fast greens in majors is a good thing, not just because balls move, but also because putting becomes more about touch and reading the greens and less about having a solid putting stroke. Personally, I do much better on fast greens,  because I don't have a good putting stroke. It's often more of a short backswing, a tap, on fast greens. 

Hope nobody at The Master's reads my criticism of absurdly fast greens in majors or I might get banned from Augusta like Gary McCord.

[saevel25]

11 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

No way to know for sure, but it certainly didn't appear DJ "mistakenly" hit directly over the tower after the drop. It was a towering straight shot on to the green.

It was a pull cut. You can see his ball land right of the pin, at the middle of the green.  

12 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

Bad rule in my opinion

It's not a bad rule because it doesn't penalize players for obstructions created by the USGA. 

16 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

But the even worse rule is the penalty for the ball moving on absurdly fast greens.

Off topic for this thread

16 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

but also because putting becomes more about touch and reading the greens and less about having a solid putting stroke.

You need a solid putting stroke to have touch. Good putting comes from reading greens, starting your putts online and distance control. Two of those come from a good putting stroke. 

 

[SquirrelNutz]

It definitely becomes much more about reading the greens on fast greens. Big edge to someone with 20/20 vision or lots of experience on those greens or a caddy that has those attributes and less about having a good putting stroke. Back in my Wisconsin coaching days I almost always played my best golf at the beautiful Robert Trent Jones Springs Course. It was partly because I am good at moving the ball around doglegs, but mostly because I putted well on the super fast greens there. The fast greens were forgiving to the worst part of my game, my bad putting stroke. 

To get back to the rule controversy re: balls moving on fast greens at majors. They can be fast without being so fast that balls move. Hated to see Shawn Lowery get the penalty on Saturday at Oakmont for his ball moving, hated the whole controversy and handling of DJ's penalty on Sunday. Both would not have happened if the greens were not so absurdly fast. And probably Jason Day's great putting stroke would have been a bigger factor.

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

To get back to the rule controversy re: balls moving on fast greens at majors. They can be fast without being so fast that balls move. Hated to see Shawn Lowery get the penalty on Saturday at Oakmont for his ball moving, hated the whole controversy and handling of DJ's penalty on Sunday. Both would not have happened if the greens were not so absurdly fast. And probably Jason Day's great putting stroke would have been a bigger factor.

Off topic for this thread. There is a thread elsewhere about DJ's ruling on his ball moving and also about the rule in general. This thread is about DJ's relief from the TIO. 

[SquirrelNutz]

I started this thread to discuss bad golf rules. A chance to express some of my frustration about a US Open ruined by the USGA and to hear others opinions on the subject. What difference does it make if someone goes a bit off topic? The important thing is giving people a chance to express their opinions, talk golf, and for that I thank this forum.

[Martyn W]

On 6/20/2016 at 8:25 PM, tdiii said:

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

In my experience, anyone who thinks a Rule is stupid has little knowledge of the Rules and the principles behind them

Regards

Another pompous jerk

[SquirrelNutz]

I disagree Martyn. I think there are some well intentioned but stupid rules that should be revised in just about any sport. Same thing with nations and their laws. Love your humor in signing off as another pompous jerk.

Regards, Ignorant golf coach

[SquirrelNutz]

I gotta admit to limited knowledge about the principles behind some golf rules. Principles of Golf Rules 101 sounds like it would be one of the most boring classes ever. I am sure Lee Trevino, Seve Ballesteros, Chi Chi Rodriguez and some of the other most fun loving, entertaining golfers of all time would have ditched most of the classes to play golf and failed the class. So what is the principle behind the ball moving on the green penalty? I like simple, logical rules and to me if a player didn't make contact with the ball and it moves, just put it back where it was with no penalty makes sense.

Edited June 23, 2016 by SquirrelNutz
Bad grammar

[Fourputt]

17 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

I gotta admit to limited knowledge about the principles behind some golf rules. Principles of Golf Rules 101 sounds like it would be one of the most boring classes ever. I am sure Lee Trevino, Seve Ballesteros, Chi Chi Rodriguez and some of the other most fun loving, entertaining golfers of all time would have ditched most of the classes to play golf and failed the class. So what is the principle behind the ball moving on the green penalty? I like simple, logical rules and to me if a player didn't make contact with the ball and it moves, just put it back where it was with no penalty makes sense.

The fundamental principle is that you never move your ball except by making a stroke.  If the player causes the ball at rest to move by any other action, then it invokes rule 18-2.  The amount of movement is not at issue as long as there is visible movement, nor is there any consideration for possible advantage gained.  All that matters is that the ball moved by means other than making a stroke, and the cause must be investigated.  If the investigation determines that it is at least 51% probable that the player caused the movement, then the penalty kicks in.

[SquirrelNutz]

Thanks for explaining the principle Fourputt. Wow, the rule requires an investigation? Sounds like it was written by that hilarious Catch 22 character, Milo Minderbinder. I thought everyone wanted golf play to be faster? I am guessing that rule was written before the USGA started making greens so fast for their majors.

[sjduffers]

6 hours ago, Fourputt said:

First I'm not making anything "personal" aside from replying to your post.

I don't know. There were a bunch of "you don't know this" and "you don't know that" in your reply. Forgive me if I got that impression.

 

6 hours ago, Fourputt said:

I've been an amateur photographer (I have lenses in my camera pack that range from 10mm to 300mm) since the mid 1970's and I can tell a wide angle shot from a telephoto shot.

Somewhat off-topic:  

So have I.  The perspective shown behind the player might be taken with a very mild wide angle (eg 28 to 35mm in film equivalent) but with nothing like a true wide angle.  The effect that you talk about is barely there and is nothing like taking a picture of a rock on a beach from within 2 feet with a the coastline behind. And by the way, adding that you have a 10mm lens in your photog bag is somewhat disingenuous in the sense that is most likely a 14 or 15mm film equivalent, not a 10mm film equivalent. [Nikon once made a full frame 8mm rectilinear lens and it was huge and mostly impractical for anyone but the most specialized pro...] I am not familiar with TV cameras and the portable ones (i.e. behind the player) may very well be different from the larger ones in the towers and the studios...

 

6 hours ago, Fourputt said:

I don't know if you get line of sight relief beyond your shot range, but it doesn't seem likely.  We don't know what DJ's shot range from where his ball lay with any certainty, so that's irrelevant to this discussion.

We didn't see the RO and DJ talk about range: they immediately agreed that line of sight relief was available and proceeded to get the NPR and make the drop. You can bet that range itself is irrelevant now and what I am suggesting is that this could (should?) be changed.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, sjduffers said:

I don't know. There were a bunch of "you don't know this" and "you don't know that" in your reply. Forgive me if I got that impression.

 

Somewhat off-topic:  

So have I.  The perspective shown behind the player might be taken with a very mild wide angle (eg 28 to 35mm in film equivalent) but with nothing like a true wide angle.  The effect that you talk about is barely there and is nothing like taking a picture of a rock on a beach from within 2 feet with a the coastline behind. And by the way, adding that you have a 10mm lens in your photog bag is somewhat disingenuous in the sense that is most likely a 14 or 15mm film equivalent, not a 10mm film equivalent. [Nikon once made a full frame 8mm rectilinear lens and it was huge and mostly impractical for anyone but the most specialized pro...] I am not familiar with TV cameras and the portable ones (i.e. behind the player) may very well be different from the larger ones in the towers and the studios...

 

We didn't see the RO and DJ talk about range: they immediately agreed that line of sight relief was available and proceeded to get the NPR and make the drop. You can bet that range itself is irrelevant now and what I am suggesting is that this could (should?) be changed.

One more thing I'll add to this.  I worked as a volunteer hole marshal at a former PGA Tour stop for 4 years, and I saw first hand the difference between the live view and the televised view.  The distance perspective was very different between the player and things in the range of that TV tower.  Like the left side mirror on your car - objects are larger and closer than they appear to be.

[bplewis24]

On 6/20/2016 at 3:12 PM, bmartin461 said:

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

While I got a chuckle out of that as well, I think it's important to remember he now had a perfect lie when he blasted it over the tower.  If he tried to do that from the rough, there's a possibility (or maybe even a likelihood?) that he wouldn't have been able to get the ball that high coming out of that lie.  And maybe then it actually does hit the tower...which would illustrate why that type of rule is in effect for a temporary immovable ....whatever.

On 6/20/2016 at 3:24 PM, Aflighter said:

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

Maybe, maybe not.  He could have missed the green and still gotten up-and-down for par.  He also could have made quintuple-bogey.  We'll never know.

Edited June 23, 2016 by bplewis24

[onthehunt526]

On 6/20/2016 at 6:31 PM, 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.

It's through the green.... Line of sight on a TIO... Nearest point of relief it doesn't specify rough or fairway it's through the green....

This is a little off topic but it's related... In 1989 at the US Open at Oak Hill there we're downpours during the week... During the final round on the 1st hole Tom Kite hit his second shot into rough short of the first green... His ball lied in casual water. His nearest point of full relief was actually in the fairway... Needless to say... He dropped in the fairway... 

This is on topic... Remember when Bryson DeChambeau hit his second drive on 18 over by the cartpath on the 8th... And he had to take like 3 drops just to be able to play his 4th shot... He took his nearest point of relief from the concessions tent... It's nearest point of full relief... If he would have went deeper into the shit rough he wouldn't have gotten full relief. If you take relief on the line of sight rule for an IO or TIO you must take full relief... Unless it's the road on 17 at St. Andrews, Renny Clark's (sp) wind on 1 or 18 at St. Andrews.... Or the clubhouse behind 18 at Lytham you get full relief. (ball must be played as it lies on the previous 3 examples)