DJ relief from rough to fairway, 10th hole Sunday

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, tdiii said:

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

We have few rules here, and you're skirting the one main one we have. You do not get to call other people names.

It's not a stupid rule because (see, the difference between us is that I try to give reasons for my opinions; you just state your opinions as if they're gospel) golf is a competition on playing the golf course. A TIO is not a part of the golf course. A player should not have to account for the location of every TV tower, port-a-potty, scoring tent, concession stand, etc. They could change year to year, round to round, etc. They could even change mid-round if setup is involved and the obstruction could not easily be moved in a timely fashion.

I think it's a perfectly fine rule. The challenge is to play the golf course, not temporary obstructions on the golf course.

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, tdiii said:

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

First, posting the rule here is relevant because it pertains to the exact ruling DJ got relief because of. It's good for other people who don't know the rule to know it. 

Second, you fail to explain with good reason why he shouldn't have or why the USGA shouldn't have followed the guidance of the rule. Until you can justify that then I see no reason as to why the USGA shouldn't have granted the entire field the right to drop from an obstruction the USGA put on the course. 

[tdiii]

Just now, iacas said:

We have few rules here, and you're skirting the one main one we have.

It's not a stupid rule because (see, the difference between us is that I try to give reasons for my opinions; you just state your opinions as if they're gospel) golf is a competition on playing the golf course. A TIO is not a part of the golf course. A player should not have to account for the location of every TV tower, port-a-potty, scoring tent, concession stand, etc. They could change year to year, round to round, etc. They could even change mid-round if setup is involved and the obstruction could not easily be moved in a timely fashion.

I think it's a perfectly fine rule. The challenge is to play the golf course, not temporary obstructions on the golf course.

It is a stupid rule.  Yes, the challenge is to play the golf course.  But one should not get the benefit of improved conditions on account of TIOs.  More often than not they help the players' lot in life, after the player hit the ball crooked. 

As far as mid-round set up, I stated specifically that that should be exempted.

 

 

[Hardspoon]

Just now, saevel25 said:

Second, you fail to explain with good reason why he shouldn't have or why the USGA shouldn't have followed the guidance of the rule. Until you can justify that then I see no reason as to why the USGA shouldn't have granted the entire field the right to drop from an obstruction the USGA put on the course. 

He's just saying the RULE itself is dumb, not that the USGA shouldn't have followed it.

Here's the problem - as @iacas mentioned, those TV towers can move day-to-day.  It's the same with a gallery; you get relief from a ball that lands in some guys shoe, because that shoe won't be there for the next player.

They're trying to strike a balance.  The current rule at least is fair among all competitors - sure, DJ caught a huge break, but any player in the same situation would have caught the same break.  If you make them play it as-is, and the tower is moved or removed or something, it isn't fair among all competitors.

 

[tdiii]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

First, posting the rule here is relevant because it pertains to the exact ruling DJ got relief because of. It's good for other people who don't know the rule to know it. 

Second, you fail to explain with good reason why he shouldn't have or why the USGA shouldn't have followed the guidance of the rule. Until you can justify that then I see no reason as to why the USGA shouldn't have granted the entire field the right to drop from an obstruction the USGA put on the course. 

I was fine with DJ getting the relief because the rules allow for it.  The topic is whether the rule is good or bad.  Of course the entire field gets that drop.  That's not what we are discussing. 

I gave the good reason -- which you don't like -- everyone plays the same course.

[Hardspoon]

1 minute ago, tdiii said:

It is a stupid rule.  Yes, the challenge is to play the golf course.  But one should not get the benefit of improved conditions on account of TIOs.  More often than not they help the players' lot in life, after the player hit the ball crooked. 

As far as mid-round set up, I stated specifically that that should be exempted.

I get where you're coming from, but if you really think it's a problem, a better solution is to just put rules in place that prioritize the play of the round over the TV coverage, by not putting towers in areas that would be in play.

No way the USGA is going to do that, since they know where their bread is buttered (so to speak).

[tdiii]

2 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

He's just saying the RULE itself is dumb, not that the USGA shouldn't have followed it.

Here's the problem - as @iacas mentioned, those TV towers can move day-to-day.  It's the same with a gallery; you get relief from a ball that lands in some guys shoe, because that shoe won't be there for the next player.

They're trying to strike a balance.  The current rule at least is fair among all competitors - sure, DJ caught a huge break, but any player in the same situation would have caught the same break.  If you make them play it as-is, and the tower is moved or removed or something, it isn't fair among all competitors.

 

I said, quite clearly, more than once now, that mid-round changes should be exempted. 

Edited June 21, 2016 by tdiii

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, tdiii said:

As far as mid-round set up, I stated specifically that that should be exempted.

Define mid-round. Before the player tees off? What if they didn't know about the thing going up because they were warming up on the practice range? The morning of? What if they were eating breakfast? Why should a player who hits it behind a temporary obstruction be given relief while another player, who teed off the group after or at such a time that you deem it not "mid-round" not be granted the same relief. That's not equitable. That's not treating like situations alike - in both cases they're behind a TIO.

I disagree it's a stupid rule, and have stated why.

The player isn't always going to get a better lie. I've seen plenty of times where they get a worse lie. The thing is, too, the player has the option to play it as it is. The rules sometimes penalize a player, but they sometimes do the opposite, too. They're equitable and, because they're applied consistently, they're fair. Everyone would have gotten the drop DJ got.

2 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

They're trying to strike a balance.  The current rule at least is fair among all competitors - sure, DJ caught a huge break, but any player in the same situation would have caught the same break.  If you make them play it as-is, and the tower is moved or removed or something, it isn't fair among all competitors.

And only because DJ was so close to the other first cut was he able to drop in the first cut. If he was in the thick rough, he would have had to drop in it and may have gotten a horrible lie.

1 minute ago, tdiii said:

I gave the good reason -- which you don't like -- everyone plays the same course.

The TIO is not a part of the golf course. It's temporary.

[Hardspoon]

12 minutes ago, tdiii said:

I said, quite clearly, more than once now, that mid-round changes should be exempted. 

How would that work?

If I get relief from a TIO, and it moves, do future competitors get relief from the thing that isn't there anymore?  (I'm actually asking, not being rhetorical)  What if it is moved to a location, and someone would have had relief from it had it been there earlier?

I can definitely see why you think the rule creates unfair situations, but I think it's firmly in the category of "prevents a lot more than it creates".  The goal is to try, to the extent possible, to make the course play as if all that crap wasn't there.

[SquirrelNutz]

The biggest problem with the rule is when it allows a player to move his ball from a terrible lie in deep rough to the fairway or 1st cut, as was the case with DJ on #10 Sunday. And to make the rule even more sleazy, DJ was allowed to place the ball on the 1st cut, almost like putting it on a tee, because he chose to make his drop on a spot where it would roll closer to the hole. Within the rules, but not ethical. The rule should not allow moving from rough to non-rough, especially at a US Open.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

The biggest problem with the rule is when it allows a player to move his ball from a terrible lie in deep rough to the fairway or 1st cut, as was the case with DJ on #10 Sunday. And to make the rule even more sleazy, DJ was allowed to place the ball on the 1st cut, almost like putting it on a tee, because he chose to make his drop on a spot where it would roll closer to the hole. Within the rules, but not ethical. The rule should not allow moving from rough to non-rough, especially at a US Open.

Why is that terrible?

Sometimes the rules require you to play from a lousy lie after a good shot (divot hole in a fairway), and sometimes the trees kick your ball back out into the fairway or you get to play from an otherwise good lie after hitting a bad shot.

It was perfectly ethical IMO.

Sometimes the rules help you. Sometimes they hurt you. It seems like you want to remove all the rules that can help you, but leave in the ones that penalize?

How do you rewrite the rule to eliminate the parts you hate but not create more problems?

[Hardspoon]

2 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

The rule should not allow moving from rough to non-rough, especially at a US Open.

That's easy to say, and sure, seems fair...nobody could argue that it makes intuitive sense...

...but "rough" is not defined in the Rules.  And it shouldn't be.  And, honestly, it couldn't be.  It would make golf course design so restrictive in the service of the Rules that any benefit would be far outweighed.

[Pretzel]

Are you of the opinion then that they shouldn't be allowed to move any of the objects current described as TIO's after practice rounds begin?

Think of it this way: The player has likely never seen where that TV tower will be before. They move frequently to get different and better angles depending on the day and where the hole is, where the tees are, etc. It would be one thing if the objects stayed put, but they don't. It's not exactly fair to the players to present them with a course that essentially has "moving trees" (for lack of a better analogy) that are placed for the convenience of the TV networks and spectators. I believe the proper approach is to advantage every player by removing the need for them to worry about this, rather than disadvantage every player by requiring them to just deal with it.

I can understand why the dropping from the rough into the 1st cut may seem like a big deal, but in the grand scheme of things it is something that negligible enough that it hasn't ever come up in a large tournament like this before. Now that it has come up into center stage it's possible they will tweak the rule, but you can't always forsee every potential advantage a rule could provide until someone uses the rule as they wrote it in a way they did not intend. That said, it could be a perfectly intended use of the rule that allows the USGA to ensure that a player can get adequate relief from the large structures that accompany professional tournaments without requiring them to potentially move 100 yards further backwards to find the "nearest point of relief".

[SquirrelNutz]

The free drop rule from the rough to the 1st cut is arguable, fair in the sense that every player can use the rule. What is not arguable was the outrageous decision to wait til after the round to decide if DJ was penalized for the ball moving. It's not the 1st time I saw rules officials screw up a US Open. In 2011 Hee-Kyung Seo got a slow play warning Sunday on the 17th tee while leading. I was watching closely, having fallen in love with Seo when I followed her all the way on Sunday during her win at La Costa. The most graceful, relaxed golfer I ever saw play the game. It's a shame the pro's don't play there anymore, great course for the spectators who like to walk. Saw so many great matches there when PGA did the February match play events at La Costa. Anyhow, it was not Seo's fault her group had fallen behind, and being new to golf in USA, she & her playing partner ran after their tee shots on 17 & played way too fast on those final 2 holes. Not surprisingly, Seo blew her lead on those final 2 holes.

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

I can understand why the dropping from the rough into the 1st cut may seem like a big deal, but in the grand scheme of things it is something that negligible enough that it hasn't ever come up in a large tournament like this before. Now that it has come up into center stage it's possible they will tweak the rule, but you can't always forsee every potential advantage a rule could provide until someone uses the rule as they wrote it in a way they did not intend. That said, it could be a perfectly intended use of the rule that allows the USGA to ensure that a player can get adequate relief from the large structures that accompany professional tournaments without requiring them to potentially move 100 yards further backwards to find the "nearest point of relief".

I'd bet you a bunch of money they won't tweak this rule. It functioned exactly as they intend for it to work.

6 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

What is not arguable was the outrageous decision to wait till after the round to decide if DJ was penalized for the ball moving.

That's not the topic here. We have other threads for that one.

We do try to stay on topic here at TST.

[Coronagolfman]

Simple way to solve the problem would be to use a local rule stating that TV towers or other particular "temporary immovable obstructions" be considered part of the course.  The rule is there to avoid situation where somebody hits one behind or into a grandstand or hot dog stand.

Pros know the rules - how many times do they aim for a grandstand or TMI knowing they will get a drop? On PGA tour, with those grandstand and hospitality tents just a few yards off of a number of greens, sometimes playing it into the stands is better than flirting with a hazard on the other side. 

But in some cases, if a tower is being erected well outside of the boundaries of the fairway and would only be a problem if somebody hit one way offline, shouldn't there be a local rule saying "sorry - you hit a bad shot and this tower is something you will simply have to deal with".   No worse a situation than the one that ocurred one year at the PGA where they overnight planted a tree to block off players wanting to play down a parallel fairway to get a better angle to a green.  Miss the fairway, get penalized ........... makes common sense.

Oh, sorry - this is the USGA so maybe the "common sense" factor is one that may not count.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Coronagolfman

[David in FL]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Sometimes the rules help you. Sometimes they hurt you. It seems like you want to remove all the rules that can help you, but leave in the ones that penalize?

What too many people forget, or more often simply don't understand, is that the rules don't exist to either help or hurt/penalize a player.  The rules simply tell us how to play the game.   There is no consideration of fair or unfair.  Only of equity, in that every player be treated the same, when faced with the same situation.

[Slice of Life]

Sometimes the rules help, sometimes they hurt. That's part of the beauty of the game haha. I don't blame him for one second for using the rules to his advantage.