DJ relief from rough to fairway, 10th hole Sunday

[Divot Master]

20 hours ago, newtogolf said:

 Given the circumstances, he couldn't have gotten relief from the tower without being dropped near the fairway.  

I am not at all sure about that.  The tower was directly between his ball and the hole, and also about halfway to the hole.  The tower appeared to be about 8' wide, constructed of standard units of scaffolding covered with an opaque tarp.  The total width of land near DJ's ball with pin view blocked by the scaffolding might therefore be only about 15-20 feet.  Moving a short distance either to the left or to the right would provide relief.  The rule requires determination of the nearest point of relief.  The broadcast did not show the entire process of getting relief, but from what they did show it appeared that DJ was only considering a drop to the left (where he knew his lie would be greatly improved), and not considering relief to the right where he would still be in deep rough.  It appeared that DJ or the rules official did not ever determine the right side nearest point of relief, and therefore did not determine which point would be closer to the original location of the ball.  So I feel DJ might have "gotten away with one" here.

[rehmwa]

10 minutes ago, Divot Master said:

It appeared that DJ or the rules official did not ever determine the right side nearest point of relief, and therefore did not determine which point would be closer to the original location of the ball

I understand your point.  But I'm sure they did.  Neither DJ nor any rules official is that negligent.  "nearest point of relief" in this specific case isn't rocket science.  And this scenario is an old one, not confused by recent rule changes or anything else.  (nor would Westwood or his caddy have let him take an improper drop).

[Fourputt]

19 hours 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? 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?

 

18 hours ago, tdiii said:

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.

Except that the tower is not part of the course.  It is part of the TV coverage that was never intended to be on the course.  As such it is a temporary immovable obstruction and the player deserves line of sight relief from it, since a week from then that line of sight will be unobstructed.

I have had a few instances during my 40 years of playing golf where I was given relief from an obstruction or from abnormal ground and the relief allowed me to get out of a terrible lie with a clear swing and line of play (like dropping away from a sprinkler in the deep rough into a fluffy lie which also gave me clearance from a nearby tree).  

Why should a temporary obstruction be treated any different from one which is a normal part of the course?  That would mean that a player whose ball hit a greenside sprinkler and bounced over a grandstand would have to chip sideways, maybe more than once, to get back to a spot where he could play toward the green.  Totally unworkable.

[MrDC]

So on one hand we have a rule that allowed him to get a free drop out of the very taxing rough, and thus saving par, which he probably would not have done if not for the rule, free stroke.

And on the other hand we have a rule that cost him a shot, because the ball moved a mm or two on the green, and that slight ball movement had zero advantage or impact on the putt, taxed one stroke.

I don't think the rules really affect the popularity of the game, but if so stuff like this is at the forefront of the confusion.

Edited June 21, 2016 by MrDC

[bmartin461]

19 hours ago, tdiii said:

after the player hit the ball crooked. 

Now keep in mind the players know what they are doing, they know where the true blocks are to their next shot.  That course was very "links like" after they cut down all those trees.  The means grip it and rip it and even if it's off line I'll have a shot at the green.   the TIO is very slim, but it's not part of the course, so no player would be accounting for it.  

 

[iacas]

6 hours ago, Coronagolfman said:

Simple way to solve the problem

The simple way to solve the "problem" is to recognize that there is not a problem, and to leave this rule exactly as it is.

Sometimes to get relief you'd have to drop in a bush. Sometimes you get to drop on the fairway, or the first cut of rough. Them's the breaks. Every other player who hit it where DJ hit it would get the same ruling.

6 hours ago, Coronagolfman said:

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.

So your simple solution to a problem that doesn't exist is to define something that is very temporary and not at all a part of the course as something that is a part of the course?

6 hours ago, Coronagolfman said:

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".

Seriously?

Who determines whether the quality of the shot was good? What if DJ had hit a horrible shot, then played a great shot to get to the same exact position? Would he get relief then, since he'd just played a great shot?

You can't make rules like that. "Well, you hit a good shot, so you get relief. You, in the same exact spot, sorry, no." Defies equity.

[No Mulligans]

I have a question that I think is relevant to this discussion in that it is an example of where a player can benefit from the rules.

A ball is in a bad lie sitting well down in the rough right next to the fringe and the players stance is on a sprinkler head.

My understanding (rule 24-2) is that you can drop the ball 1 club length from the nearest point of relief, no closer to the hole.  In my scenario, this can result in dropping the ball on the fringe or even on the green.  This is possible of more benefit that DJ got from the relief on hole 10.

Am I correct in my understanding of the above situation and in applying rule 24-2?

[Asheville]

22 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

I have a question that I think is relevant to this discussion in that it is an example of where a player can benefit from the rules.

A ball is in a bad lie sitting well down in the rough right next to the fringe and the players stance is on a sprinkler head.

My understanding (rule 24-2) is that you can drop the ball 1 club length from the nearest point of relief, no closer to the hole.  In my scenario, this can result in dropping the ball on the fringe or even on the green.  This is possible of more benefit that DJ got from the relief on hole 10.

Am I correct in my understanding of the above situation and in applying rule 24-2?

Almost, the nearest point of relief may not be on the putting green and you may not drop onto the putting green. (There are a few times when the ball may be dropped on the putting green, but this is not one of them.) When dropped the ball may not roll onto and come to rest on the putting green.

[No Mulligans]

Just now, Asheville said:

Almost, the nearest point of relief may not be on the putting green and you may not drop onto the putting green. (There are a few times when the ball may be dropped on the putting green, but this is not one of them.) When dropped the ball may not roll onto and come to rest on the putting green.

Thanks for that.  And, is it correct that the fringe is not part of the putting green?

[SquirrelNutz]

I dislike rules that encourage honest golfers to do sleazy things. 1 of the worst rules is allowing a player to place the ball after drops roll closer to the hole. Most players, as DJ did on #10, intentionally look for a place to drop where ball will roll closer to hole so they can get the big advantage of placing the ball on top of the grass. Why the no closer to the hole rule on drops? It really makes no difference if it's a few inches or even a few feet closer to the hole. Obviously there has to be a limit on how much closer to hole is ok, maybe 1 club length, because you wouldn't want a drop rolling down a big hill & ending up way closer to the hole.

[Asheville]

1 hour ago, No Mulligans said:

Thanks for that.  And, is it correct that the fringe is not part of the putting green?

You're correct. The fringe is not a part of the putting green. It would be included as a part of the course the Definitions call "through the green."

[Papa Steve 55]

49 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

I dislike rules that encourage honest golfers to do sleazy things. 1 of the worst rules is allowing a player to place the ball after drops roll closer to the hole. Most players, as DJ did on #10, intentionally look for a place to drop where ball will roll closer to hole so they can get the big advantage of placing the ball on top of the grass. Why the no closer to the hole rule on drops? It really makes no difference if it's a few inches or even a few feet closer to the hole. Obviously there has to be a limit on how much closer to hole is ok, maybe 1 club length, because you wouldn't want a drop rolling down a big hill & ending up way closer to the hole.

I have to admit, you have me totally baffled here, a golfer playing by the rules is a sleazy thing to do? How in the world did you watch the TV coverage of the game and determine what DJ intention was? Even if he did, if golf was my source of income and getting a good drop was important, I'd practice drops.

[No Mulligans]

13 minutes ago, Papa Steve 55 said:

I have to admit, you have me totally baffled here, a golfer playing by the rules is a sleazy thing to do? How in the world did you watch the TV coverage of the game and determine what DJ intention was? Even if he did, if golf was my source of income and getting a good drop was important, I'd practice drops.

Saying someone using a golf rule to their advantage is sleazy is similar to saying someone taking a tax deduction for home mortgage interest is sleazy.

Both are following the rules, in neither case are you required to follow the rule, and it is customary for folks to follow those rules to their advantage.  And if you don't you are at a disadvantage compared to the majority of folks in similar situations.

[Shindig]

1 hour ago, SquirrelNutz said:

Why the no closer to the hole rule on drops? It really makes no difference if it's a few inches or even a few feet closer to the hole. Obviously there has to be a limit on how much closer to hole is ok, maybe 1 club length, because you wouldn't want a drop rolling down a big hill & ending up way closer to the hole.

There's a good reason for this, and it's an absolute principle of the Rules of Golf:  under no conditions do you advance your ball except by taking a stroke.  Allowing closer to the hole on a drop violates this.  It also solves your problem of "how much closer to the hole is ok" -- none.  Besides, do you want to obligate anyone taking a drop to be able to measure distance to the hole?

[SquirrelNutz]

 Anything within the rules or laws is not sleazy? I disagree. What DJ was allowed to do at #10 at Oakmont Sunday was legal, but sleazy. Flying all over the world in private jets in the face of global warming, legal, but sleazy. An 18 year old girl being hired as a stripper, legal, but sleazy.

[saevel25]

8 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

 Anything within the rules or laws is not sleazy? I disagree. What DJ was allowed to do at #10 at Oakmont Sunday was legal, but sleazy. Flying all over the world in private jets in the face of global warming, legal, but sleazy. An 18 year old girl being hired as a stripper, legal, but sleazy.

How is this post relevant to the discussion here? Stay on topic and don't resort to trollish posts. 

 

[Fourputt]

On the subject of a drop changing the type of grass that the ball lies in, at one point in the round DJ (I'm pretty sure it was him), would have been entitled to relief from a sprinkler on the apron.  Because of the slope of the ground, the ball would have likely bounded into the rough with a potentially terrible lie, so DJ chose to straddle the obstruction and play the ball as it was.  This was a case where the rules did not help him in a relief without penalty situation.  

[Rulesman]

13 hours ago, Divot Master said:

I am not at all sure about that.  The tower was directly between his ball and the hole, and also about halfway to the hole.  The tower appeared to be about 8' wide, constructed of standard units of scaffolding covered with an opaque tarp.  The total width of land near DJ's ball with pin view blocked by the scaffolding might therefore be only about 15-20 feet.  Moving a short distance either to the left or to the right would provide relief.  The rule requires determination of the nearest point of relief.  The broadcast did not show the entire process of getting relief, but from what they did show it appeared that DJ was only considering a drop to the left (where he knew his lie would be greatly improved), and not considering relief to the right where he would still be in deep rough.  It appeared that DJ or the rules official did not ever determine the right side nearest point of relief, and therefore did not determine which point would be closer to the original location of the ball.  So I feel DJ might have "gotten away with one" here.

A Committee may make a Local Rule (a) permitting or requiring a player to use a dropping zone when taking relief from a TIO or (b) permitting a player, as an additional relief option, to drop the ball on the opposite side of the TIO from the point established under Clause 3, but otherwise in accordance with Clause 3.

 

Did they?