DJ relief from rough to fairway, 10th hole Sunday

[xcott]

What's interesting to me is that the tower is much wider than 2 club lengths, so even if it's further away, two club lengths are unlikely to remove it as an obstruction. Clearly DJ was using the rule to get a better lie, which isn't in the spirit of the rule. Not saying he shouldn't do it, or it should be changed.

[Asheville]

3 hours ago, xcott said:

What's interesting to me is that the tower is much wider than 2 club lengths, so even if it's further away, two club lengths are unlikely to remove it as an obstruction. Clearly DJ was using the rule to get a better lie, which isn't in the spirit of the rule. Not saying he shouldn't do it, or it should be changed.

The determination of nearest point of relief by any experienced player or referee is almost always a piece of cake. However for the bogey golfer, is one of life's great mysteries. My money's on the referee for this one. :)

[SquirrelNutz]

Probably only a few of the top rules officials involved in Sunday's US Open screw up know the answer to this question. I still wonder if what happened at #10 with DJ taking advantage of the rules to get him out of a lie deep in the heavy rough influenced their decision to re-open the earlier ball moving on the green non-penalty? We certainly see previous officiating calls or non-calls influence current officiating calls in other sports, it's often referred to as a makeup call. Officials just want things to be fair and sometimes a makeup call makes things more fair. Given that Shane Lowery had called a 1 stroke penalty on himself when his ball moved Saturday, and that the officials approached DJ shortly after his 2nd advantageous ruling of the final round, I think there is a possibility the decision was at least partly a makeup call to make things more fair between the 2 competitors at the top of the Sunday leaderboard, DJ & Lowery.

[Groucho Valentine]

I didn't see much of the tournament, but i did catch that. Johnson still dropped in the rough technically. The rules don't stipulate different kinds of rough when taking relief. It just worked out for him. 

[Asheville]

1 hour ago, SquirrelNutz said:

Probably only a few of the top rules officials involved in Sunday's US Open screw up know the answer to this question. I still wonder if what happened at #10 with DJ taking advantage of the rules to get him out of a lie deep in the heavy rough influenced their decision to re-open the earlier ball moving on the green non-penalty? We certainly see previous officiating calls or non-calls influence current officiating calls in other sports, it's often referred to as a makeup call. Officials just want things to be fair and sometimes a makeup call makes things more fair. Given that Shane Lowery had called a 1 stroke penalty on himself when his ball moved Saturday, and that the officials approached DJ shortly after his 2nd advantageous ruling of the final round, I think there is a possibility the decision was at least partly a makeup call to make things more fair between the 2 competitors at the top of the Sunday leaderboard, DJ & Lowery.

My, we've all heard some silly stuff lately, but this one takes the biscuit. 

[Coronagolfman]

23 hours ago, iacas said:

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.

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?

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.

Equity would be better upheld if everyone in the tournament was told that there was a local rule saying that "Tower A" would be part of the course and played as such rather than as a TMO - give those guys making up the local rules adjustments some credit for knowing if and when such a problem might come up and retain the right to penalize the player for what would be a bad shot.

[iacas]

7 hours ago, xcott said:

What's interesting to me is that the tower is much wider than 2 club lengths, so even if it's further away, two club lengths are unlikely to remove it as an obstruction. Clearly DJ was using the rule to get a better lie, which isn't in the spirit of the rule. Not saying he shouldn't do it, or it should be changed.

It's line of sight relief. You find the nearest point where the line of sight is not affected, so then… it's "removed" as an obstruction.

And it's perfectly well within the spirit of the rule. Nobody with the USGA would have any problem with that drop. Zero. Zilch.

3 hours ago, SquirrelNutz said:

Officials just want things to be fair and sometimes a makeup call makes things more fair.

Uhm, no.

1 hour ago, Coronagolfman said:

Equity would be better upheld if everyone in the tournament was told that there was a local rule saying that "Tower A" would be part of the course and played as such rather than as a TMO - give those guys making up the local rules adjustments some credit for knowing if and when such a problem might come up and retain the right to penalize the player for what would be a bad shot.

No. That's ridiculous. A temporary immovable obstruction is not "part of the golf course."

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Coronagolfman said:

Equity would be better upheld if everyone in the tournament was told that there was a local rule saying that "Tower A" would be part of the course and played as such rather than as a TMO - give those guys making up the local rules adjustments some credit for knowing if and when such a problem might come up and retain the right to penalize the player for what would be a bad shot.

You are confusing equity with fairness.  Equity is perfectly satisfied.  As already mentioned, anyone who hit his ball where DJ was would get exactly the same relief - that is all that equity demands.  

Fairness is a whole other animal, and has pretty much nothing to do with this subject.  

Would you have penalized DJ if he had hit the ball a little bit worse - thus under your sense of "fairness" even more deserving of punishment - and ended up in the other fairway?

[Buckeyebowman]

On 6/20/2016 at 8:51 PM, 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.

How do you know this? How do you know that he "chose" to make his drop on the exact spot that would kick the ball toward the hole? He went to the nearest "line of sight" relief spot, measured out two club lengths no nearer the hole, marked it with tees, and took his drops which bounced closer to the hole. Then, the USGA Official on hand pointed out the spot where he could place his ball. Johnson didn't get to pick his own spot! It could just as easily have happened in 2 foot tall fescue! That's just the "rub of the green"!

As iacas said, sometimes the rules work against you, sometimes for you.

[sjduffers]

Perhaps the test for line of sight should include a reasonable chance that the player would reach the TIO if he actually tried to hit on that line. For example, can I claim a TIO interference if it is 300 yds away and I can only hit a shot 230 yards? In this case, DJ probably couldn't have muscled his shot out of the terrible lie he had in the rough to even reach that tower. The talking heads on TV were mentioning that there was no way he was getting more than 60 to 70 yards out of that lie and it seems like the tower was further away than that.

[Fourputt]

2 hours ago, sjduffers said:

Perhaps the test for line of sight should include a reasonable chance that the player would reach the TIO if he actually tried to hit on that line. For example, can I claim a TIO interference if it is 300 yds away and I can only hit a shot 230 yards? In this case, DJ probably couldn't have muscled his shot out of the terrible lie he had in the rough to even reach that tower. The talking heads on TV were mentioning that there was no way he was getting more than 60 to 70 yards out of that lie and it seems like the tower was further away than that.

You don't know that at all.  You really don't know anything about his lie except what the commentator said, and the same thing was said more than once at various times, after which many of the players proceeded to blast the ball onto the green.  You also don't have any real idea how far away the tower was, since those camera views are invariably shot at wide angle, making everything look farther than it actually is.

[sjduffers]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

You don't know that at all.  You really don't know anything about his lie except what the commentator said, and the same thing was said more than once at various times, after which many of the players proceeded to blast the ball onto the green.  You also don't have any real idea how far away the tower was, since those camera views are invariably shot at wide angle, making everything look farther than it actually is.

A few points.

1. You didn't answer or comment on the question I asked about whether I can take TIO relief from 300 yards if I know I can only hit 230 yards. [Assume the TIO is a large tent or some such, so that someone don't come back with "it's not really in the way as if you make one step this way or that way, you can see the flag"]

2. Cameras on TV are not wide angle, there are tend to compress perspective instead, meaning they act like telephotos.  The portable ones may be of variable focal lengths, I am not sure, but most wide shots have a perspective that is widely compressed compared to what the human eye sees (which is a 50mm equivalent in (D)SLR photography, whereas wide angle are in the sub 28mm range, all the way down to 12-14mm which tend to make look everything close bigger and everything far smaller). For example, look at how close people walking behind the last group appeared when in fact, they were probably close to 100 yards away. That's not a wide angle perspective, at all.  Another example, how close a tee box appears when the camera looks at the ball and then turns around, looking back at the tee box. A "wide" shot, taken with a telephoto lens.

3. The rough at that spot was described as horrendous and the lie an even worse than usual lie as the ball had settled down, confirmed by the commentator walking the course with that group, not just generalities from the commentators in the towers.

4. I don't need to know anything of this particular case at all. This isn't a comment designed to alter the outcome of the US Open. It is a common sense question in the general sense with an actual example (2 actually, if you consider my 300 yds question), where the player could be asked by a RO if he thinks he can make it there before he gets relief. Obviously most times players, especially Tour players, can, but I am sure there are cases when they know full well that they can't and with their integrity could/should tell so to the officials.  In my view, it's no different than arguing to play left handed and being asked whether they can actually do it and if this is the shot they really plan on making to take relief when the only practical option is a left-handed shot vs an impossible shot or going back to the previous location... all the while planning on taking relief again from that situation and eventually playing right-handed. Yes, you can do it: however, if you really can't play left handed (like me), it's not appropriate to do, in my view.

5. You don't need to make it personal.

[boogielicious]

Below is a picture of the 10th from Google Earth. One question I have is why did they put the TV tower there in the first place? I assume it was between the bunker and the ditch on the left short of the green.  Hooks are common, so it seems like a place that could create a lot of issues.

I assume they put it there so they could film a few holes at once from the same location.

[xcott]

16 hours ago, iacas said:

And it's perfectly well within the spirit of the rule. Nobody with the USGA would have any problem with that drop. Zero. Zilch.

19 hours ago, SquirrelNutz said:

I doubt the rule was intended to give someone a better lie, which was what DJ legally did in this instance. 

[Fourputt]

5 hours ago, sjduffers said:

A few points.

1. You didn't answer or comment on the question I asked about whether I can take TIO relief from 300 yards if I know I can only hit 230 yards. [Assume the TIO is a large tent or some such, so that someone don't come back with "it's not really in the way as if you make one step this way or that way, you can see the flag"]

2. Cameras on TV are not wide angle, there are tend to compress perspective instead, meaning they act like telephotos.  The portable ones may be of variable focal lengths, I am not sure, but most wide shots have a perspective that is widely compressed compared to what the human eye sees (which is a 50mm equivalent in (D)SLR photography, whereas wide angle are in the sub 28mm range, all the way down to 12-14mm which tend to make look everything close bigger and everything far smaller). For example, look at how close people walking behind the last group appeared when in fact, they were probably close to 100 yards away. That's not a wide angle perspective, at all.  Another example, how close a tee box appears when the camera looks at the ball and then turns around, looking back at the tee box. A "wide" shot, taken with a telephoto lens.

3. The rough at that spot was described as horrendous and the lie an even worse than usual lie as the ball had settled down, confirmed by the commentator walking the course with that group, not just generalities from the commentators in the towers.

4. I don't need to know anything of this particular case at all. This isn't a comment designed to alter the outcome of the US Open. It is a common sense question in the general sense with an actual example (2 actually, if you consider my 300 yds question), where the player could be asked by a RO if he thinks he can make it there before he gets relief. Obviously most times players, especially Tour players, can, but I am sure there are cases when they know full well that they can't and with their integrity could/should tell so to the officials.  In my view, it's no different than arguing to play left handed and being asked whether they can actually do it and if this is the shot they really plan on making to take relief when the only practical option is a left-handed shot vs an impossible shot or going back to the previous location... all the while planning on taking relief again from that situation and eventually playing right-handed. Yes, you can do it: however, if you really can't play left handed (like me), it's not appropriate to do, in my view.

5. You don't need to make it personal.

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

As I said, they commented at other times during the 4 days on "terrible" lies that turned out to be not so terrible as far as making a shot goes.  In this case we will never know for certain.

And most sports coverage cameras have zoom lenses that go from telephoto to wide angle, and when they are shooting from behind the player, they are invariably zoomed out to wide angle.  That is a simple fact.  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.  I don't need to be lectured lectured about that.

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.

[SquirrelNutz]

After DJ got to move his ball from a terrible lie deep down in the rough to placing it on the 1st cut, he proceeded to hit his ball directly over the tower, making it quite clear he was not asking for relief so that he could go around the tower, he wanted the relief to get a good enough lie to go over the tower. Questionable sportsmanship caused by a bad rule.

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, SquirrelNutz said:

After DJ got to move his ball from a terrible lie deep down in the rough to placing it on the 1st cut, he proceeded to hit his ball directly over the tower, making it quite clear he was not asking for relief so that he could go around the tower, he wanted the relief to get a good enough lie to go over the tower. Questionable sportsmanship caused by a bad rule.

It's not a bad rule. It doesn't matter what the intent was. 

The TIO is not part of the course and the players get relief from it if it interferes with their line of play. Why should the players have to work around an obstruction that is not owned or part of the course? 

How is it questionable sportsmanship? 

[SquirrelNutz]

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.