Jason Day's Bad Drops at Firestone

[iacas]

1 hour ago, sjduffers said:

Please. It makes no difference, and if it did, the rules itself is unfair as there are obviously players that are much taller than others!  If a head worth more of altitude in the drop makes a significant difference in the bounce, then Lingmerth is very much at a disadvantage vs. say DJ, or Keegan Bradley, or Mickelson or dozens of players well over 6 feet...

Some clubs are longer than others in measuring drops. The point is you must drop the same reach time. Otherwise, what, every player has to carry around a 4' tall rod measuring and dropping?

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Whatever you guys say ... But it's still dumb if they get penalized for that.  Consider if a 6-6 guy gets the same favorable bounce for a "proper" drop that a 5-8 guy wouldn't get.

There's a reason behind it. The point is you drop the same each time.

The 6'6" guy might also get a bad drop the 5'8" guy didn't get. You can't drop from two feet or eight feet.

There is already a range. That range is "shoulder height" and it's not difficult to drop from within that range.

1 hour ago, sjduffers said:

Perhaps, but, by design, the rule doesn't "protect the field" from anything. Some players will experience higher bounces than others leading to different results as you guys are arguing. That's not equity.

Yes it does. It protects the field from players dropping differently depending on the situation.

1 hour ago, sjduffers said:

Perhaps replace dropping by placing, as another thread suggests. There is already plenty of randomness with all the shots played as the ball lies, and people who have really practiced their drops usually (not always of course) find a way to place anyway.

For drops paid for (with a penalty), it wouldn't seem so bad, and for free drops, you are benefitting from a break already, so why not get an even better break, if you can choose the location of the ball?

I'd be fine with this... or leaving the rule alone. I'm just pointing out the somewhat irrational justification of this strict interpretation of the drop rule.

Not really the topic here, though. The current rules say you drop. Here you go:

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Just like with DJ and his ball moving, the answer for that could be as @iacas suggested to just move the bar from 51% to something much higher and give the benefit of the doubt to the player.  The answer here is to just be less strict about the relation to the shoulder.

There's already a range. That range is "shoulder height." Nobody is going to measure how many degrees your arm is off from horizontal, but when it's outside the range, they're going to suggest you re-drop.

Jason Day was outside that range.

---

Also, again, this is not a difficult rule to follow. The RO screwed up. As did Jason.

Finally, and also again, you're not penalized unless you don't re-drop properly.

[Hardspoon]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

The answer here is to just be less strict about the relation to the shoulder.

Heck, that is probably what they are doing, given that the RO didn't say a thing...which I don't have a problem with, as long as it's applied fairly. 

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Heck, that is probably what they are doing, given that the RO didn't say a thing...which I don't have a problem with, as long as it's applied fairly. 

I'm more likely to consider that the RO screwed up… because that's outside the range we were instructed to allow at my rules seminar. The RO probably should have instructed him to drop again properly.

[Hardspoon]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

I'm more likely to consider that the RO screwed up… because that's outside the range we were instructed to allow at my rules seminar. The RO probably should have instructed him to drop again properly.

What range do they instruct? Sounds like the MLB strike zone. I would think they are more concerned with "low" drops than "high" ones.

[iacas]

Just now, Hardspoon said:

What range do they instruct? Sounds like the MLB strike zone. I would think they are more concerned with "low" drops than "high" ones.

There's no specific range, but examples of drops "too high" and "too low" were given. Jason's dropping from well above the "too high" example.

And they can't be "more concerned" - they're equally concerned. The point is to drop from "shoulder height," not "shoulder height or higher." Too high and too low are equally wrong.

[Hardspoon]

37 minutes ago, iacas said:

And they can't be "more concerned" - they're equally concerned. The point is to drop from "shoulder height," not "shoulder height or higher." Too high and too low are equally wrong.

Agreed that they SHOULDN'T be...I was just saying that the officials may be (incorrectly) watching more for low drops, and that's why the RO missed this one.

[GolfLug]

I didn't realize the allowed range of arm level at drop is so specific. But I can absolutely see why it is so specific. I can remember at least 3 or 4 instances where I might have intentionally raised the arm a bit higher than I would have instinctively thinking I can make the ball bounce a bit more so it can sit up in thick grass. I didn't realize I was breaking the rule as I have always erroneously thought that I can't lower the arm below shoulder height but it was perfectly ok to raise it as high as I want. Now I know that is certainly illegal manipulation for advantage - I guess exactly what is the rule is in place to prevent.  

I would think that the 'rules radar' is already heightened when you are in a situation like this - all the more reason to be more careful AND you get a do over if you need to do. Ho much more fair can it get? How can they still get it wrong? Also, ROs officiate hundreds of drops each year, so even less of an excuse since not an unusual situation. IMO, royal eff up all around.

I will make sure to pay attention next time I drop, the opportunity for which is at the most round or two away. No pass for those who do this for a living. C'mon. 

 

[Fourputt]

5 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Just like with DJ and his ball moving, the answer for that could be as @iacas suggested to just move the bar from 51% to something much higher and give the benefit of the doubt to the player.  The answer here is to just be less strict about the relation to the shoulder.   The difference between tall and short players shoulder heights is already probably a foot or so, so just get it in the vicinity of shoulder height and you're >5' off the ground. The whole point of the drop is to create randomness and that will happen equally effectively anywhere in that 5-6' range.

All I have to say to this is what the Hell is so hard about doing it right?  A mean really?  It doesn't make any difference how tall the player is, it applies to each player's consistency from one drop to the next.  

Day was wrong, the rules official was wrong, but that's just one of the problems with today's PGA Tour.  They give players preferential treatment, then the weekend golfer can't see why he doesn't deserve the same breaks.  People cry about needing bifurcation, and this is a prime example of how it already exists in an informal manner.  Tour RO's need to actually read and buy into the rule book.

[Buckeyebowman]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

I'm more likely to consider that the RO screwed up… because that's outside the range we were instructed to allow at my rules seminar. The RO probably should have instructed him to drop again properly.

Which is exactly what I suggested way back on page one of this thread. The RO should have instructed Day to take a "proper" drop!

4 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

What range do they instruct? Sounds like the MLB strike zone. I would think they are more concerned with "low" drops than "high" ones.

Naw! The MLB strike zone is far more mysterious! It falls somewhere between speaking to the dead and the summoning of demons! And if the RO can spot a low drop, they can spot a high one. What are they looking at? The height of the hand in relation to the shoulder! No brainer!

I LOL'd at iacas' suggestion for "drop sticks". I imagined RO's running around with these. Perhaps with an adjustable shelf on it that a player could rest his hand on.

[Coronagolfman]

On 7/4/2016 at 7:35 AM, Fourputt said:

The rule does not give the RO any latitude in the way that the player drops the ball.  All the RO does in such a case is determine whether the location requirement has been met.  The actual procedure for the act of dropping is narrowly defined:

It should have cost Day a stroke for making an improper drop and not correcting his mistake.

So should it have been disqualification for signing an incorrect card if they did not warn him of the infraction in time to change his card before the last player finished?

[Rulesman]

I would suggest it was tacit approval by the referee. 34-2/2

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Rulesman said:

I would suggest it was tacit approval by the referee. 34-2/2

The way it went down, yes.  Since the referee was observing the drop and approved the incorrect procedure, that would absolve Day from any penalty.  The referee however, should be counseled and retrained.  In all honesty, since he was in all likelihood a PGA Tour official, he may well be perfectly qualified, yet unwilling to correct a top player, in this case number one in the world.  If so that is a sad statement on the state of the Tour.

[Buckeyebowman]

Yes, if the RO tells Day that everything is fine, what is Day supposed to do? Argue otherwise? As for the latter part of the post, it kind of reminds me of NBA superstars never being called for traveling, carrying the ball, or for fouls in the last 2 minutes of the game. It's made a mockery of pro basketball. I pray they don't make a mockery of professional golf!

[RickK]

On 7/3/2016 at 5:40 PM, Hardspoon said:

The wording of the rule is "must", so the drop has to be at shoulder level.  I didn't see the drop in question, but you could probably drop from what would be considered "shoulder level" even though your arm is pointing upwards (bottom of ball even with top of shoulder).  I'm curious what others here think.

I have to respectfully disagree.  Yes, the word "must" is in the rule but it does NOT say "must be at shoulder level".  It says "must stand erect"...basically meaning you cannot crouch down and drop at shoulder level.  To make matters more confusing...is says to hold the ball at shoulder height.  So, if your arm is higher than your shoulder and the ball in your fingers is at shoulder level...would that be ok?  Methinks in the spirit of the game, Day dropped it well within the rules.  JMHO

20-2. Dropping and Re-Dropping

a. By Whom and How

A ball to be dropped under the Rules must be dropped by the player himself. He must stand erect, hold the ball at shoulder height and arm's length and drop it. If a ball is dropped by any other person or in any other manner and the error is not corrected as provided in Rule 20-6, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke.

Edited July 7, 2016 by RickK

[Rulesman]

1 hour ago, RickK said:

He must stand erect, hold the ball at shoulder height and arm's length and drop it.

The grammatical construction is   He must stand erect, (and he must) hold the ball at shoulder height and arm's length and (he must) drop it. Every step is a must.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Rulesman

[Asheville]

5 hours ago, Rulesman said:

The grammatical construction is   He must stand erect, (and he must) hold the ball at shoulder height and arm's length and (he must) drop it. Every step is a must.

Though we are exorted by the USGA to ask ourselves what the Rule actually "says" and not what we think it "says," I must agree with Rulesman. 

[Hardspoon]

7 hours ago, RickK said:

I have to respectfully disagree.  Yes, the word "must" is in the rule but it does NOT say "must be at shoulder level".  It says "must stand erect"...basically meaning you cannot crouch down and drop at shoulder level.  

As @Rulesman says above, the "he must" applies to each action.  This isn't up for interpretation; the sentence literally is nonsense otherwise (the other actions would have no verb).

7 hours ago, RickK said:

To make matters more confusing...is says to hold the ball at shoulder height.  So, if your arm is higher than your shoulder and the ball in your fingers is at shoulder level...would that be ok? 

This was discussed above - there is a certain amount of leeway in the term "shoulder height".  The intent is to have the BALL at shoulder level, which would normally put the arm slightly higher (unless you drop underhand)...but again, there's some leeway.

7 hours ago, RickK said:

Methinks in the spirit of the game, Day dropped it well within the rules.

If you feel that where he dropped is within that "leeway", OK.  I happen to disagree.  It seems above what anyone would consider "shoulder level".

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Hardspoon said:

As @Rulesman says above, the "he must" applies to each action.  This isn't up for interpretation; the sentence literally is nonsense otherwise (the other actions would have no verb).

This was discussed above - there is a certain amount of leeway in the term "shoulder height".  The intent is to have the BALL at shoulder level, which would normally put the arm slightly higher (unless you drop underhand)...but again, there's some leeway.

If you feel that where he dropped is within that "leeway", OK.  I happen to disagree.  It seems above what anyone would consider "shoulder level".

Not only above, but in my opinion well above shoulder height.  The only way that could even be close to shoulder height would be if Day was a hunchback - even then it would be questionable.