Phil Mickelsons free drop..assumed ball position

[Daddycool_83]

Ide be intetested on peoples thoughts on Phil Mickelsons free drop at a point where hes ball (so assumed)  was to have been picked up by a Spectator, seems quite convenient after a massive slice that he would be walking in an area that just happened to have someone say "Yeah someone picked your ball up" did the rules guys just go with the flow because its Mickelson or are some of the decisions made on tour equally as blasé? 

[chilepepper]

I'm not sure what other decision they had considering the spectator witnesses. That was a big slice but we all know balls  bounce and carom off stuff. Though usually not in our favor......at least in my experience. 

Edited March 5, 2017 by chilepepper

[Daddycool_83]

6 minutes ago, chilepepper said:

I'm not sure what other decision they had considering the spectator witnesses. That was a big slice but we all know balsa bounce and carom off stuff. Though usually not in our favor......at least in my experience. 

I know what your saying,it just seems in this day in age of golf where rules are quite pedantic it seemed a little half arsed,like sayin Yeah sure just drop it there mate..the fact the ball wasnt retrieved means its on the word of the spectator.. I know playing a second from the tee (or hes provisional, did he play a provisional?) would be a kick in the teeth but being let off with no ball found seemed a let off..im not hatin on Phil,just seemed a little strange..

[dennyjones]

The Golf channel replayed the event and the powers that be made their decision based upon at least 20 spectators who saw his ball stolen.  

[chilepepper]

9 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

The Golf channel replayed the event and the powers that be made their decision based upon at least 20 spectators who saw his ball stolen.  

  It does make me wonder.....all those spectators, not one cell phone pic of the offender ?

[No Mulligans]

The TV coverage caught a ball being picked up during the Olympics.  It happens especially with gallaries of fans that don't play and don't know the rules.

[DaveP043]

The officials proceeded under Rule 18-1

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-18

The official on the spot made the determination, based on the spectators accounts, that it was virtually certain that Phil's ball had been picked up by a spectator (outside agency).  

What was a little more surprising to me was that he found sprinkler heads deep in the jungle for two different shots.  No accusation, he had an official with him both times, but who would have thought there would be sprinkler heads THERE?

[MuniGrit]

I'm sure a spectator/spectators that didn't pick up the ball but saw it there said where it was approximately. Phil didn't' make the rules, but he gets to use them even to his advantage like any player.

[Daddycool_83]

33 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The officials proceeded under Rule 18-1

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-18

The official on the spot made the determination, based on the spectators accounts, that it was virtually certain that Phil's ball had been picked up by a spectator (outside agency).  

What was a little more surprising to me was that he found sprinkler heads deep in the jungle for two different shots.  No accusation, he had an official with him both times, but who would have thought there would be sprinkler heads THERE?

I thought the same,sprinkler head inside a bush? but hey,rules official said it was all good so..i guess he got lucky that day

[chilepepper]

The sprinkler head thing was a bit bizarre to me. I mean he was deep in thick dodo and he got some relief because of a sprinkler head? Like the commentator said though.....the rules are there to help you too. 

[David in FL]

5 hours ago, chilepepper said:

The sprinkler head thing was a bit bizarre to me. I mean he was deep in thick dodo and he got some relief because of a sprinkler head? Like the commentator said though.....the rules are there to help you too. 

The rules aren't there to help, or to hurt.  They just tell us how to play the game under the many situations that develop...

[Daddycool_83]

I found it quite interesting last night that the commentator would refer to phils round previous as being played with "smoke and mirrors" or some words to that effect..obvious association with the statement is like a magician fashinong shots out of nothing..however,its meaning also includes "the obscuring or embellishing of the truth of a situation with misleading or irrelevant information".. 

wonder if he was havin a little dig there???

[boogielicious]

35 minutes ago, Daddycool_83 said:

I found it quite I teresting last night that the commentator would refer to phils round previous as being played with "smoke and mirrors" or some words to that effect..obvious association with the statement is like a magician fashinong shots out of nothing..however,its meaning also includes "the obscuring or embellishing of the truth of a situation with misleading or irrelevant information".. 

wonder if he was havin a little dig there???

I think it has to do more with his great recovery shots. Phil gets himself into trouble then makes miraculous recovery shots. The first part makes me crazy when I watch him. Seve was like that too. 

[Daddycool_83]

35 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I think it has to do more with his great recovery shots. Phil gets himself into trouble then makes miraculous recovery shots. The first part makes me crazy when I watch him. Seve was like that too. 

I thought that initially myself,he is an absolute joy to watch,in positions we are week n week out producing wizardry from nigh on impossible situations..I just thought the commentators choice of  wording  was a little deliberate.. Was probably nothing.

[Scotsclaff]

20 hours ago, No Mulligans said:

The TV coverage caught a ball being picked up during the Olympics.  It happens especially with gallaries of fans that don't play and don't know the rules.

Well, this wasn't the olympics.

16 minutes ago, Daddycool_83 said:

I thought that initially myself,he is an absolute joy to watch,in positions we are week n week out producing wizardry from nigh on impossible situations..I just thought the commentators choice of  wording  was a little deliberate.. Was probably nothing.

The commentators talk shite,unless it's Faldo or Aliss.

[CarlSpackler]

I had the sound down (I hate listening to commentators blather on about nothing in particular) and wondered how in the heck he made par. I assumed he took an unplayable.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 3/5/2017 at 10:36 AM, DaveP043 said:

The officials proceeded under Rule 18-1

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-18

The official on the spot made the determination, based on the spectators accounts, that it was virtually certain that Phil's ball had been picked up by a spectator (outside agency).  

What was a little more surprising to me was that he found sprinkler heads deep in the jungle for two different shots.  No accusation, he had an official with him both times, but who would have thought there would be sprinkler heads THERE?

I thought the same thing, but NBC sent someone in there with a camera and guess what they found? A sprinkler head! Big, tall one too! I've been to Firestone CC in Akron several times for the WGC Bridgestone, and was amazed at some of the places I found sprinkler heads. They water the ENTIRE course, including the rough!

On 3/6/2017 at 7:07 AM, Scotsclaff said:

Well, this wasn't the olympics.

The commentators talk shite,unless it's Faldo or Aliss.

No, it wasn't the Olympics, but I'm betting there were a lot of people there not all that familiar with the rules of golf. It was the very first WGC played in Mexico. God knows how many free tickets were handed out!