2017 Presidents Cup Thread

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Being that it's match play, could they not just allow a rule like that to be administered only by the opponent?

No. As I've said, the Committee still has an interest in ensuring that GOLF is played, not some other sort of game that resembles it.

That's why contestants can be DQed for agreeing to waive rules even in match play scenarios. You could have someone advancing by "not playing golf." That's not what the Committee wants.

10 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

The rule wouldn't have to change, which means that there wouldn't be any arguments over "no chance."  That way if I skull my chip shot past the hole and it's heading into the pond, I can be appreciative if my opponent saves that ball for me.

You're mistaking the fact that a referee was present and assigned to the match, and what he is obligated to do.

If you're saying that the requirements of the referee should be diminished, then… no, I don't think so, because again the requirements are already pretty simple, AND they're in place to ensure golf is being played. They're already pretty minimal, and they're only true when a referee is assigned.

[skydog]

20 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Being that it's match play, could they not just allow a rule like that to be administered only by the opponent?  (Along the lines of how concessions work)  The rule wouldn't have to change, which means that there wouldn't be any arguments over "no chance."  That way if I skull my chip shot past the hole and it's heading into the pond, I can be appreciative if my opponent saves that ball for me.

Good point IMO, didn't think about that.

[Golfingdad]

47 minutes ago, iacas said:

No. As I've said, the Committee still has an interest in ensuring that GOLF is played, not some other sort of game that resembles it.

That's why contestants can be DQed for agreeing to waive rules even in match play scenarios. You could have someone advancing by "not playing golf." That's not what the Committee wants.

You're mistaking the fact that a referee was present and assigned to the match, and what he is obligated to do.

If you're saying that the requirements of the referee should be diminished, then… no, I don't think so, because again the requirements are already pretty simple, AND they're in place to ensure golf is being played. They're already pretty minimal, and they're only true when a referee is assigned.

I get that, and that's why I added the "along the lines of how concessions work" part.  If you had to rank the importance of the very most basic rules - the ones that make golf GOLF - I would think that "putting the ball in the hole" would have to be pretty much numero uno.  Yet, that is something that isn't always necessary in match play.  

[iacas]

33 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I get that, and that's why I added the "along the lines of how concessions work" part.  If you had to rank the importance of the very most basic rules - the ones that make golf GOLF - I would think that "putting the ball in the hole" would have to be pretty much numero uno.  Yet, that is something that isn't always necessary in match play.  

Letting a shot come to rest somewhere is pretty basic, too.

You can't "concede" something that would constitute an agreement to waive the rule, and Jordan couldn't "concede" the next shot until the prior shot had stopped. Nor could he concede anything, really, as the one who broke the rule.

[Golfingdad]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

Letting a shot come to rest somewhere is pretty basic, too.

I agree, and that is EXACTLY my point.  If one very basic rule can be "ignored" in match play (putting the ball in the hole), why can't another one?  

 

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

You can't "concede" something that would constitute an agreement to waive the rule, and Jordan couldn't "concede" the next shot until the prior shot had stopped. Nor could he concede anything, really, as the one who broke the rule.

I threw out the question in regards to going forward, i.e., perhaps this is a rule that could be changed ... not in questioning the application of the rule as written.  I have no reason to doubt that they applied it correctly last weekend.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

I agree, and that is EXACTLY my point.  If one very basic rule can be "ignored" in match play (putting the ball in the hole), why can't another one?

Because that's not a "basic rule" like you contend. There's no purpose in forcing everyone to hole out, particularly if the hole has been decided.

Holing out is not fundamental to the game in match play. It'd be like forcing the home team to bat in the bottom of the ninth when they have the lead already. It's pointless.

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

I threw out the question in regards to going forward, i.e., perhaps this is a rule that could be changed ... not in questioning the application of the rule as written.  I have no reason to doubt that they applied it correctly last weekend.

I can see no reason or purpose for this rule to change.

Jordan was an idiot.

Don't stop or deflect a ball in motion unless it's yours and you miss a putt for a half or something… (because either way, you lose the hole).

Could I see how it did not affect anything here? Sure. Of course. But re-writing the rule to try to accommodate this kind of thing… no. I don't think that's viable, and I think it weakens a simple, straightforward, good rule.