Tour Players and 2019 Rules (Running Topic)

[HonestyPolicy]

5 hours ago, DrMJG said:

I said it before and will say it again: Tired of these elementary school wanna be professional golfers whose basic response seems to be a combination of "why", "I don't wanna", "you're picking on me", and "I did not do my homework (and read the "rules" for my job).  No sympathy.  Even soccer, with its many rules, does not really take intent into consideration. 

Either read the rules and ask questions before the round, or get a new job.  The whining bout so called intent is ruining the game. (As well, the announcers need a rule seminar as well..)

 

Well said.

When one participates, he agrees prior to the start of the event that he will abide by the rules. The rules and the conditions of competition are published for all to see before each event begins so there is no excuse to not know them. If during play a rule is invoked and a penalty is dealt, no matter how "unfair" one may feel the rule is, one needs to consider his conduct given he has already agreed to abide by the rules at the start.

 

[iacas]

A comment from another site that seems to be correct:

"I honestly believe that the modern tour pro will only be happy when its impossible to be penalised for anything. Ever. Oh-and playing preferred lies too."

[SG11118]

Someone who seemed like a reliable source was adamant that Adam Hadwin in either 2nd or 3rd round this past weekend got a free drop to avoid a sprinkler head in his line of play while putting from off the green.  I asked if sprinkler head was interfering with his stance or swing, and the answer was no.  Did anyone see this on TV or know of a different reason why he got to take this drop?  

[DeadMan]

8 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

Someone who seemed like a reliable source was adamant that Adam Hadwin in either 2nd or 3rd round this past weekend got a free drop to avoid a sprinkler head in his line of play while putting from off the green.  I asked if sprinkler head was interfering with his stance or swing, and the answer was no.  Did anyone see this on TV or know of a different reason why he got to take this drop?   

There's a local rule that allows you to get relief from immovable obstructions (which would include a sprinkler head) close to the putting green that are in your line of play. I believe the PGA Tour has this local rule in place. It's local rule F-5 if you want to look it up.

[SG11118]

26 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

There's a local rule that allows you to get relief from immovable obstructions (which would include a sprinkler head) close to the putting green that are in your line of play. I believe the PGA Tour has this local rule in place. It's local rule F-5 if you want to look it up.

Thanks - I've never seen anyone be able to take relief for this before on a pro tour.  I've seen plenty of times where someone has been forced to chip because a putt would have a sprinkler in the line of play.  Not a fan if PGA is allowing this local rule.

[Rulesman]

It is very common on links courses in particular.

The R&A include it on their hardcard from this year. They didn't in 2017

Edited July 10, 2019 by Rulesman

[DaveP043]

5 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

Thanks - I've never seen anyone be able to take relief for this before on a pro tour.  I've seen plenty of times where someone has been forced to chip because a putt would have a sprinkler in the line of play.  Not a fan if PGA is allowing this local rule.

I believe this rule originated on links courses, where putting from off the green is most common.  I have no knowledge about its universal use on the PGA Tour, but its certainly a reasonable choice where turf conditions make putting a better option than chipping.

[Rulesman]

The best I can do is that it wasn't on the PGA Tour hard card in 2013

The R&A include it on their hard card from this year. They didn't in 2017

[Asheville]

5 hours ago, SG11118 said:

Thanks - I've never seen anyone be able to take relief for this before on a pro tour.  I've seen plenty of times where someone has been forced to chip because a putt would have a sprinkler in the line of play.  Not a fan if PGA is allowing this local rule.

I believe it's been a Local Rule at St Andrews for some time, if that helps. :)

[Rulesman]

#224 means that all Open Championships will have the LR in force 

[RemyM]

Rory's incorrect bunker penalty rescinded.

Rory McIlroy goes to pick up stone in bunker, realizes it's a clump of sand and gets two-stroke penalty (UPDATE: McIlroy's two-stroke penalty reversed) - Golf Digest

---

The Northern Irishman was given a brutal two-stroke penalty after...

 

[Rulesman]

 

Slugger White, the PGA Tour’s vice president of rules and competitions, reviewed the incident on replay and concluded that McIlroy “didn't improve his line of play or his intended swing.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/mcilroys-2-shot-penalty-for-touching-sand-rescinded/ar-AAFAAem

 

I can't see how the referee got it wrong in the first place. McIlroy didn't

• Deliberately touch sand in the bunker with a hand, club, rake or other object to test the condition of the sand to learn information for the next stroke, or

• Touch sand in the bunker with a club:

 

Rory McIlroy goes to pick up stone in bunker, realizes it's a clump of sand and gets two-stroke penalty (UPDATE: McIlroy's two-stroke penalty reversed) - Golf Digest

---

The Northern Irishman was given a brutal two-stroke penalty after he attempted to move a stone away from his ball in a bunker on the 14th hole at Liberty National.

 

Edited August 10, 2019 by Rulesman

[iacas]

58 Penalty Strokes for Breaching the Caddie Alignment Rule | Rules Geeks

---

Rule 10.2b(4) says: (4) Restriction on Caddie Standing Behind Player. When a player begins taking a stance for the stroke and until the stroke is made: The player’s caddie must not deliberately sta…

58 penalty strokes were given to a player for violating 10.2b(4)!!!

Wow!

[DaveP043]

45 minutes ago, iacas said:

58 Penalty Strokes for Breaching the Caddie Alignment Rule | Rules Geeks

---

Rule 10.2b(4) says: (4) Restriction on Caddie Standing Behind Player. When a player begins taking a stance for the stroke and until the stroke is made: The player’s caddie must not deliberately sta…

58 penalty strokes were given to a player for violating 10.2b(4)!!!

Wow!

I guess I can understand that a player might not keep up with the rules changes if she's not competing regularly, although it seems unlikely.  Its even harder to believe that neither of her playing partners nor their caddies said anything until the middle of day 2.  

[klineka]

From a different article on the topic

Quote

Walker was not disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard after her first round because she was unaware of any rules infraction (Rule 3.3b). "With that, the Committee had Lee Ann recreate the number of times this infraction occurred during both the first and second rounds and her scorecards were adjusted accordingly," according to the statement.

I think this is interesting that she doesn't get DQ'ed simply because she doesn't know the rules, but someone that inadvertently signs an incorrect scorecard is automatically DQ'ed, because technically at the time they signed the scorecard, they were likely unaware of any rules infraction too (Specifically thinking back to the high school girl from a couple weeks ago)

[DaveP043]

13 minutes ago, klineka said:

From a different article on the topic

I think this is interesting that she doesn't get DQ'ed simply because she doesn't know the rules, but someone that inadvertently signs an incorrect scorecard is automatically DQ'ed, because technically at the time they signed the scorecard, they were likely unaware of any rules infraction too (Specifically thinking back to the high school girl from a couple weeks ago)

I'm not sure what your point is here.  The young lady a week or so back was DQ for turning in 5 on a hole where she actually made a 4.  There wasn't a rules infraction that she was unaware of, she just made a specific mistake that requires a DQ.  The Exception is pretty clear, the DQ doesn't apply if the hole score is wrong because the player was unaware that penalty stroke(s) should have been added to her score on the hole.  If she just screws up the hole score, the Exception doesn't apply.  Similarly, if the penalty for the "unknown infraction" is DQ, the exception doesn't apply.

I suppose in a sense you're right, "technically" she didn't know she had committed an infraction.  But the penalty for that infraction is DQ, so if we follow the Exception's logic, we would add that penalty back into her score, and she would be DQ.

[klineka]

49 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

But the penalty for that infraction is DQ, so if we follow the Exception's logic, we would add that penalty back into her score, and she would be DQ.

I guess I just don't understand why the penalty for that infraction is DQ (especially since in that case she wasn't gaining an advantage since she signed for a higher score) but the penalty for breaking a different rule 29 times over two different days is just the applicable penalty strokes simply because the golfer "didn't know the rules". 

I get that they are completely different rules about completely different scenarios, I just don't think it's right that a golfer can break the same rule 29 times over 2 different rounds and not be DQ'ed simply because they didnt know they were breaking a rule.

To that point, let's say there was a newer golfer in a tournament and he hit multiple balls out of bounds throughout the round but played them as red staked hazards because he didn't know any better, but then it was discovered after the round and after signing the scorecard that he had played them as such, does that mean he would only get the applicable penalty strokes added to his score instead of being DQ'ed simply because he didn't know it was a rule that white stakes are treated differently than red stakes? That doesn't seem right IMO.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, klineka said:

I think this is interesting that she doesn't get DQ'ed simply because she doesn't know the rules, but someone that inadvertently signs an incorrect scorecard is automatically DQ'ed, because technically at the time they signed the scorecard, they were likely unaware of any rules infraction too (Specifically thinking back to the high school girl from a couple weeks ago)

Where have you been? 🙂

Remember?

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm not sure what your point is here.  The young lady a week or so back was DQ for turning in 5 on a hole where she actually made a 4.

She made a 5 and wrote down (signed for) a 4. She knows what score she had, and signed for a lower one. This isn't the same thing.

12 minutes ago, klineka said:

I guess I just don't understand why the penalty for that infraction is DQ (especially since in that case she wasn't gaining an advantage since she signed for a higher score) but the penalty for breaking a different rule 29 times over two different days is just the applicable penalty strokes simply because the golfer "didn't know the rules". 

Because Dave got it wrong. You're DQed for a lower score, you take the higher score.

12 minutes ago, klineka said:

I get that they are completely different rules about completely different scenarios, I just don't think it's right that a golfer can break the same rule 29 times over 2 different rounds and not be DQ'ed simply because they didnt know they were breaking a rule.

Well, she got 58 penalty strokes, so… It's not like she just got away with it or something.

Again, did you miss that whole conversation in the topic I posted up above? You didn't, because you replied in it.

12 minutes ago, klineka said:

To that point, let's say there was a newer golfer in a tournament and he hit multiple balls out of bounds throughout the round but played them as red staked hazards because he didn't know any better, but then it was discovered after the round and after signing the scorecard that he had played them as such, does that mean he would only get the applicable penalty strokes added to his score instead of being DQ'ed simply because he didn't know it was a rule that white stakes are treated differently than red stakes? That doesn't seem right IMO.

He'd be DQed for playing from a wrong place. Such an act can't be "rectified" by correcting the scorecard.

Rule 1 says this:

Quote

• Disqualification. In both match play and stroke play, a player may be disqualified from the competition for certain actions or Rule breaches involving serious misconduct (see Rule 1.2) or where the potential advantage is too significant for the player’s score to be considered valid.

That would be such a case. The scorecard could not be adjusted sufficiently because the ball was literally not played from anywhere near where it should have been.