Jump to content
Subscribe to the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Subscribe to the Spin Axis Podcast!

tdiii

Established Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    411

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tdiii

  1. tdiii
    I said, quite clearly, more than once now, that mid-round changes should be exempted.
  2. tdiii
    I was fine with DJ getting the relief because the rules allow for it. The topic is whether the rule is good or bad. Of course the entire field gets that drop. That's not what we are discussing. I gave the good reason -- which you don't like -- everyone plays the same course.
  3. tdiii
    It is a stupid rule. Yes, the challenge is to play the golf course. But one should not get the benefit of improved conditions on account of TIOs. More often than not they help the players' lot in life, after the player hit the ball crooked. As far as mid-round set up, I stated specifically that that should be exempted.
  4. tdiii
    Don't be a pompous jerk. I know the rule. It is a stupid rule.
  5. tdiii
    Hard and fast rules are generally better because everyone knows what they are. But "significant" or "material" make sense to me. 6" on a 60' putt is basically meaningless, but 6" on a 2 footer could be meaningful. It's not a great rule, but the idea is to avoid penalizing the stupid little oscillations.
  6. tdiii
    No. A ruler is not broken out, but there are constantly debates about where the thing crossed.
  7. tdiii
    How often have you ever seen a ball displace by more than 1"? Besides, with Shotlink, we already have the ability.
  8. tdiii
    We're constantly in golf having to find where a ball crossed a hazard. This is a heck of a lot easier than that.
  9. tdiii
    Carrying around a ruler is no more stupid than what we saw yesterday. Not that that should be the standard for rules. It is objective, easily and quickly measured, and covers the random gopher-caused oscillation.
  10. tdiii
    Methinks the rule should be that you don't get relief from a temporary immovable, at least to the extent it was situated in the same location throughout a round of golf. Everyone knows its there, and everyone should account for it. If TV towers are there for the entire round for all players, everyone can play around them. This "integral to the original set up" is irrelevant, because the players don't play anything close to the original set up. It was the right call, but the rule is silly.
  11. tdiii
    No. You'd replace the ball.
  12. tdiii
    A displacement of less than 2" shall not be deemed a movement. If it occurs, whether by means of the player or outside agency, the ball shall be replaced and played.
  13. tdiii
    I'll get around to congratulating you when I get over the jealousy I feel. It's petty, I know. CONGRATS!
  14. tdiii
    The ruling was not right. That's very important. The ruling was incorrect as it was not more likely than not Dustin's actions that caused the ball to move.
  15. tdiii
    More appeal to authority. Get over the Rules Geeks -- who got it wrong. We've all seen a ball sit still for 10 seconds and then move from wind or for no reason whatsoever. We've all seen DJ go through the same routine hundreds of times without the ball moving. And we're talking about the French guy's ball -- when he wasn't penalized. You just want to see the ball moving as he lifted the putter. It didn't move until the putter was beyind the ball.
  16. tdiii
    No you're not. We're only looking at the instances where a ball has moved. Wind and gravity causes it more often than a player who did not touch the ball.
  17. tdiii
    I've said wind and gravity (and a burrowing gopher) caused the ball to move. You point to proximity even though in thousands of other identical instances, proximity did not cause the ball to move. Since the rule requires probabilities, we can "reasonably" determine that, when something has not happened thousands of times before, that it did not cause the event this time. We also know that gravity and wind have moved balls thousands and thousands of times. It's more likely than not that, when this identical action does not cause a ball to move 99.999% of the time, that it did not cause the ball to move here. The burden is on you to prove what was different here about how he moved he moved his putter or soled his club to cause a different outcome.
  18. tdiii
    You asserted Dustin caused the ball to move, but he did not touch the ball, there's no video showing him grounding the club and the ground rebounding or moving as a result thereof, and there's a delay between his removing the club and the ball moving. It's ridiculous that you point to the absence of "wind" but then point to the club waving by the ball -- and now you are repeating that absurdity. No. Proximity is not causation. DJ happened to be there when the ball moved. As Brandel says, he's seen people do what Dustin has done for 40 years without the ball moving -- that would imply thousands of times. Using the evidence standard, then, that means it is something like 0.0001% of a chance what he did caused the ball to move.
  19. tdiii
    Good point. A gopher could have been digging around under there too.
  20. tdiii
    You were there on 5 standing next to Dustin? No you weren't. You claim a putter waving next to a ball causes a breeze that could move a ball but then assert there was no wind. You are wrong. Yes, they consider all the factors and, if they did so properly, it was more likely that other factors caused the movement. Yes, It is a contradiction. Show me the ball moving immediately after he moved his putter. There was a delay. And you know it based on your earlier comment. Not sure what you mean by I haven't make an argument. I have. He did not cause the ball to move -- there are more possible explanations for outside influences causing the move.
  21. tdiii
    HE was asked about wind, not breeze "and was about . .. " In other words, at a time when he wasn't interacting with the ball. No it is not. It is more likely than not that gravity, breeze, passing trains, loud noises, and bad luck combined to cause the ball to shift one dimple away from the hole.
  22. tdiii
    Yes. There was a breeze. Voices cause vibrations. People walking around a green cause vibrations. Trains going by on nearby tracks cause vibrations. Yes, I was being silly about shadows. You contradict yourself: "only reasonable conclusion" and then "at least to 51%". Which is it? I don't know when the ball started moving? You don't either. You have no evidence that it started the moment he either laid the putter down or removed it. All laws and rules are put in place to forward certain policies. The rules of golf serve to level the playing field. I'm not impressed that nobody you've talked to thinks there should not have been a penalty. The call to higher authority does not make an argument any better.
  23. tdiii
    The ruling is not right. Dustin did not cause the ball to move. There is not even 51% evidence that he "caused" the ball to move. There was wind, gravity, other people's voices, shadows, and several explanations beyond Dustin. The delay between his interaction with the ground near the ball and the ball's movement shows, in fact, that he did not cause the ball to move. And then, if one takes a step back, and thinks was the field at all disadvantaged by the ball wobbling back one dimple? Of course it was not. So, the rule was not broken, and the policy for the rule (protecting the field) was not in question. The USGA looks stupid to any commonsense fan. Another reason for folks to hate golf.
  24. tdiii
    When he placed his club next to the ball, did it move? No. When he removed his club from the ground, did it move? No. The ball moved thereafter. He did not cause it to move. "Cause" is to defined as "to make something happen." He did not make this happen.
  25. tdiii
    They need to explain their application of the rule. No. Players should not be allowed to cause their ball to move without making a stroke. Whether they cause it to move or not, it is replaced. The "stop reacting with your guy comment" is an obvious case of transference. You want the USGA to be right so you lash out at commonsense reactions of others. Get over it. Yes. The USGA misapplied or misinterpreted the rule. DJ did not cause the ball to move.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

  I accept
The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...