RIDICULOUS Ruling for Tiger Today at WGC Event

[mcgoo]

Tiger's behaviour intimates rules officals. For Tiger, no shot is Out- of- Bounds, Clubhouse is a removable obstruction, and he deserves a clear path and good lie to the green. Cannot panalize Tiger for a poor shot. it would ruin the hype. Riduculous.

[mjf]

Did you see the farce that occurred on #9 (Tiger's 18th) today at Firestone? Tiger hits his first shot way right into the trees. He then tries to hit a high hard shot into the green over the trees. But the ball flies over the grandstand right of the green onto a cart path and then onto the ROOF of the clubhouse. Once it's on the roof, nobody knows where it ends up.

Around THIRTY minutes later, Tiger is given relief under the Temporary Imovable Obstruction rule, gets a drop about 80 yards from the green and ends up making a bogey.

Now... where I come from, when you hit a ball onto the roof of the clubhouse and can't find/identify it within 5 minutes... it's a lost ball and you hit again from where you originally hit the shot. But on the PGA Tour, when your marquis player is leading in one of your premier events, you give him whatever ruling will most likely keep him in the lead. Ridiculous.

If it were any other player, I'll bet you the ruling would have been almost immediate and would have been "lost ball". It's worth noting that, remarkably, Paul McGinley who was playing in the same group as Tiger also did the same thing and apparently got the same ruling. However, I doubt he'd have gotten that ruling if the Tiger situation weren't occurring.

Anyway... that's my rant. And yes... I'm not a Tiger fan so my opinion may be biased.

MJF

[Gropper]

I new this was comming lol let the argument begin!!!!!

[mjf]

My thoughts exactly... See my posting under "World Golf News" that I was putting the finishing touches on when you posted this.

[Gropper]

The only thing i'm not sure about is when it comes to a removeable obstruction, i beleive that you are not allowed to play over it at all?? if that is true and he had to go over the club house that would have taken him over the grand stands.

Please let me know if I am wrong on this, and I bet Firestone will put on OB at the club house now!

[John]

That's completely ridiculous and you know it, any other player would have had the same ruling.

[LobWedge]

He only has to have reasonable evidence that his ball is on that roof, and with that many witnesses sitting there you can bet that someone saw it go up there.

[mcgoo]

mjf; please add your posting to this one

[Kilroy]

2 threads merged -

BTW a permanent building is not a temporary immovable obstruction as I see it.

[mcgoo]

LobWedge; it was found in the parking lot.

[Gropper]

i don't think they were calling the club house the obstruction it was still the grand stand and that was still in between him and the hole on the other side of the clubhouse

[zoic]

Is that defined as not movable by the player, or not movable by machinery?

[mjf]

He only has to have reasonable evidence that his ball is on that roof, and with that many witnesses sitting there you can bet that someone saw it go up there.

As I understand it, that's not true. I remember seeing a tournament where a ball was definitely in a tree, but because the ball could not be identified it was considered a lost ball.

[Kilroy]

What a purrrrfect ruling that is.

[Gropper]

What a purrrrfect ruling that is.

[mjf]

That's completely ridiculous and you know it, any other player would have had the same ruling.

I guess we'll never know for sure but I'm going to go out on a limb and say there is NO WAY the PGA Tour would have allowed a tournament to get held up for 30 minutes for a ruling for Omar Uresti. "Omar... that's a lost ball."

MJF

[Chieflongtee]

I've hit from the roof before

[mcgoo]

Ok GROOPER I would like to have you defend me in Court on this weeks traffic ticket. How about the fact that the ball was LOST when the ruling was made. It was found subsequently by a clubhouse "Cook".

[Hacker]

I thought the rules official gave a perfectly logical explanation...but if you hate Tiger no explanation is good enough and if you're a Tiger fan you don't care cuz your boy got a good break.

Bottom line is that the top names in EVERY sport get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to enforcement of the rules and if anyone has a problem with it all they have to do is work their butt off so that they become a top name and can benefit in the same manner.

......and for the record it wasn't Tiger's fault that there was no OB there, he said that he was shocked that it wasn't marked as OB

[jonf]

As if the best player in the world needs that much help.

"Man...that friggin thing is in my way"
"Yes Tiger...that's called a tree"
"I don't care...it's in my way...I want a free drop."
"But that's an immovable obstruction"
"But I WAAAAAAANT it."
"Fine...take it"
"Damn right...what Tiger wants, Tiger gets"

[jonf]

I've never seen a clubhouse MARKED OB. I've also never seen someone get to take a drop when they manage to skull their shot off the cart path and over the clubhouse. There's no way you can defend this as a reasonable decision.

[Hacker]

There's no way you can defend this as a reasonable decision.

It doesn't have to be defended, the decision is what the decision was if it were as cut and dried as some think it would have gone the other way.

[mcgoo]

Hacker; only the "Rulings" of Monarchs need not be defended on this Universe. In Canada only the Rulings & decisionns of the Queen need not be defended. This incident happened in the US where they have George W. Bush rather than a Monarch.

[Hacker]

Hacker; only the "Rulings" of Monarchs need not be defended on this Universe.

That may very well be true mcgoo - Do you know for sure that the rules official is NOT a king of some small independent nation somewhere??

J/K - but this is one of those pointless debates where each side is entrenched in their respective position and will give no ground.

Was the decision very generous? Of course it was! Was it Ridiculous? I don't think so because the circumstances provided the rules officials with the opportunity to make the decision that they did.... It isn't like he hit the ball into the Ocean at Pebble Beach and they ruled that it was casual water

[Kilroy]

No he hit it on the roof of the clubhouse and they ruled it a temporary immovable obstruction. So when will it be torn down?

[jvincent]

I can't wait to see what they say about this on the GEA.

[Hacker]

No he hit it on the roof of the clubhouse and they ruled it a temporary immovable obstruction. So when will it be torn down?

The ruling was made because the Grand Stands were between his ball and the green!!!

I have the thing PVR'd and that is was the basis for the ruling according to the rules official.

Persumablly Tiger would have played over the club house or off of the roof or what ever had the grandstands not been in the way.

[Kilroy]

OK, that makes more sense ????
That official will have some sleeepless nights!

[mcgoo]

Hacker; Yes it is, an air circulator on a 100 year old clubhouse roof where they thought it was at the time of the ruling (and even a paved parking lot where it was subsequently found) is not a Casual Removable Object) It was a lost ball at the time of the ruling so the obstruction by a Removable object was a red herring.

Where he got his drop there was no Grandstand behind him, only Clubhouse.

PS Have you ever seen a pro lose a ball with an errant shot like we hachers have to endure?

[SGH]

I don't see what the issue is. The fact that the grandstands were between himself and the hole makes the clubhouse a moot point. Providing the clubhouse isn't defined as out of bounds it shouldn't matter. This is more likely a product of poor planning on behalf of the tournament organizers.

I was at the Bell Canadian at Royal Montreal and on the 17th hole, play was held up for 25 minutes waiting for the marshals to sort out a similar situation for Ulrich Van Den Berg. So, I don't believe for a second that they took a half hour for Tiger simply because of his status. The only difference is that Van Den Berg's situation was televised because no one cares.