Brian Davis

[Adska]

Wow. Sorry, but the rules are lame sometimes. I know what Faldo said about the rules being black and white, and I agree. However, in no way did he deserve a two stroke penalty for that.

[DenisO]

I was just about to make a post and ask what the point of the rule is? What is it supposed to be preventing?

[jvincent]

Missed the coverage, what did he do?

[DenisO]

Furyk and him are on the 18th playing a playoff hole. On his 2nd shot he hits it a little left of the green, the ball bounces in the rough then crosses the hazard line, takes a few bounces of the rocks and lands on the beach beside the hole. He decides to play it as it lies, and manages to get it on the green but with a long putt. Right away he calls Slugger over and says on his way back his club nicked a branch that was close to the ball and get ends up getting a 2-stroke penalty for it and losing (probably would've lost anyways, but still).

[jvincent]

Got it.

If it were me, I would change that rule so that there would be no penalty for touching something in the backswing if the stroke is completed. That being said, the rule is the rule and he called it on himself.

Second place money is good, and he gets to sleep with a clean conscience and earns a bunch of street cred.

[gbower]

He touched a loose impediment and not a growing branch. It's the same thing as touching the sand in a bunker on your takeaway.

[Big Johnny69]

Questio for you then Gerry, how do procede to make a stroke without hitting the impediment if its in the way of your swing? Is the player supposed to turn and aim away from his target to make sure you do not touch the impediment??? Like Adska said, some rules are pretty stupid.

[gbower]

He hit the loose impediment in his backswing and not during the stroke which is the forward movement of the club. Hitting it in the foward movement would have been fine but hitting it when he did was definitely a penalty. If he had missed it in his take away he would have been fine.

[fundonny]

Why is it a penalty? Did it result in some sort of advantage?

[gbower]

13-4. Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions

Except as provided in the Rules, before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or a water hazard) or that, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player must not:

a. Test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard;

b. Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club; or

c. Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.

[LobWedge]

Loose Impediments

"Loose impediments" are natural objects including:

· stones, leaves, twigs, branches and the like,
· dung, and
· worms, insects and the like, and the casts and heaps made by them,

provided they are not:

· fixed or growing,
· solidly embedded, or
· adhering to the ball.

Sand and loose soil are loose impediments on the putting green, but not elsewhere.
Snow and natural ice, other than frost, are either casual water or loose impediments, at the option of the player.
Dew and frost are not loose impediments.


13-4. Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions

Except as provided in the Rules, before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or a water hazard) or that, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player must not:


a. Test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard;
b. Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club; or
c. Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.


Stroke

A "stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke.


23-1. Relief

Except when both the loose impediment and the ball lie in or touch the same hazard, any loose impediment may be removed without penalty.


If the ball lies anywhere other than on the putting green and the removal of a loose impediment by the player causes the ball to move, Rule 18-2a applies.


On the putting green, if the ball or ball-marker is accidentally moved in the process of removing a loose impediment, the ball or ball-marker must be replaced. There is no penalty, provided the movement of the ball or ball-marker is directly attributable to the removal of the loose impediment. Otherwise, if the player causes the ball to move,he incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2a.


When a ball is in motion, a loose impediment that might influence the movement of the ball must not be removed.


Note: If the ball lies in a hazard, the player must not touch or move any loose impediment lying in or touching the same hazard - see Rule 13-4c.

[goochy]

So I guess if your ball comes to rest in a hazard with a loose impediment directly behind your ball you're toast!

You can't move it nor touch it in your backswing. I guess you would have to either set up so far behind the ball that it is in front of your club on the backswing and try to blast it along with the sand and ball on your downswing OR aim somewhere away from your desired line so you don't touch it on the backswing.

An unfortuante situation for sure.

[BC MIST]

Why is it a penalty? Did it result in some sort of advantage?

How much of an advantage a golfer would get obviously depends on the size and position of the loose impediment. A small twig or a few grains of sand would make very little difference. However, a stone, a pine cone, small branch, or leaves, if allowed to be moved on the back swing, could be very advantageous, hence the rule. The basic idea of the game is to play the course as you find it and if one was permitted to improve the lie, line of play or area of intended swing, there would be no consequence for having hit a poor shot, which sadly, is what some golfers want.

....(1) how do procede to make a stroke without hitting the impediment if its in the way of your swing? (2) Is the player supposed to turn and aim away from his target to make sure you do not touch the impediment??? Like Adska said, some rules are pretty stupid.

(1) Carefully, (2) An option. Admittedly, I have difficulty understanding why when a golfer hits a bad shot into a poor spot, he either wants a perfect lie or if punished by a rule, the rule is "stupid." When in a difficult situation, part of the fun of the game is the challenge of deciding on a course of play, creating a swing for it, and then pulling it off. Hitting the fairway and then the green prevents this.

I'm sure Davis blamed himself for the loss, not the rule.

[goochy]

Just saw an interview with Davis on the Golf Channel. What a great attitude, obviously he's disappointed but I think he handled the situation really well (unlike Michelle Wie a couple of weeks back).

A good London lad, best quote "I shouldn't have hit it in the hazard should I"

[davevandyk]

I think its a fair rule, although it sucks in this case. What if he was in a hazard and had a rock behind his ball. Would you think its fair if he knocks the rock away from his ball on the backswing, allowing a clean strike on the downswing? I know it sucks cause it didn't really help Davis' position on his shot, but you can't have a rule with a provision saying "only if it improves his ability to hit the shot, it must be black/white unfortunately.

[jonf]

dumb.

[BC MIST]

I wonder what would have happened had Furyk picked up his ball after Davis "conceded, without holing out.

[gbower]

From watching, he had his ball in hand and went to Slugger and must have been told he had to putt out. Would definitely have been interesting.

[PapaPat]

Just saw an interview with Davis on the Golf Channel. What a great attitude, obviously he's disappointed but I think he handled the situation really well (unlike Michelle Wie a couple of weeks back).

A good London lad, best quote "I shouldn't have hit it in the hazard should I"

Interestingly, the same rule was called on Michelle a couple of years ago I believe after one of those famous phone-ins. In her case she moved a little piece of moss or something, and I believe that she just said that she did not know the rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlk44pVp8w

[goochy]

I was thinking more of her little whinning fit when she had a penalty called on her for grounding her club in a hazard a couple of weeks back. I think there was a distinct difference in class in how the two players reacted

[orangeTANG]

I only saw the highlights this morning but I'm quite surprised that area isn't considered a waste bunker being that it's not really a properly groomed bunker. Its not very often you see cat tails and other objects in a regular bunker.

If I'm not mistaken you can ground your club in a waste bunker correct? Would it have been a penalty for hitting that stick if it were a waste bunker?

[LobWedge]

I'll take "Pointless Posts" for $1000, Alex.

The answer is...

dumb.

What is jonf's last post in this thread?

Correct!

[PapaPat]

I was thinking more of her little whinning fit when she had a penalty called on her for grounding her club in a hazard a couple of weeks back. I think there was a distinct difference in class in how the two players reacted

To be fair, it is probably a big difference in maturity rather than class. Unless of course golf superstars remain in a state of suspended adolescence.

Also, I don't think they were playing it as a bunker, it was a Lateral Water Hazard. Otherwise they would not have been talking about taking a drop up on top.

Waste areas (the prefered term) are just played as through-the-green and you are allowed to ground your club and you are allowed to remove the stick as long as you do not move your ball or if you happen to hit it there is no penalty.

[jonf]

I'll take "Pointless Posts" for $1000, Alex.

The answer is...



What is jonf's last post in this thread?

Correct!

Haha...not pointless...just succinct.

I felt one word was all i needed to deliver my analysis. Why deliver an epic tome when 4 letters sums it up? I think most people here know my general stance on the rules of golf, and generally think that stance makes me a buffoon. There's no point in re-hashing the whole debate.

[AAA]

Interestingly, the same rule was called on Michelle a couple of years ago I believe after one of those famous phone-ins. In her case she moved a little piece of moss or something, and I believe that she just said that she did not know the rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlk44pVp8w

I was actually standing a couple of yards away watching that incident. I was not officiating. You will see that she was careful not to touch the piece of loose turf (that had earlier been dislodged from the revetted face of the bunker) when preparing her stroke. My impression was that she didn't realise that her backswing was not part of the stroke.

[BC MIST]

I felt one word was all i needed to deliver my analysis. Why deliver an epic tome when 4 letters sums it up? I think most people here know my general stance on the rules of golf, and generally think that stance makes me a buffoon.

No, but it does leave some of us . Previous to studying the rules and decisions in preparation for the various level exams, I questioned a number of them. As I got closer to these I developed an understanding of why the rules I questioned were put in place, and many others too, and the simplest reason is to ensure fair play. After hitting a bad shot into a bad spot, is it fair that the player be allowed to move all possible junk out of the way just so that he has an easy shot to the green?

[alejgonz]

so, if I understand correctly, it is a fault because the "loosy impediment" was touched DURING the back swing... in this case, he could've take it away with his hands before trying the swing, right?

If I remember correctly, I saw a picture of Tiger moving a stone (yes a BIG STONE) that was just in front of his ball towards the hole... actually, there were a bunch of people helping move the stone as he was... just looking.

Am I right? (or left?)

[Kilroy]

No. You cannot move a lose impedament in a hazard. Tiger's rock was a "lose" impedament not in a hazard.

[jonf]

No, but it does leave some of us . Previous to studying the rules and decisions in preparation for the various level exams, I questioned a number of them. As I got closer to these I developed an understanding of why the rules I questioned were put in place, and many others too, and the simplest reason is to ensure fair play. After hitting a bad shot into a bad spot, is it fair that the player be allowed to move all possible junk out of the way just so that he has an easy shot to the green?

No, but is it fair to penalize a player 2 strokes for an act that has no effect on the integrity of the sport, the course, or his shot?

I understand that the rule is the same for everyone, and that it is designed to ensure fairness. But, the rules often end up doing the opposite (as in yesterday's example).

Let's keep in mind that these guys are playing for millions of dollars. What I don't understand is, when you already have rules officials on the course, watching play unfold - why can't they be given some authority to make judgement calls? Why can't that person say "Brian Davis did not mean to do that, he did not improve his position, and the action had no effect on the outcome of the shot, therefore, we will not apply the penalty in this situation."?

[gbower]